ARCHITECT-ENGINEER 

CONTRACTING 

Approved for public release. Distribution is unlimited. 

EP 715-1-7

22 May 2007 

EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

NC-1 

NOTABLE CHANGES IN OCT 2006 EDITION OF EP 715-1-7 

COMPARED TO 31 JUL 2002 EDITION 

General: 

1. Changed SF 255 and SF 254 to SF 330 Part I and SF 330 Part II, respectively, throughout. 

2. Update of regulatory citations as needed throughout. 

3. Update of Internet website addresses throughout. 

Foreword: 

• Para. 1.b: Added statement that EFARS 36.601-3 (S-101) requires compliance with EP 

715-1-7. 

Chapter 1: 

• Added paragraph 1-3.e., Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). 

• Added paragraph 1-4.b., training courses for CPARS. 

Chapter 2: 

• Para. 2-1.b: Included counsel in PDT for acquisition planning. 

• Para. 2-3.b: Added statement that an A-E firm is usually ineligible for participation in a 

design-build contract if the firm prepared the RFP. 

• Para. 2-4: Updated NAICS size standards for 541320, 541410 and 541620. Clarified 

language regarding A-E services. 

Chapter 3: 

• General: Incorporated Defense Procedures, Guidance and Instructions (PGI), which 

includes guidance eliminated from the DFARS. 

• Para.3-4.e: Indicated that counsel should be regularly included in the review of A-E 

synopses. 

• Para. 3-5: Deleted sentence indicating that ACASS is the only authorized automated system 

for A-E information since A-E evaluations are now available in PPIRS and A-E 

qualifications in ORCA. 

• Para. 3-6.a: Added statement that a contract specialist should assist A-E evaluation boards 

to ensure regulatory compliance. 

• Para. 3-6.b: Added statement that all board members from Engineering and Construction 

Divisions will be registered. (See ECB 2004-2) 

• Para. 3-8.e: Added new paragraph about effective conduct of board members. 

• Para. 3-8.f: Added statements about protecting personal worksheets used in A-E evaluation 

boards and indicating that board members must not discuss the evaluation results with 

anyone who does not have a need to know. 

• Para. 3-10.e: Added a statement and footnote (#12) concerning the ranking of firms in a 

selection for a multiple award contract. 

Chapter 4: 

• General: Changed Prenegotiation Memorandum (PnM) to Prenegotiation Objective 

Memorandum (POM) to be consistent with FARAS language. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

NC-2 

• Para. 4-9: Indicated that the wage determination for location of the performing office of 

both the prime contractor and any subcontractors will be used. 

• Para. 4-13.c(2) and 4-14.d: Indicated that profit should be allowed on all costs. 

• Para. 4-14.a(2): Added statement about negotiating rates for option periods of ID contracts. 

• Para. 4-18.b: Changed “minimum guarantee” to “minimum quantity” for ID contracts. 

• Para. 4-20: Updated and expanded coverage on the Continuing Contract Clauses consistent 

with EFARS 32.705-100. 

Chapter 6: 

• Para. 6.1.c: Updated to reflect that evaluations should be prepared in ACASS. Firms 

receive automatic e-mail notification. Evaluations submitted to ACASS as “completed 

evaluations” still require manual notification of the firm. Evaluations may be retrieved 

from PPIRS. 

• Para. 6.1.d: removed reference to ACASS using the 1992 version of the DD 2631. 

• Para. 6-4.b: Added statement that an after-construction evaluation of an A-E that prepared a 

design-build RFP is not appropriate. 

• Para. 6.4.c.1: added link to draft ACASS Policy Manual. 

• Para. 6-4.c(2): Added a statement that the performance evaluation should not be delayed 

until fiscal close-out of the contract. 

• Para. 6.6.b: Added statement that “unsatisfactory” or “marginal” evaluations shall not be 

finalized until the dispute process has been completed. 

• Para. 6.7.b and 6.8.b.2: Added statement that all evaluations shall be prepared and 

automatically routed within the ACASS sub-module of the CPARS system. 

Evaluations will be electronically signed. 

• Para. 6.9.c.1, 2, and 3: Modified to include process for revising evaluations within the 

ACASS system. 

• Para. 6-10.a: Added statement that rebuttal process for marginal and unsatisfactory 

performance evaluations applies only to final evaluations, not interims. 

• Para. 6.10.c.2: Modified to include process for the firm submitting their rebuttal to a 

“marginal” or “unsatisfactory” rating within the ACASS system. 

• Para. 6-10.d: Eliminated elevation of the rebuttal of an unsatisfactory evaluation to the 

MSC commander. The district or center commander is the final authority on all 

evaluations. 

Chapter 7: 

• Para. 7-6.e: Eliminated statement and related footnote that said that P&D funds could be 

used to investigate and pursue A-E liability on MILCON projects. This policy was not 

finally adopted by CEMP-M since all DoD customers would not unanimously agree on 

the concept. 

• Paras. 7-7.h., 7-7.l and 7-7.m. Revised to indicate that interest is not assessable until a 

COD is issued per the Contracts Dispute Act and FAR 32.608 and 32.610. 

Appendix F: 

• Several websites added, and all verified and updated as needed. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

NC-3 

Appendix G: 

• Added new example 14 indicating that cost engineering is an A-E service and cost 

estimating is not. 

Appendix H - Revised per comments from CEMP-CE as follows: 

• Deleted “design of munitions and ordnance closures in accordance with RCRA” as 

example projects that are typically A-E services. 

• Deleted “air quality management plans” as example projects that are not typically A-E 

services. 

• Deleted “water resources management plans” as example projects that are not typically 

A-E services. 

• Deleted “hazardous materials management plans” as example projects that are not 

typically A-E services. 

• Deleted “testing and management plans required by RCRA” as example projects that are 

not typically A-E services. 

• Added “remedial design of ordnance and munitions disposal projects” as example 

projects that are not typically A-E services. 

Appendix J – Major update by CESB, especially sections on: 

• Small Business Competitiveness Demonstration Program 

• Veteran-Owned Small Business and Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business 

Programs 

• Central Contractor Registration and Dynamic Small Business Search 

• Order of Precedence 

Appendix M: 

• Deleted example of expedited award letter. 

Appendix O: 

• Replaced “ACASS” with “DUNS”. 

• Deleted “For ACASS Information call 503-808-4590”. There is no need to contact the 

ACASS center at this point in the process. 

Appendix P: 

 Revised page P-3 from “ACASS and other sources” to PPIRS and other sources”. 

 Changed references to ACASS number to “DUNS number”. 

 Deleted “For ACASS Information call 503-808-4590”. There is no need to contact the 

ACASS center at this point in the process. 

Appendix Q: 

• Revised introduction to indicate ACASS is a sub-component of the Navy’s Contractor 

Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). 

• Revised reference to other Federal agencies transmitting evaluations to ACASS to indicate 

other Federal agencies my use ACASS to prepare evaluations. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

NC-4 

• Revised to indicate the ACASS number was replaced by the DUNS number, effective 

October 2005. 

• Revised paragraph 3.b discussion of data flow in the old system, and reference to the 

modernized system. Inserted explanation of data flow in the modernized ACASS system. 

Included information about OMB mandate for source selection officials to use PPIRS 

when retrieving evaluations to be used for source selection purposes. 

• Revised paragraph 3.c to indicate how the SF 330 part II is submitted to ORCA and 

transferred to ACASS. 

• Revised paragraph 3.d to remove reference to DCADS and the modernized ACASS 

system. Inserted reference to DIOR. 

• Revised paragraph 3.e to more accurately explain the content of the ACASS consolidated 

report. 

• Revised paragraph 3.f to more accurately summarize the type of data included in “Other 

Reports” in ACASS. 

• Revised paragraph 4.b to accurately summarize “Access and Release of Information” in 

ACASS, and use of information within the Federal Government. 

Appendix R: 

• Revised paragraph 3 to indicate PPIRS is primary source of prime contractor performance 

ratings for source selection. 

Appendix X: 

• Added a statement that an IGE for a task order (or modification to a task order) will use 

the contract rates in effect at the time the order (or modification to a task order) is 

issued. 
1 

CECW-CE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY EP 715-1-7 

CEPR-P US Army Corps of Engineers 

 Washington, DC 20314-1000

Pamphlet 

No. 715-1-7 22 May 2007 

Procurement 

ARCHITECT-ENGINEER CONTRACTING

1. Purpose. 

 a. This pamphlet provides guidance and procedures for contracting for architect-engineer 

(A-E) services in accordance with the Brooks Architect-Engineer Act and the acquisition 

regulations referenced below. The guidance and procedures in this pamphlet are intended to 

promote fair, efficient and consistent A-E contracting practices throughout the US Army Corps 

of Engineers (USACE). 

 b. Compliance with this pamphlet is required by Engineer Federal Acquisition Regulation 

Supplement (EFARS) 36.601-3 (S-101). Adherence to the guidance and procedures herein will 

ensure proper compliance with the acquisition regulations, and any variations therefrom must be 

documented in the contract file (provided the variations do not violate the acquisition 

regulations). 

 c. This pamphlet provides guidance and procedures for implementing certain key portions 

of the acquisition regulations relevant to A-E contracting. However, it is not intended to cover 

all aspects of the A-E contracting process and should not be used as a substitute for the current 

acquisition regulations (the FAR system) which provide procurement policy. If a conflict arises 

between this pamphlet and the acquisition regulations, the acquisition regulations govern. 

2. Applicability. This pamphlet applies to all USACE commands authorized to procure A-E 

services, and to all USACE programs. 

3. Distribution Statement. Approved for public release. Distribution is unlimited. 

4. References. 

 a. Brooks Architect-Engineer Act; Public Law 92-582, as amended; 40 United States Code 

(U.S.C.) 541-544 (Appendix A). 

 b. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), and the Defense (DFARS), Army (AFARS) and 

Corps of Engineers (EFARS) supplements thereto. 

 c. Army Regulation (AR) 25-55, The Department of the Army Freedom of Information 

Act Program. 

i 

CECW-CE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY EP 715-1-7 

CEPR-P US Army Corps of Engineers 

 Washington, DC 20314-1000

Pamphlet 

No. 715-1-7 22 May 2007 

Procurement 

ARCHITECT-ENGINEER CONTRACTING

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Paragraph Page 

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 

Scope 1-1 1-1 

Background 1-2 1-1 

Responsibilities 1-3 1-1 

Training 1-4 1-2 

Internet Addresses 1-5 1-2 

CHAPTER 2. ACQUISITION PLANNING

Principles 2-1 2-1 

Responsibilities 2-2 2-1 

Definition of A-E Services 2-3 2-1 

North American Industry Classification System 2-4 2-2 

 (NAICS) 

General Considerations 2-5 2-2 

Small Business Considerations 2-6 2-2 

Acquisition Plans 2-7 2-3 

Contract Types 2-8 2-3 

Selection of Contract Type 2-9 2-4 

A-E Contracting Process 2-10 2-5 

Time Standards 2-11 2-5 

Streamlining Techniques 2-12 2-6 

CHAPTER 3. ANNOUNCEMENT AND SELECTION

Principles 3-1 3-1 

General 3-2 3-1 

Responsibilities 3-3 3-1 

Public Announcement 3-4 3-2 

ACASS 3-5 3-4 

Board Membership 3-6 3-4 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

ii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 

Paragraph Page

CHAPTER 3. ANNOUNCEMENT AND SELECTION

Selection Criteria 3-7 3-5 

General Procedures for Evaluation Boards 3-8 3-7 

Preselection Board 3-9 3-9 

Selection Board 3-10 3-9 

Approval of Selections 3-11 3-11 

Notifications 3-12 3-12 

Debriefings 3-13 3-12 

Disposition of SFs 330 3-14 3-13 

Special Cases 3-15 3-13 

EP 715-1-4 3-16 3-15 

CHAPTER 4. NEGOTIATION AND AWARD

Principles 4-1 4-1 

Responsibilities 4-2 4-1 

Regulatory Basis 4-3 4-1 

Negotiation Team 4-4 4-1 

Statement of Work 4-5 4-2 

Request for Price Proposal 4-6 4-2 

Preproposal Conference 4-7 4-3 

Partnering 4-8 4-4 

Service Contract Act 4-9 4-4 

Independent Government Estimate 4-10 4-4 

Fact-Finding Sessions 4-11 4-4 

Proposal Analysis and Prenegotiation Objectives 4-12 4-5 

Negotiation of FFP Contracts 4-13 4-6 

Negotiation of ID Contracts 4-14 4-8 

Subcontracting Plan 4-15 4-10 

Price Negotiation Memorandum 4-16 4-10 

Preaward Survey 4-17 4-10 

Contract Preparation and Award 4-18 4-10 

Task Order Issuance 4-19 4-11 

NAF Contracts 4-20 4-11 

Continuing Contract Clauses 4-21 4-11 

CHAPTER 5. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT

Introduction 5-1 5-1 

Principles 5-2 5-1 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

iii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 

Paragraph Page 

CHAPTER 5. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT 

General 5-3 5-1 

Contracting Officer’s Representative 5-4 5-1 

Quality Management 5-5 5-2 

ID Contracts 5-6 5-2 

Payments 5-7 5-3 

Subcontract Reporting 5-8 5-4 

Resolving Performance Problems 5-9 5-4 

Contract Closeout 5-10 5-5 

CHAPTER 6. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 

Principles 6-1 6-1 

Responsibilities 6-2 6-1 

Regulatory Background 6-3 6-1 

General Procedures 6-4 6-2 

Monitoring Performance 6-5 6-5 

Interim Evaluations 6-6 6-5 

Evaluation of A-E Performance after Completion 6-7 6-6 

 of Design or Engineering Services 

Evaluation of A-E Performance after Completion 6-8 6-7 

 of Construction 

Approval, Distribution and Revision of Evaluations 6-9 6-8 

Marginal and Unsatisfactory Performance 6-10 6-8 

CHAPTER 7. A-E RESPONSIBILITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

Introduction 7-1 7-1 

Principles 7-2 7-1 

Responsibilities 7-3 7-2 

Legal and Regulatory Background 7-4 7-2 

Implementation 7-5 7-4 

Funding 7-6 7-5 

Notification, Investigation and Recovery 7-7 7-6 

 Procedures 

A-E Performance Evaluation and Contract 7-8 7-10 

Closeout 

Reporting 7-9 7-11 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

iv 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 

 Page 

APPENDICES 

APPENDIX A BROOKS ARCHITECT-ENGINEER ACT A-1 

APPENDIX B ACRONYMS B-1 

APPENDIX C A-E CONTRACTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST C-1 

APPENDIX D A-E CONTRACT CHECKLIST D-1 

APPENDIX E A-E TASK ORDER CHECKLIST E-1 

APPENDIX F INTERNET ADDRESSES FOR A-E CONTRACTING F-1 

APPENDIX G CLASSIFICATION OF CONTRACTS AS A-E SERVICES G-1

APPENDIX H ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES H-1 

APPENDIX I SURVEYING, MAPPING AND GEOSPATIAL SERVICES I-1 

APPENDIX J SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAM J-1 

APPENDIX K A-E CONTRACTING PROCESS K-1 

APPENDIX L TYPICAL DURATIONS FOR A-E CONTRACTING L-1 

ACTIVITIES

 

APPENDIX M STREAMLINING TECHNIQUES FOR A-E CONTRACTS M-1

AND TASK ORDERS

APPENDIX N STANDARD SYNOPSIS FORMAT FOR A-E SERVICES N-1 

APPENDIX O EXAMPLE SYNOPSIS FOR FIRM-FIXED-PRICE O-1 

CONTRACT 

APPENDIX P EXAMPLE SYNOPSIS FOR INDEFINITE-DELIVERY P-1

CONTRACT

APPENDIX Q A-E CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION SUPPORT Q-1 

SYSTEM (ACASS) 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

v 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 

Page

APPENDIX R CONSIDERATION OF PAST PERFORMANCE IN R-1 

 A-E SELECTIONS 

APPENDIX S EXAMPLE PRESELECTION BOARD REPORT S-1

APPENDIX T EXAMPLE SELECTION BOARD REPORT T-1 

APPENDIX U ADVANCE SELECTION PROCESS U-1 

APPENDIX V EXAMPLE STATEMENT OF WORK V-1 

APPENDIX W REQUEST FOR PRICE PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS W-1

APPENDIX X INDEPENDENT GOVERNMENT ESTIMATES X-1 

APPENDIX Y A-E COST INFORMATION Y-1 

APPENDIX Z A-E PRICE PROPOSAL ANALYSIS Z-1 

APPENDIX AA INSTRUCTIONS FOR DD FORM 2631 AA-1 

APPENDIX BB A-E LIABILITY ACTION FLOWCHART BB-1 

APPENDIX CC DETERMINATION OF A-E LIABILITY DAMAGES CC-1 

APPENDIX DD A-E LIABILITY COLLECTION AND SETTLEMENT DD-1 

APPENDIX EE AERMP REPORTS EE-1 

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE EE-1 ENG FORM 4858-R, ANNUAL AERMP REPORT EE-2 

FIGURE EE-2 ENG FORM 4858A-R, QUARTERLY A-E LIABILITY EE-4

CASE REPORT 

EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

1-1 

CHAPTER 1 

INTRODUCTION 

1-1. Scope. This pamphlet is generally applicable to all types of A-E contracts. However, 

certain aspects of Chapter 4 on price negotiation and Chapter 5 on contract administration are not 

relevant to cost-reimbursement (CR) contracts. See FAR 15.4, 16.3, 16.4, 31, 32, and 42 for 

specific guidance on CR contracts. 

1-2. Background. The Brooks A-E Act (Appendix A) defines A-E services and specifies the 

Federal policy for procuring A-E services. The Brooks A-E Act requires the public 

announcement of requirements for A-E services, selection of the most highly qualified firms 

based on demonstrated competence and professional qualifications, and the negotiation of a fair 

and reasonable price. FAR Part 36, and the supplements thereto, implement the Brooks A-E Act. 

1-3. Responsibilities*. 

 a. Commanders should regularly evaluate the A-E contracting process in their command to 

ensure it is efficient and effective. Appendices C, D, and E are checklists that may be used for 

this purpose. 

 b. The Principal Assistant Responsible for Contracting (PARC), Headquarters USACE 

(HQUSACE) (CEPR-ZA): 

 (1) Is the senior staff official responsible for execution, oversight and administration of the 

contracting function. 

 (2) Carries out delegable authorities of the Head of the Contracting Authority as described 

in the FAR, DFARS, AFARS, and EFARS. 

 c. The Engineering and Construction Community of Practice, Directorate of Civil Works, 

HQUSACE (CECW-CE): 

 (1) Is responsible for USACE technical guidance and procedures for A-E contracting, 

including maintenance of this pamphlet. CECW-CE, in coordination with the PARC and other 

HQUSACE elements, will identify and implement regulatory and procedural changes to improve 

the A-E contracting process throughout USACE. 

 (2) Supports the PARC in monitoring the compliance of USACE commands with A-E 

procurement regulations and this pamphlet through staff assistance visits, automated and special 

reports, informal coordination, conferences, and other appropriate methods. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

1-2 

 (3) Is the proponent for the Architect-Engineer Contract Administration Support System 

(ACASS) and is responsible for ACASS policy and general management oversight. This office 

is also the principal interface on ACASS with other Federal agencies. 

 d. The Contracting Division, Portland District (CENWP-CT) is responsible for 

management of ACASS in accordance with HQUSACE policy and direction. CENWP-CT will 

issue instructions on ACASS and respond to inquiries from users and A-E firms. 

 e. The United States Navy (NSLC DET Portsmouth, NH) operates and maintains the 

Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and the ACASS subcomponent. This office is also the point of contact for users experiencing technical difficulties 

with the ACASS system. 

1-4. Training. 

 a. The following courses provide valuable training regarding A-E contracting. 

 (1) “Architect-Engineer Contracting”, USACE Proponent Sponsored Engineer Corps 

Training (PROSPECT) Course Number 004. 

 (2) “Architect-Engineer Contracting,” Defense Acquisition University (DAU) Course 

Number CON 243. 

 b. The following courses provide valuable training regarding functional use of the ACASS 

system. 

 (1) “ACASS / CCASS Overview”, CPARS web site. 

 (2) “Focal Point Functions”, CPARS web site. 

 (3) “Contractor Overview” 

1-5. Internet Addresses. Appendix F is a list of useful Internet addresses pertinent to A-E 

contracting, and contracting in general. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

2-1 

CHAPTER 2 

ACQUISITION PLANNING 

2-1. Principles. 

 a. Proposed contracts for A-E services will be structured to maximize competition, 

provide contract opportunities for many firms, and maximize small business (SB) and small 

disadvantaged business (SDB) participation, while satisfying the needs of the Government in 

the most effective, economical, and timely manner. 

 b. Acquisition planning for A-E services will be accomplished by the project delivery 

team (PDT) under the leadership of the project manager (PM), and will include team 

members from engineering, construction, contracting, counsel and other appropriate 

personnel, as well as the Deputy for Small Business (DSB). 

2-2. Responsibilities. 

 a. General. The Deputy District Engineer for Program and Project Management 

(DPM), the Chief of Engineering1, the Chief of Contracting, the DSB, and the chiefs of other 

functional elements as appropriate, in each operating command (center, district or laboratory) 

having A-E contracting authority are responsible for acquisition planning for A-E services. 

 b. Time Standards. Commanders should regularly review the A-E contracting process 

in their command to ensure that A-E contracts and task orders (issued under indefinitedelivery (ID) contracts) are procured in accordance with the time standards in paragraph 2-11 

to the maximum extent possible. 

2-3. Definition of A-E Services. 

 a. General. A-E services are defined in FAR 36.102 and 36.601-4. Appendix G 

provides guidance to assist the contracting officer (KO) in determining if a particular 

contract should be procured as A-E services in accordance with FAR Subpart 36.6. 

Appendix H provides further guidance on which types of environmental services should 

typically be procured as A-E services. Appendix I provides specific guidance on the 

procurement of surveying, mapping and geospatial services. 

 1

 Engineering Division and Chief of Engineering (or Chief, Engineering Division) is used 

generically in this EP to refer to the division and its chief responsible for the engineering 

function at a district or center. Likewise for Construction Division and Chief of 

Construction (or Chief, Construction Division). 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

2-2 

 b. Design-Build and TERC. A design-build contract is procured as a construction 

contract in accordance with FAR Part 36, and not as an A-E contract, since the A-E services 

are a minor part of a design-build contract. Similarly, a Total Environmental Restoration 

Contract (TERC) is procured as a service contract under the source selection procedures in 

FAR 15.3, and not as an A-E contract, since the A-E services are a minor part of a TERC 

contract. If an A-E firm is used to prepare a Request for Proposal for a design-build 

contract, the firm will typically be ineligible for participation in the design-build contract due 

to the conflict of interest and unfair competitive advantage (FAR Subpart 9.5). 

2-4. North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). The NAICS classifies 

various businesses and industries. The Small Business Administration (SBA) establishes a 

small business size standard for each NAICS code. Work principally defined by the 

following NAICS are typically procured as A-E services. 

Industry 

NAICS 

Code 

Small 

Business 

Size Standard 

Architectural Services 541310 $4.0 M 

Landscape Architectural Services 541320 $6.0 M 

Engineering Services (procured under Brooks A-E Act) 541330 $4.0 M 

Geophysical Surveying and Mapping Services 541360 $4.0 M 

Surveying and Mapping (except Geophysical) Services, 

and Mapmaking 

541370 $4.0 M 

Interior Design Services 541410 $6.0 M 

Environmental Consulting Services (except 

Environmental Engineering Services under 541330) 

541620 $6.0 M 

2-5. General Considerations. See FAR Part 7 and the supplements thereto for general 

requirements for acquisition planning, and EFARS 16.501 for specific requirements for ID 

contracts. Thorough acquisition planning (informal or formal) will determine the nature, 

type, scope and number of contracts required for a project or program, including contracts for 

A-E services. Acquisition planning will consider the nature, complexity and dollar value of 

the anticipated work; schedule and urgency; budget and funding stream; industry 

capabilities; and small business opportunities. Unrelated or dissimilar work shall not be 

bundled in the same contract. 

2-6. Small Business Considerations. See Appendix J for a discussion of the small business 

considerations for A-E contracts. As required by EFARS 19.201(c)(9)(B), each proposed 

synopsis for A-E services shall be coordinated with the DSB. The DSB will review the 

acquisition for possible set-aside for SB, emerging SB (ESB), Service-disabled Veteranowned Small Business (SDVOSB), Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) SB 

or the SBA 8a Program, in accordance with current laws and regulations. The DSB will 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

2-3 

document the review using DD Form 2579. If a contract is not set-aside, it will still be 

structured to maximize the opportunities for SB. 

For example: unrelated requirements will not be bundled into one contract; the scope and 

geographic area of an ID contract will not be unduly broad; the monetary limits of an ID 

contract will be set at the lowest reasonable levels; and overly restrictive technical 

requirements will not be included. 

2-7. Acquisition Plans. Appropriate acquisition planning must be performed for each A-E 

contract and task order. An informal acquisition plan is suitable for most contracts (see 

EFARS 7.102(S-103)). The requirements for formal acquisition plans are contained in 

DFARS 207.103, AFARS 5107.103 and EFARS 7.102 and 7.103. A formal acquisition plan 

must follow the format in FAR 7.105 and be approved by the PARC. Acquisition plans must 

be fully coordinated among the concerned functional elements. Acquisition planning for a 

construction project must include both the design and construction phases, and be performed 

prior to the solicitation of an A-E contract, in order to allow the consideration of design-bidbuild, design-build (see ER 1180-1-9) and other delivery methods. 

2-8. Contract Types. 

 a. General. The KO is responsible for selecting the appropriate contract type in 

coordination with technical, contracting and legal specialists. FAR Subpart 16.1 provides 

general policies and guidance on selecting contract type. 

 b. Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) Contract. A FFP contract (FAR 16.202) is appropriate when 

the statement of work (SOW) can be well defined and there is sufficient time to announce, 

select, negotiate and award a contract. A FFP contract minimizes the Government's risk and 

administrative burden. Other types of fixed-price (FP) contracts may be appropriate at times 

(see FAR 16.2). 

 c. Cost-Reimbursement Contract. A CR contract (FAR 16.3) is used when 

uncertainties in the SOW do not permit the costs of performance to be estimated with 

sufficient accuracy to use a FP contract. A CR contract shall not be used as a substitute for 

developing a detailed SOW or allowing adequate procurement lead-time. The most common 

CR contract types used for A-E services in USACE are cost-plus-award-fee (CPAF; FAR 

16.305) where the contractor’s fee (same as profit in a FP contract) is dependent on certain 

performance criteria, and cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF; FAR 16.306) where the contractor 

receives a fixed fee, independent of actual costs. 

 d. Labor-Hour (LH) Contracts. A LH contract or task order (FAR 16.601 and 16.602) 

compensates the contractor for actual hours worked at predetermined rates. This contract 

type does not provide a financial incentive for a contractor to perform efficiently, and hence, 

is one of the least preferred contract types. Somewhat similar to a CR contract, a LH 

contract may be applicable when the extent or duration of work or anticipated costs cannot 

be estimated with any reasonable degree of confidence. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

2-4 

A LH contract or task order might be appropriate for work such as dredging payment surveys 

where the duration of the survey work is dependent on the progress of the dredging 

contractor and is not within the direct control of the survey contractor. 

 e. Indefinite-Delivery Contracts. ID contracts are the predominant contract type used 

for A-E services in USACE. ID contracts must comply with FAR 16.5, and EFARS 16.5 and 

36.601-3-90. ID contracts are generally used for recurring types of A-E services where 

procurement of these services individually by normal announcement, selection, negotiation 

and award procedures would not be economical or timely. Task orders for particular projects 

are negotiated and issued under the terms and conditions of the ID contract. Task order may 

be FP, CR or LH, as allowed by the ID contract. 

 f. Letter Contracts. A letter contract (FAR 16.603) is a preliminary contractual instrument 

that authorizes a contractor to begin work immediately. A definitive contract must then be 

negotiated within the time periods prescribed in FAR 16.603-2. It is appropriate for urgent 

requirements when there is not sufficient time to follow the normal A-E negotiation and award 

process. The use of a letter contract must be approved by CEPR-ZA in accordance with FAR 

16.603-3 and DFARS 216.603-3 and 217.74, except USACE Division Commanders can approve 

letter contracts not exceeding $3,000,000 for emergencies in accordance with EFARS 16.603-3 

and 17.7404-1 (S-100). 

 g. Simplified Acquisition Procedures. 

 (1) Purchase Orders. Purchase orders (FAR 13.302) are an expedient method for 

purchasing services that do not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT), which is 

currently $100,000 (FAR 2.101). Announcement and selection procedures are described in 

paragraph 3-15.a. Purchase orders are almost always negotiated as FFP. 

 (2) Purchase Card. A-E services that do not exceed the micro-purchase threshold of 

$2,500 may be procured using the Government purchase card as described in paragraph 3-

15.a(4). 

2-9. Selection of Contract Type. Selection of the appropriate A-E contract type generally 

depends on the following factors (also see FAR 16.104): 

 a. Scope Certainty. Use a FFP contract, task order, or purchase order if the scope can 

be defined and the level of effort reasonably estimated. If not, use a CR or LH contract or 

task order. 

 b. Nature and Size of Work. Consider first a task order if the required services are 

within the scope and size limitations of an available ID contract. Or, consider using a 

contract awarded through the advance selection process (see paragraph 3-15.h) if the 

required services are within the type of work and size limitations of that selection. If neither 

of these methods is suitable, initiate a new announcement and selection process. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

2-5 

 c. Schedule. A separate contract should be procured for a moderate or large project 

whenever possible. Consider use of a purchase card or purchase order for a very small 

project. Consider a task order for a time-sensitive, small or moderate size project. Consider 

using a contract awarded through the advance selection process for a time-sensitive project 

of the appropriate type and size. Consider limited competition (FAR 6.3) and/or a letter 

contract in the most urgent circumstances. 

2-10. A-E Contracting Process. Appendix K is a generic network of the A-E contracting 

process in USACE based on the pertinent acquisition regulations. 

2-11. Time Standards. 

 a. General. Prompt procurement of A-E services is essential to properly serve USACE 

customers. Prolonged contracting causes delays in project milestones, untimely obligation of 

funds, increased costs and is unfair to A-E firms. For these reasons, realistic time standards 

have been established for awarding A-E contracts and issuing A-E task orders in USACE. 

These standards should be followed to the maximum extent possible. 

 b. Standards. 

 (1) Contracts should typically be awarded within 145 calendar days, measured from the 

date of the public announcement. (Additional time would be required before the issuance of 

the announcement to assess the requirement, determine an acquisition approach and prepare 

the announcement.) The typical durations of the activities required to award an A-E contract 

are shown in Appendix L. 

 (2) Task orders should typically be issued within 37 calendar days, measured from 

issue of the Request for Price Proposal (RFPP) to the appropriate ID contractor. The typical 

durations of the activities required to issue a task order under an ID contract are shown in 

Appendix L. 

 (3) Task orders for outside customers, such as Army installations, where the scope 

preparation and negotiations were done by the customer, should typically be issued by 

USACE in 6 calendar days, measured from receipt of proper negotiation documentation and 

funding from the customer. The relevant contracting activities and durations are shown in 

Appendix L. 

 (4) Contracts and task orders should be awarded in less time if needed to meet critical 

customer requirements. Similarly, longer durations may be appropriate for certain contracts 

and task orders, such as ID contracts for USACE use or for complex and/or very large 

contracts and task orders. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

2-6 

 c. Justifiable Delays. The above standards exclude justifiable delays beyond the 

reasonable control of a USACE command, such as: scope uncertainties, delay in receiving 

funds, deferral or suspension of a project by a customer or higher authority, unsuccessful 

negotiations with the highest qualified firm, delaying the award of an ID contract for a 

reasonable period to coincide with issuance of the first task order, or a protest. Also, 

additional time would be required if an audit is considered necessary to determine a fair and 

reasonable price. 

