[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 238 (Thursday, December 11, 2003)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 69227-69246]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-30472]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

48 CFR Parts 1, 36, and 53

[FAC 2001-18; FAR Case 2000-608; Item I]
RIN 9000-AJ15


Federal Acquisition Regulation; New Consolidated Form for 
Selection of Architect-Engineer Contractors

AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration 
(GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense 
Acquisition Regulations Council (Councils) have agreed on a final rule 
amending the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to replace Standard 
Form (SF) 254, Architect-Engineer and Related Services Questionnaire, 
and SF 255, Architect-Engineer and Related Services Questionnaire for 
Specific Projects, with SF 330, Architect-Engineer Qualifications. The 
SF 330 reflects current architect-engineer practices in a streamlined 
and updated format, and is organized into data blocks that readily 
support automation.

DATES: Effective Date: January 12, 2004.
    Applicability Date: The policies and the SF 330, Architect-Engineer 
Qualifications, of this final rule apply for all agencies and their 
solicitations issued on or after January 12, 2004. However, agencies 
may delay implementation of this final rule until June 8, 2004, at 
which time it becomes mandatory for all agencies and their 
solicitations issued on or after that date.

[[Page 69228]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The FAR Secretariat, Room 4035, GS 
Building, Washington, DC 20405, (202) 501-4755, for information 
pertaining to status or publication schedules. For clarification of 
content, contact Ms. Cecelia Davis, Procurement Analyst, at (202) 219-
0202. Please cite FAC 2001-18, FAR case 2000-608.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

    An interagency ad hoc committee developed the SF 330. It was based 
on the results of a joint Federal-industry survey of the existing 
Standard Forms (SFs) 254 and 255 conducted by the Standing Committee on 
Procurement and Contracting of the Federal Facilities Council (FCC) in 
1995 and published in 1996 as FCC Report Number 130, entitled ``Survey 
on the Use of Standard Forms 254 and 255 for Architect-Engineer 
Qualifications.'' The survey's purpose was to evaluate the current use 
of the forms which are used for the submission of qualifications by 
architect-engineer (A-E) firms interested in Federal contracts, and to 
identify possible improvements which would enable the existing forms to 
better serve the needs of Federal agencies and the A-E industry. The 
SFs 254 and 255 have changed little since their introduction in 1975, 
although the variety of A-E services has greatly expanded and new 
technologies have dramatically changed the way A-E firms do business. 
The report states that Federal agencies and A-E industry overwhelmingly 
support a structured format for submitting A-E qualifications, because 
the structured format saves time and effort and allows efficient and 
consistent evaluations. It also recommends many specific changes to the 
existing forms to enhance their effectiveness and simplify their use. 
Both Federal and A-E industry practitioners believe that the forms need 
streamlining as well as updating to facilitate electronic usage. The 
objectives of the SF 330 are to merge the SFs 254 and 255 into a single 
streamlined form, expand essential information about qualifications and 
experience, reflect current architect-engineer disciplines, experience 
types and technology, eliminate information of marginal value, permit 
limitations on submission length, and facilitate electronic usage. On 
October 19, 2001, a proposed FAR rule for a new Architect-Engineer 
Qualifications form was published in the Federal Register (66 FR 
53314). The final rule replaces SFs 254 and 255 with SF 330, and makes 
related FAR revisions in 1.106, 36.603, 36.702, 53.236-2, 53.301-254, 
53.301-255, and 53.301-330. SF 330 may be used beginning on January 12, 
2004. However, until June 8, 2004, agencies may authorize the continued 
use of SFs 254 and 255 instead.
    1. Extension of Comment Period. The FAR Council published this FAR 
case as a proposed rule in the Federal Register on October 19, 2001 (66 
