[Federal Register: December 11, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 238)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 69227-69246]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr11de03-20]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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]