2-12. Streamlining Techniques. Appendix M provides some suggested techniques for 

streamlining A-E contracting. The timely award of A-E contracts and task orders is largely 

within the direct control of each USACE command, and requires very close cooperation and 

teamwork among engineering, project management, contracting, counsel, resource 

management, small business, audit and other functional elements. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

3-1 

CHAPTER 3 

ANNOUNCEMENT AND SELECTION 

3-1. Principles. 

 a. Public announcements for A-E services will reflect the minimum needs of the 

Government, not arbitrarily restrict eligible firms, and describe the work required and 

selection criteria in sufficient detail to facilitate a meaningful selection of the most highly 

qualified firm. 

 b. Public announcements for A-E services will be fully coordinated among all pertinent 

functional staff elements. 

 c. A-E selections will be conducted in a fair, rational and consistent manner, in strict 

accordance with the announced selection criteria, and in compliance with FAR 36.602 and its 

supplements. 

 d. A-E firms will be promptly notified of their selection status and offered a 

meaningful debriefing on the evaluation of their qualification submission. 

3-2. General. The guidance and procedures in paragraphs 3-4 through 3-14 generally apply 

to all contracts for A-E services, except as otherwise noted in paragraph 3-15 for certain 

special cases. 

3-3. Responsibilities. 

 a. The Chief of Engineering in each operating command is responsible for the A-E 

selection process, including the technical content of public announcements for A-E services 

(including those prepared by other functional elements), the conduct of A-E evaluation 

(preselection and selection) boards, participation by customers in evaluation boards, and 

liaison with the A-E community. 

 b. The Chief of Contracting in each operating command is responsible for the 

procurement-related content of public announcements for A-E services, and for general 

oversight of the A-E selection process to ensure regulatory compliance. 

 c. Commanders may appoint qualified professional personnel, by name and/or position, 

to: 

 (1) Serve as chairpersons and alternate chairpersons of A-E preselection and selection 

boards. 

 (2) Approve A-E selections consistent with delegated authorities 

(EFARS 36.602-4(a)). 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

3-2 

 d. Commanders may designate qualified professional personnel, by name and/or 

position, who are eligible to serve as members of A-E preselection and selection boards, as 

authorized by EFARS 36.602-2(a). Alternatively, commanders may establish appropriate 

qualifications for board members and delegate authority to the Chief of Engineering to 

designate specific personnel who satisfy those qualifications as board members. 

 e. Commanders of Major Subordinate Commands (MSC) are responsible for quality 

assurance of the A-E selection process in their subordinate districts. This can be done 

through the approval of selections for large or highly visible projects, evaluation of district 

standard operating procedures for selections, random review of completed selection reports, 

observing or participating in district selection boards, and/or other appropriate means. 

3-4. Public Announcement. 

 a. Regulatory Requirements. In accordance with FAR 5.203(d), 5.205(d), and 36.601-

1, all requirements for A-E services expected to exceed $25,000 shall be publicized 

(synopsized) on the Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) website 

(http://www.fedbizopps.gov)2

, except when properly waived in accordance with FAR 5.202. 

A response period of at least 30 calendar days shall be allowed for contracts expected to 

exceed the SAT. 

 b. Authority to Synopsize. A synopsis for an A-E contract, which has the equivalent 

effect as a solicitation for other types of contracts, should not be issued unless the 

Government has a definite intention to award a contract. Proper authorization from higher 

authority or a customer and adequate funding should be received prior to synopsizing. 

However, for high priority requirements, a synopsis may be issued prior to receiving formal 

authorization and/or funding when there is a high probability that the requirement will not be 

canceled and the synopsis indicates that funds are not presently available for the contract 

(AFARS 5101.602-2(a)(ii)). 

 c. Format. Instructions and the format for preparing synopses are given in FAR 5.207 

and DFARS 205.207. Appendix N provides supplemental instructions for USACE synopses 

for A-E services. Appendix O is an example synopsis for a FFP contract. Appendix P is an 

example synopsis for an ID contract. 

 d. Content. A synopsis will describe the contract, project and required services, 

selection criteria, and submission instructions. The synopsis will describe the specific work 

required in sufficient detail to facilitate a meaningful selection of the most highly qualified 

firm. (See paragraph 3-1.a.) The relative importance of all selection criteria must be clearly 

stated. Do not include criteria that are not directly related to project requirements or that 

unnecessarily restrict competition, such as: 

 2 The FBO website is also called the Government wide point of entry (GPE). USACE 

contracting offices are required to post public announcements on the Army Single Face to 

Industry (ASFI) website (see Appendix F), which is in turn linked to the FBO website. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

3-3 

 (1) Specifying the minimum number of personnel in a firm; 

 (2) Specifying non-essential or secondary disciplines; 

 (3) Specifying disciplines, capabilities or a percentage of work (except the prime firm 

in a small business set-aside as discussed in paragraph 3-8.c) that must be performed "inhouse"; 

 (4) Requiring certification of personnel by a private organization3

; 

 (5) Requiring metric design experience4

; 

 (6) Restricting firms to a specific geographic area; 

 (7) Specifying how the services should be performed (instead, describe the needed end 

products); 

 (8) Requiring the submission of any cost-related data; 

 (9) Requiring the submission of excessive qualification information; 

 (10) Restricting a firm from being considered due to having another current contract 

with the same contracting office; or, 

 (11) Requiring a security clearance to be considered for selection (however, eligibility 

for a clearance, such as U.S. citizenship, may be required). 

 e. Review and Transmittal. A synopsis will be prepared by appropriate technical, 

contracting and legal personnel, and be fully staffed, including the DSB (see paragraphs 2-6 and 

3-1.b). If a formal acquisition plan or a waiver of standard ID contract limits is required, 

approval must be obtained prior to synopsizing. Synopses will be transmitted to the GPE 

electronically as described in FAR 5.207. 

 f. Contact with Firms. Requests for clarification of a synopsis and/or for additional 

information will be carefully handled to avoid providing any information that would give, or 

appear to give, an advantage to a firm in submitting their qualifications. A synopsis will be 

amended if additional information was given to any one firm or if the synopsis is found to be 

defective, and the response date appropriately extended. 

 3

 Certifications can still be considered when comparing personnel qualifications, in the 

same manner that advanced degrees, relevant training, experience and longevity with the 

firm are considered. 

4

 Metric design is still not a common practice in the US. commercial market. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

3-4 

3-5. ACASS. ACASS is an automated database of A-E qualifications, Department of 

Defense (DoD) A-E contract awards, and performance evaluations of A-E contractors. 

Appendix Q provides additional information on the background, regulatory authority, 

contents and use of ACASS. ACASS is managed by the Contractor Appraisal Information 

Center (CAIC) at the Portland District. 

3-6. Board Membership. A-E evaluation boards should be constituted as follows based on 

the requirements in FAR 36.602-2(a) and EFARS 36.602-2(a). 

 a. General Requirements. The chairperson will appoint members with appropriate 

expertise from the approved list of eligible personnel, or who meet the qualifications for 

board members established by the commander. Each board must have at least three 

members. A majority of the members must be USACE personnel. Appropriately qualified 

technical personnel from the functional element requesting the services should be 

represented. A contract specialist should assist the board to ensure regulatory compliance. 

Where practical, a representative from the cognizant Construction Division will participate 

on an evaluation board for an A-E contract for the design of a specific construction project. 

There is no regulatory restriction on a Government employee serving on an evaluation board 

for an A-E contract and later participating in the negotiation and/or administration of that 

contract. However, the KO may impose such restrictions if necessary to ensure the integrity 

of the system of checks and balances. 

 b. Member Qualifications. Evaluation boards will be composed of highly qualified 

professional employees having collective experience in architecture, engineering, 

construction, and acquisition, as well as the specific type of work being contracted. A board 

will consist primarily of architects, engineers and/or land surveyors, as appropriate for the 

type of work. However, personnel in other disciplines may be members to provide 

specialized expertise when needed. The chairperson will be a USACE Engineering Division 

employee, and be a registered or licensed engineer, architect or land surveyor, as appropriate 

for the type of work. All board members from the Engineering and Construction Division(s) 

will be registered5

. Professional registration of all other board members is encouraged. A 

board report will indicate which board members are registered. See Appendix I for guidance on 

board membership requirements for surveying and mapping contracts. All board members 

will comply with the procurement integrity requirements of FAR 3.104. Additional board 

membership requirements are: 

 (1) Preselection Board. A chairperson will be at least GS-13 or have equivalent 

technical experience, and have considerable experience on A-E evaluation boards. A 

majority of the members will have experience on A-E evaluation boards. 

 (2) Selection Board. A chairperson will be at least GS-14 or have equivalent technical 

experience, and have extensive experience on A-E evaluation boards. A majority of the 

 5

 Until 31 January 2007, the Chief of Engineering may waive the requirement for 

registration on a case-by-case basis if necessary to obtain an adequate number of 

appropriately qualified board members. Any waiver should be attached to the board report. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

3-5 

members will have experience on A-E evaluation boards. A person may serve as a member 

on both the preselection and selection boards for the same contract. 

 (3) Partner/Customer Representative(s). In accordance with EFARS 36.602-2(a), 

Federal and non-Federal partners/customers will be invited to nominate qualified 

representatives as members of the A-E evaluation boards for their projects, when practical. 

Representative(s) shall be submitted to the respective evaluation board chairperson for 

approval, and must meet the same qualifications as USACE personnel. Specifically, they 

must have the appropriate background to knowledgeably evaluate the experience and 

qualifications of A-E firms in the required type of work. 

3-7. Selection Criteria. 

 a. Regulatory Requirements. FAR 36.602-1(a) and the Defense PGI 236.602-1(a)(6) 

specify the general A-E selection criteria. Defense PGI 236.602-1(a)(6) emphasizes that "the 

primary factor in A-E selection is the determination of the most highly qualified firm," and 

that secondary factors should not be given greater significance than technical qualifications 

and past performance. 

 b. Specific Project Criteria. DFARS 236.602-1(a)(i) requires that a synopsis state the 

order of importance of the selection criteria and Defense PGI 236.602-1(a) requires that the 

criteria be project specific. Specific project criteria should be stated in the context of the 

general FAR and DFARS criteria, as illustrated in Appendices O and P. Include only 

selection criteria that will be true discriminators in determining the most highly qualified 

firms. 

 c. Application of Selection Criteria. Boards will evaluate firms' qualifications strictly 

on the basis of the announced selection criteria and their stated order of importance. The 

criteria will be applied as follows: 

 (1) Primary Selection Criteria. The following criteria are primary and will be applied 

by a preselection board to determine the highly qualified firms and by a selection board to 

determine the most highly qualified firms. The primary criteria are listed in the order of 

importance which is usually most appropriate, however they may be ordered differently as 

warranted for specific contracts. 

 (a) Specialized Experience and Technical Competence (FAR 36.602-1(a)(2)). A board 

will evaluate the specialized experience on similar projects6

 and the technical capabilities 

(such as design quality management procedures, CADD, equipment resources, and laboratory 

requirements) of the prime firm and any subcontractors. Evaluate, where appropriate, 

 6

 General experience working for certain customers, such as DoD, Army, Air Force, or 

USACE, is not an appropriate selection criterion. Instead, the selection criteria should 

address experience in certain types of projects or work, and knowledge of essential laws, 

regulations and/or criteria. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

3-6 

experience in energy conservation, pollution prevention, waste reduction, and the use of 

recovered materials. The effectiveness of the proposed project team (including management 

structure; coordination of disciplines, offices and/or subcontractors; and prior working 

relationships) will also be examined. 

 (b) Professional Qualifications (FAR 36.602-1(a)(1)). A board will evaluate, as 

appropriate, the education, training, registration, certifications (see paragraph 3-4.d(4)), 

overall and relevant experience, and longevity with the firm of the key management and 

technical personnel. This criterion is primarily concerned with the qualifications of the key 

personnel and not the number of personnel, which is addressed under the capacity criterion. 

The lead designer in each discipline must be registered as required by FAR 36.609-4 and 

52.236-25, but does not have to be registered in the particular state where the project is 

located. 

 (c) Past Performance (FAR 36.602-1(a)(4)). See Appendix R for guidance in considering 

past performance in A-E selections. 

 (d) Capacity (FAR 36.602-1(a)(3)). A board will consider a firm's experience with 

similar size projects and the available capacity of key disciplines when evaluating the 

capacity of a firm to perform the work in the required time. Consider the full potential value 

of any current ID contracts that a firm has been awarded when evaluating capacity. 

 (e) Knowledge of the Locality (FAR 36.602-1(a)(5)). Consider knowledge of the 

locality separately from geographic proximity, since the latter is a secondary criterion in 

accordance with Defense PGI 236.602-1(a)(6). (A firm may not be located close to a project 

but still be familiar with certain site conditions.) Examples include knowledge of geological 

features, climatic conditions or local construction methods that are unusual or unique. 

 (2) Secondary Selection Criteria. The secondary criteria will not be applied by a 

preselection board, and will only be used by a selection board as a "tie-breaker" (see 

paragraph 3-10.e), if necessary, in ranking the most highly qualified firms. The secondary 

criteria will not be commingled with the primary criteria in the evaluation system7

. The 

secondary criteria are listed in the order of importance which is usually most appropriate for 

USACE contracts. 

 7

 If the criteria were commingled, a firm could be selected that was not the best qualified 

technically, but received high consideration on the secondary criteria. This outcome would 

be contrary to the intent of the Brooks A-E Act. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

3-7 

 (a) SB and SDB Participation (Defense PGI 236.602-1(a)(6)(C)). The extent of 

participation of SB, SDB, historically black colleges and universities (HBCU), and minority 

institutions (MI) will be measured as a percentage of the total anticipated contract effort, 

regardless of whether the SB, SDB, HBCU or MI is a prime contractor, subcontractor, or 

joint venture partner; the greater the participation, the greater the consideration8. 

 (b) Geographic Proximity (FAR 36.602-1(a)(5)). Proximity is simply the physical 

location of a firm9

 in relation to the location of a project, and has very little to do with the 

technical ability of a firm to perform the project. Hence, proximity should normally only be 

used as a selection criterion for small or routine projects or ID contracts in support of a 

specific installation(s). 

 (c) Volume of DoD Contract Awards (Defense PGI 236.602-1(a)(6)(A)). 

 - The Defense PGI states "do not reject the overall most highly qualified firm solely in 

the interest of equitable distribution of contracts." Hence, equitable distribution of DoD 

contracts must be treated as a secondary criterion. DoD A-E contract awards can be obtained 

from ACASS, and verified and updated during the interviews with the most highly qualified 

firms. Only consider awards of A-E contracts. Include awards to all branch offices of a 

company, except as indicated in Defense PGI 236.602-1(a)(6)(A)(2). 

 - For ID contracts, consider the total value of task orders actually issued by agencies in 

the last 12 months, and not the potential value of the contracts. For all types of contracts, do 

not consider options that have not been exercised. 

3-8. General Procedures for Evaluation Boards. 

 a. Information Used by Boards. Boards will only consider the following information: 

SF330 Parts I and II; any required supplemental information; documented performance 

evaluations, such as from ACASS; DoD contract award data; and the results of interviews of 

the most highly qualified firms. A board will not assume qualifications which are not clearly 

stated in a firm's submission or available from ACASS. A board will review the entire 

submission of each firm and not excerpts or summaries. A firm will not be contacted to 

 8

 A subcontracting plan, in accordance with FAR 19.704 and 52.219-9, should not be 

requested from each firm that responds to a synopsis. This would be burdensome, as well 

as impractical since the firms do not have a complete statement of work at this point. 

Prime A-E firms can, however, be asked to indicate the estimated percentage involvement 

of each SB and SDB firm on the team. A formal subcontracting plan is only required from 

the firm selected for negotiations. 

9

 When multiple offices of the prime firm and/or subcontractors will be involved in the 

performance of a project, consider the weighted distance from the project based on the 

relative amount of participation of each performing office. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

3-8 

clarify or supplement its submission, except during the interviews with the most highly 

qualified firms (see paragraph 3-10.d). Boards shall not consider any cost factors. 

 b. A-E Submissions. 

 (1) A-E submissions shall be handled by the Government in accordance with FAR 

15.207 and 15.208, including the late proposal rules in FAR 15.208. A firm will not be 

considered if it’s SF 330 Part I is not signed, unless the SF 330 Part I is accompanied with a 

signed cover letter or a current signed SF 330 Part II. If a firm does not submit a SF 330 Part 

II with its SF 330 Part I, or have one on file10, it will not be considered (FAR 36.603(b)). 

 (2) Although firms are encouraged to update their SF 330 Part II (see footnote 9) at 

least annually (FAR 36.603(d)(1)), older ones (up to 3 years old in accordance with FAR 

36.603(d)(5)) must still be considered by a board. A firm may not be eliminated simply for 

failing to submit certain information or for altering the format of a SF 330. However, a firm 

may be recommended as not qualified or ranked low if missing, confusing, conflicting, 

obsolete or obscure information prevents a board from reasonably determining that a firm 

demonstrates certain required qualifications. 

 c. Small Business Status. If a contract has been set aside for small business in 

accordance with FAR 19.5, the preselection board must check that each prime firm has 

certified itself as a small business on the SF 330 Part II. The board must also be aware that 

there is a limitation on subcontracting whereby "at least 50% of the cost of contract 

performance incurred for personnel" must be expended for employees of the prime firm as 

required by FAR 19.508(e) and 52.219-14. Any questions will be referred to the DSB and 

the Contracting Division. 

 d. Evaluation Method. A board can use any qualitative method11, such adjectival or 

color coding, to evaluate and compare the qualifications of the firms relevant to each 

selection criterion. 

 e. Conduct of Board Meetings. Board meetings should be held in conference rooms or 

other areas isolated as much as possible from distractions, rather than in one of the board 

member’s office. Sufficient time should be set aside for the meetings to proceed continuously 

until they are finished. Board members should schedule their other activities so that 

interruptions of the board meetings are held to an absolute minimum. 

 f. Reports. The documentation must reflect the final consensus of a board. If 

preliminary (such as prior to board discussions or interviews) or individual evaluations are 

included, the report must discuss how any significant differences among the evaluations were 

resolved. A board must retain documents and worksheets generated during its evaluation so that 

 10 Through the Federal-wide Online Representations and Certifications Application. See 

Appendix F for the website. 

11 Numerical scoring is prohibited by AFARS 5115.304(b)(2)(iv).
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

3-9 

the evaluation is sufficiently documented and allows review of the merits of a potential bid 

protest. Failure to retain evaluation documents will leave the KO susceptible to the risk during 

bid protest of presenting a record with inadequate supporting rationale for the Comptroller 

General or court to find the selection decision reasonable. Handwritten worksheets are 

acceptable. The cover and each page of the report containing source selection information 

will be labeled "SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104" 

and be protected as required by FAR 3.104-5. Personal worksheets must be similarly 

protected. Board members must not discuss the evaluation results with anyone who does not 

have a specific reason to know. 

3-9. Preselection Board. 

 a. General. Preselection boards are permitted by FAR 36.602-2(a). Preselection 

boards may be advantageous when many firms respond to a synopsis, but generally the use of 

only a selection board is faster and less costly. The purpose of a preselection board is to 

determine which firms are highly qualified and have a reasonable chance of being considered 

as most highly qualified by the selection board (EFARS 36.602-2 (S-100)). 

 b. Determination of Highly Qualified Firms. Each firm will be completely evaluated, 

even if a firm does not demonstrate certain required qualifications. A firm may be evaluated 

by only one board member. However, all evaluations must be discussed by the entire board 

and a consensus reached on each firm. The firms that demonstrate better aggregate 

qualifications relevant to the primary selection criteria are considered highly qualified. A 

preselection board will not consider any secondary selection criteria. A preselection board 

will not be restricted to a specific or maximum number of firms for referral to a selection 

board. 

 c. Report. A preselection board report will be prepared similar to Appendix S. The 

report must clearly identify the specific weak or deficient qualifications of each firm not 

recommended as highly qualified. The report will be provided to the selection board and 

made a part of the selection board’s report. Separate approval of a preselection report is not 

required. 

3-10. Selection Board. 

 a. General. The functions of a selection board are described in FAR 36.602-3. A 

selection board evaluates the highly qualified firms identified by the preselection board and 

recommends at least three firms considered as most highly qualified, in order of preference. 

If a preselection board was not held, the initial phase of the selection board will be conducted 

and documented similar to a preselection board. 

 b. Review of Preselection Report. If a selection board considers the preselection board 

report inadequate, it will record the reasons and return the report to the preselection board for 

appropriate action. A selection board need not return the preselection report because it 

considers some of the firms to be less than highly qualified, provided a sufficient number of 

highly qualified firms remain. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

3-10 

 c. Determination of Most Highly Qualified Firms. All members must personally 

evaluate the SFs 330 of all of the highly qualified firms. The firms that demonstrate higher 

aggregate qualifications relevant to the primary selection criteria are considered to be the 

most highly qualified firms. Secondary selection criteria will not be considered prior to the 

interviews in determining which firms are most highly qualified. At least three most highly 

qualified firms must be recommended12 if a single contract will be awarded. If more than 

one contract will be awarded from the same synopsis, sufficient firms must be recommended 

such that at least two most highly qualified firms remain “in reserve” when negotiations 

commence on the final contract. 

 d. Interviews. 

 (1) Interviews (discussions) will be held with all of the most highly qualified firms as 

required by FAR 36.602-3(c). All firms will be interviewed by the same method (telephone, 

video teleconference or in person). For a routine project, at least one member will conduct 

the interview. For a major project, the majority of the members will conduct the interview. 

For a very significant project, presentations by the firms are recommended, which should be 

attended by all members in accordance with FAR 15.102. Firms will be given sufficient 

advance notice to allow responsible representatives to participate in the interviews or 

presentations. 

 (2) All firms will be asked similar questions about their experience, capabilities, 

capacity, organization, management, quality control procedures, and approach for the 

project, as appropriate. All questions must relate to the announced selection criteria. 

Information obtained from an interview that influenced the final ranking will be documented 

in the selection report. 

 e. Final Ranking of Most Highly Qualified Firms. After the interviews or 

presentations, a board will, by consensus, rank the most highly qualified firms in order of 

preference using the primary selection criteria. If two or more firms are technically equal, 

the secondary criteria will be used as "tie-breakers" and the final ranking of firms decided. 

Firms are technically equal when there is no meaningful difference in their aggregate 

qualifications relative to the primary criteria. 

 12 If the selection board cannot recommend at least three most highly qualified firms as 

required by the Brooks A-E Act, then the scope of the contract should be revised to 

increase competition and the contract synopsized again. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

3-11 

If more than one contract will be awarded from the same synopsis, the number of highest 

qualified firms must at least equal the number of anticipated contracts13. The secondary 

factors will be used to establish a ranking order for the highest qualified firms, and hence, the 

order for negotiation. 

 f. Report. A selection board report should be prepared in a format similar to Appendix 

T. The report must: clearly describe the reasons why each eliminated firm was less qualified 

than the most highly qualified firms, summarize the relative strengths of each most highly 

qualified firm with respect to the selection criteria, and clearly describe the rationale for the 

relative ranking of each firm. 

3-11. Approval of Selections. 

 a. As permitted by EFARS 36.602-4(a) delegates unlimited A-E selection approval 

authority to MSC commanders, who may redelegate this authority to appropriate officials. If 

a synopsis is for more than one contract, the level of selection approval authority will be 

determined by the greatest anticipated value of any one of the contracts (including all 

options), and not the aggregate value of all of the contracts. 

 b. FAR 36.602-4 provides guidance if the selection authority does not agree with the 

recommendations of a selection board. All firms on an approved selection list are considered 

"selected" in accordance with FAR 36.602-4(b). Selection approval authorizes the initiation 

of negotiation, beginning with the highest qualified firm. 

 c. No contract may be awarded after one year from the closing date of a public 

announcement, unless justified in writing by the KO. The KO will consider whether the 

selected firms’ qualifications and the specific A-E market are substantially unchanged since 

the selection. 

 13 The Brooks Act requires that negotiation begin with the highest qualified firm. Hence, 

all of the selected firms must be equally (and highest) qualified in order that negotiation of 

the second and subsequent contracts may begin with other than the first firm on the 

selection list. The highest qualified firms are determined by application of the primary 

selection criteria which considers technical capabilities. Their ranking is then determined 

by the secondary selection criteria, which are socioeconomic, and not technical, in nature. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

3-12 

3-12. Notifications. 

 a. Notifications of firms shall be made within 10 days after selection approval in 

accordance with EFARS 36.607(a)14. No notifications will be made after a preselection 

board. 

 b. The notification shall indicate to the firm that it is: 

 - The highest qualified, or 

 - Among the most highly qualified but not the highest qualified, or 

 - Not among the most highly qualified firms. 

The notification will also inform each firm that it may request a debriefing, but must do so in 

writing or electronically within 10 days after receiving the notification. The identity of the 

firm (or firms if multiple awards will be made from one synopsis) selected for negotiations 

may be released after the selection report is approved (FAR 36.607(a)). Within 10 days after 

contract award, all remaining most highly qualified firms shall be so notified. 

 c. When an acquisition is canceled, notices will be sent to all firms that responded to the 

public announcement within 10 days of the cancellation. When an acquisition will be 

significantly delayed, notices will be promptly sent to all firms still being considered, giving the 

estimated award date. 

3-13. Debriefings. 

 a. There are two main objectives for a debriefing. First, instill confidence in the 

debriefed firm that the selection was conducted fairly and objectively in accordance with the 

announced selection criteria. Second, provide the firm with specific information to allow it 

to improve its weak qualifications and better compete for future similar projects. 

 b. Unless impractical, debriefing of unsuccessful firms will be conducted within 14 

days after receipt of a written request in accordance with FAR 15.506 (except 15.506(d)(2)-

(d)(5)), FAR 36.607(b), and EFARS 36.607(b). A request under the Freedom of Information 

Act (FOIA; AR 25-55) will be immediately referred to the local FOIA officer. 

 14 HQUSACE has determined that the time periods for notification and debriefing of firms 

in FAR 15.503 and 15.506 are impractical to follow for A-E contracts due to the large 

number of A-E selections annually and the heavy volume of responses to each synopsis. 

Hence, as permitted by FAR 15.502, the time periods have been reasonably modified for 

USACE A-E contracts. Also, the specific instruction in FAR 36.607(b) that the 

(notification and) debriefing of successful and unsuccessful A-E firms will be held after 

selection approval takes precedence over the instruction in FAR 15.5 that notification and 

debriefing will occur after contract award. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

3-13 

 c. Debriefings will be conducted by telephone, electronically or in person, as mutually 

agreed. Debriefings will be conducted by a USACE board member, preferably the 

chairperson, of the preselection or selection board, as appropriate. The debriefing will be 

based on the preselection or selection board report, as appropriate. The debriefing will 

summarize the significant weaknesses or deficiencies in a firm’s qualifications (FAR 

15.506(d)(1)). A firm’s qualifications will not be compared point-by-point with those of any 

other specific firm, but with the other firms collectively (FAR 15.506(e)). Also, a firm’s 330 

will not be revealed or given to any other firm (FAR 15.506(e) and 24.202(a)). The identity 

of the other firms considered, except the highest qualified firm, shall not be revealed. 

3-14. Disposition of SFs 330. SFs 330 will be carefully safeguarded, and retained in 

accordance with EFARS 36.603(b). 

3-15. Special Cases. 

 a. Contract Actions Not Expected to Exceed $100,000 (SAT). The short A-E selection 

processes in FAR 36.602-5 may be used. A purchase order, with the appropriate clauses for 

A-E services, may be used to simplify and expedite award instead of using SF 252, 

Architect-Engineer Contract. 

 (1) Contract Actions Expected to Exceed $25,000 but not $100,000. A public 

announcement on the FBO website is required. The response period may be less than 30 

days (FAR 5.203(d)); at least 10-15 days is recommended. If an insufficient number of 

qualified firms respond to the synopsis, other qualified firms may be identified from ACASS 

and any other means. These firms will be contacted about their interest, sent the synopsis, 

and requested to submit an updated SF 330 Part II and possibly a SF 330 Part I as required 

by the selection board. The firms will be given a reasonable period to respond. 

 (2) Contract Actions Expected to Exceed $10,000 but not $25,000. A public 

announcement on the FBO website is not required. Instead, an announcement may be posted 

in a public place or made by any appropriate electronic means (FAR 5.101(a)(2)). In 

addition to the firms that respond to the announcement, other firms may be identified and 

evaluated as described in paragraph 3-15.a(1). 

 (3) Contracts Not Expected to Exceed $10,000. No public announcement is required. 

A reasonable number of qualified firms must be identified and evaluated as described in 

paragraph 3-15.a(1). 

 (4) Contracts Not Exceeding $2,500. Contracts that do not exceed the micro-purchase 

threshold of $2,500 may be procured using purchase cards in accordance with EFARS 

36.601-3(S-100) and 36.602-5(a). 

 b. Non-Appropriated Fund (NAF) Contracts (AR 215-4). 

 (1) Public announcement is not required. If a contract is synopsized, it may be for less 

than 30 days. A list of qualified firms may be developed from: ACASS; recommendations of 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

3-14 

the installation, NAF sponsor, or professional societies; responses to a public announcement; 

or, any other appropriate source. 

 (2) Evaluation boards will be conducted and documented as described elsewhere in this 

pamphlet, except that the selection criteria will comply with AR 215-4. In particular, 

equitable distribution of DoD contracts and the extent of participation of SB, SDB, HBCU 

and MI are not used as selection criteria. Also, geographic proximity need not be treated as a 

secondary criterion. Normal selection approval procedures are followed. 

 c. Contracting with the Small Business Administration (FAR 19.8). A-E services may 

be procured through the SBA's 8(a) Business Development Program. USACE may request 

the names of 8(a) firms from SBA or recommend qualified 8(a) firms to SBA for approval. 

A sufficient number of qualified 8(a) firms must be considered such that at least three firms 

are deemed most highly qualified to provide the required services in order to comply with the 

Brooks A-E Act. Firms present their qualifications using SF 330. The qualifications of 8(a) 

firms will be reviewed and documented by USACE in accordance with FAR 36.602. 

 d. Unusual and Compelling Urgency (FAR 5.202(a)(2) and 6.302-2). If the conditions 

in FAR 6.302-2 are met, public announcement is not required. However, as many firms as is 

practical under the circumstances should be identified using the process described in 

paragraph 3-15.a(1). Normal selection and approval procedures are followed. 

 e. Work Contracted and Performed Outside the United States (FAR 5.202(a)(12)). If 

the contract action is awarded and performed outside of the United States, public 

announcement is not required. Normal selection and approval procedures are followed. 

However, see the restriction in DFARS 236.602-70 on the award of overseas A-E contracts 

to foreign firms. 

 f. Medical Facilities. The Medical Facilities Center of Expertise (CEHNC-MX) is the 

primary technical authority for medical facility engineering and design management. For 

medical facilities funded by military construction appropriations, MSCs and districts will 

consult with CEHNC-MX on determination of the appropriate acquisition method, 

preparation of the synopsis and SOW for A-E services, and conduct of the preselection and 

selection boards. CEHNC-MX will usually participate in the preselection and selection 

boards for complex or high cost medical projects, and may participate in the selection board 

for other medical projects. 

 g. Design Competition (FAR 36.602-1(b)). The use of design competition shall be 

approved by HQUSACE (ATTN: CECW-CE). 

 h. Advance Selection Process. EFARS 36.602 (S-100) authorizes an advance A-E 

announcement and selection process if two or more A-E contracts for the same type of work 

are reasonably anticipated in a given period in a particular geographic area. Announcement 

and selection may be conducted prior to receiving specific authorization for any work of that 

type. Procedures for this process are provided in Appendix U. This process does not apply 

to ID contracts. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

3-15 

3-16. EP 715-1-4. This pamphlet describes the A-E contracting process in USACE and how 

firms may obtain consideration for contracts. This information is useful for firms seeking an 

A-E contract with USACE and should be widely distributed to the A-E community. 

EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

4-1 

CHAPTER 4 

NEGOTIATION AND AWARD 

4-1. Principles. 

 a. Contract negotiation is a team effort among properly trained and well-prepared 

personnel in engineering, contracting, counsel, project management and other appropriate 

functional elements. 

 b. Negotiation will be based on a thorough SOW that fully conveys the customer’s 

requirements and the pertinent technical criteria. 

 c. Negotiations will be conducted in a professional and sincere manner. 

 d. The primary objective in negotiation is to agree on a price which is fair and 

reasonable to the Government (not necessarily the lowest price) and gives the A-E firm 

sufficient financial incentive to produce quality services and products on schedule. 

4-2. Responsibilities. Commanders will ensure that personnel who negotiate A-E services 

are properly trained. 

4-3. Regulatory Basis. A-E contract negotiations will be primarily conducted in accordance 

with FAR 15.4, 36.605 and 36.606, and supplements thereto. 

4-4. Negotiation Team. 

 a. Team Members. 

 (1) A-E contract negotiation is a team effort among engineers, architects, contracting 

specialists, counsel, contract auditors (provide advisory support) and other specialists, under 

the authority of the KO who is solely responsible for the final price agreement (FAR 

15.405(a)). The negotiation team must collectively have a thorough knowledge and 

understanding of the A-E business community, the detailed project requirements, applicable 

technical criteria, and contracting policies. (In this pamphlet, “negotiators” means the 

members of the Government negotiation team.) 

 (2) There is no regulation that precludes a Government employee who sat on an 

evaluation board for an A-E contract from participating on the negotiation team for that 

contract. Also, there is no regulation that precludes a member of the negotiation team from 

participating in the administration of the contract. However, the KO may impose such 

restrictions if necessary to ensure the integrity of the system of checks and balances. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

4-2 

 b. Training. Engineers, architects and surveyors who are primary participants in A-E 

negotiations will have the following minimum contracting training: 

 (1) “Architect-Engineer Contracting,” PROSPECT course 004; or DAU course CON 

243 (same title). 

 (2) A course on basic Federal contracting, approved by the local Director/Chief of 

Contracting. 

 (3) A course on Government contract law, approved by the local Director/Chief of 

Contracting. 

4-5. Statement of Work. A thorough SOW is the basis for negotiating a fair and reasonable 

price, successful performance, and fair and effective administration of an A-E contract or 

task order. The SOW is included as Section C in the Uniform Contract Format (UCF; FAR 

15.204-1 and EFARS 15.204(a)). A SOW will typically include the following topics: 

 a. General responsibilities of the A-E firm. 

 b. Project description, including estimated construction cost (ECC), if relevant. 

 c. Scope of A-E services. 

 d. Schedule and deliverables. Refer to the most recent guidance from the Tri-Service 

CADD/GIS Technology Center on sample contract language for CADD and GIS 

deliverables. 

 e. Reviews and conferences. 

 f. Technical criteria and standards, including Government-furnished information. 

 g. Administrative instructions. 

 h. General provisions. 

Appendix V is an example statement of work for a task order. 

4-6. Request for Price Proposal. A firm will be notified by the KO or other authorized 

representative in writing (except for urgent situations) of its selection for negotiation of a 

contract action (contract, task order, or modification to a contract or task order) and 

requested to submit a price proposal (FAR 36.606(b)). Appendix W provides RFPP 

instructions. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

4-3 

4-7. Preproposal Conference. 

 a. General. When appropriate, a preproposal conference(s) may be held between the 

A-E firm and pertinent Government representatives to discuss and resolve questions 

concerning the contract requirements, SOW, and RFPP instructions. The project site may 

also be inspected if appropriate. An A-E firm’s costs for preparing proposals and attending 

preproposal conferences are normal costs of doing business and are included in a firm’s 

overhead rate. A firm is not compensated for attending a preproposal conference unless the 

firm performs work of tangible benefit to the Government in connection with the conference, 

and the work is properly authorized in advance by the KO. 

 b. Contract Requirements. At the preproposal conference or at some other time early in 

the negotiation period, the Government will discuss the following contract requirements with the 

A-E firm and document these discussions in the price negotiation memorandum (PNM): 

 (1) Performance evaluation process (FAR 36.604, EFARS 36.604 and Chapter 6 of this 

pamphlet). 

 (2) Liability for Government costs resulting from design errors or deficiencies (FAR 

36.608, 36.609-2, and 52.236-23, and Chapter 7 of this pamphlet). 

 (3) Design within funding limitations (FAR 36.609-1 and 52.236-22), when applicable. 

 (4) Registration of designers (FAR 36.609-4 and 52.236-25), when applicable. 

 

 (5) Payments (FAR 32.111(d)(1) and 52.232-10, and paragraph 5-7 of this pamphlet). 

 (6) Subcontractors and Outside Associates and Consultants (Architect-Engineer 

Services) (FAR 36.606(e), 44.204(b) and 52.244-4)15. 

 (7) Subcontracting plan requirements and reporting if the A-E firm is a large business 

and the contract is over $500,000 (see paragraphs 4-15 and 5-8). 

 15 The prime A-E firm must obtain the KO’s consent to change any subcontractors that 

were identified during selection and negotiation. The KO should refer the qualifications of 

any new subcontractor to the original selection board (to the extent that these individuals 

are available) for evaluation. The KO and negotiators may and should strongly encourage 

contractors to use a qualification-based selection process like the Brooks A-E Act instead 

of bidding when selecting subcontractors for professional services. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

4-4 

4-8. Partnering. 

 a. General. Partnering is the development and sustainment of a relationship that promotes 

achievement of mutually beneficial goals. See ER 1110-1-12 for additional guidance on 

partnering, including a sample partnering agreement. If a formal partnering agreement is desired 

by the Government and/or the A-E firm, it should be discussed during negotiations. However, 

partnering is voluntary and does not begin until after contract award. 

 b. Costs. Since it is voluntary, a firm is not directly compensated for partnering on its 

contract. Typically, the Government and the A-E firm share the costs of partnering, with the 

A-E firm absorbing its costs in its overhead. However, an A-E firm may be compensated for 

participating in partnering meetings during construction when the firm’s attendance is 

necessary to discuss the design intent, procedures for responding to the construction 

contractor’s questions on the drawings and specifications, scheduling considerations, or 

similar project issues. Partnering meetings should be scheduled concurrently with required 

meetings to minimize costs. 

4-9. Service Contract Act (SCA). The SCA (FAR 22.10) applies to an A-E contract if the 

SOW involves the use of service employees (such as drilling and survey crews, clerks, 

CADD operators, photographers, and laboratory technicians) to a significant or substantial 

extent. If the SCA applies, a wage determination (WD) must be obtained from the US 

Department of Labor (DoL) for the service employees anticipated in the contract. In most 

cases, the WD may be obtained electronically from DoL’s Wage Determinations Online 

website (see Appendix F) by the contract specialist. The WD must be provided to the firm 

for use in preparing its proposal. The proposed labor rates and benefits for service 

employees must be at least equal to the WD. For surveying and mapping contracts, the WD 

for the location of the performing office of the prime contractor and any subcontractors shall 

be used instead for the WD for the location of the work16. 

4-10. Independent Government Estimate (IGE). In accordance with FAR 36.605(a), an IGE 

is required for each A-E contract action expected to exceed $100,000 (total absolute value of 

all elements of the action, including credits). An informal or working estimate is 

recommended for actions of $100,000 or less. An IGE will be prepared and approved in 

accordance with the procedures in Appendices X and Y. Disclosure of the IGE will comply 

with FAR 36.605(b). This requirement also applies to task orders. 

4-11. Fact-Finding Sessions. The negotiators may hold fact-finding sessions (FAR 15.406-

1(a)) with a firm after receiving its price proposal and prior to negotiations. The purpose of 

 16 In accordance with CIR Information Letter No. 96-3, CECC-L, 26 July 1996, subject: 

Service Contract Act Wage Determinations Relating to Surveying and Mapping Services. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

4-5 

fact-finding is to obtain information to better understand the proposal and its assumptions, 

and to clarify any ambiguities, omissions or uncertainties in the RFPP and SOW apparent 

after review of the proposal. After fact-finding, a revised proposal may be requested. 

Detailed proposal analysis or audit should not be performed until a conforming proposal (a 

proposal that properly reflects the SOW and complies with the RFPP instructions) is 

received. No negotiation will take place during fact-finding; that is, the Government will not 

state its bargaining position or objectives during fact-finding. 

4-12. Proposal Analysis and Prenegotiation Objectives. 

 a. Proposal Analysis. An A-E proposal will be analyzed in accordance with FAR 

15.404 and Appendix Z. Proposal analysis includes technical analysis, price analysis and 

cost analysis. 

 b. Audit. An audit should be considered for the cases listed in DFARS 215.404-

2(a)(i)17, and this consideration documented in the PNM. An audit is appropriate if the 

available information is inadequate to determine the reasonableness of the proposed price 

(FAR 15.404-2(a)). The Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) is the cognizant audit 

agency for most USACE contracts. 

 c. Prenegotiation Objectives (PNO). 

 (1) PNO are developed after a proposal has been analyzed. The PNO are the pertinent 

negotiation issues and the cost and profit objectives (FAR 15.406-1). The numerical 

objectives will be shown in a tabular comparison with the corresponding elements of the 

proposal, IGE, and audit (if available). Keyed to the numerical objectives will be a 

discussion of the significant differences among the IGE, audit (if performed), PNO and 

proposal, and the issues to be covered during the negotiations. The PNO may be organized 

by phase of work, task, discipline, or other appropriate manner. The PNO are documented in 

a Prenegotiation Objective Memorandum (POM) which includes the significant details of the 

contracting action and the course of action the negotiators intend to pursue (AFARS 

5115.406-1(b)). 

 17 Also consider an audit for an ID contract where the total contract amount, including all 

option periods, exceeds the pertinent threshold in DFARS 215.404-2(a)(i) for the 

anticipated type of task order (fixed-price or cost-reimbursement). 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

4-6 

 (2) The review and approval of the POM will be in accordance with local procedures 

and at the lowest practicable level appropriate for the complexity, risk and dollar value of the 

contract action. Local procedures may exempt the review and approval of POM for small or 

routine actions. 

4-13. Negotiation of FFP Contracts. 

 a. Conduct of Negotiations. Negotiations should be conducted in an atmosphere of 

professionalism, patience, and trust. The KO will assign appropriate responsibilities to the 

team members according to their expertise and maintain overall positive control of the 

negotiations. The negotiation team must be fully prepared and know what flexibility there is 

in the Government position. The negotiators must focus on the pertinent issues and be 

willing to adjust the Government's position when appropriate. 

 b. Statement of Work. 

 (1) General. The Government and A-E firm should have a common understanding of 

the SOW before discussing effort and price. The negotiators must ensure that the firm is 

proposing to use personnel and procedures appropriate for the required work. The 

negotiators must know if there is any flexibility in the SOW requirements, including the 

performance schedule. It might be possible to reach agreement if one or more items in the 

SOW are modified or deleted, or provided by the Government. 

 (2) Construction Cost. The ECC must be included in the SOW. For a contract 

involving design, agreement must be reached on the ECC of the project because it directly 

impacts compliance with the 6 percent statutory limitation (paragraph 4-13.c(3)) and the 

Design within Funding Limitation clause (paragraph 4-7.b(3)). The A-E firm must submit 

evidence of any perceived deficiencies in the Government cost estimate before the 

Government agrees to any adjustment to the ECC. 

 c. Price. Bottom-line price agreement is the primary negotiation objective. However, 

the negotiators should make a bottom-line price offer only as a final attempt to reach 

agreement after there is a common understanding of the SOW. The negotiators should not be 

preoccupied with any single cost item (such as labor hours, labor rates, overhead rates or 

profit) since agreement on every item is not required to reach overall price agreement (FAR 

15.405(a) and (b)). Conversely, final agreement does not indicate agreement on all elements 

of the proposal. Significant items affecting price agreement must be discussed in accordance 

with the PNO. The negotiators should not place themselves in a position where they are 

defending the Government’s position. Rather, a firm should be requested to explain and 

support its proposal and to offer appropriate revisions. Significant elements in price 

negotiation are discussed below. 

 (1) Labor and Overhead Costs. 

 (a) Position classifications and labor hours will be evaluated in the technical analysis 

(Appendix Z). Labor rates will be examined by audit or review of payroll records and 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

4-7 

evaluated for reasonableness. Overhead costs will be reviewed, which may include an audit, 

for allowability in accordance with FAR 31.2. The review will address the allocability of 

overhead costs to the contract, the acceptability of specific costs according to FAR 31.205, 

conformance with accounting standards (FAR 30), and reasonableness. 

 (b) Labor and overhead rates are negotiable. The reasonableness of labor and overhead 

rates will be evaluated by comparison with relevant market surveys (Appendix Y) and 

similar recent proposals (FAR 15.404-1(c)). When assessing reasonableness, a firm’s costs 

should be compared to efficient, competitive firms in the same class (see Appendix X, 

paragraph 6.a). Verification of the actuality of labor rates and overhead rates, such as by 

audit, does not necessarily mean that they are reasonable. Also, firms can properly allocate 

costs in different ways. Hence, overhead rates, labor rates and the assignment of costs as 

direct or overhead must be considered together to fairly evaluate reasonableness. 

 (c) Accordingly, the PNO for labor rates and overhead rates shall not be based upon 

arbitrary caps. If labor rates and/or overhead rates are so high as to make the total price 

unreasonable, the negotiators should first seek justifiable reductions in the judgmental 

elements of the proposal (such as labor hours and position classifications) before negotiating 

the labor rates and overhead rates. 

 (2) Profit. It is in the Government's interest to negotiate sufficient profit to stimulate 

efficient contract performance and to attract the best qualified firms (FAR 15.404-4(a)(2) and 

(3)). Profit must not be negotiated until all costs have been agreed to. The negotiators 

should be primarily concerned with the total dollar amount of proposed profit, and not the 

method or rationale used by the firm to estimate profit for itself and any subcontractors (FAR 

15.404-4(c)(5)). The profit method for A-E contracts in EFARS 15.404-73-101 is only used 

in preparing the Government estimate of a fair and reasonable price. 

A firm is not required to compute its profit by this method. Profit should be allowed on all 

costs, including travel and reproduction. 

 (3) Statutory Limitation. The portion of the contract price for A-E services for the 

preparation of designs, plans, drawings and specifications may not exceed 6 percent of the 

project’s ECC (FAR 15.404-4(c)(4)(i)(B) and 36.606(a), and DFARS 236.606-70). This 

limitation is statutory (10 U.S.C. 4540(b)). EFARS 36.606-70(c) provides examples of 

services that may be excluded from the A-E contract price when determining compliance 

with the statutory limitation. These examples will be used as a guide in determining other 

types of services that may be excluded. Preparation of the construction cost estimate is not 

excluded.18 The 6 percent statutory limitation does not apply to a design-build contract, but 

does apply to an A-E contract for developing a design-build solicitation. 

 18 Preparation of the cost estimate is an integral part of "producing and delivering designs, 

plans, drawings and specifications" and is therefore, subject to the 6 percent limitation. 

The mandatory Design within Funding Limitation Clause (FAR 52.236-22) requires an 

A-E firm to design a project within the construction budget. The estimate must be prepared 

coincident with the construction documents to guide the selection of materials, 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

4-8 

 d. Acceptance or Termination of Negotiations. If agreement is reached, the firm will be 

advised not to begin work until directed by the KO. If agreement can not be reached, the firm 

will be requested to submit its best and final offer in writing (FAR 36.606(f)) within a reasonable 

time. If the firm does not submit a final offer in the stated time, its last written proposal will be 

used as the final offer. No further discussions will be held with a firm if its final offer is not 

completely acceptable. The firm will be sent a brief letter stating that negotiations are 

terminated. A POM will be prepared documenting the unsuccessful negotiations and be 

approved by the KO. Negotiations may then begin with the next ranked firm. To preclude 

complaint or protest by the unsuccessful firm, no significant changes should be made in the 

SOW during negotiations with the next firm. 

 e. Modifications. The negotiation of modifications generally follows the same 

procedures as the negotiation of contracts in accordance with FAR Part 43. 

4-14. Negotiation of ID Contracts. The negotiation of an ID contract is similar to a FFP 

contract, however the negotiation of total prices pertains only to the task orders issued under 

an ID contract. Agreement on labor rates and overhead rates is the central issue in the 

negotiation of an ID contract. 

 a. Labor and Overhead Rates. 

 (1) Labor and overhead rates will be evaluated similar to a FFP contract. Negotiation 

should concentrate on the important position classifications anticipated to be used in the 

contract. A specific hourly or daily rate must be negotiated for each position classification, 

and a common understanding reached on the type of work that each level of employee will 

do. 

 (2) Disagreement over the labor rate for a certain position classification might be 

resolved by the use of additional classification levels (such as three experience levels for an 

architect instead of one), or by adjusting the proportion of time of individual employees with 

different labor rates which comprise that classification. Also, disagreement over labor and/or 

overhead rates may be resolved by negotiating composite labor and overhead rates. Rates or 

a method for determining rates, such as reference to Engineering News-Record cost indices 

or the DoL Employment Cost Index (website in Appendix F), for all contract option periods 

must also be negotiated. Further, for contract periods longer than one year, consider 

including a pre-determined method for adjusting the rates periodically to account for 

inflation. 

 

components, and systems and keep the project within budget. Hence, the estimate is a 

necessary and integral part of the design process, and is not excludable. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

4-9 

 b. Travel. The schedule of negotiated contract rates will include unit costs for all 

anticipated travel items such as vehicle cost per mile or day and per diem for certain 

locations of work. For travel that can not be anticipated, the contract may include a 

statement that travel costs will be computed in accordance with FAR 31.205-46. 

 c. Other Direct Costs. A unit cost or price should be negotiated for all anticipated 

supplies (such as survey monuments) or support services (such as soils tests or computer 

use). Unit costs or prices may also be negotiated for specific types of services, such as a 

daily rate for a survey crew or per acre rate for a topographic survey. 

 d. Profit. Profit will usually be negotiated for each task order under an ID contract. 

However, a standard profit rate for all task orders may be established in an ID contract if all 

orders will be very similar in nature, complexity, risk, price, and performance period. 

In either case, the profit rate will be applied to the total of the prime firm’s costs and any 

subcontractors’ costs (without profit) to avoid unreasonable layering of profit (i.e., no profit 

on profit). Profit should be allowed on all costs, including travel and reproduction. 

 e. Acceptance or Termination of Negotiations. Agreement on every rate, such as labor, 

overhead, or travel, is not necessary. The negotiators should consider the impact of specific 

rates on the prices of typical task orders anticipated under the contract. The rates for certain 

classifications (such as a principal) may exceed the PNO but may not be significant costs in 

typical task orders. If the final offer is not acceptable, negotiations will be terminated similar 

to a FFP contract. 

 f. Task Orders. 

 (1) The negotiation of a FFP task order is very similar to a FFP contract, except that the 

labor rates, overhead rates, and certain other unit costs or prices (and maybe profit) are already 

fixed in the ID contract. Also, there is a limitation in an ID contract on the cumulative amount of 

all orders that must be considered, and possibly a limitation on the price of individual task 

orders. Negotiation typically concerns the quantity and mix of various position classifications. 

A task order may be modified, have options, or include work involving minor cost elements that 

are not in the contract rate schedule. 

 (2) The SOW of a task order must be within the scope of the ID contract (FAR 

16.505(a)(2)). 

For any task order over $500,000, the contract file must be documented to justify why a task 

order was used instead of publicly announcing the requirement (EFARS 36.601-3-90(c)). 

The reasons should relate to the basic reasons for using an ID contract in EFARS 16.501(S103)(a). Also, the contract file must be documented to justify the basis for issuing a task 

order under a particular ID contract when the order could have been issued under more than 

one ID contract (EFARS 16.505(b)(1)). Price cannot be considered. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

4-10 

4-15. Subcontracting Plan. A Small Business Subcontracting Plan is required for any A-E 

contract over $500,000 (including any options) with a large business if there are subcontracting 

possibilities (FAR 19.702, 19.704, 19.705-2 and 52.219-8). See Appendix J for further details. 

The subcontracting plan is an element of the negotiation process and is made a part of the 

contract. A change in subcontractors from those proposed on the SF 330 must be approved by 

the KO (FAR 44.201-1(c)); see paragraph 4-7(b)(6)). 

4-16. Price Negotiation Memorandum. The negotiators will complete the PNM (FAR 

15.406-3 and supplements thereto) promptly after concluding negotiations. A PNM will 

discuss the principal elements of the negotiation. The PNM will demonstrate that the final 

accepted price complies with the 6 percent statutory limitation, if applicable. If an audit was 

performed, the PNM will discuss any deviations from the audit recommendations in the final 

negotiated price. A PNM shall be prepared, reviewed and approved in accordance with local 

procedures (EFARS 15.406-3(a)). Ordinarily, review and approval of a PNM should be 

concurrent with the review and approval of the final contract instrument. 

4-17. Preaward Survey. The selection process addresses the technical capability, production 

resources and quality assurance methods of the firm. Hence, a short-form preaward survey 

report (only SF 1403, Preaward Survey of Prospective Contractor (General)) in accordance 

with FAR 9.106-4(d) is typically adequate. The preaward survey can be initiated after 

selection approval to avoid delaying award of a contract. The main emphasis of the 

preaward survey should be checking the financial capability of the firm through Dunn and 

Bradsteet reports, statements from the firm’s bank, annual financial statements, or other 

appropriate means. Also, a contractor must be registered in the Central Contractor 

Registration (CCR) to be eligible for a contract (FAR 4.1102(a)). 

4-18. Contract Preparation and Award. 

 a. General. An A-E contract will be prepared using the uniform contract format in 

FAR 15.204.1, using SF 252, “Architect-Engineer Contract,” as the cover sheet (FAR 

36.702(a)). The contract may state a notice to proceed (NTP) date or the KO may send a 

separate NTP letter after contract award. If a contract is executed by mail, the KO should 

sign the contract after it has been signed by the contractor (FAR 4.101). However, if the 

action is urgent, an award letter (Appendix M) can be used, which also serves as the NTP. 

 b. ID Contracts. In order to satisfy the minimum contract quantity (EFARS 16.504, the 

best practice is to issue the first task order using project funds at the same time the ID 

contract is awarded. If the first task order is not issued simultaneously with award of the ID 

contract, then the minimum quantity shall be obligated19 at the time of contract award using 

 

19 Immediately upon award of a task order(s) in sufficient amount to satisfy the minimum 

quantity, the KO must deobligate the funds used to award the ID contract. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

4-11 

project funds, if the contract is customer-specific, or using the appropriate departmental 

overhead or revolving funds, if the contract serves many customers. 

4-19. Task Order Issuance. IDC task orders are prepared using DD Form 1155, Order for 

Supplies or Services (DFARS 216.506). A DD Form 1155 for an ID contract task order need 

only be signed by the KO or ordering officer. The DD Form 1155 is a NTP. 

4-20. NAF Contracts. AR 215-4 specifies the general procedures for NAF contracting. The 

FAR and its supplements, including the 6 percent statutory limitation, do not apply. 

Otherwise, the negotiation of an A-E contract for an NAF project should generally comply 

with this pamphlet. 

4-21. Continuing Contract Clauses. The continuing contracts clauses allow for incremental 

funding of civil works water resource projects. The continuing contracts clause prescribed at 

EFARS 32.705-100(a), and found at 52.232-5001, is appropriate for use in A-E contracts, 

including ID contracts, for civil works water resource projects that have been specifically 

authorized by legislation. The alternate continuing contracts clause prescribed at EFARS 

32.705-100(b), and found at 52.232-5002, is appropriate for use in A-E contracts, including ID 

contracts, for civil works projects under the continuing authorities program (ER 1105-2-100). 

Under both clauses, each increment of funding should produce a deliverable, such as a required 

interim submittal. 

EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

5-1 

CHAPTER 5 

CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT 

5-1. Introduction. This chapter addresses certain, but not all, aspects of A-E contract 

administration and management. Chapters 6 and 7 address in detail two other very important 

aspects of A-E contract administration - evaluating performance and enforcing design 

responsibility, respectively. 

5-2. Principles. 

 a. A-E contracts will be proactively managed to ensure the timely delivery of quality 

products and services. 

 b. A-E firms will be treated fairly and professionally. 

5-3. General. The administration and management of an A-E contract is a team effort 

among the KO, contract specialist, contracting officer’s representative (COR) and other 

technical personnel, the PM, and others. The primary functions in administrating and 

managing an A-E contract are: 

 a. Monitoring the A-E firm’s performance, ensuring compliance with the contract, and 

enforcing the responsibility of the firm for the quality of its work. 

 b. Ensuring the firm has an adequate quality control process, and reviewing the A-E 

products for conformance with the technical requirements of the contract. 

 c. Evaluating the firm’s performance. 

 d. Maintaining liaison and direct communications with the A-E firm, and promptly 

resolving any questions and issues that may arise. 

 e. Providing required Government-furnished information and materials, and arranging 

access to work areas. 

 f. Paying the firm in a timely manner for satisfactorily completed work. 

 g. Modifying the contract as required accommodating changes in requirements. 

 h. Closing out the contract. 

5-4. Contracting Officer’s Representative. 

 a. The appointment and responsibilities of a COR are described in DFARS 201.602-2. 

A COR assists the KO with technical monitoring and administration of the contract. A COR 

must have the training listed in paragraph 4-4.b as well as any other training specified by the 

KO, and have considerable experience in contract administration. There is no regulation 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

5-2 

which precludes a Government employee that participated in the evaluation boards for and/or 

negotiation of an A-E contract from being a COR on that contract. However, the KO may 

impose such restrictions if necessary to ensure the integrity of the system of checks and 

balances. 

 b. A COR may be in any organizational element20 as long as the COR is in a position to 

directly monitor an A-E firm’s performance and the system of checks and balances is 

maintained. During construction, an appropriate, qualified person in the field office may be 

appointed as COR for an A-E contract, especially if the A-E firm is required to provide 

certain construction phase services21. 

5-5. Quality Management. The quality management procedures, practices and tools in ER 

1110-1-12 will be employed to ensure that the A-E firm delivers excellent engineering and 

design services and products to the customer on schedule and within budget. 

5-6. ID Contracts. 

 a. Management of Contract Limitation. An ID contract is typically used by more than 

one organizational unit. Hence, a process must be established for all ID contracts to reserve 

an estimated amount for a planned task order and to track the actual prices of orders to 

ensure the limit for the contract or contract period (if applicable) is not exceeded. 

 b. Contract Limitations. See EFARS 36.601-3-90 regarding limitations on the amount 

and duration of A-E ID contracts, and waivers thereof. See EFARS 16.5 on general guidance 

for ID contracts, and paragraph 4-18.b regarding the minimum quantity. 

 c. Ordering. See EFARS 16.505(b)(1). When two or more ID contracts contain the 

same or overlapping scopes of work (including, but not necessarily, multiple award 

contracts) so that a particular task order might be issued under more than one contract, the 

contract file must be documented to show the basis for selecting a particular contractor for 

negotiation of a task order. 

 d. Installation Use of ID Contracts. When authorized by a USACE command, 

installations may use USACE A-E ID contracts (AFARS 5136.600-90 and EFARS 36.601-3-

90(i)). Qualified public works personnel may be appointed as COR to administer orders. 

 20 For example, a PM may be a COR, depending on local practices. 

21 Construction phase services include, for example, design modifications to accommodate 

unforeseen site conditions or criteria changes, review of contractor value engineering 

change proposals, site visits to evaluate the acceptability of completed construction or 

monitor certain tests, review of shop drawings, and assistance with commissioning. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

5-3 

Also, if mutually agreed between USACE and the installation, an installation KO may be 

appointed as an ordering officer to issue task orders. In any case, the USACE KO shall 

provide written instructions to the installation KO and facilities engineering personnel 

regarding the limitations and procedures for the negotiation, issuance and administration of 

task orders. These instructions will address USACE and installation responsibilities, and 

include: 

 (1) SOW preparation. 

 (2) Requirements for preparation of an IGE (FAR and EFARS 36.605, and Appendix 

X). 

 (3) Negotiation procedures, including compliance with the 6 percent statutory 

limitation (DFARS 236.606-70). Also indicate that any failure to reach agreement must be 

referred to the USACE KO. 

 (4) Preparation of the DD Form 1155. 

 (5) Funding and payments. 

 (6) Requirement for design within the construction funding limitations (FAR 36.609-

1). 

 (7) Enforcing the responsibility and liability of the A-E firm for design errors or 

deficiencies (FAR 36.608 and 36.609-2, and Chapter 7). 

 (8) Resolution of disputes. 

 (9) Preparation of performance evaluation (FAR and EFARS 36.604, and Chapter 6). 

 (10) Contract documentation. 

5-7. Payments. 

 a. FAR 52.232-10 is the payment clause for A-E contracts. The payment clause and 

process should be discussed with an A-E firm during negotiations. The clause allows for 

monthly progress payments. The contract (typically under Section G, Contract 

Administration Data) should specify the format of the payment request (typically ENG Form 

93, Payment Estimate - Contractor Performance is used) and any required supporting data, 

such as a written description of the work completed in the payment period, a bar chart of 

work progress, and example work products. Payments are by electronic funds transfer in 

accordance with the Debt Collection Act of 1996, and must be made promptly in accordance 

with FAR 52.232-26, Prompt Payment for Fixed-Price A-E Contracts. Generally, payment 

must be made within 30 days after receipt of a proper invoice from a contractor. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

5-4 

 b. The PM, COR and/or other technical staff may also visit the A-E firm’s office to 

verify progress. The COR will reduce the payment estimate, if warranted, to conform to the 

actual satisfactory progress and promptly notify the A-E firm in accordance with the prompt 

payment clause (FAR 52.232-26). Typically, the KO delegates the authority to approve 

progress payments to the COR. However, the KO usually approves the final payment. 

 c. The payment clause allows for up to 10 percent of an approved progress payment to 

be retained to protect the interests of the Government. However, retainage should not be 

automatically withheld from each payment if the PM and COR is certain of the progress and 

the quality of the completed work. Retainage should not be held in an amount greater than, 

or for a period longer than, absolutely needed to protect the Government. All retainage 

should be paid when discrete phases of the project are satisfactorily completed. Retainage 

shall never be applied in a punitive manner. Also see the guidance in FAR 32.103 which is 

equally applicable to A-E contracts. 

5-8. Subcontract Reporting. A contractor must report semiannually on its progress in 

complying with the subcontracting goals agreed to in the subcontracting plan using SF 294, 

Subcontracting Report for Individual Contracts, and SF 295, Summary Subcontract Report 

(FAR Clause 52.219-9). The contract administration team must ensure that the A-E firm 

makes a good faith effort to comply with the subcontracting plan and submits the required 

reports to the KO in a timely manner. Compliance with the subcontracting plan is an 

attribute on the A-E performance evaluation form. A contractor may be assessed liquidated 

damages for not complying with its subcontracting plan. 

5-9. Resolving Performance Problems. Proactive day-to-day oversight of an A-E contract 

by the PM, COR and/or other technical staff, including frequent communications with the 

firm, will prevent most A-E performance problems. However, the A-E firm must be 

promptly advised whenever its performance is marginal or unsatisfactory22. If performance 

continues to be marginal or unsatisfactory, the Government shall take stronger action to 

improve the firm’s performance. The following methods, in general order of increasing 

impact and severity, should be used to resolve A-E performance problems. 

 a. Verbal notice to the firm by the COR. Document in the contract file. (The COR 

should keep the KO informed on any corrective action.) 

 b. Letter to the firm from the COR citing specific deficiencies and required corrective 

action. 

