Qualifications-based selection is the procurement method federal and most state agencies must use when hiring architects, engineers, and related design professionals: the agency ranks firms on competence and past performance, opens fee negotiations only with the top-ranked firm, and moves down the list if those talks fail. Price stays out of the ranking entirely. That inversion of the normal low-bid model is written into federal law because design errors on public infrastructure carry safety consequences that price competition tends to produce.
The Law That Requires It
The Brooks Act, codified at 40 U.S.C. §§ 1101–1104, sets the federal policy. Agencies must publicly announce project requirements, evaluate firms on demonstrated competence, and then negotiate a fair and reasonable price with the most qualified provider.1Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 40 USC Chapter 11 – Selection of Architects and Engineers Price proposals are off the table during ranking.
Forty-six states have enacted their own versions, commonly called Mini-Brooks Acts, applying the same qualification-first approach to state and local contracts. Details vary, but the core rule holds: technical ability gets scored before anyone sees a dollar figure. Firms working across state lines should check whether the local version adds requirements like in-state licensing or specific forms.
Which Services Are Covered
The Brooks Act defines covered services broadly. Beyond the obvious architectural and engineering design work, the statute reaches surveying, mapping, studies, investigations, program management, conceptual designs, value engineering, soils engineering, construction-phase services, and preparation of operating and maintenance manuals.2Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 40 USC 1102 – Definitions If the work logically requires a licensed architect, engineer, or surveyor, it falls under QBS.
The Federal Acquisition Regulation reinforces the scope. Contracting officers must treat professional surveying and mapping as architectural and engineering services and procure them from registered surveyors or licensed engineers through QBS. The narrow exception: mapping work with no connection to planning, designing, constructing, or altering real property can go through standard competitive bidding.3Acquisition.GOV. FAR 36.601-4 Implementation For federally funded highway projects, covered services stretch further to include feasibility studies, preliminary engineering, and construction management.
How Agencies Score Qualifications
Federal agencies work from a prescribed list of evaluation factors set out in the FAR. Every solicitation must address:
- Professional qualifications, meaning the licenses and credentials the staff hold.
- Specialized experience and technical competence with the type of project at hand, including relevant work on energy conservation and environmental considerations where appropriate.
- Capacity to deliver within the required timeframe given current workload.
- Past performance on both government and private-sector contracts, covering cost control, quality, and meeting deadlines.
- Geographic proximity to the site and knowledge of local conditions, though agencies can apply this factor only if enough qualified firms remain in the running.
- Any additional criteria the agency publishes in the solicitation.4Acquisition.GOV. FAR 36.602-1 Selection Criteria
The agency assigns weights to each factor and publishes those weights so firms know what matters most. A bridge replacement might weight structural experience heavily; a federal office renovation might lean on energy efficiency. Past performance and technical competence tend to carry the most weight across most solicitations.
The Statement of Qualifications: Standard Form 330
Firms competing for federal work submit Standard Form 330, available through the General Services Administration.5U.S. General Services Administration. Architect-Engineer Qualifications The form splits into two parts that do different jobs.
Part II: The Firm’s Standing File
Part II captures the overall professional profile and is designed to sit on file with agencies year-round. The Brooks Act encourages firms to submit annual statements of qualifications so agencies have a current data pool when new projects arise.6Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 40 USC 1103 – Selection Procedure It covers organizational structure, office locations, employees by discipline, and a summary of recent experience. Firms targeting federal work should keep a current Part II on file with every agency they want to compete with, ahead of any specific solicitation.
Part I: The Project-Specific Pitch
Part I is tailored to the individual project. The FAR requires it for contracts expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, though contracting officers can request it for smaller work too.7Acquisition.GOV. FAR 36.702 Forms for Use in Contracting for Architect-Engineer Services It asks firms to describe their proposed approach, name the specific project team, and list past projects showing that team can handle the work.
The roster matters more than most firms realize. Agencies score the individuals, not just the company logo. Each key person needs a detailed biography showing relevant education, licenses, and hands-on experience with comparable projects. The project manager and lead technical staff draw the closest scrutiny because they will make the design decisions. Listing a senior principal who won’t touch the work is a move experienced evaluators see through.
Ranking and Discussions
After the submission deadline, an evaluation board of agency staff and subject matter experts scores each statement against the published criteria. Members score independently using a standardized rubric, and the aggregate produces an initial ranking.
The Brooks Act then requires the agency to hold discussions with at least three of the most highly qualified firms before making a final selection. These discussions cover anticipated design concepts and alternative approaches.6Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 40 USC 1103 – Selection Procedure The FAR mirrors that requirement, directing the board to discuss concepts and compare methods of delivering the services.8Acquisition.GOV. FAR 36.602-3 Evaluation Board Functions Those sessions are where firms show whether they actually understand the project constraints or are recycling boilerplate.