FR 53314), and later published an extension on December 20, 2001 (66 FR 
65792). This extended the comment period from December 18, 2001, to 
January 8, 2002. One hundred and ten public comments were received from 
industry and Federal Government agencies.
    2. Summary of Public Comments.
    A. General Comments:
    Comment: The new form for A-E qualifications is not necessary.
    Response: SFs 254 and 255 were issued in 1975 and have changed 
little. However, there have been significant changes in the A-E 
industry since then, such as new technologies, changes in codes and 
standards, and new laws and regulations. Also, there have been 
substantial changes in Government contracting processes and agencies' 
requirements. The SF 330 reflects these changes and provides a more 
streamlined presentation of essential information required by agencies 
for selecting A-E firms.
    Comment: Significant effort will be required to convert existing 
databases that have been developed for use with SFs 254 and 255, 
especially converting the profile codes.
    Response: The SF 330 utilizes much of the same information as the 
SFs 254 and 255, which should minimize the effort required to convert 
existing databases for use with the new form. All of the existing 
experience categories that appear on the SF 254 have been retained 
(although a new alphanumeric system is used for the profile codes), and 
new experience categories have been added to reflect industry changes 
since the forms were first developed in 1975. Hence, firms do not have 
to change the current experience categories for example projects in 
their databases. Commercial software products for preparing the SF 330 
should allow for easy conversion of the existing numeric profile codes 
to the new alphanumeric profile codes. The change to an alphanumeric 
code system allows for future profile code additions with minimal 
changes to the form.
    Comment: The SF 330 overemphasizes branch offices, which will 
increase the cost of submissions and is not relevant for a large firm 
with a matrix organization.
    Response: The A-E selection process is focused on the specific team 
proposed for the contract. Although a firm may have many branch 
offices, a specific office is typically assigned the lead role for the 
work, with possible support from one or more other offices. A 
Government A-E selection board is mainly concerned with the 
qualifications of the branch offices designated to perform the work, 
and not the entire firm. The form and instructions were changed to only 
require information on the branch offices having a key role in the 
contract, not all offices.
    Comment: The SF 330 does not work well for indefinite delivery 
contracts (IDCs).
    Response: The SF 330 requires submission of essentially the same 
information as SFs 254 and 255, and can be adapted for use with IDCs in 
the same manner as SFs 254 and 255. In fact, the language of the SF 330 
emphasizes ``contracts'' instead of ``projects'' to reflect the Federal 
Government's current use of IDCs instead of project-specific contracts.
    Comment: What is the implementation schedule for the SF 330?
    Response: The SF 330 is effective January 12, 2004. However, the 
Councils have recommended that agencies may delay implementation of the 
SF 330 until June 8, 2004, at which time it becomes mandatory for all 
agencies and their solicitations issued on or after that date.
    Comment: Can the SF 330 be expanded?
    Response: The SF 330 can be expanded in the same manner as the SFs 
254 and 255. Data elements have been realigned on the final form to 
allow vertical expansion and contraction, depending upon the amount of 
information inserted. Additional sheets can be attached to certain 
sections.
    Comment: The page numbering system is burdensome and confusing.
    Response: We eliminated the requirement for insertion of page 
numbers on the completed form.
    Comment: Will the SF 330 be available electronically and in what 
format?
    Response: The SF 330 will be posted electronically on the General 
Services Administration forms website in a screen-fillable format, 
Adobe Acrobat Portable Document Format, and possibly other formats. 
Also, commercial vendors will develop customized software products for 
preparation of the SF 330, similar to those currently available for the 
SFs 254