 22 This pamphlet is based on the April 1999 edition of DD Form 2631, Performance 

Evaluation (Architect-Engineer), which replaced the November 1992 edition. The new 

overall ratings are “exceptional,” “very good,” “satisfactory,” “marginal” and 

“unsatisfactory.” The 1992 edition of the form had corresponding overall ratings of 

“excellent,” “above average,” “average,” “below average” and “poor.” 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

5-5 

 c. Meeting between the firm and the COR and possibly PM. Document in the contract 

file. 

 d. Meeting between the firm and the Chief of Engineering. Inform the firm that an 

interim “marginal” or “unsatisfactory” performance evaluation will be prepared if its 

performance does not promptly improve, and that this evaluation could affect its selection for 

other contracts. Document in the contract file. 

 e. An interim “marginal” or “unsatisfactory” performance evaluation in accordance 

with the procedures in Chapter 6. 

 f. Meeting between the firm and the KO and PM and/or COR. Document in the 

contract file. 

 g. A “cure” notice to the firm from the KO (FAR 49.402-3(c) and (d)). The cure notice 

must cite the specific deficiencies, required corrective actions, and suspense date. 

 h. A “show” cause notice to the firm from the KO (FAR 49.402-3(e)), notifying the 

firm of the possibility of termination. 

 i. A final "marginal" or “unsatisfactory” performance evaluation. 

 j. Termination for default (FAR 49.4), which shall always be accompanied by a final 

“unsatisfactory” performance evaluation. 

Also, see Chapter 7 regarding an A-E firm's responsibility for errors or deficiencies in design 

or other services discovered after completion of the contract work. 

5-10. Contract Closeout. 

 a. An A-E contract must be closed out promptly after satisfactory completion and 

delivery of all required services and products. However, in the case of an A-E contract for 

the design of a particular construction project, A-E services are often required during the 

construction period that cannot be definitively anticipated or priced when the contract is 

awarded (or even when the design is completed). The A-E contract should typically remain 

open to readily accommodate these potential changes. 

 b. In order to preserve the Government’s ability to add work during the construction 

period that can not be quantified or priced at the time of the award of the original contract, 

the synopsis and the scope of an A-E contract for the design of a particular project should 

include a statement that additional work is contemplated (list the types of possible services 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

5-6 

such as in the footnote 2) during the construction period and may be added pursuant to the 

Changes clause (FAR 52.243-1, Alternate III). It is not acceptable to withhold earned 

payment from a firm as a means to keep the contract open. 

 c. FAR 4.804 provides general procedures for contract closeout. For an A-E contract, 

the following additional actions are required: 

 (1) All liability actions resolved. 

 (2) Performance evaluation(s) prepared, approved and distributed. 

 (3) Return of all Government-furnished materials. 

 (4) .Release of claims executed. 

 (5) Final SFs 294 and 295. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

6-1 

CHAPTER 6 

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 

6-1. Principles. 

 a. Accurate and timely performance evaluations support the USACE objective of 

continuously improving the quality of A-E services and products. 

 b. The performance of A-E firms shall be evaluated fairly and objectively. Ratings are 

ultimately the decision of the Government and are not subject to negotiation with A-E firms. 

However, overall ratings23 of "marginal" and "unsatisfactory" may be rebutted by A-E firms 

in accordance with the procedures herein. 

 c. A-E firms shall be kept apprised of the quality of their work throughout contract 

performance and shall promptly be notified of completed performance evaluations. 

6-2. Responsibilities. 

 a. The Chief of Engineering in each operating command24 is responsible for the A-E 

performance evaluation process in the command. 

 b. Area engineers and resident engineers (AE/RE) are responsible for preparing A-E 

evaluations after the completion of USACE-managed construction projects. 

6-3. Regulatory Background. This pamphlet implements25: 

 a. FAR 36.604, which requires that the performance of A-E contractors be evaluated 

and that files of performance evaluations be maintained for use in selecting firms for A-E 

contracts, 

 23 This pamphlet is based on the April 1999 edition of DD Form 2631, Performance 

Evaluation (Architect-Engineer), which replaced the November 1992 edition. The new 

overall ratings are “exceptional,” “very good,” “satisfactory,” “marginal” and 

“unsatisfactory.” The 1992 edition of the form had corresponding overall ratings of 

“excellent,” “above average,” “average,” “below average” and “poor.” 

24 See definition in paragraph 2-2.a. 

25 FAR Subpart 42.15, and the supplements thereto, addresses recording and maintaining 

contractor performance information, but, by its terms, do not apply to A-E services. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

6-2 

 b. DFARS 236.604, which requires a separate performance evaluation after completion 

of construction and specifies that all DoD agencies forward completed evaluations to the 

“central data base” maintained by USACE (ACASS), and 

 c. EFARS 36.604, which amplifies certain requirements of the FAR and DFARS. 

6-4. General Procedures. 

 a. Implementation. The Chief of Engineering will establish written procedures, 

including a tracking system, to ensure the timely preparation, approval and distribution of all 

required A-E evaluations in accordance with this pamphlet. (A recommended process is to 

coordinate completion of the performance evaluation with processing of the final payment.) 

A-E evaluations shall be scheduled events in the management plan for a project. 

 b. Contracts Requiring Performance Evaluation. Performance evaluations are required 

for all contracts26 and task orders for A-E services in excess of $25,000, but may be prepared 

for lesser contracts (FAR 36.604 (a)). Design services provided under a design-build 

contract are not given an A-E performance evaluation and are not subject to this pamphlet. 

Instead, the quality of the design services in a design-build contract will be addressed in the 

remarks section on the construction performance evaluation form (DD Form 2626). Do not 

do an after-construction evaluation of an A-E firm who prepared a design-build request for 

proposal with a partial design. 

 c. Preparation of Evaluations. 

 (1) A performance evaluation shall be prepared by the engineers, architects and other 

technical personnel who reviewed and accepted the A-E firm's work, as recommended by 

FAR 36.604 (a)(1). Sufficient effort must be devoted to this function so that thorough and 

fair evaluations are completed in a timely manner. Additional guidance is also available in 

the ACASS Policy Manual at the CPARS web site, 

http://cpars.navy.mil/cparsfiles/acass/acassref.htm. 

 (2) Performance evaluations (except marginal or unsatisfactory) shall be prepared, 

reviewed, approved and distributed within 60 days of the designated milestones in 

paragraphs 6-7 and 6-8. Additional time will generally be required for evaluations with an 

overall rating of “marginal” or “unsatisfactory” if rebutted by the A-E firm (see paragraph 6-

10). Do not wait for fiscal close-out of the contract to do the evaluation. 

 d. Evaluation Form. Performance evaluations shall be prepared on DD Form 2631 

(DFARS 236.604(a)) in accordance with the instructions in Appendix AA. 

 26 Exclusive of ID contracts, which are evaluated on the basis of individual task orders. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

6-3 

 e. ACASS. 

 (1) Performance evaluations shall be prepared in the Architect-Engineer Contract 

Administration Support System (ACASS) sub-module of the Contractor Performance 

Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), at http://www.cpars.navy.mil. The Chief of 

Engineering of each operating command shall appoint an individual to serve as the “Focal 

Point” for the system. The Focal Point shall be responsible for assigning access to 

individuals for contracts to be evaluated. Each contract will have the following individuals 

assigned as a minimum: An Assessing Official, a Reviewing Official (the Chief of 

Engineering), and a Contractor Representative from the A-E firm. 

 (2) The Assessing Official (or his/her representative) will prepare the evaluation 

electronically. After the evaluation is prepared but before it is signed, the system 

automatically routes the evaluation to the Contractor Representative for inclusion of remarks 

in the evaluation. After the Contractor Representative prepares the remarks (or after 30 days 

if he/she does not respond), the system notifies the Assessing Official who will electronically 

sign the evaluation. It is then automatically sent to the Reviewing Official for approval and 

electronic signature. 

 (3) Firms automatically receive e-mail notification upon completion of evaluations 

prepared within ACASS, and may retrieve the evaluation from ACASS, or the Past 

Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), at http://www.ppirs.gov, by using their 

Dun & Bradstreet (DUNS) number and the Marketing Partner Identification Number (MPIN) 

to access their information. The MPIN number is selected when the firm registers in the 

Central Contractor Registry (CCR). Additional information about the MPIN number is 

available at the following CCR link: http://www.ccr.gov/vendor.asp#4.5. 

 

 (4) When extenuating circumstances require that evaluations be posted directly to 

ACASS as completed evaluations, rather than utilizing the electronic process described 

above, it is the responsibility of the operating command27 administering the contract to either 

forward a copy of the completed evaluation to the firm, or notify the firm that they can view 

the evaluation in the PPIRS. 

 f. Assignment of Overall Ratings. The overall rating is based on the ratings in the 

discipline and attribute matrices. While this is a matter of judgment, general guidance is 

given below to promote uniformity. 

 (1) "Exceptional.” All or almost all of the significant disciplines and attributes are 

rated "exceptional." No discipline or attribute should be “marginal” or "unsatisfactory." 

 27 See definition in paragraph 2-2.a. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

6-4 

 (2) "Very Good." A majority of the significant disciplines and attributes are rated 

"exceptional" or “very good.” No significant discipline or attribute should be “marginal” or 

"unsatisfactory." 

 (3) "Satisfactory." No significant discipline or attribute should be "unsatisfactory." 

Quality of final work is acceptable in an overall sense; however, it may have been necessary 

to get the firm to correct some unacceptable work. 

 (4) "Marginal." One or two significant disciplines or attributes are rated 

"unsatisfactory," or all or almost disciplines or attributes are rated “marginal.” An unusual 

amount of extra effort and follow-up on the part of the Government was required in order to 

get an acceptable product. 

 (5) "Unsatisfactory." Several significant disciplines and attributes are rated 

"unsatisfactory." This rating is appropriate for a firm that does not produce acceptable work 

despite extensive effort by the Government. This rating is required for all contracts 

terminated for default. 

 g. Remarks. The remarks in Item 20 of the DD Form 2631 should support and be 

compatible with the overall rating. A rating of “marginal” or “unsatisfactory” must be fully 

explained in the remarks. Also, the remarks should not suggest that the firm really did 

“marginal” work when the overall rating is “satisfactory.” 

 h. Safeguarding Evaluations. Completed A-E performance evaluations are classified as 

"For Official Use Only" in accordance with AR 25-55. All pages of the evaluation shall be 

stamped or marked at the top and bottom "For Official Use Only” in accordance with the 

provisions of AR 25-55, Section 2, Markings. A firm's evaluations will only be given to 

proper representatives of the firm, to representatives of a Federal agency having a legitimate 

need for this information, and to ACASS. 

 i. Contract Negotiation. The performance evaluation form and procedures shall be 

discussed with an A-E firm during contract negotiation (EFARS 36.604(S-100) and 

paragraph 4-7.b). 

The Government will clearly describe its performance expectations, and stress the 

importance of the performance evaluation in future selections. The PNM will indicate that 

this discussion took place. 

 j. A-E Office Location. Enter in Item 6 of the DD Form 2631 the A-E office location 

that had the lead role in performing the work, which may not be the office that signed the 

contract. The evaluation will not be useful or relevant in future selections if it does not 

reflect the actual performing office. 

 k. Responsible Command. When more than one command is involved in the execution 

of a project, the command having KO authority for administration of the A-E contract is 

responsible for preparation of the A-E performance evaluation. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

6-5 

The responsibility for the A-E performance evaluation will be included in the overall 

management plan for the project (see ER 5-1-11). 

 l. A-E Contracts Awarded for Installations. 

 (1) This chapter also applies to A-E contracts awarded by USACE for administration 

by Army installations or other activities. As required by paragraph 5-6.c, the USACE KO 

will issue instructions to the installation on the preparation of performance evaluations, 

including preparation of the A-E evaluation after completion of construction when the 

installation is responsible for managing the construction contract. 

 (2) If a person at the installation has COR authority for the A-E contract, this person 

may act as the rating official (Assessing Official). Otherwise, the chief of the unit in the 

Directorate of Public Works or similar engineering office charged with the oversight 

responsibility for the A-E contract will act as the rating official. The reviewing official will 

be the Chief, or Assistant Chief, of Engineering of the supporting USACE district. 

6-5. Monitoring Performance. 

 a. General. The quality of an A-E firm’s products and services must be adequately 

documented throughout the performance of the contract and the firm kept apprised of the 

quality of its work (EFARS 36.604(S-100)). An A-E firm will be notified immediately upon 

recognition of marginal or unsatisfactory performance as outlined in paragraph 5-9. 

 b. Appraisals. Operating commands shall establish procedures to appraise the quality 

of each A-E submittal, using the discipline and attribute matrices on the DD Form 2631. The 

appraisals will be supplemented as appropriate with narrative that supports the rating and 

will assist the PM and COR in communications with the A-E on submittal quality. These 

appraisals will be made by each of the pertinent disciplines. It is particularly important to 

adequately document any area of unsatisfactory or exceptional performance. These 

appraisals constitute the basis for interim and final performance evaluations and shall be 

retained in the contract files. 

6-6. Interim Evaluations. 

 a. General. An interim performance evaluation (FAR and EFARS 36.604(a)(3)) will be 

prepared under the following conditions, in accordance with the procedures in paragraph 6.7.c: 

 (1) A cumulative, interim evaluation will be prepared at least annually for a task order 

or a FP or CR contract with a performance period anticipated to exceed 18 months (EFARS 

36.604(S-102)). 

 (2) An interim evaluation will be prepared whenever a project is deferred for more than 

3 months if a substantial portion of the work has been completed. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

6-6 

 (3) An interim evaluation will be prepared when a firm’s performance is “marginal” or 

“unsatisfactory“ (EFARS 36.604(a)(3)) after reasonable steps have been taken by the 

Government to improve the firm’s performance (see paragraph 5-9). An interim evaluation 

formally puts a firm on notice that its performance is inadequate in order to encourage 

improvement and to make the information on the firm’s performance available to other 

contracting offices in a timely manner. An interim “marginal” or “unsatisfactory” evaluation 

provides a very strong basis for a final “marginal” or “unsatisfactory” evaluation (see 

paragraph 6-10) if a firm’s performance does not improve. 

 (4) At any other appropriate time. 

 b. Approval and Distribution. Interim evaluations will be approved and distributed in 

accordance with paragraph 6-9. All evaluations prepared in the ACASS system are 

automatically routed to the firm for inclusion of their remarks or rebuttal. The basis for an 

interim “marginal” or “unsatisfactory” evaluation must be well documented. An interim 

“marginal” or “unsatisfactory” evaluation is subject to the rebuttal process in paragraph 6-10, 

and will not be finalized until the rebuttal process is completed (EFARS 36.604(a)(4)). 

Interim evaluations that have been transmitted to ACASS will be replaced by the final 

evaluation. Any interim “marginal” or “unsatisfactory” evaluations and a summary of any 

actions the firm took to remedy the deficiencies shall be recorded in Item 20, "Remarks" of 

the final evaluation. 

6-7. Evaluation of A-E Performance after Completion of Design or Engineering Services. 

 a. General. A final evaluation will be prepared for each task order or FP or CR 

contract exceeding $25,000 (EFARS 36.604(S-101)). For engineering services not directly 

related to design, the evaluation shall be prepared after acceptance of the A-E products. For 

design services, the evaluation shall be prepared after the construction bid opening, provided 

the bid opening is scheduled to occur within 3 months of design completion. Otherwise, the 

evaluation will be prepared after completion of the design. 

 b. Preparation. All performance evaluations shall be prepared and automatically routed 

within the ACASS sub-module of the CPARS system. The final performance evaluation will 

be based on the appraisals prepared by the technical reviewers and input received from the 

PM and customer, as well as any interim evaluations. The COR will assign the overall rating 

and electronically sign the form as the rating official. A copy of the evaluation will be sent 

to the PM when the evaluation is forwarded for approval. 

 c. Contract Termination. A performance evaluation shall be prepared for a task order 

or a FP or CR contract terminated for any reason prior to completion of the work if the value 

of services completed at termination exceeds $25,000 or if the contract was terminated for 

default. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

6-7 

6-8. Evaluation of A-E Performance after Completion of Construction. 

 a. An evaluation (referred to herein as the A-E construction evaluation) shall be 

prepared after substantial physical completion of each construction project based on an A-E 

design where the price of the A-E services (performed by task order or FP or CR contract) 

exceeds $25,000 (EFARS 36.604(S-101)). 

 b. Preparation. 

 (1) During construction, the AE/RE is responsible for assessing the accuracy and 

completeness of the A-E firm’s work and its responsiveness in resolving design problems 

that arise during construction. Sufficient documentation will be maintained by the AE/RE to 

support the A-E construction evaluation. Use of the discipline and attribute matrices on the 

DD Form 2631 can assist in documenting performance during construction and in 

communicating with the A-E firm on design problems. The AE/RE will coordinate the 

evaluation with the design COR and PM. 

 (2) The AE/RE is responsible for preparing the A-E construction evaluation in the 

ACASS system, assigning the overall rating, and electronically signing the form as the rating 

official. 

 

 c. Review and Approval. Engineering Division will be notified electronically by the 

system and will promptly review and approve an A-E construction evaluation after it is 

prepared by the Construction Division. No changes will be made in the A-E construction 

evaluation without the concurrence of the AE/RE, design COR and PM. 

 (1) Any significant differences in assessment between the design and construction 

evaluations will be resolved. This may require reevaluation of some aspects of the design by 

the personnel who reviewed the A-E firm's work during the design phase. Particular 

attention should be given to discipline or attribute ratings that could possibly reflect a 

misunderstanding of the A-E firm's responsibility. Any questions of this nature should be 

discussed with the AE/RE and the construction modification file reviewed if necessary. 

 (2) As a consequence of the A-E construction evaluation, or other factors, Engineering 

Division may wish to change some of the ratings given for disciplines or attributes in the 

design evaluation. If so, the matrices on page 2 of the A-E construction evaluation, applying 

to design/engineering services, shall be completed and a statement made in Item 20, 

"Remarks," giving the reason for the change. 

If Engineering Division wishes to change the overall rating on the design evaluation, a 

revised evaluation will be prepared within the ACASS system in accordance with paragraph 

6-9.c(1). A statement shall be made in Item 20, "Remarks," giving the reason(s) for the 

revision. 

 d. Review of A-E Liability. The COR will obtain the A-E liability information for 

Item 11 of the DD Form 2631 from the A-E Responsibility Coordinator (AERC; see Chapter 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

6-8 

7). Refer to the instructions in Appendix AA. An updated evaluation will be prepared in 

ACASS as specified in paragraph 6-9.c(2) if there is a later change in the A-E liability 

information. Completion of an evaluation shall not be delayed because liability 

determinations have not been resolved. 

6-9. Approval and Revision of Evaluations. 

 a. Approval. The reviewing official for A-E performance evaluations shall be the 

Chief or Assistant Chief of Engineering, unless a proposed “marginal” or “unsatisfactory” 

evaluation is rebutted (see paragraph 6-10). The reviewing official will review the 

performance evaluation and the supporting documentation to assure that the overall rating is 

justified. The date of the reviewing official's electronic signature (in ACASS) is the official 

date of the evaluation. 

 b. Revisions and Corrections. 

 (1) A performance evaluation may be changed by the reviewing official, or successor, 

upon presentation of adequate evidence. However, no changes shall be made in an A-E 

construction evaluation without concurrence of the AE/RE. A statement must be included in 

Item 20, "Remarks," describing the change and explaining why it was made. 

 (2) The revised evaluation shall be submitted to the ACASS system. If the revisions 

are significant, the evaluation should be prepared within ACASS (and automatically routed 

to the A-E for comment). Evaluations with minor changes may be submitted to ACASS as 

completed evaluations and notification sent to the A-E firm. The revised evaluation will 

automatically replace the prior evaluation in ACASS and PPIRS. 

 (3) An evaluation may be updated to change factual information (such as Items 9, 10 or 

11) or correct obvious clerical errors without the approval of the reviewing official. An 

email clearly identifying the changes, contract number, evaluation type, and date shall be 

sent to the CPARS Navy Help Desk at webptsmh@navy.mil. The CPARS Navy Help Desk 

will make the requested changes. 

6-10. Marginal and Unsatisfactory Performance. 

 a. General. This section implements FAR and EFARS 36.604(a)(4), and only applies 

to final evaluations, and not interim evaluations. 

 b. Documentation. Documentation of marginal or unsatisfactory performance must be 

adequate to support the performance rating. It is very important to document the steps taken 

by the Government to get the A-E firm to improve performance (see paragraph 5-9), and the 

A-E firm's responses. Records should be made of all telephone conversations and meetings 

with the A-E firm concerning performance. Generally, a final “marginal” or “unsatisfactory 

evaluation” should have been preceded by an interim “marginal” or “unsatisfactory” 

evaluation. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

6-9 

 c. Preparation and Notification. 

 (1) A performance evaluation will be prepared in the ACASS system, documenting the 

marginal or unsatisfactory performance. 

 (2) At the time that the evaluation is prepared in ACASS, the preparer shall notify the 

Contractor Representative that he/she has 30 days during which he/she may either rebut the 

rating or add his/her remarks electronically to the evaluation. 

 (3) If the A-E firm does not respond by entering their remarks in ACASS or by 

notifying the Government that he/she intends to rebut the rating within the allotted time, the 

evaluation will be finalized. 

 d. Rebuttal Process. 

 (1) If an A-E firm rebuts a rating, a meeting will be scheduled with the District 

Commander or Deputy District Commander. The firm will be advised of the fact-finding 

nature of this meeting and provided with the evidence that will be submitted to the 

Commander for consideration. Every effort will be made to fully explore the major 

performance deficiencies in the meeting to enable the Commander to make a decision 

without the need for additional meetings or evidence. The firm will be given sufficient time 

to prepare for this meeting. The meeting with the Commander will be held within 30 days of 

the firm's rebuttal, to the maximum extent possible. 

 (2) Following the meeting with the A-E firm, the Commander will decide whether to 

support or change the proposed rating. If the Commander decides to change the rating, the 

contract file will be documented to show the reason(s). The firm may at this time add 

comments to Item 20, "Remarks." The evaluation will be signed by the rating official and 

the Commander shall sign as the reviewing official. The KO will send a letter to the A-E 

firm advising of the Commander’s decision. 

 (3) Performance evaluations that are rebutted by A-E firms will not be finalized in 

ACASS and transferred to PPIRS until the above rebuttal process is completed (EFARS 

36.604(a)(4)). (Electronic signature by the Reviewing Official finalizes evaluations in the 

ACASS system). 

EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

7-1 

CHAPTER 7 

A-E RESPONSIBILITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 

7-1. Introduction. This chapter addresses actions to be taken from the discovery of an A-E 

error or deficiency to the issuance of a final contracting officer's decision (COD) against the 

A-E firm under FAR 52.233-1, the contract "Disputes" clause. Subsequent action is covered 

by FAR 33.2, Disputes and Appeals. 

7-2. Principles. 

 a. In accordance with FAR clause 52.236-23, “Responsibility of the Architect-Engineer 

Contractor,” an A-E firm is responsible for the quality of its products and services and is 

liable for damages to the Government caused by its negligence or breach of contractual duty. 

The A-E Responsibility Management Program (AERMP) is a formal process for holding A-E 

firms accountable for their work and recovering damages to the Government caused by A-E 

firms. 

 b. The goals of the AERMP are to: 

 (1) Maintain and improve the quality of A-E services and products. 

 (2) Hold A-E firms responsible for their work and recover damages to the Government 

resulting from negligence or breach of contractual duty. 

 c. The AERMP will be conducted in a fair, consistent, and reasonable manner. 

 d. No demand for recovery of damages will be made to an A-E firm without an 

adequate review of the facts and circumstances. 

 e. Investigations and recovery actions will be pursued in a cost-effective and timely 

manner to mitigate damages, minimize administrative costs, strengthen the likelihood for full 

recovery, and allow the reuse of project funds. 

 f. Recovery of damages will only be pursued when economically justified or otherwise 

in the best interest of the Government. 

 g. A reasonable effort will be made to resolve liability actions through partnering and 

negotiation. If unsuccessful, other alternative dispute resolution (ADR) techniques should be 

considered. Litigation should be the last option. 

 h. Only the KO can accept a liability settlement for the Government or relieve an A-E 

firm of its liability. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

7-2 

7-3. Responsibilities. 

 a. MSC. MSC commanders are responsible for overseeing the AERMP in their 

subordinate districts to ensure timeliness, cost-effectiveness, and compliance with this 

pamphlet. MSC Commanders will appoint an MSC A-E Responsibility Coordinator 

(AERC). The AERC will provide day-to-day oversight of the AERMP, and be the point of 

contact with the districts and HQUSACE. 

 b. Operating Commands28. 

 (1) A-E Responsibility Administrator (AERA). The Chief, or Assistant Chief, of 

Engineering (or comparable position) will be the AERA. The AERA is responsible for the 

timeliness, cost-effectiveness, reasonableness and fairness of the AERMP, and compliance with 

this pamphlet. The AERA will appoint a command AERC. The AERC will be a very 

experienced engineer or architect who has the training specified in paragraph 4-4.b of this 

pamphlet. The AERC will be responsible for the day-to-day management of the AERMP and be 

the point of contact for the program. 

 (2) A-E Responsibility Management Review Board (AERRB). The commander of 

each operating command will establish an AERRB to review deficiencies in A-E 

performance when requested by the AERC or the KO and advise on appropriate action. The 

AERA shall chair the AERRB and the voting members will include senior representatives 

from Construction, Programs and Project Management, Contracting and Counsel. 

 c. Multiple Responsible USACE Commands. When the project management, design 

and/or construction of a project are performed by different USACE commands, the USACE 

command having KO authority for the A-E contract ("design" command) will be responsible for 

the AERMP, including reporting. The "design" command is responsible for developing a 

memorandum of understanding with the “project management” and/or "construction" commands 

on how the requirements of this chapter will be met. 

7-4. Legal and Regulatory Background. 

 a. All FP contracts and ID contracts with FP task orders for A-E services must 

incorporate FAR clause 52.236-23, “Responsibility of the Architect-Engineer Contractor,” 

which stipulates that: 

 (1) The A-E firm shall be responsible for the professional quality, technical accuracy, 

and coordination of all designs, specifications, and other services it furnishes. 

 28 See definition in paragraph 2-2.a. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

7-3 

 (2) The A-E firm shall, without additional compensation, correct or revise any errors or 

deficiencies in its work. 

 (3) The Government’s review, approval or acceptance of the A-E services is not a 

waiver of any of the Government’s rights. 

 (4) The A-E firm shall be and remain liable for all damages to the Government caused 

by its negligent performance. 

 b. Typical examples of A-E liability are when, due to an A-E design error or 

deficiency, modification of an ongoing construction contract is required or there is a designrelated failure after construction. An A-E firm may also be liable for Government damages 

arising from failure to design within the funding limitations (FAR 36.609-1 and 52.236-22) 

or to comply with the contract schedule or technical provisions. In all such instances, FAR 

36.608 directs the KO to “consider the extent to which the architect-engineer contractor may 

be reasonably liable,” and to “enforce the liability and collect the amount due, if the 

recoverable cost will exceed the administrative cost involved or is otherwise in the 

Government’s interest.” 

 c. Each of the following three questions must be answered affirmatively for an A-E 

firm to be liable for damages: 

 (1) Did the firm make an error or omission? 

 (2) Did the error or omission result from the firm's negligence, or from a breach of 

contractual duty? 

 (3) Has the Government suffered damages as a result of the error or omission? 

 d. The following legal principles should be considered when deciding if an A-E firm is 

liable: 

 (1) Negligence. Negligence is the failure to meet the standard of reasonable care, skill 

and diligence that one in the A-E profession would ordinarily exercise under similar 

circumstances. 

 (2) Burden of Proof. In order for the Government to prevail in a claim against an A-E 

firm, it must be able to prove that the firm was negligent and that the error or omission by the 

A-E firm was the cause of the damages. 

 (3) Comparative Negligence. The doctrine of comparative negligence provides that the 

Government is not barred from any recovery of damages if it is also negligent, but that there 

will be an apportionment of damages or responsibility in proportion to the relative fault of 

the parties involved. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

7-4 

 (4) Mitigation. The Government has a responsibility for minimizing damages resulting 

from an A-E firm's deficiencies. The firm must be notified promptly when a deficiency is 

discovered by the Government and provided a reasonable opportunity to correct its work. 

 (5) Government Assumption of Risk. An A-E firm may be relieved of responsibility 

for a design deficiency due to action by the Government, such as if the Government corrects 

the design deficiency without the concurrence of the A-E firm and the corrected design is the 

cause of a failure. 

 e. The Government is entitled to seek recovery of damages resulting from any type of 

negligence, non-performance, or breach of contract terms. It is not necessary that the 

deficiency be corrected for the Government to recover damages. It is only necessary to show 

that the Government has incurred damages, or will in the future (diminished value theory). 

 f. FAR 36.608 allows economic factors to be considered when deciding whether to 

initiate an A-E liability case. However, it may be in the Government's interest to initiate a 

case where the administrative costs could exceed the anticipated recovery, such as a small 

claim arising from a serious error that could have resulted in much larger monetary damages 

or personal injury. All the circumstances of each case must be considered when deciding 

whether to pursue A-E liability. 

 g. It is possible to be overly zealous in the pursuit of A-E liability. It is not in the 

Government's best interest to make claims for relatively small damages due to minor errors 

that would probably not support a claim of negligence before a board or court. This could 

lead to the A-E community regarding such claims as a cost of doing business with USACE, 

with attendant increases in price proposals, diminution of the Corps' professional image, and 

fewer firms willing to work for USACE. 

7-5. Implementation. 

 a. Command Implementation. Each USACE command will issue written procedures 

implementing the AERMP in the command. 

 b. Installation Support. The USACE KO retains responsibility for certain aspects of 

the administration of A-E contracts awarded for use by Army installations, including the 

investigation and enforcement of liability and resolution of contract disputes. In accordance 

with paragraph 5-6.d, the USACE KO will provide written instructions to the installation 

regarding the AERMP, including notification of the A-E firm, obtaining a corrective design, 

funding, and preparation of damage statements and findings-of-fact. 

 c. Program Cost Effectiveness. The AERA will periodically review the costeffectiveness of liability investigations and recovery actions to ensure that the technical and 

administrative effort is commensurate with the damages recovered. In particular, the AERA 

will review the Efficiency Ratio and Settlement Ratio, as defined and reported on ENG Form 

4858A-R (see paragraph 7-9.b(1)), for each liability case. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

7-5 

 d. Schedule. A-E liability cases must be pursued in a timely manner to mitigate the 

damages and strengthen the likelihood for full recovery. Also, since recoveries can be 

credited to the project if the appropriation is open, quick action is highly desirable if the 

damages are significant. The AERC will establish an appropriate schedule for each case 

(depending on dollar value, complexity, and other pertinent considerations), closely track the 

Government and A-E firm's actions, and follow-up with the appropriate parties when 

suspense dates are not met. The AERA will periodically review liability cases to ensure their 

timely progress. 

