I get the feeling that the specification would be standards based predomiently, not a considered practical design to suit the restraints of the project and the resulting product and consequential life-cycle liability it leaves behind.
It's interesting to read this from you skitz, as I've often wondered how the transition from "approved design" to "standard compliant" in public engineering works will affect the quality of the product in as-yet-unseen ways. These risks seem most significant when considering the model used for the MBRP - that is, a contractor completes the works for an agreed price and hands the infrastructure back to the authority with no ongoing accountability for it.
I think the present trend towards BOOT (build-own-operate-transfer) PPPs (public-private partnerships)* is based partly on the need to address this. Of course it doesn't necessarily prevent the problems from arising in the first place but rather leaves the private operator with responsibility for the problems when they do occur.
Over the last couple of years the government has spent money improving systems and infrastructure in the City Loop. This is easy because the state retains control over the infrastructure and can easily dictate how its private custodians deal with it. What the hell happens in 15 years when some issue arises with the Metro Tunnel because it was built to today's minimum standards and has no provision for, say, heavier rolling stock (ignore the specifics of the example and think more conceptually)? A big bloody mess, that's what, and the state will wear the costs in the end.
Sorry for dragging this to an off-topic example but I think the MBRP could be the steam that foretells an impending eruption in the way infrastructure contracting is performed. The rot has well and truly set in.