[[Page 69229]]

and 255. Individual agencies will specify if electronic submission is 
required and the specific format to use.
    B. Comments on Part I:
    Comment: The SF 330 overemphasizes the importance of previous 
relationships and teams, and discourages new firms and teams.
    Response: The Brooks A-E Act requires that A-E firms be selected 
``on the basis of demonstrated competence.'' Hence, the proven 
competence of project teams is an important consideration in selecting 
A-E firms, which is reflected in the information on previous teaming 
arrangements required on the SF 330. On each contract submission, an A-
E firm must decide whether to team with previous partners and 
subcontractors or to make new alliances.
    Comment: The requirement for organizational ``flowchart'' in 
Section D is unclear and will be burdensome to show all branch offices.
    Response: We have clarified the instructions to require an 
organizational chart of the proposed team showing the names and roles 
of all key personnel listed in Section E and the firms they are 
associated with, as listed in Section C. Also, only those branch 
offices having a key role in the contract need to be shown, not every 
office involved.
    Comment: Revise Section E to allow more than 5 relevant projects 
for each key person.
    Response: We disagree. Five projects are sufficient to demonstrate 
that a person has experience in the required type of work. The SF 330 
actually provides more space for the experience of key persons than the 
SF 255.
    Comment: Need instructions on the number, size, type, labeling, 
attachment and page numbering of photos for Section E (Resumes of Key 
Personnel Proposed for This Contract) and Section F.
    Response: The Councils have deleted the instructions and check 
boxes for photos. If an agency requires photos, it will provide 
specific submission instructions.
    Comment: What happens if a firm has less than 10 example projects 
to present in Section F?
    Response: The requirement for 10 projects is the same as on the SF 
255. A firm should present as many relevant projects as it can, up to a 
total of ten.
    Comment: Clarify owner versus client in Section F. The user may be 
a better point of contact.
    Response: The term ``project owner'' was used on the SF 255 and is 
used in the same manner on the SF 330. As defined in the instructions, 
the project owner is the agency, installation, institution, corporation 
or private individual for whom the project was performed. The client 
may or may not be the project owner, depending on what organization 
awarded and managed the A-E contract. The point of contact may be a 
person associated with the project owner or the organization that 
contracted for the professional services, as long as the person is 
familiar with the project and the A-E firm's performance on that 
project.
    Comment: The request for fee information on past projects in 
Section F violates the Brooks A-E Act on using price in A-E selections.
    Response: We have eliminated the requirement for fee information on 
past projects.
    Comment: The matrix in Section G, Key Personnel Participation in 
Example Projects, is redundant with other information on the SF 330.
    Response: The matrix does include the names of the key personnel 
and their proposed roles from Section E and the titles of the example 
projects from Section F. But, repetition of this information is 
necessary to clearly portray which personnel have worked together 
before on the example projects, which is only partially shown in 
Section E and Section F. Also, Section E provides space for five 
relevant projects for each key person, which may or may not be any of 
the ten example projects for the team in Section F.
    Comment: Is there a page limit on Section H--Additional 
Information? Can photos and graphics be included?
    Response: Individual agencies may impose page limitations on the 
overall SF 330 and/or Section H. Photos and graphics may be inserted in 
Section H if they are requested by the agency.
    C. Comments on Part II:
    Comment: Will the Architect-Engineer Contract Administration 
Support System (ACASS) be changed to reflect the SF 330?
    Response: Yes. ACASS, which is DoD-wide database maintained by the 
Portland, Oregon, District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, will be 
changed to accommodate the SF 330, Part II, instead of the SF 254.
    Comment: How are unlisted disciplines added to block 9--Employees 
by Discipline?
    Response: The instructions indicate that any additional unlisted 
disciplines should be written in under column 9.b and the function code 
left blank. This is similar to the write-in procedure for the SF 254.
    Comment: Many specific additional disciplines should be added to 
the List of Disciplines (Function Codes) in the instructions.
    Response: Thirty commenters recommended specific additions, 
deletions and/or changes in the listed disciplines. Generally, we have 
added, deleted, and changed disciplines if suggested by three or more 
commenters. Specifically, we added the following disciplines: aerial 
photographer, archeologist, computer programmer, materials handling 
engineer, geographic information system specialist, hydraulic engineer, 
hydrographic surveyor, land surveyor, photogrammetrist, remote sensing 
specialist, sanitary engineer, water resources engineer, and photo 
interpreter. We deleted topographic surveyor, draftsperson, geospacial 
information systems, and information systems engineer. We changed 
specification engineer to specifications writer, and separated 
electrical/electronics engineer into separate disciplines.
    Comment: Firms need to be able to expand block 9 to allow for more 
than 20 disciplines.
    Response: We disagree. The principal competencies and expertise of 
a firm, which is the focus of the Brooks A-E Act, can typically be 
covered by its 20 most prevalent disciplines.
    Comment: How are unlisted profile codes added to block 10 (Profile 
of Firm's Experience and Annual Average Revenue for the Last 5 Years)?
    Response: The instructions indicate that any additional unlisted 
relevant experience categories should be written in under column 10.b 
and the profile codes left blank. This is similar to the write-in 
procedure for the SF 254.
    Comment: Many specific additional experience categories (profile 
codes) should be added to the List of Experience Categories (Profile 
Codes) in the instructions.
    Response: We revised the experience categories of many profile 
codes so that they exactly matched all of the existing profile code 
experience categories on the SF 254, minimizing the conversion of 
existing project databases to the new form. Twenty-one commenters 
recommended specific additions, deletions, and/or changes in the listed 
profile code experience categories. We added and changed the profile 
code experience categories if suggested by two or more commenters. 
Specifically, we added the following profile code experience 
categories: Aerial Photography, Airborne Data and Imagery Collection 
and Analysis; Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection; Cartography; Charting: 
Nautical and Aeronautical; Digital Elevation and Terrain Model 
Development; Digital Orthophotography; Environmental and Natural 
Resource Mapping;

[[Page 69230]]

