Design Specification

Design Specifications describe how a system performs the requirements outlined in the
Functional Requirements. Depending on the system, this can include instructions on
testing specific requirements, configuration settings, or review of functions or code. All
requirements outlined in the functional specification should be addressed; linking
requirements between the functional requirements and design specification is
performed via the Traceability Matrix.
Design Specification Examples
Good requirements are objective and testable. Design Specifications may include:

Specific inputs, including data types, to be entered into the system

Calculations/code used to accomplish defined requirements

Outputs generated from the system

Explaining technical measures to ensure system security

Identify how the system meets applicable regulatory requirements

Design specifications generally refer to the physical characteristics of a product and

include such specifics as size, weight, strength, storage capacity, components,
component materials, purpose and cost. Once these details are solidified, further
refinements may be added, such as safety standards, recycling qualities and colors. If
research has been carried out correctly and completely, the design specification should
be the most easily accomplished part of a full design project.

Performance Specification
A specification expressed in terms of an expected outcome or acceptable performance
standard. Often used in design-build criteria to articulate the Owner requirements.
performance specifications are written on projects that are straight-forward, standard
building types, whereas prescriptive specifications are written for more complex
buildings, or buildings where the client has requirements that might not be familiar
to contractors and where certainty regarding the exact nature of the completed
development is more important to the client.
Design v. Performance Specifications
Published: July 9, 2012
(Print this article)
Introduction
One of the basic principles of construction law is the Spearin doctrine, which
provides the following: If a contractor is bound to build according to the plans and
specifications prepared by the owner, the contractor will not be responsible for the
defects in the plans and specifications. More specifically, when the government
contracts for supplies to be manufactured or a building constructed in accordance with
the government design specifications, there is an implied warranty that if the
specifications are followed, a satisfactory product will result. If the warranty is breached,
i.e., the specifications are defective, the plaintiff is entitled to damages equal to the
amount reasonably expended in trying to comply with the defective specifications.
Important for contractors to note, however, is that liability attaches only if the
contractor relies on government design specifications and not merely
performance specifications. Government specifications will be deemed design
specifications where (1) the government sets forth in precise detail the materials to be
employed and the manner in which the work is to be performed and (2) the contractor is
not privileged to deviate from those specifications. Examples of design specifications
include detailed measurements, tolerances, materials, and elaborate instructions on
how to perform the contract. By contrast, performance specifications merely set forth an

objective to be achieved, and the successful bidder is expected to exercise its ingenuity
in selecting the means to achieve that objective.
In addition, for liability to attach, the contractor must comply with the design
specifications. If a contractor complies with the governments defective design
specifications, the contractor should not be found liable for any ensuing loss arising
from those defective specifications and should be able to recover damages equal to the
amount expended in trying to comply with the defective specifications.

Case Illustration
In Martin Const., Inc. v. U.S., 102 Fed. Cl. 562 (2011), the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (the Corps) entered into a contract with Martin Construction, Inc. (Martin)
for the construction of a marina, a concession building, a parking lot, and an access
road on the northern shore of Lake Sakakawea in Fort Stevenson State Park in
Garrison, North Dakota. To construct the Fort Stevenson Marina, the contract required
Martin to build a cofferdam to restrain the water from Lake Sakakawea which would
allow Martin to excavate the marina under dry conditions. A cofferdam is a watertight
enclosure used for foundation construction in waterfront areas. Water is pumped out of
the cofferdam allowing free access to the work area. The contract was originally
scheduled to be completed on September 20, 2008, but due to three modifications that
were issued on the project, the revised completion date was October 11, 2008. After
Martin failed to construct the marina by the contract completion date, the Corps
terminated Martins contract for default on January 13, 2009.
Martin filed suit against the Corps seeking to convert the termination for default
into a termination for convenience, which would entitle Martin to reimbursement of the
costs it incurred in performing the project, plus reasonable overhead and profit. Martin
claimed that the default termination was improper because the Corps defective design
and subsequent modifications caused most of the project delays, making it impossible
to finish the project by October 11, 2008. More specifically, Martin argued that the Corps
mistakenly specified a porous gravel material for the first zone of the cofferdam, making
it practically impossible to dewater the marina area. Martins inability to dewater created
successive project failures and safety concerns that prevented timely performance.

The court agreed with Martin and found that the Corps decision to terminate
Martins contract for default was improper, because the evidence established that the
Corps' cofferdam design suffered from a critical defect as asserted by Martin, which
significantly impeded the construction of the project. The court explained that the Corps
defective design of the cofferdam entitled Martin to a significant time extension that
would push the completion date of the project well into the spring of 2009, and that the
Corps termination of Martin for default in January of 2009 was not proper.
Consequently, the court concluded that the termination should be converted into a
termination for the convenience of the government, entitling Martin to recover the
reasonable costs it incurred in performing the project, plus reasonable overhead and
profit.

