I will answer that. I want to make a comment on this whole outcome-based prescriptiveness.
There is no one size that fits all. At times, the government needs to be prescriptive; at other times, it needs to be outcome-based.
In every medium to complex procurement, you have three things. You have things that we call known knowns, you have things that are known unknowns—I'm trying to sound like Donald Rumsfeld here—and then you have unknown unknowns.
In the case of those things that we call known knowns, if there are things that you absolutely know for sure, you should prescribe them in your RFP. You should ask for them. You should even ask them for a fixed price—why not? However, when you don't know a whole lot of things and you list a whole series of assumptions and risks associated with that and you try to make that known, that's where the issue is.
In every procurement, there should be things that are prescribed because you need them now and you understand them fully. If you have a high degree of certainty about these things, you should prescribe them. When you don't have a high degree of certainty about these things, don't hide behind assumptions. Say, “I don't know”, and then, at that point, you need to be outcome-based, and for an outcome-based approach to be successful, you need a relationship management framework, a stakeholder management framework, because you need to work together to resolve these unknowns and gain certainty over time so that you can do what needs to be done.
It's not about whether it's too prescriptive or not too prescriptive or this or that; it's really about how much of this procurement needs to be prescriptive or should be prescriptive and how much of it needs to be outcome-based. Maybe it should be outcome-based, but you don't know until you gain that certainty.