Sponsored content powered by ICMA partner, NASPO.

If you work in local government, you know that developing bid specifications is rarely a procurement-only process. More often, it requires close collaboration with subject matter experts (SMEs)—internal staff, consultants, and industry specialists—who bring the deep technical knowledge needed to help translate operational needs into functional requirements that align with real-world constraints. 

However, without ethical safeguards, specification development can restrict competition creating the appearance of impropriety and costing the taxpayers. The question is not whether local governments should rely on SMEs when developing bid specifications. The real question is how to engage that expertise in a manner that ensures fairness, competition, and public trust remain at the center of the procurement process. 

Below are nine considerations for engaging with SMEs and developing ethical bid specifications. 

1. Have a Competition-First Mindset

Public procurement officials play a key role in helping the state obtain essential goods and services by using competitive bidding to obtain the best value. Best value is achieved, in part, through market competition. The availability of market alternatives, created through demand and effective competition, helps prevent suppliers from unreasonably increasing prices and providing poor-quality goods and services to their customers—in this case, the taxpayers.¹  

2. Define Roles and Responsibilities

Clear separation of functions helps promote integrity in the public procurement process.²  

Procurement’s Role:

• Translate the operational needs of the agency into neutral, performance-based specifications.
• Reduce supplier bias.
• Apply statutory and policy requirements where applicable.

The SME’s Role: 

• Define the functional needs required of the suppliers.
• Identify performance requirements.
• Clarify any technical constraints.

Consider a Committee System

If staff and resources allow, separating the solicitation life cycle into committees comprised of different individuals can help reduce bias and promote integrity.³ An example would be:

• A specification committee responsible for developing the specifications. 
• An evaluation committee responsible for evaluating the bid responses against the published specifications and recommending an awardee. 
• An award committee responsible for signing off on the award. 

3. Avoid Supplier Bias

As local government professionals, you are responsible for ensuring that no supplier has an unfair advantage. Favoritism may not be the intent, but a level of comfort or preference can develop between SMEs and suppliers, which can cause real harm in the procurement process. 

To combat supplier bias, do not allow any individual to independently write specifications that point to a specific supplier product or solution unless there is a legally defensible, documented justification. 

Additional things to avoid, which can help prevent supplier bias, include:

• Brand-name specifications without “or equal.”
• Requirements that match only one product.
• Informal consultations with suppliers.
• Language copied from prior contracts without reevaluating market changes.
• Features included because a current supplier offers them—not because the agency truly needs them.

In some instances, brand-name features are necessary, but they should always be accompanied by strong justification and approval from the chief procurement officer (CPO). If a requirement cannot be clearly tied to an operational, regulatory, or performance-based need, it deserves scrutiny. 

4. Manage Conflicts of Interest

Public employees should ensure their personal interests do not compete with the public’s. Any individual involved in the creation and evaluation of a solicitation, including specification development, should err on the side of caution when it comes to conflicts of interest. SMEs should disclose any financial interests and current/prior relationships, including recent employment and consulting roles. 

5. Create a Structured Specification Development Process

Clearly defining the specification development process can help mitigate intentional and unintentional anticompetitive behaviors by separating operational input from procurement authority. Below is a sample process flow.

6. Train Subject Matter Experts on Procurement Ethics

Many ethical risks are unintentional, stemming from a lack of awareness. Some SMEs may be unaware of the importance of neutral specifications or how their communication with suppliers could impact the integrity of the procurement. Educating SMEs on ethical procurement practices can help mitigate protest risks and result in improved procurements. 

7. Ethically Engaging with Suppliers

While it’s important to be mindful of how and when SMEs and procurement professionals interact with suppliers, their knowledge and input can serve as valuable market research needed to develop specifications. Issuing a request for information (RFI), referencing trade association benchmarks, and hosting multi-supplier forums or advisory panels can help procurement teams get extra information without showing favoritism. In fact, engaging with suppliers in this manner can encourage competition.

8. Reference Published Industry Standards

Standards organizations work with industry stakeholders and government officials to identify and develop guidelines that establish conformance-based requirements for products, services, and processes across a variety of industries. Examples of these organizations include the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Centering specifications around recognized standards—rather than proprietary or brand-specific features—helps procurement teams and SMEs define measurable performance expectations without overly restricting competition. 

9. Implement Governance Controls

Implementing governance controls helps to ensure the collaboration between procurement officials and SMEs produces competitive and defensible bid specifications. Creating a cross-functional review committee adds another layer of scrutiny before the bid is released to the public. Developing a “brand name” approval process—when specifications reference brand, model, or propriety feature—protects agencies against the most common protest trigger: restrictive specifications. It is not about creating rules that impede the process but rather establishing practices that safeguard the competitive procurement process. 

Conclusion

When done thoughtfully, SME input leads to clearer specifications, stronger competition, and better outcomes for the communities we serve. The key is to stay intentional and mindful: set expectations early, challenge bias when it appears, and keep procurement ownership at the forefront. 
By embedding controls at the specification development stage, local governments ensure every bidder has a fair chance and public funds are protected. When we get that balance right, everyone benefits. 

Endnotes

1. NASPO, State & Local Government Procurement: A Practical Guide, 4th ed. (Plantation: JRoss Publishing, 2024). 
2. David Fourie and Cornel Malan, "Technological Approach to Ensure Ethical Procurement Management," in Factoring Ethics in Technology, Policy Making, Regulation and AI, ed. Ali G. Hessami and Patricia Shaw (IntechOpen, 2021).
3. Ibid.
    

Recommended Resources

ICMA Code of Ethics: Establishes professional standards related to integrity, accountability, and public trust that underpin  ethical procurement practices.
Government Finance Officers Association: Provides best practices on procurement governance, transparency, and internal controls for state and local governments.
U.S. Government Accountability Office: Bid protest decisions illustrate how supplier bias—real or perceived—can undermine procurements. 
NASPO Market Research Tools: Provides publications, webinars, courses and additional tools that support competitive, neutral bid specifications.