Environmental Planning; Geodetic Surveying: Ground and Airborne; 
Geospatial Data Conversion: Scanning, Digitizing, Compilation, 
Attributing, Scribing, Drafting; Intelligent Transportation Systems; 
Mapping Location/Addressing Systems; Navigation Structures and Locks; 
and Remote Sensing. Finally, we changed the following profile code 
experience categories: Aerial Photogrammetry to Photogrammetry; Design-
Build to Design-Build--Preparation of Requests for Proposals; 
Geographic Information System Development/Analysis to Geographic 
Information System Services: Development, Analysis, and Data 
Collection; Land Boundary Surveying to Land Surveying; and Topographic 
Mapping to Topographic Surveying and Mapping.
    Comment: Firms need to be able to expand block 10 to allow for more 
than 20 profile codes.
    Response: We disagree. The principal competencies and expertise of 
a firm, which is the focus of the Brooks A-E Act, can typically be 
covered by its 20 most prevalent profile codes.
    Comment: Are individual projects illustrating each profile code 
listed in block 10?
    Response: No. The profile code description is inserted in column 
10.b. Specific example projects are not required in Part II, although 
they were required in the SF 254 to illustrate each profile code.
    Comment: Block 10--Profile of Firm's Experience, requires data for 
5 years, but block 11--Annual Average Professional Services Revenues, 
requires data for 3 years. The same time period should be used for both 
blocks.
    Response: We disagree. There is no reason that the time periods for 
these blocks must be the same. The 3-year period for revenues in block 
11 was selected to be compatible with the same period used for 
measuring the revenues of small businesses. A 3-year basis for 
computing average revenues is sufficient to determine the annual 
workload capacity of a firm. On the other hand, 3 years is not long 
enough to characterize the type of work a firm does, especially since 
the design phase of some large projects can last 2 to 3 years. 
Therefore, 5 years was selected for block 10.
    Comment: Include example projects in Part II as were included in 
the SF 254.
    Response: We disagree. Selection boards rarely refer to the example 
projects in block 11 of the SF 254. Instead, selection boards focus on 
the example relevant projects in block 8 of the SF 255, which 
corresponds with Section F of SF 330, Part I.
    This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not 
subject to review under Section 6(b) of Executive Order 12866, 
Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is 
not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Department of Defense, the General Services Administration, and 
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration certify that this 
final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because this final rule does 
not change the current policy on how architect-engineer contracts are 
awarded or administered. This change deals directly with the 
information collection questionnaire, which is a paperwork change. This 
SF 330 provides a more streamlined format that reflects the current 
architect-engineer practices and eliminates requesting unnecessary 
information as requested by the current SFs 254 and 255.
    Overall, the SF 330 will request less information than the SFs 254 
and 255 and will take no longer to complete than the SFs 254 and 255. 
There was a comment period and no comments were received from small 
businesses complaining of any additional burden to them as a result of 
the SF 330.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act (Pub. L. 104-13) applies because the 
final rule contains information collection requirements. The final rule 
replaces the current SF 254, Architect-Engineer and Related Services 
Questionnaire, and the current SF 255, Architect-Engineer and Related 
Services Questionnaire for Specific Project, with a new SF 330, 
Architect-Engineer Qualifications. The current SF 254 approved 
information collection requirement states that it takes 1 hour to 
complete; and the current SF 255 approved information collection 
requirement states that it takes 1 hour to complete. Experience has 
shown that these hours are substantially underestimated. The SF 330, 
Architect-Engineer Qualifications, has been developed by an interagency 
ad hoc committee, based on Federal Facilities (FCC) Council Technical 
Report No. 130, ``Joint Federal-Industry Survey on the use of SFs 254 
and 255 for Architect-Engineer Qualifications,'' 1996.
    To respond to a public comment that the reporting burden for this 
SF 330 is significantly underestimated, we acknowledge that additional 
effort will be required initially for firms to become familiar with 
using the new SF 330. However, after the transition, the SF 330 should 
take no longer to complete than SFs 254 and 255. Overall, the SF 330 
requires less information than SFs 254 and 255. The following 
information was deleted: duplication of data on number of personnel by 
discipline (SF 255, block 4 and SF 254, block 8); work currently being 
performed for Federal agencies (SF 255, block 9); list of all offices 
and number of personnel in each (SF 254, block 7); revenue information 
for each of last 5 years (SF 254, block 9); number of projects for each 
profile code (SF 254, block 10); and 30 example projects (SF 254, block 
11). Also, the profile of a firm's project experience is expressed in 
ranges on the SF 330 instead of specific dollar amounts (SF 254, block 
10). The following information was added in comparison to the SF 255: 
organization chart of proposed team, expanded information on the firm's 
example projects, and matrix of key personnel participation in example 
projects. However, firms typically provide much or all of this 
information now in project submissions. Hence, there is no meaningful 
burden over current practices. Accordingly, the new information 
collection requirement for SF 330 has been submitted to the Office of 
Management and Budget during the proposed rule stage and has received 
concurrence.