7-6. Funding. 

 a. The AERMP is a team effort. While Engineering Division is the lead in 

administration of this program, the PM, Contracting, Counsel, Construction Division, 

Resource Management (RM) and other team members must be continually involved. The 

PM will be kept apprised of A-E liability actions so the PM may control, allocate and/or 

obtain funds and keep the customer informed. Also, the AERC will coordinate with the PM 

and RM to keep the project account open until all A-E liability actions are resolved. This 

will facilitate funding of the costs to pursue recovery of damages, as well as allow crediting 

the appropriate account(s) with monies received in settlements. 

 b. The AERC will request that the PM take appropriate action to ensure that detailed 

project cost records are maintained for each A-E liability case, starting when it is apparent 

that a liability case will be initiated. These cost records must include all costs associated 

with investigation, deliberation and prosecution of the case, including support costs incurred 

by the Office Counsel such as for travel, expert witnesses, and deposition expenses. (Office 

of Counsel labor costs are funded as general and administrative overhead.) 

 c. General administration of the AERMP, such as AERRB meetings and reporting, will 

be funded by the respective departmental overhead accounts of the personnel involved. 

 d. Planning and design (P&D) funds for military construction (MILCON) projects, and 

appropriate project funds29 for other types of projects, will be used to investigate and pursue A-E 

liability actions that occur during planning or design. 

 e. Initial investigation and documentation of potential A-E liability and damages will be 

charged to S&A. Thereafter, DDC or P&D funds approved and provided by the customer will be 

used for further investigation and pursuit of an A-E liability claim. 

 f. During the design or construction of a project, the AERC will request additional 

project funds from the PM when necessary to investigate or pursue A-E liability. The 

 29 Project funds mean the appropriation that funded the project, or succeeding 

appropriations in the rare case the appropriation ceases to be funded and the activity is 

funded from a different appropriation. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

7-6 

request will give an explanation of the design deficiencies and damages, breakdown of 

estimated costs, discussion of likelihood of recovery and expected amount of recovery. 

 g. The PM will request additional funds from the customer, if warranted. The decision 

to request and expend project funds to pursue A-E liability will consider the amount of the 

damages, the likelihood of recovery, whether the settlement will be received in time to 

benefit the customer’s project or program (see paragraph 7-7.n and Appendix DD, paragraph 

3), and the customer’s willingness to provide the funding. Where project funds are no longer 

available, the respective departmental or general and administrative overhead accounts of the 

personnel involved may be used to investigate and pursue A-E liability. Only the KO can 

finally decide not to pursue A-E liability (FAR 36.608) due to funding constraints. 

7-7. Notification, Investigation and Recovery Procedures. Appendix BB is a graphic 

depiction of the A-E liability process. Each step is discussed below. 

 a. Notification and Corrective Design. 

 (1) The A-E firm will be promptly notified30 as soon as a design deficiency is 

discovered, requested to provide a corrective design,31 and informed that it may be 

financially liable. Initial notification should be made by telephone immediately and formal 

notification will be made soon after by letter. The AE/RE will also immediately coordinate 

directly with the Engineering Division and the PM on significant design deficiencies 

discovered during construction. All contacts with an A-E firm will be fully documented. 

 (2) Engineering Division will review the corrective design when appropriate, such as 

when significant structural or life safety features are involved. The Engineering Division 

review will be performed promptly to avoid or minimize construction contract delays. 

 b. Corrective Design by the Government. If the A-E firm is unresponsive or cannot 

furnish a corrective design within an acceptable time period, the Government may have to 

provide the redesign. (See ER 1110-1-8152 regarding documenting design changes.) If so, 

the firm will be formally notified of its liability for the redesign cost and be kept informed of 

the Government actions. The firm should be requested to concur in the corrective action 

 30 Notification will be made by a person identified in the A-E contract, such as the AE/RE, 

COR or PM. 

31 There are instances where obtaining a corrective design from an A-E firm may not be 

necessary, such as when the correction is obvious and simple or the damages are minimal. 

But see paragraph 7-4.d(4) regarding the Government assumption of risk. In such cases, 

notification is not required; however the A-E firm must still receive an information copy of 

the construction contract modification. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

7-7 

taken by the Government or should sign a release. A statement shall be prepared for the 

contract file in accordance with FAR 36.609-2 if no action is taken against an A-E firm to 

recover redesign costs. 

 c. Implementation of Corrective Construction. An A-E firm shall not be permitted to 

perform construction required to correct design deficiencies by any means, including the use 

of it’s or the Government’s contractors. If done, the Government is not in control of the 

work and can not ensure that the Government’s requirements and interests are satisfied. The 

Government may invite the A-E firm, as an advisor, to attend negotiations with the 

construction contractor on changes due to A-E design deficiencies. 

 d. Documentation of Deficiency. The discovery of a design deficiency and the early 

actions taken by the Government will be promptly and adequately documented. Include a 

thorough description of the deficiency, record of contacts with the A-E firm and its 

responses, the persons involved, actions taken, potential witnesses, and photographs, when 

appropriate. The AE/RE will evaluate each design error or deficiency using the conditions in 

paragraph 7-4.c, determine if the firm is not liable or is potentially liable, and document the 

contract file accordingly. The AE/RE will forward all potential instances of A-E liability to 

the AERC for further investigation. 

 e. Determination of Damages. If an A-E firm is potentially liable for a design error or 

deficiency, the AE/RE will compute the initial estimate of damages. Damages are the 

additional costs, diminished value or loss of use or function that the Government has 

incurred, or will incur in the future, due to an A-E firm's design errors or performance 

deficiencies. Appendix CC provides detailed guidance on determining damages. The 

damages will be revised as needed. 

 f. Investigation of Liability. The AERC will coordinate the investigation of potential 

instances of A-E liability. The investigation will be conducted by qualified design 

professionals of the appropriate disciplines who are familiar with the scope of the A-E 

contract. These persons must be capable of serving as credible Government experts if a 

liability case is eventually litigated. The investigation will be documented in a findings-offact that will: 

 (1) Explicitly define the errors or omissions by the A-E firm, including specific 

references to drawings, specifications, design criteria, review comments, and other pertinent 

documents. 

 (2) List the applicable contract provisions and any subsequent direction or guidance 

that might bear on the question of responsibility. 

 (3) Give an opinion on the A-E firm's responsibility and negligence. If the 

investigation concludes that the A-E firm is not liable for damages, the AERC will document 

the findings-of-fact accordingly and forward to the AERRB for concurrence. The findingsof-fact will be included in the contract file. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

7-8 

 g. Preparation of Case Document. If the investigation concludes that an A-E firm is 

liable (but see paragraph 7-7.j for small actions), the AERC will prepare a case document to 

include: 

 (1) Project background and schedule. 

 (2) Computation of damages. 

 (3) Findings-of-fact on liability. 

 (4) Summary of any other liability actions on the same contract. 

 (5) A-E performance evaluation history, including the contract under review. 

 (6) Statement on the support and cooperation which the A-E firm provided during 

construction. 

 (7) Any comments or information provided by the A-E firm regarding its liability. 

 (8) Recommended action. 

 h. Letter of Intent. After the case document is prepared, the AERC will send a letter to 

the A-E firm (with a copy to the PM and the design COR) indicating the AERC’s intent to 

recommend formal review by the AERRB of the firm’s liability for damages. The letter will 

include any documents supporting the Government’s position and a detailed statement of 

damages. The firm will be invited to present information on its position and to negotiate a 

settlement. A liability case is initiated when the letter of intent is sent32. Interest is not 

assessable until, and if, a COD is issued by the KO. In some instances it may be appropriate 

to issue a demand letter at this stage (see paragraph 7-7.l(3)). 

 i. Negotiation by AERC. The AERC may directly negotiate a liability settlement with 

an A-E firm without first presenting the case to the AERRB and without the KO issuing a 

demand letter, if the AERC has been previously authorized to do so by the KO33. The AERC 

will then present the case and proposed settlement to the KO for approval, and to Counsel 

and any other appropriate offices (which may include the AERRB) for concurrence. The 

settlement will be reported in accordance with paragraph 7-9. If negotiation is unsuccessful, 

the AERC will present the case to the AERRB. 

 32 If an A-E settlement is made without the need for a letter of intent, a case report will still 

be prepared and the amount of the settlement included in the annual AERMP report. See 

paragraph 7-7 for reporting requirements. 

33 The KO may assign a contract specialist to the negotiation team with the AERC. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

7-9 

 j. Small Errors or Deficiencies. If there are no compelling non-economic reasons, the 

consideration of small errors or deficiencies (typically below $2,500 - $5,000, depending on 

the size of the contract) may be deferred until the total number and/or total damages warrants 

recovery. The AERC will periodically review the deferred liability actions on each contract 

to see if aggregate recovery is warranted, and document these reviews. Any errors or 

deficiencies still held at the end of a construction contract that do not warrant recovery will 

be presented collectively to the KO for approval not to pursue, with the concurrence of any 

other appropriate offices. The decision not to pursue will be documented in the contract file 

as required by FAR 36.608. 

 k. AERRB Review and KO Action. The AERRB will promptly review the cases 

referred to it by the AERC and recommend action to the KO. The KO will then decide 

whether to issue a demand letter or not pursue recovery. The case document will be placed 

in the A-E contract file, along with the minutes of the AERRB meeting and the KO's 

decision. 

 l. Demand Letter. 

 (1) The demand letter provides an opportunity for resolution of the matter without 

resorting to the “Disputes” clause. The demand letter is prepared by the Office of Counsel, 

with factual and technical input from the Engineering and Construction Divisions and the 

PM, and shall be signed by the KO. 

 (2) The demand letter shall include the charge of negligence or contract breach, with 

the supporting documentation, a detailed listing of the damages, and the A-E firm's options. 

The letter shall state that a COD will be issued if satisfactory progress towards resolution is 

not made within a specified period of time (typically 30-60 days). 

 (3) Consider when the demand letter should be issued on a case-by-case basis. For 

example, if the A-E liability is obvious and the damages are significant, a demand letter 

should be sent as soon as the AERC prepares the case document instead of sending a letter of 

intent. 

 m. Negotiation and COD. 

 (1) A reasonable effort will be made to resolve a liability case by negotiation. If 

negotiation is not successful, consider using other ADR techniques34. If a firm does not 

 34 ADR is a range of techniques for the efficient and effective management of disputes 

without litigation. See FAR 33.214. The techniques include collaborative problem 

solving, mediation, facilitation, and third party intervention. ADR can be very useful in 

resolution of disputes before issuance of a COD, as well as afterwards. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

7-10 

respond to a demand letter in a reasonable length of time, the firm should be contacted and 

encouraged to either take issue with the Government's charges or enter into negotiations. 

 (2) If the firm still does not respond, a COD will be issued without delay. The COD 

starts a defined process under the "Disputes" clause. (See EFARS Appendix A, Part 3, A3-

203.) The firm must either concede the case or appeal to the appropriate board of contract 

appeals within 90 days or the Court of Federal Claims within one year. The COD formally 

notifies the A-E firm that the Government is making a claim for the reasons stated, gives a 

detailed statement of damages, and lists the firm's options. The Debt Collection Act of 1982 

applies to a claim against an A-E firm when a COD is issued. See Appendix DD for 

applicable procedures. Interest charges in accordance with FAR 52.232-17 will accrue on 

the damages if the claim is not settled within 30 days (FAR 32.610(b)(2) and 32.614-1(a)), 

and that the damages will be adjusted for costs incurred by the Government subsequent to the 

COD. (See Hazen & Sawyer, Inc., 85-1 BCA 17,919, which established the right of the 

Government to interest on recoveries under the A-E Responsibility clause. Also see 94-2 

BCA 26,631, and 94-3 BCA 26,992.) 

 (3) Primary responsibility for a case passes from Engineering Division to Office of 

Counsel if a COD must be issued. Counsel prepares the COD based on data provided by 

Engineering, Construction and Contracting Divisions. The COD must be fully coordinated in 

accordance with command procedures. Engineering Division remains responsible for 

monitoring the progress of the case, coordinating support, and reporting. 

 (4) The 6-year limitation on initiation of a Government claim in FAR 33.206(b) is 

applicable to A-E liability cases. The 6-year period begins on the date the A-E firm submits 

its completed work. 

 n. Settlement. A liability case is closed when final payment is received from the A-E 

firm or the KO sends a letter to the firm advising that the Government is dropping its claim. 

The A-E contract file shall be properly documented (FAR 36.608) upon settlement of a 

liability case to show the amount received and how the funds were dispersed. If the amount 

of the settlement is less than the amount of the assessed damages, the rationale for accepting 

the reduced amount must be documented. Appendix DD discusses settlement options and the 

disposition of the monies received in settlements. 

7-8. A-E Performance Evaluation and Contract Closeout. 

 a. Liability arising during design is reflected on the A-E performance evaluation 

prepared after completion of design. Similarly, liability related to construction is reflected 

on the A-E construction performance evaluation. A revised evaluation will be submitted if a 

liability case is settled after the final performance evaluation has been prepared. 

 b. It may be convenient for Engineering Division to combine the review of the 

construction A-E performance evaluation with the "wrap-up" review of the A-E firm's design 

deficiencies after completion of construction. The AE/RE should be contacted to find out 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

7-11 

whether there are construction problems attributable to design deficiencies that have not been 

corrected by construction changes. 

 c. An A-E contract shall not be closed out until the firm's performance has been 

evaluated and all liability actions have been resolved. However, closeout of an A-E contract 

or a construction contract based on an A-E firm’s design does not affect the Government's 

right to pursue the recovery of damages resulting from performance deficiencies which later 

become apparent (see paragraph 7-7.m(4)). 

7-9. Reporting. 

 a. Customer. Customers and partners will be regularly apprised of the status of A-E 

liability actions on their projects. 

 b. District Reports. 

 (1) Quarterly. Districts will submit a quarterly report to their MSC (with a copy to 

Project Management, Construction, Contracting, Counsel and other concerned offices) on the 

status of all A-E liability cases within 30 days after the end of each fiscal quarter. The report 

will be prepared on ENG Form 4858A-R, Quarterly A-E Liability Case Report (Appendix 

EE). All settlements will be reported, no matter how they were reached. If there are no 

pending A-E liability cases, a letter or electronic message stating this fact will be submitted 

in lieu of this report. 

 (2) Annual. USACE operating commands will submit an annual report to their MSC 

on the status of their AERMP by 31 October. The report will be prepared on ENG Form 

4858-R, Annual A-E Responsibility Management Program Report (Appendix EE). 

 c. MSC Reports. MSCs will submit an annual report to HQUSACE, ATTN: CECWCE, by 30 November, consisting of: 

 (1) A brief cover memorandum summarizing the status and effectiveness of their 

AERMP. 

 (2) The annual ENG Form 4858-R for each subordinate command 

EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

A-1 

APPENDIX A 

BROOKS ARCHITECT-ENGINEER ACT 

PUBLIC LAW 92-582, AS AMENDED 

TITLE 40-PUBLIC BUILDINGS, PROPERTY AND WORKS 

SUBCHAPTER VI-SELECTION OF ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS 

§ 541. Definitions

 As defined in this subchapter- 

 (1) The term “firm” means any individual, firm, partnership, corporation, association, or 

other legal entity permitted by law to practice the professions or architecture or engineering. 

 

 (2) The term “agency head” means the Secretary, Administrator, or head of a department, 

agency, or bureau of the Federal Government. 

 (3) The term “architectural and engineering services” means- 

 (a) professional services of an architectural or engineering nature, as defined by State law, 

applicable, which are required to be performed or approved by a person licensed, registered or 

certified to provide such services as described in this paragraph; 

 (b) professional services of an architectural or engineering nature performed by contract 

that are associated with research, planning, development, design, construction, alteration, or 

repair of real property; and 

 (c) such other professional services of an architectural or engineering nature, or incidental 

services, which members of the architectural and engineering professions (and individuals in 

their employ) may logically or justifiably perform, including studies, investigations, surveying 

and mapping, tests, evaluations, consultations, comprehensive planning, program management, 

conceptual designs, plans and specifications, value engineering, construction phase services, 

soils engineering, drawing reviews, preparation of operating and maintenance manuals, and other 

related services. 

§ 542. Congressional declaration of policy

 The Congress hereby declares it to be the policy of the Federal Government to publicly 

announce all requirements for architectural and engineering services and to negotiate contracts 

for architectural and engineering services on the basis of demonstrated competence and 

qualification for the type of professional services required and at fair and reasonable prices. 

§ 543. Requests for data on architectural and engineering services 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

A-2 

 In the procurement of architectural and engineering services, the agency head shall 

encourage firms engaged in the lawful practice of their profession to submit annually a statement 

of qualifications and performance data. The agency head, for each proposed project, shall 

evaluate current statements of qualifications and performance data on file with the agency, 

together with those that may be submitted by other firms regarding the proposed project, and 

shall conduct discussions with no less than three firms regarding anticipated concepts and the 

relative utility of alternative methods of approach for furnishing the required services and then 

shall select therefore, in order of preference, based upon the criteria established and published by 

him, no less than three of the firms deemed to be the most highly qualified to provide the 

services required. 

§ 544. Negotiation of contracts for architectural and engineering services

 (a) Negotiation with highest qualified firm 

 The agency head shall negotiate a contract with the highest qualified firm for architectural 

and engineering services at compensation which the agency head determines is fair and 

reasonable to the Government. In making such determination, the agency head shall take into 

account the estimated value of the services to be rendered, the scope, complexity, and 

professional nature thereof. 

 (b) Negotiation with second and third, etc., most qualified firms 

 Should the agency head be unable to negotiate a satisfactory contract with the firm 

considered to be the most qualified, at a price he determines to be fair and reasonable to the 

Government, negotiations with that firm shall be formally terminated. The agency head shall 

then undertake negotiations with the second most qualified firm. Failing accord with the second 

most qualified firm, the agency head should terminate negotiations. The agency head should 

then undertake negotiations with the third most qualified firm. 

 (c) Selection of additional firms in event of failure of negotiation with selected firms 

Should the agency head be unable to negotiate a satisfactory contract with any of the 

selected firms, he shall select additional firms in order of their competence and qualification and 

continue negotiations in accordance with this section until an agreement is reached. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

B-1 

APPENDIX B 

ACRONYMS 

ACASS Architect-Engineer Contract Administration Support System 

ADR alternative dispute resolution 

AE area engineer 

A-E architect-engineer 

AERMP A-E Responsibility Management Program 

AERA A-E Responsibility Administrator 

AERC A-E Responsibility Coordinator 

AERRB A-E Responsibility Management Review Board 

AFARS Army Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement 

AR Army Regulation 

ASBCA Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals 

ASFI Army Single Face to Industry 

ATTN Attention (in a mailing address) 

BPN Business Partner Network 

CADD computer-aided design and drafting 

CAGE Commercial and Government Entity (code) 

CAIC Contractor Appraisal Information Center (Portland District) 

CCASS Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System 

CCR Central Contractor Registration 

CECW-CE Engineering and Construction, Directorate of Civil Works, HQUSACE 

CEHNC-MX Medical Facilities Center of Expertise 

CENWP-CT Contracting Division, Portland District 

CEPR-ZA Principal Assistant Responsible for Contracting (PARC), HQUSACE 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act 

CFC Court of Federal Claims 

CFC Chlorofluorocarbons 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

COD contracting officer’s decision 

COR contracting officer’s representative 

CPAF cost-plus-award-fee 

CPARS Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System 

CPFF cost-plus-fixed-fee 

CR cost-reimbursement 

DA Department of Army 

DAU Defense Acquisition University 

DCAA Defense Contract Audit Agency 

DCADS Defense Contract Action Data System 

DD (DoD) Department of Defense 

DFARS Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement 

DIOR Directorate for Information Operations and Reports 

DoL Department of Labor 

DQMP design quality management plan 

DPM Deputy District Engineer for Program and Project Management 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

B-2 

DSB Deputy for Small Business 

DUNS Data Universal Numbering System (number) 

ECC estimated construction cost 

EFARS Engineer Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement 

EM Engineer Manual 

ENG Corps of Engineers form 

EP Engineer Pamphlet 

ER Engineer Regulation 

ESB emerging small business 

FAO Finance and Accounting Officer 

FAR Federal Acquisition Regulation 

FBO Federal Business Opportunities website (FedBizOpps) 

FFP firm-fixed-price 

FOIA Freedom of Information Act 

FP fixed-price 

FPDS-NG Federal Procurement Data System – Next Generation 

FS feasibility study 

GIS geographic information system 

GPE Governmentwide point of entry (see FBO) 

GPS global positioning system 

HBCU historically black college and university 

HQUSACE Headquarters, United States Army Corps of Engineers 

HTRW hazardous, toxic, radioactive waste 

HUBZone Historically Underutilized Business Zone 

HVAC heating, ventilating and air conditioning 

ID indefinite-delivery (contract) - IDC 

IGE independent Government estimate 

KO contracting officer 

LH labor-hour (contract or task order) 

M million 

M-CACES Micro-Computer-Aided Cost Estimating System 

MI minority institution 

MILCON Military Construction 

MSC major subordinate command 

N/A not applicable 

NAF Nonappropriated Fund 

NAICS North American Industrial Classification System 

NCP National Contingency Plan 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NOx nitrous oxide 

NTP notice to proceed 

ORCA Online Representations and Certifications Application 

PA preliminary assessment 

PARC Principal Assistant Responsible for Contracting 

PCB polychlorinated biphenyl 

P&D planning and design (applies to MILCON only) 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

B-3 

PDT project delivery team 

PGI Procedures, Guidance and Information (companion to DFARS) 

PM project manager 

PNM price negotiation memorandum 

PNO prenegotiation objectives 

POM prenegotiation objective memorandum 

PPIRS Past Performance Information Retrieval System 

PROSPECT Proponent Sponsored Engineer Corps Training 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

RCS Reports Control Symbol 

RD remedial design 

RE resident engineer 

RI remedial investigation 

RM Resource Management 

RFPP request for price proposal 

S&A supervision and administration 

SAT simplified acquisition threshold 

SB small business 

SBA Small Business Administration 

SCA Service Contract Act 

SDB small disadvantaged business 

SF Standard Form 

SI site investigation 

SOW statement of work 

SDVOSB Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business 

SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan 

TERC Total Environmental Restoration Contract 

UCF Uniform Contract Format 

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers 

U.S.C. United States Code 

USGS United States Geological Survey 

UST underground storage tank 

VOSB Veteran-Owned Small Business 

WD wage determination (from DoL) 

WGM weighted guidelines method (for profit) 

EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

C-1 

APPENDIX C 

A-E CONTRACTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST 

DISTRICT DATE __________________ 

REQUIREMENT REFERENCES 

(EP = EP 715-1-7) 

YES/ NO? 

REMARKS 

1. Is acquisition planning for 

A-E services fully coordinated 

among all pertinent functional 

elements and reflected in the 

project management plans? 

FAR 7.102 

EFARS 7.102, 7.103 

EP 2-1.b, 2-2.a, 2-7 

2. Is there an Overall 

Acquisition Strategy that 

addresses A-E IDCs? 

EFARS 7.1(S-101) 

3. Are preselection and 

selection board chairpersons 

properly appointed and 

qualified? 

EP 3-3.c(1), 3-6.b 

4. Are preselection and 

selection board members 

properly designated and 

qualified? 

EP 3-3.d, 3-6.b 

5. Is selection approval 

authority properly delegated? 

EFARS 36.602-4(a) 

EP 3-3.c(2), 3-11.a 

6. Is A-E contract negotiation 

a team effort among the KO, 

technical personnel, 

contracting specialists, and 

others? 

EP 4-1.a, 4-4.a(1) 

7. Are engineers and architects 

who are primary participants in 

A-E negotiations properly 

trained? 

EP 4-4.b 

8. Are streamlining techniques 

being effectively employed? 

EP Appendix M 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

C-2 

REQUIREMENT REFERENCES 

(EP = EP 715-1-7) 

YES/ NO? 

REMARKS 

9. Are there written procedures 

for preparing, reviewing and 

approving A-E performance 

evaluations? 

EP 6-4.a 

10. Is there a system for 

tracking when A-E 

performance evaluations are 

due and when they are 

completed? 

EP 6-4.a 

11. Are there written 

procedures implementing the 

AERMP? 

EP 7-5.a 

12. Is there an AERC 

appointed? 

EP 7-3.b(1) 

13. Is the AERRB established 

and does it meet as required? 

EP 7-3.b(2), 7-7.k 

14. Does the AERA 

periodically review the cost 

effectiveness and timeliness of 

A-E liability cases? 

EP 7-5.c-d 

15. Are customers regularly 

apprised of A-E liability 

actions? 

EP 7-9.a 

16. Are quarterly and annual 

AERMP reports prepared and 

submitted? 

EP 7-9.b 

Other Remarks: 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

D-1 

APPENDIX D 

A-E CONTRACT CHECKLIST 

CONTRACT NO. _______________________ 

CONTRACT TITLE _________________________________________________________ 

REQUIREMENT REFERENCES 

(EP = EP 715-1-7) 

YES, NO or N/A? 

REMARKS 

1. ACQUISITION PLANNING 

1-1. Was appropriate acquisition 

planning performed and 

documented (formal or informal 

acquisition plan), including 

consideration of contract type, 

options and small business? 

FAR 7.1 

DFARS 207.1 

AFARS 5107.1 

EFARS 7.1 

EP Chapter 2 

1-2. Was a DD Form 2579 

prepared and coordinated with the 

KO, DSB and SBA prior to 

releasing the synopsis? 

DFARS 219.201(d)(10)(B) 

EFARS 19.201(c)(9)(B) 

EP 2-6, 3-4.e 

2. SYNOPSIS AND SELECTION 

2-1. Does the synopsis conform 

to the standard format? 

FAR 5.207 

EP 3-4.c-d, Appendix N 

2-2. Is the scope of an IDC as 

specific as possible? 

EFARS 16.501(S-102)(b) 

2-3. Has a proper waiver been 

obtained for an IDC exceeding 

$3,000,000 and/or 3 years? 

EFARS 36.601-3-90(e)-(h) 

2-4. Are the selection criteria 

clear and reasonable, in 

conformance with criteria in FAR 

and DFARS, free of unnecessary 

restrictions, and in order of 

importance? 

FAR 36.602-1 

DFARS 236.602-1 

EP 3-4.d, 3-7, Appendix N 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

D-2 

REQUIREMENT REFERENCES 

(EP = EP 715-1-7) 

YES, NO or N/A? 

REMARKS 

2-5. Do the preselection and 

selection reports show that all 

board members are highly 

qualified professional employees 

with the appropriate expertise? 

FAR 36.602-2(a) 

EFARS 36.602-2(a) 

EP 3-6 

2-6. Do the preselection and 

selection reports clearly explain 

the primary reasons for 

eliminating the firms that were 

not most highly qualified, and do 

those reasons properly relate to 

the selection criteria? 

FAR 36.602-3(d) 

EP 3-8.f, 3-9.c, 3-10.f 

2-7. Were effective and 

meaningful interviews held with 

the most highly qualified firms? 

FAR 36.602-3(c) 

EP 3-10.d 

2-8. Does the selection report 

clearly explains the reasons for 

ranking the most highly qualified 

firms, and do those reasons 

properly relate to the selection 

criteria? 

FAR 36.602-3(d) 

EP 3-10.e-f 

2-9. Has the selection report been 

approved by the designated 

authority? 

FAR 36.602-4 

EFARS 36.602-4 

EP 3-11.a 

2-10. Were all firms promptly 

notified of their selection status? 

FAR 15.503, 36.607 

EFARS 36.607 

EP 3-12 

2-11. Were meaningful 

debriefings promptly held with 

the firms who requested a 

debriefing? 

FAR 15.505, 36.607 

EFARS 36.607 

EP 3-13 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

D-3 

REQUIREMENT REFERENCES 

(EP = EP 715-1-7)

YES, NO or N/A? 

REMARKS

3. NEGOTIATION AND CONTRACT AWARD 

3-1. Does the scope of work 

thoroughly address the project 

description, scope of A-E 

services, schedule, deliverables, 

reviews, conferences, criteria and 

standards, Government-furnished 

information, and administrative 

instructions? 

EP 4-5 

3-2. Was the Service Contract 

Act considered, and a wage 

determination incorporated in 

contract negotiation, if 

appropriate? 

FAR 22.10 

EP 4-9 

3-3. Does the PNM indicate that 

the key contract clauses and 

performance evaluation process 

were discussed with the firm 

during negotiation? 

EFARS 36.604(S-100) 

EP 4.7.b 

3-4. Is/does the IGE: 

- Based on a detailed analysis of 

required work? 

- Include profit based on alternate 

structured approach to weighted 

guidelines method? 

- Include a check on the 6% 

limit? 

- Properly approved prior to 

receiving the A-E proposal? 

FAR 36.605 

EFARS 15.404-73-101, 

36.605 

EP 4-10, Appendix X 

3-5. Is the proposal analysis in 

adequate detail for the size and 

complexity of the action, and 

does it address technical, price, 

and cost considerations? 

FAR 15.404 

EP 4-12.a, Appendix Z 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

D-4 

REQUIREMENT REFERENCES 

(EP = EP 715-1-7)

YES, NO or N/A? 

REMARKS

3-6. Are the PNO documented in 

adequate detail in a POM, and the 

significant differences among the 

IGE, proposal and PNO 

explained? 

FAR 15.406-1 

AFARS 5115.406-1 

EFARS 15.406-1 

EP 4-12.c 

3-7. Is there an approved 

subcontracting plan, if 

applicable? 

FAR 19.702, 19.704, 

19.705 

EP 4-15, Appendix J 

3-8. Does the PNM: 

- Describe the principal elements 

of the negotiation? 

- Explain the significant 

differences between the final 

agreed price and the PNO? 

- Support that a fair and 

reasonable price agreement was 

reached? 

- Show that the final A-E 

proposal complies with the 6% 

limitation? 

FAR 15.404-4(c)(4)(i)(B), 

15.406-3 

DFARS 236.606-70 

AFARS 5115.406-3 

EFARS 15.406-3, 36.606-

70 

EP 4-13.c, 4-16 

3-9. Was the contract awarded 

within the pertinent time 

standard, exclusive of justifiable 

delays? 

EP 2-11, Appendix L 

4. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT 

4-1. Is there a COR with 

appropriate training appointed in 

the contract? 

DFARS 201.602-2 

EP 5-4 

4-2. Is there evidence that the 

Government closely monitored 

and managed the A-E firm’s 

performance and reviewed the 

A-E products for technical 

adequacy? 

EP 5-3, 5-5, 5-9 

4-3. Is there evidence of 

enforcement of the A-E firm’s 

responsibility and liability for 

design errors and deficiencies? 

FAR 36.608, 36.609-2 

EP Chapter 7 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

D-5 

REQUIREMENT REFERENCES 

(EP = EP 715-1-7)

YES, NO or N/A? 

REMARKS

4-4. Is there evidence of 

enforcement of the firm’s 

responsibility for design within 

the construction funding 

limitation? 

FAR 36.609-1, 52.236-22 

EP 7-4.b 

4-5. Were progress payments 

processed promptly and retainage 

withheld as appropriate? 

FAR 52.232-10 

EP 5-7 

4-6. Was there an appraisal of 

the A-E performance prepared 

after each submission or phase of 

work, and the final performance 

evaluation prepared in ACASS 

and sent to the firm? 

FAR 36.604 

DFARS 236.604 

EFARS 36.604 

EP Chapter 6 

4-7. Were subcontracting reports 

(SF 294/295) submitted by the 

contractor, if applicable? 

FAR 52.219-9 

EP 5-8, Appendix J 

Other Remarks: 

EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

E-1 

APPENDIX E 

A-E TASK ORDER CHECKLIST 

CONTRACT NO. _______________________ TASK ORDER NO. ___________ 

TASK ORDER TITLE _______________________________________________________ 

REQUIREMENT REFERENCES 

(EP = EP 715-1-7) 

YES, NO or N/A? 

REMARKS 

1. ACQUISITION PLANNING 

1-1. Was appropriate acquisition 

planning performed and 

documented (formal or informal 

acquisition plan), including 

consideration of contract type, 

options and small business? 

FAR 7.1 

DFARS 207.1 

AFARS 5107.1 

EFARS 7.1 

EP Chapter 2 

1-2. Was a DD Form 2579 

prepared and coordinated with the 

KO, DSB and SBA prior to 

committing to issue of the task 

order? 

DFARS 219.201(d)(10)(B) 

EFARS 19.201(c)(9)(B) 

EP 2-6, 3-4.e 

2. NEGOTIATION AND TASK ORDER ISSUE 

2-1. Does the scope of work 

thoroughly address the project 

description, scope of A-E services, 

schedule, deliverables, reviews, 

conferences, criteria and standards, 

Government-furnished 

information, and administrative 

instructions? 

EP 4-5 

2-2. If this task order could have 

been issued under more than one 

IDC, is the contract file 

documented to justify the basis for 

issuing the task order under this 

contract? 