Practical Advice
The holding in Martin Construction reinforces the well-settled law regarding the
governments liability for faulty design specifications. So long as the contractor relies on
and complies with the governments design specifications, the contractor is not
responsible for the consequences of the defective design and is also entitled to be
compensated for the efforts expended in trying to comply with the defective design
specifications. Contractors should remember that this rule only applies to design
specifications and not to performance specifications.
If the government terminates a contractor for default and establishes that the
contractor was in default, the contractor must show that the default was excusable. A
contractor can demonstrate that the default was excusable by showing that improper
government actions were the primary or controlling cause of the default. An example of
such improper government action is defective design specifications. If the court finds
that the contractors fault was excusable, the termination for default is converted into a
termination for convenience, which would entitle the contractor to be reimbursed for the
costs it incurred in performing the project, plus, in most situations, reasonable overhead
and profit.

Specifications are normally of a design or performance variety. Design specifications

state explicitly how a contract is to be performed and permit no deviation. Stuyvesant
Dredging Co. v. United States, 438 F.2d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Design
specifications come with an implied warranty that if they are followed, the contractor can
produce an acceptable result. United States v. Spearin, 248 U.S. 132
(1918). Performance specifications, conversely, specify the results to be obtained, and
leave to the contractor the responsibility of determining how to achieve those results.
They contain no warranty. J.L. Simmons Co. v. United States, 412 F.2d 1360, 1362 (Ct.
Cl. 1969).
The court of appeals "has held that a Spearin-type warranty is implied only in design
specifications, not in performance specifications." Lopez v. A.C. & S., Inc., 858 F.2d
712, 716 (Fed.Cir.1988). When the Government provides "design" specifications, it is
long established that the Government warrants the design it furnishes to a contractor,
and must respond in damages when that design is not workable. United States v.
Spearin, supra. However, where the specifications are "performance" in nature, there is
no Government liability, absent a finding that the Government's performance standards
against which the appellant's design is measured were impossible or commercially
impracticable to meet. Intercontinental Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. United States, 4 Cl.
Ct. 591 (1984), affirming Intercontinental Manufacturing Company, ASBCA No. 20880,
80-2 BCA par. 14,632.
Whether a particular specification is of a 'design' or 'performance' nature must
necessarily depend upon the facts of each case. It is not unusual for an element of work
to contain both design and performance features. When reviewing a particular situation,
the questions that need to be addressed are: Did the Government provide the form and
dimensions of the work and show how the work was to be built and installed, leaving the
contractor with little discretion in performance?; Or, did the contract provide that the
details of the installation were to be left largely to the experience and expertise of the
contractor and its agents, in accordance with the contractually required shop drawings
and overall performance standards? If the former, it is most likely to be considered a
design specification; if the latter, it is most likely to be considered a performance
specification. Compare Morrison-Knudsen Company, ASBCA Nos. 32476, 32657, 90-3

BCA par. 23,208 with Roy McGinnis & Co., Inc., ASBCA No. 38536, 85-3 BCA par.
18,259.
Once the specifications are characterized as design specifications, then the contractor
"must show by a preponderance of the evidence that [the alleged design defect] was the
most probable cause [for deficient performance] when considered with reference to
other possible causes." Brantley Construction Co., Inc., ASBCA No. 27604, 84-3 BCA p
17,532 at 87,317, citing Ordnance Research, Inc. v. United States, 609 F.2d 462, 47980 (Ct.Cl.1979) (causation proven where "an alteration in the specifications solve[d] the
difficulty" in the production process); R.E.D.M. Corp. v. United States, 428 F.2d 1304,
1308 (Ct.Cl.1970) (causation proven where alteration in specifications solved production
difficulties despite contractor's inability to pinpoint defect); see also Celesco Industries,
Inc., ASBCA No. 21928, 81-2 BCA p 15,260 at 75,548-49 (contractor has burden to
show "causal connection between the defective ... specification and [performance]
failures"); Delco Electronics Div., General Motors Corp., ASBCA No. 15979, 74-2 BCA p
10,892 at 51,832 (contractor entitled to recover where performance according to
Government-furnished specifications yielded unsatisfactory results, although contractor
had not ascertained the cause of its failure).
In Leslie-Elliott Constructors, Inc., ASBCA No. 20507, 77-1 BCA p 12,354 at 59,790, the
Board determined that piping drawings represented a design requirement because they
were "definitive with respect to the number and locations of the mains, branch lines and
sprinklers, as well as the lengths of the piping, sleeve diameters, etc., leaving only the
pipe diameters to be ascertained by calculations." By contrast, in cases where the
Board concluded that specifications or drawings were not of the design type, far more
discretion was afforded the contractor. Roy McGinnis and Co., Inc., ASBCA No. 28536,
85-3 BCA p 18,259 at 91,674, 91,676 (piping drawings held not to be design type where
certain "offsets, fittings and accessories" were omitted and left to contractor for
resolution); Algernon Blair, ASBCA No. 26761, 82-2 BCA p 16,029 (arrangement of
piping details committed to contractor's discretion); Stolte-Santa Fe-Bing, ASBCA No.
12156, 69-1 BCA p 7500 (same).