Which might be considered restrictive under full and open competition?

The classification of specifications or requirements as restrictive in the context of full and open competition often hinges on their necessity and relevance to the project. When specifications or requirements are deemed unnecessary, they can create barriers to competition by limiting the pool of potential bidders. Unnecessary requirements may force contractors to invest resources in conforming to criteria that do not effectively contribute to the goals of the procurement. This can discourage participation from a wider array of suppliers, who may choose not to compete due to perceived inefficiencies or unfavorable conditions.

In contrast, broad specifications that allow for multiple bids actually promote competition by creating opportunities for various suppliers to offer innovative solutions. Requirements that facilitate innovation encourage bidders to propose creative options that might meet or exceed the needs of the agency. Clear criteria for bid evaluation are necessary for transparency and fairness but do not restrict competition when appropriately applied.

Thus, unnecessary specifications do not align with the principles of full and open competition, as they hinder diverse participation and can lead to a less competitive bidding environment.