In case of a variance between the Proposal and the Functional Specifications, what governs?

Choosing that the Functional Specifications shall be determinative is correct because these specifications typically serve as the detailed blueprint for the project, outlining specific requirements and functionalities that the final deliverable must meet. In project management and contractual agreements, when there is a discrepancy between a higher-level document, such as a Proposal, and the finer details laid out in the Functional Specifications, it is the latter that is considered authoritative.

Functional Specifications are intended to provide clarity and precision in what is expected, reducing ambiguity and ensuring that all parties are aligned on the deliverables. By prioritizing Functional Specifications over the Proposal, this approach helps prevent misunderstandings about project requirements and ensures adherence to agreed-upon standards.

In contrast, the other options suggest alternatives that could lead to confusion or disputes. For instance, relying on the Proposal could overlook critical details established in the Functional Specifications, while depending solely on the contractor’s interpretation would subject the project to varying understandings of its requirements. Additionally, requiring city approval could create unnecessary delays and complicate the resolution process instead of directly adhering to the thorough outlines set forth in the Functional Specifications. Therefore, making the Functional Specifications the governing document establishes a clear framework for compliance and fulfillment of the project's goals.