FAR 16.500, 16.505(b) 

EFARS 16.505(b)(1) 

EP 4-14.f(2) 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

E-2 

REQUIREMENT REFERENCES 

(EP = EP 715-1-7) 

YES, NO or N/A? 

REMARKS 

2-3. If this task order is over 

$500,000, is the use of a task order 

instead of initiating a new contract 

justified in the file? 

EFARS 36.601-3-90(c) 

EP 4-14.f(2) 

2-4. Is the scope of work for this 

task order within the scope of the 

IDC? 

FAR 16.505(a)(2) 

EP 4-14.f(2) 

2-5. Was the Service Contract Act 

considered, and a wage 

determination incorporated in 

contract negotiation, if 

appropriate? 

FAR 22.10 

EP 4-9 

2-6. Is/does the IGE: 

- Based on a detailed analysis of 

required work? 

- Include profit based on alternate 

structured approach to weighted 

guidelines method? 

- Include a check on the 6% limit? 

- Properly approved prior to 

receiving the A-E proposal? 

FAR 36.605 

EFARS 15.404-73-101, 

36.605 

EP 4-10, Appendix X 

2-7. Is the proposal analysis in 

adequate detail for the size and 

complexity of the action, and does 

it address technical, price, and cost 

considerations? 

FAR 15.404 

EP 4-12.a, Appendix Z 

2-8. Are the PNO documented in 

adequate detail in a POM and the 

significant differences among the 

IGE, proposal and PNO explained? 

FAR 15.406-1 

AFARS 5115.406-1 

EFARS 15.406-1 

EP 4-12.c 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

E-3 

2-9. Does the PNM: 

- Describe the principal elements 

of the negotiation? 

- Explain the significant 

differences between the final 

agreed price and the PNO? 

- Support that a fair and reasonable 

price agreement was reached? 

- Show that the final A-E proposal 

complies with the 6% limitation? 

FAR 15.404-4(c)(4)(i)(B), 

15.406-3 

DFARS 236.606-70 

AFARS 5115.406-3 

EFARS 15.406-3, 36.606-

70 

EP 4-13.c, 4-16 

2-10. Was the task order awarded 

within the pertinent time standard, 

exclusive of justifiable delays? 

EP 2-11, Appendix L 

3. TASK ORDER ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT 

3-1. Is there evidence that the 

Government closely monitored and 

managed the A-E firm’s 

performance and reviewed the A-E 

products for technical adequacy? 

EP 5-3, 5-5, 5-9 

3-2. Is there evidence of 

enforcement of the A-E firm’s 

responsibility and liability for 

design errors and deficiencies? 

FAR 36.608, 36.609-2 

EP Chapter 7 

3-3. Is there evidence of 

enforcement of the firm’s 

responsibility for design within the 

construction funding limitation? 

FAR 36.609-1, 52.236-22 

EP 7-4.b 

3-4. Were progress payments 

processed promptly and retainage 

withheld as appropriate? 

FAR 52.232-10 

EP 5-7 

3-5. Was there an appraisal of the 

A-E performance prepared after 

each submission or phase of work, 

and the final performance 

evaluation prepared and sent to 

ACASS and the firm? 

FAR 36.604 

DFARS 236.604 

EFARS 36.604 

EP Chapter 6 

Other Remarks: 

EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

F-1 

APPENDIX F 

INTERNET ADDRESSES FOR A-E CONTRACTING 

USACE HOME PAGE: 

http://www.usace.army.mil

USACE PROJECT MANAGEMENT BUSINESS PROCESS: 

http://bp.usace.army.mil

HQUSACE, ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION DIVISION: 

http://www.usace.army.mil/inet/functions/cw/cecwe/

BROOKS A-E ACT: 

http://uscode.house.gov/search/criteria.shtml Search on Title 40, Section 541. Then scroll 

to Sections 542, 543, and 544 to view entire law. 

 

FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION (FAR): 

http://www.arnet.gov/far 

DEFENSE FAR SUPPLEMENT: 

http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/dfars/index.htm 

DFARS PROCEDURES, GUIDANCE AND INFORMATION: Companion resource to 

DFARS containing mandatory and non-mandatory internal DoD procedures, non-mandatory 

guidance and supplemental information used at the discretion of the contracting officer. 

http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/pgi/

ARMY FAR SUPPLEMENT: 

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/other/afars/afartoc.htm

CORPS OF ENGINEERS FAR SUPPLEMENT: 

http://www.hq.usace.army.mil/cepr/ Click on “Engineer Federal Acquisition Regulation 

Supplement (EFARS)” 

A T & L KNOWLEDGE SHARING SYSTEM (AKSS): Comprehensive collection of DoD 

acquisition policies and procedures. 

http://akss.dau.mil/

FEDERAL ACQUISITION JUMP STATION: 

http://nais.nasa.gov/fedproc/home.html

WHERE IN FEDERAL CONTRACTING: Federal contracting regulations, information, 

newsletters, business opportunities, and small business information 

http://www.wifcon.com/

USACE PUBLICATIONS: 

http://www.usace.army.mil/inet/usace-docs
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

F-2 

EP 715-1-4, COMPETING FOR ARCHITECT-ENGINEER CONTRACTS WITH THE U.S. 

ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

http://www.usace.army.mil/inet/usace-docs/eng-pamphlets/ep715-1-4/toc.htm 

EP 715-1-7, ARCHITECT-ENGINEER CONTRACTING: 

http://www.usace.army.mil/inet/usace-docs/eng-pamphlets/ep715-1-7/toc.htm 

FEDERAL BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES: 

http://www.fedbizopps.gov

ARMY SINGLE FACE TO INDUSTRY: 

https://acquisition.army.mil/asfi/

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION: 

http://www.SBAonline.SBA.gov 

DYNAMIC SMALL BUSINESS SEARCH: Part of CCR: 

http://dsbs.sba.gov/dsbs/dsp_dsbs.cfm

NORTH AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (NAICS): 

http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/naics.html

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: Federal Register 

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/index.html

STANDARD FORM 330: 

http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/formslibrary.do?formType=SF

COMPTROLLER GENERAL DECISIONS: 

http://www.gao.gov 

CENTRAL CONTRACTOR REGISTRATION: 

http://www.ccr.gov

INTEGRATED ACQUSITION ENVIRONMENT: Federal electronic acquisition program. 

http://egov.gsa.gov

BUSINESS PARTNER NETWORK (BPN): Single source for vendor data for the Federal Government. 

http://www.bpn.gov/

ON-LINE REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS APPLICATION (ORCA): Part of 

BPN. Question 26 is SF 330 Part II. 

http://orca.bpn.gov/

PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION RETRIEVAL SYSTEM (PPIRS): 

http://www.ppirs.gov/

FEDERAL PROCUREMENT DATA SYSTEM – NEW GENERATION: 

https://www.fpds.gov/
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

F-3 

CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT REPORTING SYSTEM (Navy): 

http://cpars.navy.mil/

TRI-SERVICE CADD/GIS CENTER: 

http://tsc.wes.army.mil

USACE TECH INFO: Regulations, design criteria, design guidance, specifications, etc. 

http://www.hnd.usace.army.mil/techinfo/index.aspx

ARCHITECT-ENGINEER CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION SUPPORT SYSTEM: Public 

site. 

https://www.nwp.usace.army.mil/ct/i

ARCHITECT-ENGINEER CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION SUPPORT SYSTEM: 

Government site. Requires access permission and password. 

http://www.cpars.navy.mil

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR WAGE DETERMINATIONS ONLINE: 

http://www.wdol.gov/

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR EMPLOYMENT COST INDEX: 

http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ect/home.htm

USACE PROSPECT TRAINING PROGRAM: 

http://pdsc.usace.army.mil/

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS LEGISLATIVE INFORMATION: 

http://thomas.loc.gov/

EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

G-1 

APPENDIX G 

CLASSIFICATION OF CONTRACTS AS A-E SERVICES 

INTRODUCTION

 This appendix provides guidance and examples to assist the contracting officer when 

determining whether a particular contract should be procured as A-E services in accordance 

with the procedures FAR Subpart 36.6. 

 A contract must be procured in accordance with FAR 36.6 when: 

 1. The SOW includes work that is A-E services, and 

 2. The A-E services are a substantial or dominant portion of the contract. 

Each of these two conditions is discussed in turn below. 

CATEGORIES OF A-E SERVICES

 FAR 36.601-4(a) describes four categories of A-E services, each of which is 

discussed below. 

 "(1) Professional services of an architectural or engineering nature, as defined by 

applicable State law, which the State law requires to be performed or approved by a 

registered architect or engineer." 

Discussion: The test for this category is whether the work is typically of the type that state 

laws require to be performed or approved by a registered architect or engineer (even though 

the work is likely on Federal property and state laws generally do not apply to the project). 

All states license architects and engineers for the protection of public health, safety and 

welfare. State laws vary but generally the practices of engineering and architecture include 

the evaluation, planning, design and construction supervision of public and private buildings 

and structures and the equipment and utilities thereof, site development, and transportation 

systems. 

 "(2) Professional services of an architectural or engineering nature associated with 

design or construction of real property." 

Discussion: The test for this category is whether the work is of the type typically performed 

by architects or engineers in association with the design or construction of real property, 

even if there is no explicit registration requirement in the SOW. Real property is land and 

any structures on it. Design also includes investigations and planning when related to a 

particular construction project. Construction is defined in FAR 36.102 as construction, 

alteration or repair of buildings, structures, or other real property. Many specific examples 

are cited. "Construction does not include ... vessels, aircraft, or other kinds of personal 

property." Personal property is movable or not attached to the land. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

G-2 

 "(3) Other professional services of an architectural or engineering nature or incidental 

services thereto (including studies, investigations, surveying and mapping, tests, evaluations, 

consultations, comprehensive planning, program management, conceptual designs, plans and 

specifications, value engineering, construction phase services, soils engineering, drawing 

reviews, preparation of operating and maintenance manuals and other related services) that 

logically or justifiably require performance by registered architects or engineers or their 

employees." 

Discussion: The test for this category is whether the work is of the type that should logically 

or justifiably be accomplished by, or under the supervision, of architects or engineers. 

However, the work must be of an architectural or engineering nature. For example, not all 

studies, investigations, tests, evaluations, consultations, planning, and construction phase 

services are architectural or engineering in nature. Also, the list of typical services in 

parentheses is not all-inclusive; reasonable extrapolations from this list can be made. 

 "(4) Professional surveying and mapping services of an architectural or engineering 

nature. Surveying is considered to be an architectural and engineering service and shall be 

procured pursuant to Section 36.601 from registered surveyors or architects and engineers. 

Mapping associated with the research, planning, development, design, construction, or 

alteration of real property is considered to be an architectural and engineering service and is 

to be procured pursuant to Section 36.601..." 

Discussion: The general FAR test for this category is whether the surveying and mapping is 

related to architectural and engineering activities. But also, by separate statute (33 U.S.C. 

569b), all surveying and mapping procured by USACE must use Brooks Act procedures. 

(See Appendix I.) EFARS 36.601-4(a)(4)(A) provides examples of surveying and mapping 

services which should be procured as A-E services. In USACE, the performance of 

surveying and mapping services will not be limited to A-E firms, but may include surveying 

and mapping professionals such as licensed surveyors, geodesists, and cartographers. 

MIXED WORK

 FAR 36.601-3(c) provides the following guidance when the SOW includes both A-E 

services and other services: 

 "When the contract statement of work includes both architect-engineer services and 

other services, the contracting officer shall follow the procedures in this subpart if the 

statement of work, substantially or to a dominant extent, specifies performance or approval 

by a registered or licensed architect or engineer." 

Discussion: When a contract includes a mixture of A-E services and other services, the 

contract shall be procured in accordance with FAR 36.6 if the A-E services (as defined in 

FAR 36.601-4(a) and discussed above) are a substantial or dominant part of the work. 

Substantial means a considerable percentage of the work but not necessarily a majority of the 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

G-3 

hours or cost. Dominant means the primary purpose of the work, although not necessarily a 

majority of the hours or cost, or the largest component of the work. 

EXAMPLES

1. A contract for the complete architectural and engineering design of a building, structure 

or utility system is A-E services. However, a contract principally for drafting services is not 

A-E services, even if the SOW requires review by a registered architect or engineer as a 

quality control measure. 

2. A contract for the architectural design of the renovation of a building (such as relocation 

of load bearing partitions to accommodate a new occupancy, alteration of hallways and 

corridors to comply with life safety codes, and various improvements to allow handicapped 

access), which may also include interior design services (such as space planning and modular 

furniture systems design), is A-E services. However, a contract principally for interior 

design services, where load-bearing structural elements and mechanical and electrical 

systems are not altered, is not A-E services, notwithstanding the fact that a few states require 

registration of interior designers. 

3. A contract for a geotechnical engineering study is A-E services, even if the necessary 

soils borings and tests are the majority of the effort measured in hours or dollars. However, 

a contract principally for borings and laboratory tests, where engineering analysis and 

judgment are not required, is not A-E services, even if the SOW requires monitoring of the 

borings and tests by a registered engineer as a quality control measure. 

4. A contract for landscape architecture, which is concerned with the functional as well as 

aesthetic aspects of site development and is licensed by most states, is A-E services. 

However, a contract that principally requires application of the natural sciences (such as 

botany, marine science, or forestry) is not A-E services. 

5. A contract for hydraulic engineering to study the effects on shoreline erosion and marine 

structures due to increased flow in a river is A-E services. However, a contract principally to 

study the effects on marine plants and fish due to increased flow in a river is not A-E 

services, even if a minor effort is required by a hydraulic engineer. 

6. A contract for an environmental study or assessment with significant engineering 

considerations (such as alternative highway alignments, air pollution control, sanitary 

sewage waste collection and treatment, storm drainage management, domestic water supply, 

energy consumption, or remedial technology evaluation) is A-E services. However, a 

contract for environmental studies or assessment where the engineering considerations are 

not significant or dominant is not A-E services. See Appendix H for more detailed guidance 

on which types of environmental services should typically be procured as A-E services. 

7. A contract for aerial photogrammetry is A-E services in USACE. However, a contract for 

aerial photography only which does not result in a surveying and mapping product is not A-E 

services. See EM 1110-1-1000 for additional guidance. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

G-4 

8. A contract for construction phase services, such as shop drawing review, evaluation of 

construction methods, and interpretation of plans and specifications, is A-E services. 

However, a contract for construction phase services that is principally for materials testing, 

quantity verification or materials scheduling is not A-E services. 

9. A contract for the architectural renovation of the exterior of a historic building (including 

cleaning and repair of masonry, repair and/or replacement of doors and windows, and 

handicapped accessibility improvements), which may require research by an architectural 

historian, is A-E services. However, a contract principally for historic research, archaeology, 

or cultural resources studies is not A-E services, even though a minor effort may be required 

by an architect. 

10. A contract to study whether to renovate an existing building or construct a new building 

to accommodate a new mission is an A-E service. However, a contract to do a cost/benefit 

study of which installation should receive this new mission is not A-E services, even though 

facilities analysis would be a part of such a study. 

11. A contract to design a building, including an artist's rendering and a three dimensional 

model, is A-E services. However, a contract only for a rendering and/or model is not A-E 

services. 

12. An engineering geology study to determine the foundation requirements for a new dam 

is A-E services. However, a geology investigation that is not directly related to a 

construction project, such as mapping of seismic faults, is not A-E services, notwithstanding 

the fact that many states license geologists. 

13. Comprehensive planning that is related to future construction requirements on a military 

installation is A-E services. However, comprehensive planning that is not related to 

construction, such as information systems improvements or natural resources management, is 

not A-E services. 

14. A contract for cost engineering or value engineering, which assesses the relative 

economic and technical merits of alternate engineering solutions, is A-E services. However, 

a contract solely for cost estimating, which involves computing quantities and applying 

appropriate cost factors to determine the estimated construction cost of a project, is not A-E 

services, notwithstanding the expertise required to perform this service. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

H-1 

APPENDIX H 

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 

INTRODUCTION 

 USACE procures a significant amount of environmental services, some of which are 

A-E services. This appendix provides examples of common environmental projects that are 

typically A-E services, that are not typically A-E services, and that may be A-E services. 

This guidance, in conjunction with Appendix G, should be used when determining whether a 

particular contract for environmental services should be procured as an A-E contract. 

 If a contract for environmental services is procured as A-E services, the NAICS code 

must either be 541330 or 541620. (See Chapter 2, paragraph 2-4.) 

PROJECTS THAT ARE TYPICALLY A-E SERVICES

1. Air quality corrective action plans and projects, such as for: 

 a. Stationary and mobile sources 

 b. Asbestos 

 c. Radon 

 d. Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC) and halon 

2. Water resources corrective action plans and projects, such as for: 

 a. Drinking water 

 b. Wastewater 

 c. Point source and non-point source discharge 

 d. Storm water discharge 

3. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) 

studies and design (preliminary assessment/site investigation (PA/SI), remedial investigation/ 

feasibility study (RI/FS), treatability studies, and remedial design (RD)) performed as a 

single project. 

4. Preparation of Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plans under the National 

Contingency Plan (NCP). 

5. Design of corrective actions in accordance with the Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA). 

6. Preservation surveys, management plans, and restoration designs for historic structures. 

7. Development of Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) which include the 

design of appropriate diversion structures. 

8. Design of repair, removal and/or replacement of underground storage tanks (UST) and 

design of leak detection systems for UST. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

H-2 

9. Design of boiler replacement or upgrade projects, such as installation of low NOx 

systems. 

10. Design of a new or upgraded RCRA Part B permitted hazardous waste management unit. 

11. Closure procedures, documentation and certification for RCRA Part B permitted 

hazardous waste management unit. 

12. Design of a new or upgraded solid waste land-based unit. 

13. Design of support systems under the excavation standards of the Occupational Safety 

and Health Act for excavations greater than 20 feet. 

14. Monitoring and certification of closure of injection wells in accordance with 40 CFR 

144. 

PROJECTS THAT ARE NOT TYPICALLY A-E SERVICES

1. Environmental Compliance Assessment System surveys. 

2. Preparation of RCS-1383 reports. 

3. Air quality surveys and/or emissions reporting, such as for: 

 a. Stationary and mobile sources 

 b. Asbestos 

 c. Radon 

 d. CFC and halon 

4. Laboratory testing, such as for: 

 a. Drinking water 

 b. Wastewater 

 c. Point source and non-point source discharge 

 d. Storm water discharge 

5. Data management for the Army Automated Environmental Management Information 

System. 

6. Pollution prevention opportunity assessments. 

7. Reporting under the NCP, such as for: 

 a. Oil 

 b. Hazardous substances 

 c. Installation Spill Contingency Plan 

 d. Toxic release inventory 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

H-3 

8. Hazardous and toxic waste and materials management, including compliance with the 

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act. 

9. Chemical inventories. 

10. Chemical testing. 

11. Lead based paint surveys. 

12. General environmental program management functions. 

13. Forestry management plans. 

14. Wildlife surveys and management plans, including endangered species. 

15. Archaeology surveys and management plans. 

16. Pest management plans. 

17. Wetland identification surveys and management plans. 

18. Coastal zone management plans. 

19. Land management and restoration plans. 

20. Solid waste management functions. 

21. Wastewater management functions. 

22. Remedial design of ordnance and munitions disposal projects. 

PROJECTS THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE A-E SERVICES, DEPENDING ON 

SPECIFIC INSTALLATION OR PROJECT REQUIREMENTS 

1. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation, including environmental 

assessments and environmental impact statements. 

2. Noise abatement activities, such as: 

 a. Compliance with the Quiet Communities Act. 

 b. Compliance with the Noise Control Act, including: 

 (1) Assessment of impact by activities 

 (2) Installation compatible use zone studies 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

H-4 

3. Preparation of air quality permits, such as for: 

 a. Stationary and mobile sources 

 b. Asbestos 

 c. Radon 

 d. CFC and halon 

4. Preparation of permits for water resources, such as for: 

 a. Drinking water 

 b. Wastewater 

 c. Point source and non-point source discharge 

 d. Storm water discharge 

5. Data collection and reporting under Title V of the Clean Air Act. 

6. UST installation certification. 

7. CERCLA PA/SI and RI only without FS and RD. 

8. Preparation of SWPPP. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

I-1 

APPENDIX I 

SURVEYING, MAPPING AND GEOSPATIAL SERVICES 

1. FAR 36.601-4(a)(4) requires that surveying and mapping services associated with real 

property be procured in accordance with the Brooks A-E Act. Also, 33 USC 569b and 33 USC 

2292 require USACE to follow the Brooks Act when awarding contracts for surveying and 

mapping services, the later statute specifically addressing water resources projects. Hence, all 

USACE prime contracts for surveying, mapping or geospatial services must be awarded in 

accordance with the Brooks Act. EFARS 36.601-4(a)(4)(A) defines surveying, mapping or 

geospatial services applicable to USACE.

2. Significant surveying, mapping or geospatial projects (over approximately $25,000) should be 

procured by contractors that have been specifically selected for this type of work. Do not use an 

ID contract selected to primarily provide other types of A-E services to perform a significant 

surveying, mapping or geospatial project. The contractor or subcontractor may not be properly 

qualified to provide the required surveying, mapping or geospatial services, and this type of work 

was not considered in the selection process. 

3. If a command does not have the appropriate surveying, mapping or geospatial contract 

capability, or the technical expertise to administer such contracts, support should be sought from 

other commands or from the Technical Center of Expertise for Photogrammetric Mapping at the 

St. Louis District. The Center can assist with contract administration and has several USACEwide ID contracts for surveying, mapping or geospatial services that can be used. 

4. If a contract statement of work requires significant surveying and mapping services, the 

public announcement must state that the surveying and mapping subcontractor (or the prime 

contractor’s in-house surveying and mapping personnel) will be identified in the Standard Form 

330. The qualifications of the proposed subcontractors (or in-house personnel) are then 

evaluated as a part of the A-E selection process. 

5. Any change in the subcontractors that were specifically identified and agreed to during 

negotiations, or the addition of any subcontractors that were not contemplated during selection 

and negotiation, must be approved by the contracting officer in accordance with FAR Clause 

52.244-4, Subcontractors and Outside Associates and Consultants (Architect-Engineer Services). 

The contracting officer should refer the qualifications of the surveying and mapping 

subcontractor to the A-E selection board for evaluation to ensure that the subcontractor has the 

required technical capabilities in accordance with the intent of the Brooks Act. 

6. In accordance with the spirit and intent of the Brooks Act, the Government may and should 

strongly encourage contractors to use a qualification-based selection (QBS) approach (instead of 

bidding) for selecting subcontractors for surveying, mapping and other professional A-E 

services. The negotiators should stress to the contractor that the Government is willing to pay a 

fair and reasonable price for quality performance, and that bidding of professional subcontracted 

services may be detrimental to the quality of the work, and hence, may impact the selection of 

the prime contractor for future contracts. Also, additional oversight of the subcontractor will 

likely be required to ensure quality products and services. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

I-2 

7. For a response action contract35, 42 USC 9619(f) directs that “contractors and subcontractors 

for program management, construction management, architectural and engineering, surveying 

and mapping, and related services shall be selected” in accordance with the Brooks A-E Act. 

This statute also directs that response action contractors and subcontractors follow the QBS 

procedures in the Brooks Act. However, there is no FAR solicitation or contract clause that 

implements this statute. Hence, the public announcement for any A-E services in connection 

with a response action contract should include a statement that the contractor must use a QBS 

approach in selecting subcontractors for professional A-E services, including surveying and 

mapping, and the contractor may be required to provide evidence that this approach was 

followed. 

8. The majority of the preselection or selection board members for A-E contracts principally 

for real property surveys, topographic or photogrammetric mapping, hydrographic surveying, 

or geodetic surveying shall have specialized and current experience in performing or 

supervising the required type(s) of work. At least one licensed land surveyor shall be 

included as a member on boards for contracts principally for real property surveys or where 

state laws require certain surveying and mapping work to be performed by a licensed 

surveyor. When a command does not have adequate expertise to properly staff an evaluation 

board for a surveying and mapping contract, technical assistance shall be obtained from other 

USACE commands, other Federal agencies, or non-Federal partners or customers. 

 

35 A contract for any remedial action (including planning, engineering, surveying and mapping, 

and design) with respect to any release or threatened release of a hazardous substance or 

pollutant or contaminant under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and 

Liability Act. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

J-1 

APPENDIX J 

SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAM 

INTRODUCTION 

 It is the policy of the Government to provide maximum practicable opportunities in its 

acquisitions to small business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned 

small business, HUBZone small business, small disadvantaged business, and women-owned 

small business concerns. Such concerns must also have the maximum practicable opportunity to 

participate as subcontractors in contracts awarded, consistent with efficient contract 

performance. The Small Business Program is covered in FAR Part 19. 

SMALL BUSINESS DEFINITIONS 

“Concern” is any business entity organized for profit with a place of business located in the US 

and which makes a significant contribution to the US economy through payment of taxes and/or 

use of American products, material and/or labor. 

“Emerging Small Business” is a small business concern whose size is no greater than 50% of 

the numerical size applicable to the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 

code assigned to a contracting opportunity. A certification is not required from SBA. 

“Fair Market Price” is a price based on reasonable costs under normal competitive conditions 

and not on lowest possible cost. 

“HUBZone Concern” is a concern that is a small business, is owned and controlled by one or 

more US citizen or by a Community Development Corporation or Indian tribe, and has its 

principal office located within a historically underutilized business zone (which includes lands 

on recognized Indian reservations). Also, at least 35% of its employees must reside in a 

HUBZone. A certification is required from the SBA. 

“North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code” is the North American 

Industry Classification System. It replaced the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system. 

“Small Business Administration (SBA)” was created by Congress in 1953 to "aid, counsel, 

assist and protect, insofar as is possible, the interests of small business concerns." Congress 

stipulated that the SBA would ensure small businesses receive a "fair proportion" of government 

contracts. 

“Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Concern” is a small business concern that 

is at least 51% owned and operated by one or more service-disabled veterans whose management 

and daily business operations are controlled by service-disabled veterans. Service-disabled 

veterans are veterans with a disability that is service connected. A certification is not required 

from the SBA. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

J-2 

“SBA Size Standards” define whether a business entity is small and, thus, eligible for 

Government programs and preferences reserved for “small business'' concerns. Size standards 

have been established for types of economic activity, or industry, generally under the NAICS. 

Size standards are stated in either number of employees or average annual receipts. NAICS 

assigns codes to all economic activities within twenty broad sectors. The size standard for most 

A-E services is $4 million (see Chapter 2, paragraph 2-4). 

“Small Business Concern” is a domestic firm that is independently owned and operated, not 

dominant in its field of operation, and can qualify under the size standards of the NAICS codes. 

A certification is not required from SBA. 

“Small Disadvantaged Business Concern” is a business, which is; at least 51% owned by one 

or more socially and economically disadvantaged individual(s). A certification is required from 

the SBA. “Socially disadvantaged” is an individual who has been subjected to racial or ethnic 

prejudice or cultural bias (Black, Hispanic, Native, Asian Pacific or Subcontinent Asian 

Americans). “Economically disadvantaged” is an individual denied access to capital and credit 

opportunities because of their identification as a member of a specific group. SBA certifies 

small businesses that meet specific social, economic, ownership, and control eligibility criteria. 

Once certified, the firm is added to an on-line registry of SDB-certified firms maintained in the 

Central Contractor Registration (CCR) database. Certified firms remain on the list for three 

years. Contracting officers and large business prime contractors may search this on-line registry 

for potential suppliers. 

“Veteran-Owned Small Business Concern” is a small business concern that is at least 51% 

owned and operated by one or more veterans and whose management and daily business 

operations are controlled by veterans. Veterans are persons who served in the active military, 

naval, or air service, and who were discharged or released under conditions other than 

dishonorable. A certification is not required from the SBA. 

“Women-Owned Small Business Concern” is a small business concern that is at least 51% 

owned, controlled, and operated by one or more women and whose management and daily 

operations are controlled by one or more women. A certification is not required from the SBA. 

SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAMS APPLICABLE TO A-E CONTRACTS 

SBA 8(a) Business Development Program: The SBA’s business development program for 

socially and economically disadvantaged business concerns is commonly called the 8(a) program 

based upon Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act. Through the 8(a) program, small companies 

owned by socially and economically disadvantaged persons can obtain contracts and other 

assistance from SBA in developing their business. 

 USACE fulfills its mandate to support the 8(a) program by identifying and offering to the 

SBA projects deemed capable for performance by 8(a) contractors. All members of the 

acquisition team (engineering, small business, contracting, legal and project management) must 

participate in a timely manner in the planning and execution of the 8(a) program. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

J-3 

The acquisition team, including the customer when practicable, shall select those projects that 

are considered suitable for the 8(a) program. The selection should be made well in advance of 

the start of the fiscal year. The final selection decision rests with the contracting officer. 

 A-E procurements reserved for the 8(a) program must utilize the selection procedures 

outlined in the Brooks A-E Act, including public announcement, technical evaluations, ranking 

of firms, and holding discussions with the three most highly qualified firms. The Contracting 

Officer must have a reasonable expectation of receiving a sufficient number of responses from 

8(a) firms to proceed with an 8(a) procurement. 8(a) A-E services with an estimated contract 

value, including options, greater than $3 million will follow the standard project offering 

procedures to the SBA (FAR 19.8). For proposed awards below $3 million, the Contracting 

Officer is not required to obtain SBA approval prior to announcing an 8(a) set-side for A-E 

services. 

Small Business Set-Asides: The small business set-aside program consists of a procurement 

action in which only small business firms can compete for the contract. Small business set-asides 

procedures for A-E services vary considerable depending upon (1) the type of work, (2) the 

estimated contract amount, and (3) the applicability of the Small Business Competitiveness 

Demonstration Program (SBCDP). The SBCDP tests the ability of small businesses to compete 

successfully in unrestricted competition in four designated industry groups (DIGs), one of which 

is A-E services. The SBCDP does not affect the use of 8(a), HUBZone and SDVOSB set-asides. 

The program established a small business participation goal of 40 percent of contract awards and 

requires each participating agency to reestablish small business set-asides whenever small 

business awards in any individual DIG fall below the 40 percent threshold. The DoD reviews 

contract award statistics on an annual basis for the purpose of reestablishing or suspending setaside procedures. The DoD is currently below the goal for A-E services and accordingly 

reestablished small business set-aside procedures. 

 There are two exemptions from the requirements of the SBCDP. (1) At FAR 19.1002, the 

SBCDP establishes an emerging small business reserve amount for A-E procurements of 

$50,000. Hence, A-E acquisitions equal to or less than $50,000 must be set-aside for emerging 

small businesses, provided the contracting officer determines there is a reasonable expectation of 

a sufficient number of firms to proceed under Brooks A-E Act procedures. The test of 

reasonable expectation is a judgment call made by the contracting officer, based on procurement 

history and knowledge of the industry. (2) DFARS 219.1005 provides exception to the use of 

small business set-asides for A-E services in connection with a military construction project or a 

military family housing project. For these requirements, set-asides for small business are only 

authorized for requirements valued under $300,00036. Requirements valued at $300,000 or more 

must be solicited on an unrestricted basis or as a set-aside for 8(a), HUBZone, or SDVOSB 

concerns. 

 

36 For an IDC, this threshold applies to the total value of the contract (DFARS 

219.1005(a)(i)(B)). 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

J-4 

 The Small Business Subcontracting Program: With the exception of firms classified as 

small business concerns, any A-E firm receiving a contract for more than $500,000 that has 

subcontracting possibilities, must submit an acceptable subcontracting plan. The subcontracting 

plan will be evaluated in accordance with the Army Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement 

(AFARS) Appendix DD. If the successful offeror fails to negotiate a subcontracting plan 

acceptable to the contracting officer within the time limit prescribed by the contracting officer, 

the offeror will be ineligible for award. Each subcontracting plan must include separate 

percentage goals for using small business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled 

veteran-owned small business, HUBZone small business, small disadvantaged business, and 

women-owned small business concerns. Subcontracting plans also include assurances that the 

A-E firm will submit periodic reports so the contracting officer can determine the extent of 

compliance with the subcontracting plan, as well as submit required Standard Form (SF) 294 and 

SF 295 subcontract reports. 