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 1, 36, and 53

    Government procurement.

    Dated: December 4, 2003.
Laura Auletta,
Director, Acquisition Policy Division.

0
Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA amend 48 CFR parts 1, 36, and 53 as set 
forth below:
0
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 1, 36, and 53 is revised to 
read as follows:

    Authority: 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 42 
U.S.C. 2473(c).

PART 1--FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATIONS SYSTEM


1.106  [Amended]

0
2. Amend section 1.106 in the table following the introductory 
paragraph by--
0
a. Removing from FAR segment 36.603 its corresponding OMB Control 
Number ``9000-0004 and 9000-0005'' and adding ``9000-0157'' in its 
place;

[[Page 69231]]

0
b. Removing the FAR segments ``SF 254'' and ``SF 255'' and their 
corresponding OMB Control Numbers ``9000-0004'' and ``9000-0005'', 
respectively; and
0
c. Adding FAR segment ``SF 330'' and its corresponding OMB Control 
Number ``9000-0157''.

PART 36--CONSTRUCTION AND ARCHITECT-ENGINEER CONTRACTS

0
3. Amend section 36.603 by--
0
a. Revising paragraph (b);
0
b. Removing ``SF's 254 and 255'' from the last sentence of the 
introductory text of paragraph (c) and adding ``SF 330'' in its place; 
and
0
c. Removing ``254'' from paragraph (d)(1) and adding ``330, Part II'' 
in its place; and in paragraph (d)(2) by removing ``SF's 254 and 255'' 
and adding ``SF 330, Part II,'' in its place.

0
The revised text reads as follows:


36.603  Collecting data on and appraising firms' qualifications.

* * * * *
    (b) Qualifications data. To be considered for architect-engineer 
contracts, a firm must file with the appropriate office or board the 
Standard Form 330, ``Architect-Engineer Qualifications,'' Part II, and 
when applicable, SF 330, Part I.
* * * * *

0
4. Amend section 36.702 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:


36.702  Forms for use in contracting for architect-engineer services.

* * * * *
    (b) The SF 330, Architect-Engineer Qualifications, shall be used to 
evaluate firms before awarding a contract for architect-engineer 
services:
    (1) Use the SF 330, Part I--Contract-Specific Qualifications, to 
obtain information from an architect-engineer firm about its 
qualifications for a specific contract when the contract amount is 
expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. Part I may be 
used when the contract amount is expected to be at or below the 
simplified acquisition threshold, if the contracting officer determines 
that its use is appropriate.
    (2) Use the SF 330, Part II--General Qualifications, to obtain 
information from an architect-engineer firm about its general 
professional qualifications.
* * * * *

PART 53--FORMS

0
5. Amend section 53.236-2 by revising the section heading; removing 
paragraphs (b) and (c); redesignating paragraph (d) as paragraph (c); 
and adding a new paragraph (b) to read as follows:


53.236-2  Architect-engineer services (SF's 252, 330, and 1421).

* * * * *
    (b) SF 330 (1/04), Architect-Engineer Qualifications. SF 330 is 
prescribed for use in obtaining information from architect-engineer 
firms regarding their professional qualifications, as specified in 
36.702(b)(1) and (b)(2).
* * * * *

0
6. Add section 53.301-330 to read as follows:


53.301-330  Architect-Engineer Qualifications.

BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P

[[Page 69232]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11DE03.005


[[Page 69233]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11DE03.006


[[Page 69234]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11DE03.007


[[Page 69235]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11DE03.008


[[Page 69236]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11DE03.009


[[Page 69237]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11DE03.010


[[Page 69238]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11DE03.011


[[Page 69239]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11DE03.012


[[Page 69240]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11DE03.013


[[Page 69241]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11DE03.014


[[Page 69242]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11DE03.015


[[Page 69243]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11DE03.016


[[Page 69244]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11DE03.017


[[Page 69245]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11DE03.018


[[Page 69246]]


[FR Doc. 03-30472 Filed 12-10-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-EP-C