Preparing a specification for an external contract may sound straight-forward but it is fraught with risk. Louise Hart highlights some of the most obvious red flags in the case of public sector contracts.
It is within your control to ensure any document going out from the Government side of the process is well-structured and internally consistent. Insist on it. It is regrettably common to see a specification document which has been prepared by lumping together the inputs from a variety of subject matter experts without any technical challenge or editorial input. The need to involve multiple stakeholders in the preparation of a specification is no excuse for incoherence. The structure should be a considered decision as to what will convey the Government’s requirements most clearly, not an agglomeration of contributions from the functionally illiterate. Give editorial control to one individual who accepts responsibility for the document. And give it before contributors produce their bit of the drafting so that clear guidelines can be set.
The need to involve multiple stakeholders in the preparation of a specification is no excuse for incoherence.
Some common errors are:
- Mixing specification of process with specification of works. Keep them separate. For example, if there is to be a process for review of design submissions, set it out in one place and one place only, rather than keep repeating it each time you specify a different design submission. That way you know what the review period for submissions is. It will be findable under a single obvious heading instead of having (probably inconsistent) references scattered throughout the document, and if you negotiate a different period with the tenderer, the change is easy to capture.
- ‘Hobby horse’ specifications. Any expert worthy of the name has decided views on the techniques, approaches or widgets applicable to their specialisation. This is commendable – in its place. Where the contractor is also an expert, and what is more, the expert taking the risk of the decision, then the contractor should be permitted the widget of their choice. It is not always easy to get it across to a subject matter expert, who is after all only seeking the best outcome for Government, that the contractor’s choices of inputs may be none of their business.
- Inconsistent levels of detail in the requirements. The level of detail incorporated in specifications is often a reflection of the level of knowledge of the individual writing it rather than of any considered decision as to how much is appropriate. When a document has many individual contributors and no effective editorial control the result can be threadbare in places and overly prescriptive in others. This leaves it open to a contractor to argue they need do virtually nothing in relation to the threadbare bits, because the level of detail elsewhere shows that if you had wanted more you would have said so.
When a document has many individual contributors and no effective editorial control the result can be threadbare in places and overly prescriptive in others.
- Excluding the operators. When your project is the construction of a very large asset, it is likely to be several years before the finished asset is handed over for operational use. If you wait until then to establish the needs of the operators, it is too late. If the specification did not identify that the ambulance bay should be next to the Accident and Emergency unit, the contractor building the hospital may have located it somewhere else.
- Excluding the lawyers. It is unlikely you will want a lawyer to draft the specification, because the technical content will be beyond them, but don’t exclude them entirely. They need to know which matters are being dealt with in the terms and conditions and which in the specification, so you don’t get duplication or omissions. It is also a good idea to have them review the specification before it is issued to tenderers. The nature of lawyers’ training and experience means they are good at spotting discrepancies. Some of them have trouble seeing the wood for the trees, but they are all really good at seeing trees. Don’t knock it, use it. It is true they will occasionally amuse your engineers with their unfamiliarity with technical jargon. One lawyer, seeing a reference to installing a ‘leaky feeder’ in the Severn Tunnel, queried whether it wouldn’t be better to install something that didn’t leak, not realising this was jargon for a radiating cable used in communications systems. Despite this, their input is usually valuable. If the lawyers, as intelligent laypeople, can’t understand what your technical experts are writing, there is a fair chance the tenderers won’t either.
- Not having a ‘cold read’ of the specification. Arrange for someone who hasn’t worked on the specification to read the final draft ‘cold’. The fresh eye will often pick up something the project team has missed. If your firm of technical consultants isn’t big enough to provide a spare expert to do it, find one from somewhere else.
- Not securing stakeholder sign off. Variations kill projects. It is not enough to seek input from your stakeholders. You need to secure their agreement that the final specification meets their requirements. All their requirements. Do not be satisfied with anything less than the signatures of the senior technical expert and the executive line manager who is head of the relevant division. Preferably written in blood.
Source: Procuring Successful Mega-Projects, Louise Hart, Gower Publishing, Farnham, 2015
Read Louise’s book in it’s entirety at www.gpmfirst.com and share your own experience and ideas on bidding or tendering for major projects.