 The command subcontracting goals must be considered when negotiating subcontracting 

plans, but do not necessarily have to be met for a plan to be acceptable. The subcontracting 

goals should be tailored to the specific circumstances of each contract, including the 

subcontractors proposed (and accepted) team on the SF 330 and the magnitude and nature of the 

work. FAR 19.705-4(c) cautions against setting unrealistically high goals that could 

“significantly increase the Government’s cost or seriously impede the attainment of acquisition 

objectives.” However, any plan with a small disadvantaged business goal of less than five 

percent must be approved two levels above the contracting officer (DFARS 219.705-4(d)). 

The Indian Incentive Program: This program strives to provide opportunities to Indian 

organizations and Indian-owned economic enterprises. When authorized under the terms of the 

contract, any tier contractor may receive an incentive payment of 5 percent of the amount 

subcontracted to an Indian organization or Indian-owned economic enterprise. 

The Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB) Program: This program came into being as a 

result of Executive Order 12138 signed in May 1979 that prescribed a national initiative to assist 

WOSB entrepreneurs. The Acquisition Streamlining Act (P.L. 103-355) of 1994 established a 

5% government-wide goal for contract and subcontract awards to WOSB for each fiscal year. 

The Small Business Reauthorization Act of 2000 (PL 106-554) allows agencies to "restrict 

competition" when soliciting for supplies or services in industries where WOSB are 

underrepresented. The SBA is currently drafting regulations for implementation of the WOSB 

set-aside program. 

The HUBZone Empowerment Contracting Program: The HUBZone Empowerment 

Contracting Program stimulates economic development and creates jobs in urban and rural 

communities. This program provides for contracting opportunities for certain qualified small 

business concerns located in distressed communities and promotes private sector investment and 

employment opportunities in these communities. These preferences go to small businesses that 

obtain HUBZone certification in part by employing staff that live in a HUBZone. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

J-5 

 The SBA regulates and implements the program, determines which businesses are eligible 

to receive HUBZone contracts, maintains a listing of qualified HUBZone small businesses that 

agencies can use to locate vendors, and adjudicates protests of eligibility to receive HUBZone 

contracts. A-E procurements reserved for the HUBZone Program must utilize the selection 

procedures outlined in the Brooks A-E Act, including public announcement, technical 

evaluations, ranking firms, and holding discussions with the three most highly qualified firms. 

The Contracting Officer must have a reasonable expectation of receiving a sufficient number of 

responses from HUBZone firms to proceed with a HUBZone procurement. Also, large 

businesses must address their HUBZone subcontracting efforts in their Small Business 

Subcontracting Plan. 

Veteran-Owned Small Business and Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business 

(VOSB and SDVOSB) Program: This program was established by the Veterans 

Entrepreneurship and Small Business Development Act of 1999. The purpose of the program is 

to provide technical, financial, and procurement assistance by expanding existing and 

establishing new assistance programs for veterans and service-disabled veterans who own or 

operate small businesses and requires Government personnel to encourage participation of 

VOSB and SDVOSB in prime Government contracts and subcontracts. Public Law 108-183, 

Section 308, established a procurement program providing that contracting officers may set-aside 

contracts for SDVOSB concerns. Implementing regulations were effective May 5, 2004. A-E 

procurements reserved for the SDVOSB Program must utilize the selection procedures outlined 

in the Brooks A-E Act, including public announcement, technical evaluations, ranking firms, and 

holding discussions with the three most highly qualified firms. The Contracting Officer must 

have a reasonable expectation of receiving a sufficient number of responses from SDVOSB 

firms to proceed with a SDVOSB procurement. Large business contractors must address their 

VOSB and SDVOSB subcontracting efforts in their Small Business Subcontracting Plan. 

Central Contractor Registration and Dynamic Small Business Search: All contractors must 

be registered in CCR in order to do business with the Federal government. As of December 

2002, the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) system eliminated the requirement to register 

separately within the SBA’s PRO-Net database. A vendor only needs to input business 

information in one database (CCR), which will then automatically populate the SBA database. 

CCR is an electronic gateway of procurement information for and about small businesses. It is a 

search engine for contracting officers, a marketing tool for small firms and a link to procurement 

opportunities and important information. It is designed to be a "virtual" one-stop-procurementshop. The Dynamic Small Business Search (DSB) is a search tool in the CCR for identifying 

small, SDB, 8(a), HUBZone, veteran, service-disabled veteran, and women-owned businesses. 

The DSB database is available to government contracting personnel as well as large DoD prime 

contractors as a resource for seeking potential small business sources. DSB is free to 

government agencies as well as prime and other contractors seeking small business contractors, 

subcontractors and/or partnership opportunities. Businesses profiled in the DSB system can be 

searched by NAICS codes, key words, location, quality certifications, business type, ownership 

race and gender, etc. The Internet address is http://www.ccr.gov/. 

Sub-Net: The SBA has established a new web site for locating and posting subcontracting 

opportunities called Sub-Net. (Access is available through the DSB home page.) 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

J-6 

While the web site is designed primarily as a place for large businesses to post solicitations and 

notices, agencies, state and local governments, non-profit organizations, colleges and 

universities, and even small businesses can also use it for the same purpose. The new web site 

has shifted the traditional marketing strategy from the shotgun approach to one that is more 

focused and sophisticated. Instead of marketing blindly to hundreds of prime contractors, with 

no certainty that any given company has a need for their product or service, small businesses can 

now use their limited resources to identify concrete, tangible opportunities and then bid on them. 

Order of Precedence: 

Less than $50,000 1. Set-aside for emerging small business* 

2. Set-aside for 8(a), SDVOSB, or 

HUBZone** 

3. Set-aside for Small Business* 

4. Solicit on unrestricted basis* 

$50,000 to 300,000 1. Set-aside for 8(a), SDVOSB, or 

HUBZone** 

2. Set-aside for Small Business* 

3. Solicit on unrestricted basis 

Greater than $300,000 for MILCON & 

Military Family Housing, 

1. Set-aside for 8(a), SDVOSB, or 

HUBZone** 

2. Solicit on unrestricted basis 

Greater than $300,000, other than 

MILCON & Military Family Housing 

1. Set-aside for 8(a), SDVOSB, or 

HUBZone** 

2. Set-aside for Small Business* 

3. Solicit on unrestricted basis 

* In accordance with the Brooks A-E Act, in order to set-aside a procurement in the 

Small Business Program, a contracting officer must determine that there is a 

reasonable expectation of receiving at least three offers from highly qualified firms. If 

multiple awards will be made from one solicitation, the Contracting Officer must make 

a determination that a sufficient number of highly qualified firms will submit offers. 

** Each of these set-aside programs is of equal preference. Therefore, when making a 

determination regarding which set-aside program to use, the Contracting Officer 

should consider if the requirement would be best suited as an 8(a), HUBZone, or 

SDVOSB set-aside based upon meeting the activity’s respective goals. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

K1

APPENDIX K 

A-E CONTRACTING PROCESS 

AUTHORIZATION REVIEW REQUIREMENTS ACQUISI- TION PLAN Prepare Synopsis Synopsis Period Pre- Selection Selection Selection Approval REQUEST FOR PRICE PROPOSAL A-E REVIEW SOW PRE- PROPOSAL MEETING 

DETAILED 

SCOPE OF 

WORK 

PRELIM. 

SCOPE 

OF WORK 

SMALL 

BUSINESS 

COORDINATION 

REVISED 

SCOPE OF 

WORK 

A-E PRICE 

PROPOSAL 

AUDIT 

COST/ PRICE 

ANALYSIS 

& PNO 

REVIEW & 

APPROVE 

POM 

NEGOTIATE 

NEGOTIATION 

DOCUMENTATION 

REVIEW & 

APPROVE 

PNM 

PREPARE 

CONTRACT 

OR T.O. 

REVIEW & 

AWARD 

CONTRACT 

OR T.O. 

DETAILED 

GOV’’T 

ESTIMATE 

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS 

FACTFINDING 

CERTIFY 

FUNDING 

A 

A 

ACQUISITION PLANNING PHASE SELECTION PHASE PROPOSAL PHASE 

BEGIN TIME STANDARD 

PROPOSAL PHASE NEGOTIATION PHASE CONTRACT AWARD PHASE 

END TIME STANDARD 

ABBREVIATIONS: A-E = ARCHITECT-ENGINEER PNO = PRICE NEGOTIATION OBJECTIVES POM = PRENEGOTIATION OBJECTIVE  MEMORANDUM PNM = PRICE NEGOTIATION MEMORANDUM 

SOW = SCOPE OF WORK

ACTIVITY NOT REQUIRED FOR ALL CONTRACTS OR TASK ORDERS 

ARCHITECT-ENGINEER CONTRACTING PROCESS

ACTIVITIES ARE DEFINED ON PAGES K-2 THROUGH K-4 

ACTIVITIES IN Italics ARE NOT REQUIRED FOR TASK ORDERS 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

K-2

A-E CONTRACTING PROCESS 

ACTIVITY DEFINITIONS 

ACQUISITION PLANNING PHASE

Authorization. Receipt of a formal authorization or customer request to initiate a project or 

A-E contract. Assignment of the project or contract to project delivery team members in 

project management, engineering, contracting and other appropriate functional areas. 

Review of Requirements. Review of the project or contract requirements. Coordination with 

the customer to understand and refine the requirements, and obtain other pertinent 

information. 

Preliminary Scope of Work (SOW). Preparation of the preliminary SOW based on review of 

the requirements and coordination with technical personnel and the customer. 

Acquisition Plan. Decision on performance by the traditional design-bid-build method or an 

alternative method such as design-build (not procured as A-E services). Decision on which 

portion of work, if any, will be done by in-house personnel. Decision on packaging in one or 

multiple A-E contracts. Decision on appropriate A-E contract type. Development of a 

project management plan, including preliminary SOW, preliminary project budget (including 

preliminary estimate of A-E fee), schedule, and informal or formal acquisition plan, and their 

coordination with the customer and/or higher authority. Verification of the availability of 

funding with the customer. 

Small Business Coordination. Coordination with the DSB and the SBA to identify prime 

contract and subcontracting opportunities for SB and SDB firms. Decision on set-aside for 

SB, ESB, 8(a), SDVOSB or HUBZone A-E firms. Preparation of DD Form 2579, Small 

Business Coordination Record. 

SELECTION PHASE (Not applicable for task orders. However, if a task order can be 

issued under more than one ID contract, then the decision on which contract to use must be 

documented in the contract file. See EFARS 16.505(b)(1).) 

Preparation of Synopsis. Preparation of the synopsis based on the preliminary SOW, and 

review and approval, as required. Electronic transmission of the synopsis to the 

FedBizOpps. 

Synopsis Period. Minimum 30 days response period as required by FAR 5.203(c), for 

contracts expected to exceed the SAT. 

Detailed Scope of Work. Development of a detailed SOW, including a description of the 

facility or project, design criteria, specific contract services and products, performance 

schedule, quality control requirements, and administrative instructions. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

K-3

Preselection. A preselection board is optional. If a preselection board is not held, its 

functions will be performed by the selection board. Gathering and organizing documents for 

evaluation by preselection and selection boards, including SFs 330 and performance 

evaluations. Conducting the preselection board and preparation of the board report. 

Scheduling board meetings, appointing board members, and preparing worksheets for both 

the preselection and selection boards should be done during the synopsis period. 

Selection. Conducting a selection board and preparation of the board report. 

Selection Approval. Review and approval of the selection report in accordance with the 

delegated selection authority in EFARS 36.602-4. 

PROPOSAL PHASE

Request for Price Proposal (RFPP). Formal notification of selection for negotiation of a 

contract and RFPP sent to the most highly qualified firm. An RFPP is also sent for a task 

order under an ID contract. The RFPP includes the draft contract (not applicable to task 

orders), SOW, project documentation and design criteria. 

Scope of Work Review by A-E. Review of the SOW, project documentation and design 

criteria by the A-E firm to prepare for the preproposal conference, if needed, and the 

development of its proposal. 

Preproposal Conference. Conference(s) among the A-E firm, USACE personnel, customer 

and others as appropriate to discuss and refine project and contract requirements. 

Conference(s) may be by telephone, at the project site, in the firm's office or elsewhere, as 

appropriate. 

Revised Scope Of Work. Resolution of any issues raised at the preproposal conference(s) 

and revision of the SOW accordingly. 

Detailed Government Estimate. Preparation and approval of an IGE based on a detailed 

analysis of the SOW as required by FAR 36.605. Coordination with the customer and/or 

higher authority on estimated funding requirements. 

A-E Price Proposal. Preparation and submission of a price proposal by the A-E firm. 

Includes preparation of a small business subcontracting plan if the A-E firm is a large 

business and the proposal exceeds $500,000 (not applicable for task orders). 

Fact-Finding. Obtaining information in order to understand the A-E price proposal and its 

assumptions, and to clarify any ambiguities, omissions or uncertainties in the RFPP and 

SOW prior to negotiations (FAR 15.406-1(a)). After fact-finding, a revised proposal may be 

requested. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

K-4

NEGOTIATION PHASE

Technical Analysis. Evaluation of the judgmental elements of the A-E proposal in 

accordance with FAR 15.404-1(e). 

Audit. If considered necessary by the KO (FAR 15.404-2(a)). 

Cost/Price Analyses and Prenegotiation Objectives (PNO). Evaluation of all cost elements of 

the A-E proposal in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(c), using the results of the technical 

analysis and the audit, if performed. Evaluation of the total price of the proposal and, as 

appropriate, the prices of phases or items of work in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b). 

Based on the technical, cost and price analyses, development of the PNO in accordance with 

FAR 15.406-1. The proposal analysis and PNO are documented in a Prenegotiation 

Objective Memorandum (POM). Coordination with customer and/or higher authority on 

estimated funding requirements. 

POM Review and Approval. Review and approval of the POM, in accordance with local 

procedures. 

Negotiation. Negotiation of a fair and reasonable price in accordance with the POM. 

Includes negotiation of an acceptable small business subcontracting plan (if applicable) and 

approval by the KO prior to contract award. 

CONTRACT AWARD PHASE

Negotiation Documentation. Preparation of a PNM in accordance with FAR 15.406-3, 

preparation of the final SOW as a result of clarifications and changes during negotiations, 

and receipt of the final A-E proposal. 

Funding Certification. Requesting, receiving and certifying the funds to award the contract 

or issue the task order. 

Price Negotiation Memorandum (PNM) Review and Approval. Review and approval of the 

PNM in accordance with local procedures. 

Contract Preparation. Preparation of SF 252, Architect-Engineer Contract, or preparation of 

DD Form 1155, Order for Supplies or Services, for a task order. 

Contract Review and Award. Final review of the contract documentation and signing of the 

contract by the KO and the A-E firm, or signing of the task order by the KO. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

L-1

APPENDIX L 

TYPICAL DURATIONS FOR A-E CONTRACTING ACTIVITIES 

 Duration (Calendar Days) 

1 Contracting Activity Contract Task Order 

Synopsis Period 30 N/A 

Preselection 10 N/A 

Selection 10 N/A 

Selection Approval 3 N/A 

RFPP 7 3 

SOW Review by A-E 7 2 

Preproposal Conference 2 1 

Revised SOW 10 4 

Government Estimate (9) (7) 

A-E Price Proposal 14 7 

Proposal Analysis/PNO/POM 10 4 

Negotiation 14 7 

Negotiation Documentation/PNM 7 3 

Funding Certification (7) (7) 

Contract/Order Preparation 7 3* 

Contract/Order Review and Award 14 3* 

1.1 TIME STANDARD 

145 37 

Notes: 

1. See Appendix B for acronyms. 

2. Durations in parentheses ( ) are not on the critical path of the contracting process. 

3. N/A = not applicable for task orders. 

4. Asterisk (*) indicates activities applicable for preparation and issue of task orders 

scoped and negotiated by outside customers, such as Army installations. Total duration = 

6 days. 

EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

M-1

APPENDIX M 

STREAMLINING TECHNIQUES FOR A-E CONTRACTS AND TASK ORDERS 

GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Develop a schedule for each A-E contract or task order showing the dates and responsible 

offices and persons for each contracting activity. All responsible staff members should agree 

with this schedule. Track actual dates compared to scheduled dates for each activity and 

document reasons for significant delays. Revise the schedule as required. 

 

2. Assign a specific team member with the overall responsibility and accountability to track 

and control each A-E contracting schedule. 

3. Encourage continual communication among A-E contracting team members. 

4. Use automation and standardization to the maximum extent for preparing correspondence, 

public announcements, preselection and selection board reports, IGE, POM, PNM and other 

typical documents in the A-E contracting process. 

5. Minimize the number of offices and persons who review each document such as public 

announcements, board reports, IGE, POM and PNM. Consider the "value added" of each 

reviewer and the dollar value, complexity and risk of the contract action. Conduct reviews 

concurrently whenever possible. Set a suspense date for each reviewer. 

6. Delegate approval authorities to the lowest reasonable level, considering the dollar value, 

complexity and risk of the contract action. 

7. Collocate the Engineering Division and Contracting Division personnel that are 

principally involved in A-E contracting to improve communications, teamwork and 

efficiency. 

8. Procure A-E services up the micro-purchase threshold of $2,500 using the Government 

purchase card. 

PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS AND EVALUATION BOARDS

1. Coordinate proposed A-E acquisitions with the DSB early to avoid delaying release of 

public announcements. 

2. Commanders do not have to approve the membership of each board. The designated 

chairperson may appoint members from a standing list of eligible personnel designated by 

the commander. 

3. Have a sufficient number of alternate board members to ensure that boards are held when 

scheduled. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

M-2

4. A board should stay convened and fully committed to its task until it is completed. 

Minimize disruptions. 

5. Do not prepare or use elaborate tabulations of information from the SFs 330 since the 

board members must still personally review the SFs 330 and prepare a consensus evaluation. 

6. A preselection board can usually be held within 2-3 days of the closing date of a synopsis, 

and a selection board within 3-5 days of the preselection board. 

7. Consider eliminating preselection boards. One board can typically do the entire selection 

process in two days, including interviewing and ranking the most highly qualified firms, and 

drafting the board report. Not only is the total selection process substantially shortened, but 

the overall labor hours and costs are also considerably reduced. 

8. Review of the SFs 330 by a preselection board may be divided up among the voting 

members. Each firm's submission is reviewed by one member, using the evaluation system 

established by the board. The review of each firm is then presented and discussed by the 

entire board, and consensus is reached on the evaluation of each firm. (This does not apply 

to selection boards.) 

9. Use a standard preselection board cover memorandum report that can be prepared prior to 

the board meeting, and completed and signed by all board members at the meeting. Attach 

handwritten worksheets reflecting the board's consensus for each firm. Using this method, 

the report is completed when the board adjourns. 

10. A preselection board report does not have to be separately approved. It can be attached 

to the selection board report and approved as a package. 

11. Conduct telephone interviews with the most highly qualified firms, instead of in-person 

interviews, to the maximum extent possible. Typically, the firms need only be notified 2-3 

hours in advance of the interview. A selection board should usually be able to evaluate the 

highly qualified firms, interview and rank the most highly qualified firms, and prepare a draft 

report in the same day. 

12. Since equitable distribution of DoD work is a secondary criterion, do not compile or 

report DoD contract award data unless this criterion is used by a selection board as a "tiebreaker" in ranking the most highly qualified firms. 

13. Use a standard selection board cover memorandum that can be completed and signed by 

all board members prior to adjourning the meeting. Written evaluations reflecting the 

board's consensus can be prepared in final form soon after the meeting and attached to the 

memorandum. 

14. Commanders should delegate full selection authority as allowed by EFARS 36.602-4. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

M-3

15. When MSC approval of a selection will be required, coordinate the schedule, selection 

criteria, and evaluation method in advance with the MSC. 

NEGOTIATION AND AWARD

1. As soon as the selection is approved, notify the top ranked A-E firm by telephone. At the 

same time, notify the firm of the date and location for the preproposal conference. Promptly 

follow up the telephone call with a formal notification letter and RFPP. Similar procedures 

also apply to task orders. 

2. Develop the SOW and assemble all pertinent criteria during the synopsis and selection 

period so that this information can be provided to the A-E firm immediately after selection 

notification and not delay the acquisition. 

3. Carefully prepare for the preproposal conference and have the "right" people there who 

can make decisions in order to promptly and properly resolve issues. Aggressively pursue 

any SOW issues remaining after the conference, and resolve them before award. 

4. If schedule is important, state in the public announcement the requirement to submit a 

price proposal within a specific period after the preproposal conference. Impress upon the 

A-E firm that the timeliness of their proposal may be considered in its performance 

evaluation if they are awarded a contract. 

5. Use DoL “on-line” electronic wage rate determinations if the SCA applies to a contract. 

6. A revised IGE is only required if there is a significant change in the Government's 

position, and is not required to justify accepting an A-E proposal greater than the IGE. The 

POM explains the significant differences between the IGE and the proposed Government 

negotiation position (PNO). Similarly, the PNM explains the significant differences between 

the PNO and the final negotiated price. 

7. After receiving a price proposal, hold a fact-finding session(s) with the A-E firm to obtain 

information in order to understand the proposal and its assumptions, and to clarify the SOW 

and RFPP, as required. A revised price proposal may then be requested. The first 

proposal(s) must still be mentioned in the PNM. 

8. Only require review and approval of the POM for large or complex actions. Hence, for 

most actions, the negotiators should be allowed to proceed with negotiations when they are 

adequately prepared and without higher-level review or approval. (Of course, only the KO 

can approve the final agreement. Hence, the negotiators should coordinate with the KO if 

they have any doubt about the course of the negotiations.) 

9. Use tabular comparisons to simplify the preparation of cost and price analysis, technical 

analysis, PNO, and PNM. Express the PNO as ranges to give the negotiators flexibility. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

M-4

10. Minimize the use of audits. Audit is a tool available to the KO and negotiators to assist 

in determining the reasonableness of a proposal. Typically, experience in pricing similar 

contract actions and market surveys published by A-E professional and industry 

organizations provide sufficient information to judge the reasonableness of a firm’s proposal 

without requiring an audit. 

11. If an audit is needed, advise the auditor of the requirement as soon as the A-E firm is 

selected for negotiations. Provide the auditor the request for price proposal and any data 

available on the firm so that the auditor can conduct preliminary research. Also, instruct the 

firm to submit a copy of their proposal directly to the auditor. Keep in close contact with the 

auditor during the conduct of the audit. 

12. If a small business subcontracting plan is required, it should be submitted with the price 

proposal, and reviewed, negotiated and approved in parallel with the price negotiation. 

13. Coordinate with the customer or higher authority, as appropriate, on estimated funding 

requirements prior to negotiations to avoid any "surprises" or delays in final funding 

authorization when negotiations are completed. 

14. Do not require separate review and approval of a PNM. Instead, include the PNM with 

the contract action when it is staffed for review and signature. 

15. After completing negotiations, begin preparation of the contract or task order while 

awaiting funds certification. 

16. Initiate the pre-award survey and Equal Employment Opportunity Clearance (for 

contracts of $10 million or more in accordance with FAR 22.805(a)) as soon as an A-E firm 

is selected for negotiations to avoid delaying contract award. (Not applicable to task orders.) 

17. Expedite award by having the A-E principal come to the contracting office to sign the 

contract with the contracting officer. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

N-1

APPENDIX N 

STANDARD SYNOPSIS FORMAT FOR A-E SERVICES 

 FAR 5.207(a) specifies a standard 19-item format for synopses. Most items are selfexplanatory. Additional instructions are provided below for Items 6, 8, 17 and 18 to 

standardize synopses for A-E services throughout USACE. 

ITEM 6. CLASSIFICATION CODE 

 All A-E services, except for surveying and mapping, will be listed under Service 

Code C (Architect and Engineering Services). Surveying and mapping contracts will be 

listed under Service Code T (Photographic, Mapping, Printing, and Publication Services), 

except those exclusively for boundary surveys, which will be listed under Service Code R 

(Professional, Administrative, and Management Support Services). 

ITEM 8. SUBJECT

 Title of proposed A-E contract in capital letters such as "DESIGN OF GENERAL 

PURPOSE WAREHOUSE, FT. RUCKER, AL" or "INDEFINITE DELIVERY CONTRACT 

FOR GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING WITHIN THE VICKSBURG DISTRICT." 

Include the location of project if the contract is for a specific project. Include the geographic 

area for an indefinite delivery contract. 

ITEM 17. DESCRIPTION

 The description will be divided into the following four standard parts: 

 CONTRACT INFORMATION. Include as appropriate: 

 - Include an introductory statement as follows: 

 “This contract(s) is being procured in accordance with the Brooks A-E Act as 

implemented in FAR Subpart 36.6. Firms will be selected for negotiation based on 

demonstrated competence and qualifications for the required work. See Numbered Note 24 

for general information on the A-E selection process.” 

 - General nature of A-E services, such as design, studies, surveying and mapping, 

facilities master planning, or construction phase services. Do not use the terms "Title I" or 

"Title II," which are obsolete and have no statutory or regulatory basis. 

 - North American Industrial Classification System code, and size standard. 

 - Set-aside restrictions, if applicable. Also indicate in Item 19. 

 - Type of contract, such as FFP, ID, or CPAF. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

N-2

 - Number of contracts. If multiple contracts, state how rank of firms will relate to 

award of contracts. 

 - If multiple ID contracts, state method to be used to allocate task orders among 

contracts when two or more ID contracts contain the same or similar scopes of work such 

that a particular task order might be awarded under more than one ID contract. See EFARS 

16.505 for guidance. 

 - Anticipated start and completion dates of the contract. 

 - Proposed contract options, such as final design, construction phase services, or 

option periods for an ID contract. 

 - Maximum contract amount, maximum task order amount (if applicable) and 

contract duration for an ID contract. 

 - Subject to availability of funding statement (if applicable) 

 - Range of estimated A-E contract price, if construction costs are not applicable. Use 

the ranges in FAR 36.204 and DFARS 236.204. 

 - Subcontracting plan requirements and goals for large businesses if the contract 

price is estimated to exceed $500,000. Include percentage goals for SB, SDB, womanowned SB, veteran-owned SB, service-disabled veteran-owned SB, and HUBZone SB. 

 - Applicability of the Service Contract Act (FAR 22.10). 

 - Requirement for registration in Central Contractor Registration. 

 PROJECT INFORMATION. Include as appropriate: 

 - Brief description of the project and/or A-E services. Do not include selection 

criteria in this description, such as necessary disciplines and special experience requirements. 

 - Description of deliverables. See Tri-Service Standards for A-E CADD and GIS 

deliverables. 

 - Additional information on the geographic area of work for an ID contract, if not 

clear from Item 8, Subject. 

 - Range of estimated construction cost, if applicable. Use the ranges in FAR 36.204 

and DFARS 236.204. 

 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

N-3

SELECTION CRITERIA. List all selection criteria in relative order of importance 

following the general FAR and DFARS selection criteria. 

 State any justifiable minimum qualifications (such as minimum number of years of 

experience, minimum number of projects, or minimum number of personnel in a discipline). 

Include only selection criteria that will be true discriminators in determining the most highly 

qualified firms.

 Begin this part with a statement similar to the following: 

 "The selection criteria for this particular project are listed below in descending order 

of importance (first by major criterion and then by each sub-criterion). Criteria a-f are 

primary. Criteria g-i are secondary and will only be used as "tie-breakers" among firms that 

are essentially technically equal." 

 Typical selection criteria include37: 

 a. Specialized Experience and Technical Competence: 

 - Experience of firm and its consultants in certain types of projects and/or features of 

work. 

 - Experience in energy conservation, pollution prevention, waste reduction, and the 

use of recovered materials, as appropriate. 

 - Experience of the prime firm and significant subcontractors in working together. 

 - Experience in adapting standard design packages. 

 - Specific technical capabilities, such as construction cost estimating or materials 

testing. 

 - Knowledge of specific laws and regulations. 

 - Compatibility with specific CADD equipment, and format of required CADD 

products. 

 - Knowledge of certain design criteria. 

 37 The criteria are listed in the order of importance that is usually most appropriate, 

however they may be ordered differently as warranted for specific contracts. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

N-4

 - Design quality management approach. 

 - Specialized equipment requirements. 

 - Knowledge of a foreign language. 

 b. Professional Qualifications: 

 - Professional and supporting disciplines, including registration or licensing 

requirements. 

 - Specific experience and training for certain personnel. 

 c. Past Performance: State this criterion similar to the following: 

 "Past performance on DoD and other contracts with respect to cost control, quality of 

work, and compliance with performance schedules, as determined from ACASS and other 

sources.” 

 d. Capacity to Accomplish the Work: 

 - Ability to meet the schedule of the overall project and/or certain phases. 

 - Ability to provide a minimum number of teams or crews for surveying, inspections, 

data collection or similar services. 

 - Ability to accomplish a certain number of task orders simultaneously for an ID 

contract. 

 - Minimum number of personnel in a certain discipline to be assigned to the 

project, when appropriate. 

 - If schedule is critical for the project, say so. 

 e. Knowledge of the Locality: Specific knowledge of certain local conditions or 

project site features, such as geological features, climatic conditions, local construction 

methods, or local laws and regulations. A general desire for a local firm must be translated 

into specific required knowledge of the locality. 

 f. SB and SDB Participation: Include this as a secondary criterion in all unrestricted 

synopses. State similar to the following: 

 "Extent of participation of small businesses (including women-owned), small 

disadvantaged businesses, historically black colleges and universities, and minority 

institutions in the proposed contract team, measured as a percentage of the total estimated 

effort." 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

N-5

 g. Geographic Proximity: Proximity should normally only be used as a selection 

criterion for small or routine projects and ID contracts in support of a specific installation(s). 

If used, this criterion should be secondary and stated similar to the following: 

 "Location of the firm in the general geographical area of ______." 

 h. Equitable Distribution of DoD Contracts: This is a secondary criterion to be 

included in all synopses. State similar to the following: 

 "Volume of DoD A-E contract awards in the last 12 months, with the objective of 

effecting an equitable distribution of DoD A-E contracts among qualified firms, including SB 

and SDB.” 

 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS. Do not include any selection criteria in this 

part. Begin this part with a statement similar to the following: 

 "Interested firms having the capabilities to perform this work must submit ___ copies 

of SF 330 Part I and ___ copies of SF 330 Part II for the prime firm and all consultants to the 

above address not later than the response date indicated above. Solicitation packages are not 

provided. This is not a request for proposal." 

 Indicate any additional submittal requirements or instructions such as: 

 - Specific instructions for completing certain blocks of the SF 330. 

 - Information to include in SF 330, Part I, Section H, such as design quality 

management plan (DQMP), organization chart, or description of capabilities and equipment. 

 - Requirement for in-person presentations by the most highly qualified firms for 

significant projects. 

 - The specific address for delivery of the submission. 

 - Any page limitations. 

 - Selection and notification schedule. 

ITEM 18. PLACE OF CONTRACT PERFORMANCE

Generally, this item is not applicable since most A-E services are performed in the 

A-E contractor’s office. However, indicate in this item if the A-E contractor will be required 

to perform a significant amount of work at the project site. 

EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

O-1

APPENDIX O 

EXAMPLE SYNOPSIS FOR FIRM-FIXED-PRICE CONTRACT 

C -- DESIGN OF CONSOLIDATED TACTICAL EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 

SHOP, FORT BLISS, TX 

General Information 

Document Type: Presolicitation Notice 

 Solicitation Number: W9126G -04-R-0024 

 Posted Date: Jun 24, 2004 

 Original Response Date: Jul 24, 2004 

 Current Response Date: Jul 24, 2004 

 Archive Date: Aug 23, 2004 

 Classification Code: C – Architect and engineering services 

Contracting Office Address 

US Army Corps of Engineers, Ft. Worth District, P.O. Box 17300, ATTN: 

CESWF-ED-MS, Room 705, 819 Taylor Street, Ft. Worth, TX 76102-0300 

Description 

1. CONTRACT INFORMATION: This contract is being procured in accordance 

with the Brooks A-E Act as implemented in FAR Subpart 36.6. Firms will be selected 

for negotiation based on demonstrated competence and qualifications for the required 

work. See Numbered Note 24 for general information on the A-E selection process. 