After discussions, the agency selects at least three firms in order of preference.6Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 40 USC 1103 – Selection Procedure Still no cost information has entered the process. The ranking reflects technical merit and professional capability alone.
Fee Negotiations and the Fallback
The agency opens fee negotiations exclusively with the top-ranked firm. That firm submits a detailed cost proposal covering labor, overhead, profit, and any specialized subconsultant services. Agency representatives then negotiate compensation both sides consider fair and reasonable.9Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 40 USC 1104 – Negotiation of Contract
If they can’t reach agreement, the agency formally terminates negotiations in writing and moves to the second-ranked firm. That firm submits its own cost proposal and a fresh round begins. The cascade continues down the ranked list until a contract is signed. If the shortlist is exhausted without agreement, the agency must select additional firms in order of competence and keep going.1Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 40 USC Chapter 11 – Selection of Architects and Engineers
One agency-specific boundary worth flagging: on Department of Veterans Affairs construction projects, a statutory six percent cap limits fees for producing designs, plans, drawings, and specifications, measured against estimated construction cost. That cap does not cover investigative services, construction-phase supervision, shop drawing review, or travel.10eCFR. 48 CFR 836.606-71 – Application of 6 Percent Architect-Engineer Fee Limitation Other agencies may impose their own fee policies, so read the solicitation.
Overhead Audits Instead of Price Competition
Because QBS awards happen without competing bids, agencies must perform a cost analysis rather than compare prices. That analysis evaluates the reasonableness of a firm’s proposed indirect cost rates, considering the firm’s most recently audited overhead rates and projected business conditions over the contract term.11Federal Transit Administration. Overhead Rates
If a firm’s indirect rates haven’t been audited recently, the agency should arrange an audit before price talks begin. When time pressure makes that impractical, the contract can set provisional billing rates with an audit requirement built in and adjustment provisions once the audit finishes. Agencies cannot impose blanket caps on overhead rates for architect-engineer contracts. Actual, auditable costs set the rate.
FAR Part 31 sets the ground rules for allowable costs, and firms are responsible for identifying and stripping out unallowable costs from every billing. State transportation departments typically follow the AASHTO Uniform Audit and Accounting Guide when reviewing indirect rates, though that guide doesn’t override the FAR. Firms doing significant public-sector work should have their overhead audited by an independent CPA on a regular cycle so current rates are ready when negotiations open.
If You Don’t Win: Debriefings and Protests
Unsuccessful firms have two immediate options. Ask for a debriefing, and, if warranted, file a protest.
An unsuccessful firm can request a debriefing by submitting a written request within three days of receiving the award notification. The agency must then provide, at a minimum, its evaluation of the weaknesses in the firm’s proposal, the firm’s overall rating and ranking compared to the winner, and a summary of the rationale for the award.12Acquisition.GOV. FAR 15.506 Postaward Debriefing of Offerors Even firms with no protest in mind should request one. It reveals exactly where the submission fell short.
Protests can be filed with the contracting agency or with the Government Accountability Office. For agency-level protests, the general deadline is ten days after the firm knew or should have known the basis for its challenge. Protests attacking the solicitation itself must be filed before the submission deadline.13Acquisition.GOV. FAR Subpart 33.1 – Protests
Common protest grounds in QBS procurements include failure to hold discussions with the required minimum of three firms, improper consideration of cost during the ranking phase, and unreasonable weighting of evaluation criteria. GAO review is deferential: the agency’s judgment stands unless the protester shows it was arbitrary. That is a high bar. Most successful protests turn on clear procedural violations, not disagreements over how the agency weighed qualifications.14U.S. Government Accountability Office. B-218489.4, B-218489.5 – Matter of H.J. Group Ventures, Inc.
Guardrails on the Evaluators
Because QBS runs on professional judgment rather than low-bid arithmetic, evaluator integrity is what holds the system together. Federal rules require government business to be conducted with complete impartiality, and evaluation board members must avoid any conflict of interest or appearance of one.15Acquisition.GOV. FAR Part 3 – Improper Business Practices and Personal Conflicts of Interest An agency official approached by a competing firm about potential employment must immediately report the contact in writing to a supervisor and the agency ethics official, and either reject the possibility or step off the procurement.
When contractor employees serve on evaluation panels, the contractor must screen those employees for personal conflicts. Each one must disclose financial interests, outside employment, and gifts that could create bias, and update the disclosure as circumstances change. Any conflict that surfaces must be reported to the contracting officer promptly.