The most expensive line in a national ID tender isn’t a price. It’s an ambiguous requirement.
- Apr 2
- 2 min read
Updated: Apr 8
A vague specification lets vendors define the solution. An over-prescribed specification locks the government into yesterday’s technology. Either way, the country pays — in cost overruns, in capability gaps, in programmes that need to be re-tendered within five years.
This is the central tension in every secure document procurement. And it is almost always resolved by whoever writes the specification — not by whoever evaluates the bids.
The window where independent advisory delivers the most value is narrow: after the policy decision is made, before the RFP is published. That is when specification quality determines whether the entire procurement protects the government’s interests or the vendor’s.
A well-constructed specification does three things. It defines requirements precisely enough to evaluate objectively. It remains open enough to accommodate innovation and competitive pricing. And it aligns with current international standards — such as ICAO Doc 9303 / ISO/IEC 7501, or the relevant CEN frameworks — so that compliance can be verified, not just claimed.
In our advisory work on secure document procurement, we have seen specifications that could not be evaluated, specifications that excluded every qualified vendor, and specifications that were written by the vendor who won.
None of these outcomes serve the public interest.
Who wrote your last national ID specification — and whose interests did it protect?
SECOIA Executive Consultants Ltd is a Swiss boutique consultancy specialising in identity management, border security, biometrics, secure documents, and ePassports. The firm holds active memberships in ICAO ICBWG, ISO/IEC, and CEN standardisation bodies.
We welcome dialogue with professionals navigating these questions. Reach out through our website , arrange for a meeting or connect with us on LinkedIn.
Comments