Architect-Engineer (A-E) Firm Selection Considerations
Qualifications statements
There are three qualifications statement forms used in architect-engineer contracting:
- Standard Form 254 - Architect-Engineer and Related Services Questionnaire
- Standard Form 255 - Architect-Engineer and Related Services Questionnaire for Specific Project
- Standard Form 330 - Architect-Engineer Qualifications
SF 254
The SF 254 is a general resume of a firm's capabilities. It addresses the overall capabilities and different types of projects that a firm is capable of performing. The SF 254 can be submitted to a contracting office that utilizes the services of architect-engineers at any time. The firm need not wait for any advertisement to submit the form. Offices that maintain data on A-E firms should review the files at least once a year and update the file. They should encourage firms to submit an updated SF 254 annually (Page one of the SF 255 indicates that a Standard Form 254 is considered "current" if it has been submitted with the past year). An SF 254 may be discarded if information has not been updated within the past three years.
SF 255
The SF 255 is the qualification form that the firm should use only when requested to do so by the advertisement for the project. The primary difference between the SF 254 and 255 is that the 254 is a general resume of the firm's overall capabilities for as many different types of projects that they may perform. The 255 should try to relate the firm's experience to the specific project that has been advertised. Standard Forms 255 are considered to be "current" only until the selection process is complete and a contract has been awarded for the advertised project.
SF 330
The SF 330 combines the information found in both the SF 254s and 255s. An A-E firm need submit only the one document to do business with the Government. The SF 330 concentrates more on project relevancy by denoting more area for the A-E firm to describe project experience. Note: The SF 330, after a six month transition phase, will be the only document an A-E firm must submit to the Government.
Other information
In addition to the Standard Forms 254, 255 and 330 the firms need to be reviewed in terms of:
- Previous performance
- Other Reclamation work awarded within the past 12 months
- The relative utility of alternative methods of approach for furnishing the required services
Alternative methods of approach
The Brooks Act itself contains the statement to consider "anticipated concepts and the relative utility of alternative methods of approach." We are looking for the most highly qualified firm for the project which should include consideration of and documentation in the board report(s) of the firms:
- Technical qualifications
- Innovations
- Creativity and alternative methods of approach
Evaluation Boards
Agencies shall provide for one or more permanent or ad hoc architect-engineer evaluation boards. (FAR 36.602-2)
One or more boards
If one board is used it is normally referred to as the Selection Board. If two boards are used the first evaluation board may be referred to as the Pre selection or Slating Board. Whether one or two boards are used, the functions of the board or boards remain the same.
Permanent or ad hoc
Permanent boards may be appointed for all contracting activity selections or new (ad hoc) boards may be appointed for each selection.
Board membership
The evaluation board(s) should be comprised of members who, collectively, have experience in:
- Architecture
- Engineering
- Construction
- Government and related acquisition matters
Personnel appointed to serve on evaluation boards are normally selected from the technical fields of architecture, all different engineering disciplines (mechanical, electrical, civil, structural, etc.) construction management specialists. To fulfill the experience in Government and related acquisition matters members may also be appointed from such fields as law and contracting. (FAR 36.602-2(a))
Board functions
Whether using one board or two the basic functions remain the same:
- Review the data on eligible firms and responses to public notice concerning the particular project
- Evaluate the firms in accordance with the published criteria
- Hold discussions with at least three of the most highly qualified firms regarding concepts and the relative utility of alternative methods of furnishing the required services.
- Prepare a selection report recommending, in order of preference, at least three firms considered to be the most highly qualified
Review the data
The board members must look at the Standard Forms 254 and 255 or 330 submitted by the firms from the advertisement. Also consider performance evaluations and design awards.
Evaluate the firms
- Consider the qualifications and specialized experience of the firms as they relate to the particular project under consideration. And when applicable, consider the experience in the use of recovered materials and achieving waste reduction and energy efficiency.
- Consider knowledge of the local conditions where the project is to be constructed.
- Make sure the firm has enough personnel, in the required disciplines, to perform the project in the required time frame.
- Look at the amount of Reclamation awards made to a firm within the past 12 months.
- Consider the commitment to small business enterprises (small, small disadvantaged, minority institutions, etc)
Hold discussions
The selection board will have to consider the number of firms that it is willing to interview and narrow the list of firms being considered to the number. Many firms may submit qualifications statements and be deemed qualified to perform the project; however; only those firms that are considered most highly qualified will normally make it to the interview stage of the process.
Because all of the firms which make it to the interview process have been deemed most highly qualified to perform the contract, the purpose of the interview is to obtain any additional information that will help the board in ranking the firms in order of preference for the selection authority. In other words, the interviews will distinguish between those firms that have been deemed most highly qualified. Any information received during the interview process may be used as justification for the ranking of the firms recommended to the selection authority. By FAR definitions the evaluation boards can only clarify information provided by the A-E firms. No formal negotiations (discussions defined in the FAR) can occur during the evaluation period.
Topics
For the board and the firms benefit each firm interviewed might be given a list of "generic" questions for the interview. These generic questions would allow each firm to make a presentation, giving the board members and the firms a common ground for comparison. Such questions may be:
- What changes have occurred in your firm since you submitted your qualifications for this project?
- How do those changes, if any, relate to this project?
- What is your firm's record on cost estimating verses construction contract award amount?
- Why is your firm the most highly qualified firm to perform this project?
- What innovative, creative and/or alternative methods does your firm plan to use for this project?
The board should also have specific questions for each individual firm. If there were any areas in the qualifications statements that need further clarification, ask them now.
Non-topics
Rates, cost, price, indirect cost rates, profit are all topics that should NOT enter into discussions concerning the firm's technical qualifications for the project.
Board report(s)
The FAR requires a selection board report for agency head approval or other designated selection authority. The report shall:
- Recommend, in order of preference, at least three firms
- Include a description of the discussions and evaluation conducted by the board to allow the selection authority to review the considerations upon which the recommendations are based. (FAR 36.602-3(d))