No. When the company that will bid and perform the work also writes the specification that defines the work, the owner loses the one thing a specification exists to provide: the ability to compare competing bids on identical scope. A specification written by a bidder will reflect that bidder’s product line, their standard practices and their preferred equipment, whether or not anyone intended it to. Competing contractors then either bid a scope built around a competitor’s product, or bid something different and become impossible to compare.
What actually goes wrong?
Four things, and they compound.
The specification narrows the field. Proprietary components, a control system tied to one manufacturer, or a maintenance requirement only one company can meet will each reduce the number of genuine bidders. Sometimes that is a legitimate technical requirement. Often it is not, and the owner has no way to tell the difference.
Bids stop being comparable. If each contractor interprets an ambiguous scope differently, the owner receives three numbers that describe three different projects. The lowest number usually reflects the smallest interpretation of the scope, which is exactly the bid an owner should be most careful about.
Scope grows after award. Everything the specification left vague becomes a change order. This is the most common way an elevator project runs over, and it is nearly always traceable to a specification that was never tight enough to hold.
The owner is locked in on maintenance. A control system that only the installing manufacturer can service converts a competitive maintenance market into a sole source relationship for the life of the equipment. That decision is made at specification time, and its cost shows up every year for the next twenty five.
What does a properly structured specification do?
- Defines scope by performance and condition, not by product. Say what the equipment must do, not whose equipment it must be.
- Keeps the field open. Where a proprietary component is genuinely required, it is identified, justified, and its long term maintenance implications are disclosed to the owner before award.
- Addresses non proprietary service access explicitly. Diagnostic tools, passwords, and parts availability after the warranty period are specification items, not afterthoughts.
- Puts every bidder on identical scope, so the numbers mean something.
- Includes the maintenance obligation and the acceptance criteria, so the project ends on a defined standard rather than on whoever gets tired first.
How should an owner structure it?
Separate the three roles. The party who assesses the condition and defines the scope should not be the party who bids the work, and neither should be the only party verifying that the work was completed to specification.
That separation is the whole reason independent consultants exist in this industry. TEC does not sell, install, service or supply parts, and we do not recommend contractors. We write the specification, level the bids on identical scope, and verify the work against what was specified. The owner keeps the decision.
For the broader picture on conflicts of interest across audits, maintenance and modernization, see What to Know About Conflicts of Interest in Elevator Consulting.
Frequently asked questions
Our service company offered to write the specification at no charge. Is that a problem?
A specification is expensive to produce properly. When it is offered free by a party who will bid the resulting work, the cost is recovered somewhere. Usually in the scope, the change orders, or the maintenance term that follows.
Is proprietary equipment always a bad outcome?
No. Some proprietary systems are technically appropriate and perform well. The problem is not proprietary equipment, it is proprietary equipment selected without the owner understanding the long term service and cost implications before committing.
We already awarded the project. Is it too late?
Not necessarily. A specification and submittal review before the equipment is released, and field verification during installation, still protect the owner on scope and quality. The leverage is smaller after award, but it is not zero.