The FCO provided bidders with an output specification and a scheme design prepared by the architects

1.25 The OJEC notice stated that bidders would be expected to develop the Wilford design. The Invitation to Tender, however, expressed the FCO's requirements in output terms, without specifying a design solution. There was a general description of the criteria that the building should meet (Figure 8).

Invitation to Tender: Criteria for the building		Figure 8

		i) the building must be fine in appearance and welcoming in its public aspects. It should represent the best in architecture and design. It should be identifiably British and project British interests;
		ii) the building should be effective and efficient in operation and flexible in its internal layout;
		iii) the building should provide a secure environment for the user, but the design should not be overbearing; and
Source: The FCO's Invitation to Tender		iv) it should be economical to maintain and run and give good value for money.

1.26 The requirement included, for example, details of minimum office sizes, general requirements such as the need for "suitable finishes appropriate to an Embassy type building" and some more specific security requirements. Requirements for services were expressed in output terms without reference to the Wilford design (Figure 9).

The FCO's service requirements		Figure 9

	The FCO tendered for a full range of services
	Type of service	Definition
	Primary services	Capital expenditure on services relating to safety, security, environmental control and public health.
	Secondary services	Capital expenditure on other building-related items - eg mechanical and electrical services, building fabric, communications, building management systems.
Source: The FCO's Invitation to Tender	Tertiary services	Revenue expenditure on items such as cleaning, reprographics, mail and portering service.

1.27 Short-listed bidders were also given full details of the Wilford scheme design which was under development, though this did not include all specifications for materials, finishes or services. The Invitation to Tender emphasised that bidders could offer alternatives to the Wilford design if they wished. These would, however, have to meet the FCO's output requirements and also meet the required occupation date of September 1999. Bidders were instructed that the output specification should take precedence over the Wilford design in the case of inconsistency. In the event, all three short-listed bidders used the Wilford design as the basis of their bids. Bidders told us that they would have incurred extra costs if they had designed a new Embassy from scratch and these costs would have been reflected in higher bids.