A-E services are required for site investigation, planning, engineering studies, concept 

design, final design (option), and construction phase services (option) for the subject 

project. North American Industrial Classification System code is 541330, which has a 

size standard of $4,000,000 in average annual receipts. This announcement is open to 

all businesses regardless of size. A firm-fixed-price contract will be negotiated. The 

contract is anticipated to be awarded in Nov 2004 and design completed by Apr 2006. 

If a large business is selected for this contract, it must comply with FAR 52.219-9 

regarding the requirement for a subcontracting plan on that part of the work it intends 

to subcontract. The subcontracting goals for the Fort Worth District which will be 

considered in the negotiation of this contract are: (1) at least 61% of a contractor's 

intended subcontract amount be placed with small businesses (SB); (2) at least 9% of 

a contractor's intended subcontract amount be placed with small disadvantaged 

businesses (SDB); (3) at least 5% of a contractor's intended subcontract amount be 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

O-2

placed with women-owned SB (WOSB); (4) at least 3% of a contractor's intended 

subcontract amount be placed with service-disabled veteran-owned SB; (5) at least 

3% of a contractor's intended subcontract amount be placed with veteran-owned SB; 

and (6) at least 3% of a contractor's intended subcontract amount be placed with 

HUBZone SB. The plan is not required with this submittal, but will be required with 

the fee proposal of the firm selected for negotiations. To be eligible for contract 

award, a firm must be registered in the Central Contractor Registration (CCR). 

Register via the CCR Internet site at http://www.ccr.gov. 2. PROJECT 

INFORMATION: 125,000 SF maintenance facility for heavy armored vehicles 

adapted from a standard Army design. Facility includes traveling bridge cranes, 

vehicle and industrial exhaust systems, fuel dispensing, battery charging, arms room 

with intrusion detection system (power conduit rough-in only), fire protection 

systems, oil-water separators, and waste oil disposal system. Supporting facilities 

include water, sewer, natural gas, HVAC, electric service, security lighting, parking, 

storm drainage, information systems, and general site improvements. Twelve 

buildings of approximately 119,000 SF containing asbestos will be demolished as a 

part of this project. The estimated construction cost of this project is between 

$10,000,000 and $25,000,000. Cost estimates must be prepared using the Corps of 

Engineers Micro Computer Aided Cost Estimating System (MCACES). MCACES 

software and training will be provided by the Corps. The contractor shall be 

responsible for accomplishing designs and preparing drawings using computer-aided 

design and drafting (CADD) and delivering the three-dimensional drawings in 

Bentley’s MicroStation Version 8 CADD software, Windows 2000 version, electronic 

digital format. The Government will only accept the final product for full operation, 

without conversion or reformatting, in the target CADD software format, and on the 

target platform specified herein. The target platform is an Intel-based 1 GHz, 500 mb 

RAM personal computer, with a Windows 2000 operating system. Drawings shall be 

compliant with the current A/E/C CADD Standard available from the CADD/GIS 

Technology Center, Engineer Research and Development Center. 3. SELECTION 

CRITERIA: The selection criteria for this particular project are listed below in 

descending order of importance (first by major criterion and then by each subcriterion). Criteria a-e are primary. Criteria f-h are secondary and will only be used 

as "tie-breakers" among firms that are essentially technically equal. a. Specialized 

experience and technical competence in: (1) Design of heavy equipment 

maintenance facilities. (2) Fire protection design for heavy equipment shops. (3) 

Industrial ventilation. (4) Sustainable design using an integrated design approach and 

emphasizing environmental stewardship, with experience in energy and water 

conservation and efficiency; use of recovered and recycled materials; waste reduction; 

reduction or elimination of toxic and harmful substances in facilities construction and 

operation; efficiency in resource and materials utilization; development of healthy, safe 

and productive work environments; and employing the LEED evaluation and 

certification methods. (5) Producing quality designs based on evaluation of a firm's 

design quality management plan (DQMP). The evaluation will consider the 

management approach, coordination of disciplines and subcontractors, quality control 

procedures, and prior experience of the prime firm and any significant subcontractors 

on similar projects. b. Qualified professional personnel in the following key 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

O-3

disciplines: project management (architect or engineer), architecture, fire protection 

engineering, mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, structural engineering, 

and civil engineering. The lead architect or engineer in each discipline must be 

registered to practice in the appropriate professional field. The evaluation will 

consider education, certifications, training, registration, overall and relevant 

experience, and longevity with the firm. c. Past performance on DoD and other 

contracts with respect to cost control, quality of work, and compliance with 

performance schedules, as determined from PPIRS and other sources. d. Capacity to 

submit the concept design (35% complete) by June 2005, and complete the final 

design by April 2006. The evaluation will consider the experience of the firm and 

any consultants in similar size projects, and the availability of an adequate number of 

personnel in key disciplines. e. Knowledge of design of building envelopes and 

systems in hot, arid climate similar to Ft. Bliss. f. Extent of participation of SB 

(including WOSB), SDB, historically black colleges and universities, and minority 

institutions in the proposed contract team, measured as a percentage of the total 

estimated effort. g. Volume of DoD A-E contract awards in the last 12 months, with 

the objective of effecting an equitable distribution of DoD A-E contracts among 

qualified firms, including SB and SDB. h. Proximity to Ft. Bliss, TX. 4. 

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS: Interested firms having the capabilities to 

perform this work must submit two copies of SF 330 Part I, and two copies of SF 330 

Part II for the prime firm and all consultants, to the above address not later than 4:00 

PM on the response date indicated above. The SF 330 Part I shall not exceed 50 

pages (8.5” x 11”), including no more than 5 pages for Section H. Each side of a 

sheet of paper is a page. Use no smaller than 12 font type. Include the firm's DUNS 

number in SF 330, Part I, Section H.. In Section H describe the firm's overall DQMP. 

A project-specific design quality control plan must be prepared and approved by the 

Government as a condition of contract award, but is not required with this 

submission. In Section H also indicate the estimated percentage involvement of each 

firm on the proposed team. Facsimile transmissions will not be accepted. Solicitation 

packages are not provided and no additional project information will be given to firms 

during the announcement period. This is not a request for proposal. 

Point of Contact 

John Smith, (817)334-1234 

Email your questions to US Army Engineer District, Forth Worth – Military at 

john.smith@usace.army.mil 

Place of Performance 

N/A 

EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

P-1

APPENDIX P 

EXAMPLE SYNOPSIS FOR INDEFINITE-DELIVERY CONTRACT 

T - HYDROGRAPHIC SURVEYING, 

PHOTOGRAMMETRIC MAPPING, 

AND BOUNDARY SURVEYING 

SERVICES FOR ST. LOUIS 

DISTRICT 

General Information 

Document Type: Presolicitation Notice 

 Solicitation Number: W9126G -04-R-0024 

 Posted Date: Jun 24, 2004 

 Original Response Date: Jul 24, 2004 

 Current Response Date: Jul 24, 2004 

 Archive Date: Aug 23, 2004 

Classification Code: T - Photographic, mapping, printing, and publication 

services 

Contracting Office Address 

US Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis District, 1222 Spruce Street, St. Louis, MO 

 63103-2833 

Description 

1. CONTRACT INFORMATION: This contract is being procured in accordance 

with the Brooks A-E Act as implemented in FAR Subpart 36.6. Firms will be 

selected for negotiation based on demonstrated competence and qualifications for the 

required work. See Numbered Note 24 for general information on the A-E selection 

Process. The services will consist of hydrographic, photogrammetric mapping, and 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

P-2

related ground and boundary surveying services to support engineering, design 

operations, maintenance, and construction of various navigation or flood control 

projects within or assigned to the St. Louis District, US Army Corps of Engineers. 

Two indefinite delivery contracts will be negotiated and awarded, each with a base 

year and four option years. The amount of each contract will not exceed $5,000,000. 

Work will be issued by negotiated firm-fixed-price or labor-hour task orders. The 

contracting officer will consider the following factors in deciding which contractor 

will be selected to negotiate an order: performance and quality of deliverables under 

the current contract, current capacity to accomplish the order in the required time, 

uniquely specialized experience, and equitable distribution of work among the 

contractors. The contracts are anticipated to be awarded in November 2004. North 

American Industrial Classification System code is 541360, which has a size standard 

of $4,000,000 in average annual receipts. These contracts are set-aside for small 

businesses only. The wages and benefits of service employees (see FAR 22.10) 

performing under these contracts must be at least equal to those determined by the 

Department of Labor under the Service Contract Act, as determined relative to the 

employee's office location (not the location of the work). To be eligible for contract 

award, a firm must be registered in the Central Contractor Registration (CCR). 

Register via the CCR Internet site at http://www.ccr.gov. 2. PROJECT 

INFORMATION: Hydrographic surveying is required to support river and harbor 

navigation, reservoir sedimentation studies, beach and shoreline erosion studies, 

underwater hazard detection, dredging and construction measurement, and river/tidal 

hydraulic studies. Photogrammetric mapping requirements supporting the above 

projects will consist of aerial photography, analytical aerotriangulation, stereo 

mapping compilation, orthophotography, and land use/land cover interpretation. 

Ground survey data collection in support of photogrammetric mapping projects 

including establishment of necessary ground control (both horizontal and vertical) and 

profiles used for checking map photogrammetric map accuracy. Real property 

surveys of Government-owned land tracts, such as levees, reservoirs, or dredge 

disposal areas, may be required to establish or reestablish corners, monuments, and 

boundary lines, or for the purpose of describing, locating fixed improvements, or 

platting or dividing parcels. Work will be submitted in hard copy report format, hard 

copy F-size drawings, and/or automated/CADD format. Work may be performed to 

support other Federal agencies. 3. SELECTION CRITERIA: The selection criteria 

for this particular project are listed below in descending order of importance (first by 

major criterion and then by each sub-criterion). Criteria a-e are primary. Criteria f 

and g are secondary and will only be used as "tie-breakers" among firms that are 

essentially technically equal. a. Specialized experience and technical competence in: 

(1) Hydrographic surveying and mapping expertise in the areas of river and harbor 

navigation, reservoir, beach, and shoreline surveys/studies, underwater hazard 

detection, construction and dredging measurement and payment, and river/tidal 

hydraulic studies, using differential GPS, acoustic, and conventional survey 

techniques. (2) Own or lease an automated hydrographic survey vessel of 19-30 foot 

length capable of being trailered to and operating in US inland and coastal waters, 

equipped with an automated single-beam 200 KHz acoustic depth measurement 

system, full motion compensation, side scan sonar imaging for underwater object 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

P-3

detection, and multi-beam acoustic imagery from a single transducer source. (3) 

Experience in photogrammetric production for large and small scale (between 1”=50’ 

with 1’ contours and 1”=2,000’ with 50’ contours). (4) Photogrammetric equipment 

including owning or leasing airworthy aircraft, currently (within the last 3 calendar 

years) certified precision aerial mapping camera, photographic lab for reproducing 

aerial photographic and mapping products (including natural color, color infra red and 

panchromatic (black and white) prints and diapositives), hardware and software to 

perform fully analytical aero-triangulation, analytical stereoplotter instrumentation 

interfaced for digital data collection of planimetric and topographic features, DTM, 

DEM data collection and manipulation of terrain data, digital data editing facilities, 

ability to provide orthophoto products (hardcopy and digital), and airborne GPS 

capabilities for aircraft navigation and photo control. (5) Technical production 

expertise consistent with utilization of photogrammetric equipment. (6) Capability to 

collect and deliver digital data (2D and 3D) properly formatted on appropriate media. 

(7) Ability to provide ground survey control planning and acquisition in support of 

photogrammetric mapping. Required skills include establishment of horizontal and 

vertical control points, traverses and level loops utilizing survey grade transits, EDM 

systems, levels, and Global Positioning System (GPS) equipment. (8) Facilities and 

capability to gather historical photos from hardcopy and/or digital sources and 

perform photo image interpretation to detect land use and change analysis utilizing 

digital softcopy techniques and manually via hardcopy. (9) Contractor facilities must 

have capability to deliver digital data on CDROM, optical rewritable disks, 8mm 

tapes, DVD disks, and 3.5" micro disks. Digital data must be readable and fully 

operational with US Geological Survey DLG-3, AutoCAD, ARC/INFO (GIS), 

ERDAS, and Microstation J formats. (10) Own or lease static/kinematic GPS 

equipment capable of subcentimeter measurement accuracy, electronic total station 

with data collector. b. Qualified personnel in the following key disciplines: (1) 

Licensed civil engineers. (2) Registered land surveyors. (3) Engineering, surveying, 

CADD and photogrammetric technicians. The evaluation will consider education, 

training, registration, voluntary certifications (e.g., ACSM Certified Hydrographer or 

ASPRS Certified Photogrammetrist), overall and relevant experience, and longevity 

with the firm. c. Past performance on DoD and other contracts with respect to cost 

control, quality of work, and compliance with performance schedules, as determined 

from PPIRS and other sources. d. Capacity to perform approximately $1,000,000 in 

work of the required type in a one-year period. The evaluation will consider the 

availability of an adequate number of personnel in key disciplines and equipment 

availability. e. Knowledge of boundary and coordinate systems in states within the 

boundaries of the St. Louis District (IL and MO). f. Extent of participation of SB 

(including WOSB), SDB, historically black colleges and universities, and minority 

institutions in the proposed contract team, measured as a percentage of the total 

estimated effort. g. Volume of DoD A-E contract awards in the last 12 months, with 

the objective of effecting an equitable distribution of DoD A-E contracts among 

qualified firms, including SB and SDB. 4. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS: 

Interested firms having the capabilities to perform this work must submit two copies 

of SF 330 Part I, and two copies of SF 330 Part II for the prime firm and all 

consultants, to the above address not later than 4:00 PM on the response date 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

P-4

indicated above. The SF 330 Part I shall not exceed 50 pages (8.5” x 11”), including 

no more than 5 pages for Section H. Each side of a sheet of paper is a page. Use no 

smaller than 12 font type. Include the firm's DUNS number in SF 330, Part I, Section 

H. In SF 330, Part I, Section H describe owned or leased equipment that will be used 

to perform this contract, as well as CADD capabilities. In Section H, describe the 

firm's overall DQMP. A project-specific design quality control plan must be prepared 

and approved by the Government as a condition of contract award, but is not required 

with this submission. In Section H also indicate the estimated percentage 

involvement of each firm on the proposed team. Facsimile transmissions will not be 

accepted. Solicitation packages are not provided and no additional project information 

will be given to firms during the announcement period. This is not a request for 

proposal. 

Point of Contact 

Dennis Morgan, (314) 331-8373

Email your questions to US Army Engineer District, St. Louis, MO – Civil Works at 

dennis.morgan@usace.army.mil 

Place of Performance 

N/A 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

Q-1

APPENDIX Q 

ARCHITECT-ENGINEER CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION SUPPORT SYSTEM 

(ACASS) 

1. Introduction. ACASS is an automated database of A-E qualifications, DoD A-E contract 

awards, and A-E performance evaluations. ACASS is a sub-component of the Navy’s 

Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). It is managed by the 

Contractor Appraisal Information Center (CAIC) in the Contracting Division of the USACE 

Portland District. ACASS is primarily used by DoD agencies, but other Federal agencies 

may also use ACASS to prepare evaluations and access information. 

2. Regulatory Basis. 

 a. ACASS fulfills the following FAR requirements, thereby eliminating this 

responsibility for individual offices: 

 (1) FAR 36.603 (a) and (b) to maintain files of SF 330 Part II on firms wishing to be 

considered for Government contracts. 

 (2) FAR 36.603(c) to classify each firm with respect to location, specialized experience, 

professional capabilities and capacity. 

 (3) FAR 36.603(d)(1) to encourage firms to update their SF 330 Part II annually. 

 (4) FAR 36.603(d)(3) to maintain records on contract awards in the past year. 

 (5) FAR 36.603(d)(4) to maintain performance evaluation files. (The original copy of all 

performance evaluations must still be maintained in the official contract file). 

 (6) FAR 36.604(a) to prepare a performance evaluation for each contract over $25,000. 

 (7) FAR 36.604(c) to distribute performance evaluations to all contracting offices and 

retain them on file for six years. 

 b. ACASS use is directed by the DFARS as follows: 

 (1) DFARS 236.602-1(a)(4) directs that A-E evaluation boards use performance 

evaluations from ACASS. (ACASS is not referred to by name in the DFARS but as the 

central data base operated by the US Army Engineer Division, North Pacific. The CAIC has 

since been transferred to the Portland District.) 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

Q-2

 (2) DFARS 236.602-1(a)(6)(A) requires that the volume of work awarded by DoD in the 

previous 12 months be considered in A-E selections and that this data be obtained from 

ACASS. 

 (3) DFARS 236.604(c)(i) requires that all DoD agencies forward A-E performance 

evaluations to ACASS. 

3. Functions. 

 a. Identification of Firms: Until October 2005, the ACASS number was used to identify 

firms. In the modernized ACASS system, the Data Universal Numbering System number 

(DUNS number; see FAR 2.101) is used to identify firms. The DUNS number of the parent 

company is linked to the DUNS number of all branch offices and subsidiaries. 

 b. A-E Performance Evaluations. 

 (1) In the modernized ACASS system, the entire evaluation process is Internet-based. 

All draft evaluations are electronically sent to the contractor for comment. Permission to 

prepare evaluations in ACASS is controlled, on a contract-by-contract basis, by local 

individuals who serve as system “Focal Points”. During the evaluation process, draft 

evaluations are automatically routed between the Rating and Reviewing Officials, and the 

government contractor. Completed evaluations will be automatically sent to the Federalwide Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS; see Appendix F for website), 

where contractors can access their own evaluations using a password. The Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) mandates that government employees use PPIRS when 

retrieving evaluations for source selection purposes. 

 c. A-E Qualifications. 

 Until 8 June 2004, SF 254 was used to present the general qualifications of A-E firms. 

Now SF 330 Part II is used for that purpose. A central Federal website was established to 

allow A-E firms to voluntarily submit their SF 330 Part II. This website is part of the OnLine Representations and Certifications Application (ORCA; see Appendix F for website). 

Firms are responsible for keeping their SF 330 Part II up-to-date in ORCA. Currently, if an 

A-E firm has a SF 330 Part II on file in ORCA, it can be retrieved directly from ORCA using 

a firm’s DUNS number. ACASS automatically receives the SF 330 part II information from 

ORCA. Government personnel can retrieve SFs 330 part II from ACASS by applying for the 

“Business Analysis Reports” access. The ACASS search function for firms meeting 

specified qualifications uses the SF 330 part II information. 

 d. DoD A-E Contract Award Data. 

 In ACASS, contract award data is obtained electronically from the Directorate for 

Information Operations and Reports (DIOR; DFARS 204.670-2 and 3) and retained for 3 

years after contract award. Future plans are for contract award data to be obtained from the 

Federal Procurement Data System – Next Generation (FPDS-NG); see Appendix F for 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

Q-3

website). An update of this appendix will be issued after the link between ACASS and 

FPDS-NG is completed.” 

 e. Consolidated A-E Report. 

 (1) The ACASS system provides a consolidated report containing performance 

evaluations, qualification information (SF 330 part II), and contract award data for an A-E 

firm. The qualifications are received from ORCA (if a firm has a SF 330 Part II on file), and 

the contract award data from FPDS-NG.. The report consists of summarized information for 

a quick overview, followed by a full report. Evaluations may be retrieved by contract 

number, firm name or DUNS number. 

 f. Other Reports. Several other reports are available from ACASS. These reports 

include performance evaluation status, various summaries of system access and usage, and 

summaries of performance evaluations by office and agency. 

4. Usage. 

 a. Instructions. The CAIC issues instructions on accessing and using ACASS. 

 b. Access and Release of Information. ACASS access and use shall be limited to Federal 

Government agencies and A-E firms doing business with the Federal Government. 

Qualification data and performance evaluations shall be released only to the respective firm 

and Government contracting offices having a bona fide need for this data. Firms can only 

see information about themselves. The only time firms can see their draft performance 

evaluations is during the 30 day period allotted for them to electronically compile and return 

their remarks / rebuttal to the rating official. 

 c. Assistance. USACE offices may contact the CAIC for assistance, as follows: 

US Army Engineer District, Portland 

ATTN: CENWP-CT-I 

P.O. Box 2946 

Portland, Oregon 97208-2946 

Telephone: (503) 808-4590 or 4591 

Facsimile: (503) 808-4596 

EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

R-1

APPENDIX R 

CONSIDERATION OF PAST PERFORMANCE IN A-E SELECTIONS 

1. Past performance is an important consideration in the selection of A-E firms. Past 

performance is an indicator of a firm’s ability to perform a contract successfully. (Experience is 

what a firm has done. Past performance is how well it has done.) The Government must be fair 

and reasonable in its application of past performance information since it can have a significant 

bearing on contractor selection. This appendix addresses some of the considerations when 

evaluating past performance. 

2. The principal guidance on the use of past performance information in A-E selections is found 

in the following references: 

 a. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.304 -15.306, and 36.602-1(a)(4). 

 b. Best Practices for Collecting and Using Current and Past Performance Information, Office 

of Federal Procurement Office (available on the web at: 

http://www.acqnet.gov/Library/OFPP/BestPractices/pastpeformguide.htm) 

 c. Guide to Collection and Use of and Past Performance Information (PPI), Department of 

Defense (http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/Docs/PPI_Guide_2003_final.pdf). 

 d. Army Source Selection Guide (available on the web at: 

http://dasapp.saalt.army.mil/library/Army_Source_Selection_Guide_Jun_2001.pdf ) 

3. Although (DFARS 236.602-1(a)(4)) states performance evaluations be retrieved from 

ACASS, The Office of Management and Budget issued guidance in 2002, requiring that 

evaluations used for source selection purposes be retrieved from PPIRS. PPIRS will be 

queried for all prime firms. Performance evaluations for any significant subcontractors may 

also be considered. Any credible, documented information on past performance can be 

considered, but a board is not required to seek other information on the past performance of a 

firm if none is available from PPIRS. Complete evaluations, and not summaries, will be 

reviewed if a board is considering downgrading or eliminating a firm due to adverse past 

performance. 

4. Evaluation boards must also consider any information that a firm submits on its past 

performance on recent similar contracts, including design-build contracts. This information can 

be for key personnel, specific elements of a company or major subcontractors, which is 

especially important for new companies entering the marketplace or for mergers of previous 

companies. It is the responsibility of the firm to explain how the past performance information is 

relevant to the proposed contract. A firm can also provide information on problems encountered 

in prior contracts and discuss actions that it has taken to remedy any unsatisfactory performance. 

This would be especially important for companies that have acquired the resources of other 

previous companies. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

R-2

5. A board must ensure that a firm has had an opportunity to comment on any adverse 

performance if that information is a factor in the firm not being selected. A board can generally 

assume that firms have had an opportunity to comment on adverse evaluations in ACASS, since 

this is required by FAR 36.604(a)(4) for A-E contracts. However, this may not be true for 

evaluations obtained from other sources. Also, a performance evaluation of a design-build 

contract that addresses an A-E firm’s design performance can also be considered, provided the 

firm is given an opportunity to comment on the evaluation which it may not have seen before. 

6. A board will consider the relevancy of past performance information to the proposed contract. 

The more relevant the information, the more weight it carries. Relevancy includes at least the 

following factors: 

 a. Similarities of the work in terms of complexity, scope and size. The more similar a firm’s 

past work to the specific requirements of the proposed contract, the more weight the past 

performance information should be given. Give more emphasis to a firm’s past performance on 

the projects that it cites in its SF 330 as relevant specialized experience. 

 b. Key personnel, branch offices, and subcontractors involved. Do not consider past 

performance information on personnel, subordinate or affiliated offices, or subcontractors who 

will not be used in the proposed contract. The past performance of an office that has been 

acquired by buying or merger with other companies can be considered if that office is proposed 

for use in the contract.

 c. Firm’s role in proposed contract. Companies form various teaming arrangements, such as 

a joint venture and prime contractor-subcontractor, with each company assigned certain roles in 

the proposed contract. Focus more heavily on the past performance of each company in similar 

roles. 

d. Currentness. The more recent the past performance information, the more indicative it is 

of a firm’s likely performance on the proposed contract. An evaluation board can set a 

reasonable limit on the “age” of evaluations that will be considered. 

 e. General trends in a firm’s performance. If a firm received an adverse evaluation in the 

past but more recent evaluations show a clear improvement trend, then give the prior evaluation 

little weight. This would be especially pertinent for a recently acquired branch office that is now 

under new management control. 

 f. Credibility and detail of the past performance report. Give more weight to formal Federal 

evaluations. Be careful using simplistic evaluations from private clients. And again, be 

especially cautious if the evaluation is unsatisfactory since the offeror may not be aware of it. 

 g. DoD Contracts. A firm that has earned excellent evaluations on recent DoD A-E 

contracts for similar projects will be ranked relatively higher on past performance (DFARS 

236.602-1(a)(6)(B)). 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

R-3

7. If no relevant past performance information is available on a firm, the firm will be given a 

neutral evaluation regarding past performance. 

EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

S-1

APPENDIX S 

EXAMPLE PRESELECTION BOARD REPORT 

 The following example preselection board report corresponds to the project described in 

the synopsis in Appendix O. Only representative excerpts of the report are shown as 

indicated. The cover and each page of the report containing source selection information 

will be labeled "SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104." 

(All pages labeled as such in this pamphlet are for illustrative purposes only and are not 

actual source selection information.) 

 The report would be organized as follows: 

 - FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Cover Sheet (DA Label 87) 

 - Cover memorandum (example enclosed). Since this memorandum contains only 

factual background information, it can be prepared prior to the board meeting. The 

memorandum is then signed at the conclusion of the meeting while all board members are 

still readily available. 

 - Enclosure 1: Synopsis. Enclose a copy of the actual published synopsis and any 

amendments to the original synopsis. 

 - Enclosure 2: List of firms. The list of firms, with addresses, that responded to the 

synopsis will be prepared prior to the board meeting. The list can then be manually marked 

(such as with asterisks) at the conclusion of the preselection board to identify the highly 

qualified firms. 

 - Enclosure 3: Completed evaluation worksheets for each firm (example enclosed). 

Worksheets may be handwritten (example is shown typed for publication clarity.) The blank 

worksheets are prepared prior to the board meeting, including the firm names and addresses, 

and inserted in the appropriate submissions, ready for review and evaluation by the board. 

The worksheet directly replicates the selection criteria from the synopsis. 

 Using this report format, the report is completed when the preselection board adjourns. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

S-2

CESWF-ED-MS (715) 28 July 2004 

MEMORANDUM FOR CHAIRPERSON, A-E SELECTION BOARD 

SUBJECT: Report of the Architect-Engineer Preselection Board - Design of Consolidated 

Tactical Equipment Maintenance Shop, Fort Bliss, TX, Project No. 04145 

1. References. 

 a. FAR 36.602 and supplements thereto. 

 b. EP 715-1-7, Architect-Engineer Contracting and local supplements thereto. 

 c. Synopsis, 24 June 2004, for the subject project (enclosure 1). 

2. Board Information. The preselection board met on 28 July 2004 in the Fort Worth 

District. The board was conducted in accordance with references 1.a and 1.b. The using 

agency was invited to participate and accepted. The names and positions of all board 

members are shown on page 2. 

3. Description of Project and A-E Services. A description of the project and the required 

A-E services is provided in reference 1.c. The current working estimate for construction of 

this project is $11,800,000. The estimated A-E contract price is $650,000. 

4. Firms Considered. The board considered a total of 25 firms that responded to the 

synopsis as listed in enclosure 2. Joint ventures are identified as (JV). 

5. Highly Qualified Firms. The board evaluated the firms using the primary selection 

criteria announced in reference 1.c. The firms marked with an asterisk (*) on enclosure 2 are 

considered to be highly qualified to perform the required A-E services and are recommended 

to the selection board. The remaining firms were not considered highly qualified for the 

reasons noted on the evaluation worksheets in enclosure 3. 

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104.
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

S-3

CESWF-ED-MS 

SUBJECT: Report of the Architect-Engineer Preselection Board - Design of Consolidated 

Tactical Equipment Maintenance Shop, Fort Bliss, TX, Project No. 04145 

______________________________ _____________________________ 

Name Name 

Grade/Position/Title Grade/Position/Title 

Office/Organization Office/Organization 

Member Member 

______________________________ _____________________________ 

Name Name 

Grade/Position/Title Grade/Position/Title 

Office/Organization Office/Organization 

Member Chairperson 

3 Encls 

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104.
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

S-4

PRESELECTION BOARD EVALUATION WORKSHEET - PAGE 1 

Synopsis Date: 24 Jun 04 Preselection Board Date: 28 Jul 04 

Title of Project: Design of Consolidated Tactical Equipment Maintenance Shop 

Location of Project: Fort Bliss, TX Project No.: 04145 

Firm Name/Address: Best Architects, Inc., El Paso, TX

HIGHLY QUALIFIED - YES/NO CRITERION/REMARKS

SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE/TECHNICAL COMPETENCE:

NO Design of heavy equipment maintenance facilities: Only 1 small (20,000 sq. ft.) shop 4 

years ago 

NO Fire protection design for heavy equipment shops: No exp. indicated 

YES Industrial ventilation: Numerous projects. 

NO Sustainable design: Minimal exp. Mostly energy conservation. No exp. with LEED.

YES Ability to produce quality designs as evidenced by DQMP: Thorough plan. 

PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS: 

YES Project management: 

NO Architecture: No exp. with maint. shops or similar facilities. Only with firm 6 months

NO Fire protection engineering: Exp. mostly admin. bldgs. Not registered. 

NO Mechanical engineering: Exp. mostly admin. bldgs. 

YES Electrical engineering: 

YES Structural engineering: 

YES Civil engineering: 

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104.

Encl 3 

PRESELECTION BOARD EVALUATION WORKSHEET - PAGE 2
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

S-5

Title of Project: Design of Consolidated Tactical Equipment Maintenance Shop 

Location of Project: Fort Bliss, TX Project No.: 04145 

Firm Name/Address: Best Architects, Inc., El Paso, TX

PAST PERFORMANCE: 1 Sat. eval. in ACASS- Fire Sta., Ft. Polk, Design Phase, 15 Jun 

01

CAPACITY TO ACCOMPLISH WORK IN REQUIRED TIME: 

NO Experience with similar size projects: Largest maint. shop only 20,000 sq. ft.

 Capacity of key disciplines: 

YES Project management: 

NO Architecture: Back-up arch. is not R.A. 

NO Fire protection engineering: Technician is only back-up 

NO Mechanical engineering: 5 mech engr. but only 1 w/ exp. in maint. Shops 

YES Electrical engineering: 

NO Structural engineering: Only 1 struct. engr. - no back-up 

YES Civil engineering: 

KNOWLEDGE OF LOCALITY: 

YES Design of buildings in hot, arid climate: 

RECOMMENDED TO SELECTION BOARD AS HIGHLY QUALIFIED: 

___ YES X NO 

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104. 

EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

T-1

APPENDIX T 

EXAMPLE SELECTION BOARD REPORT 

 The following example selection board report corresponds to the project described in 

the synopsis in Appendix O and the preselection board report in Appendix S. Only 

representative excerpts of the report are shown as indicated. The cover and each page of the 

report containing source selection information will be labeled "SOURCE SELECTION 

INFORMATION - SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104." (All pages labeled as such in this pamphlet 

are for illustrative purposes only and are not actual source selection information.) The report 

would be organized as follows: 

 - FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Cover Sheet (DA Label 87) 

 - Cover memorandum (example enclosed). 

 - Enclosure 1: Approved preselection board report with its enclosures. 

 - Enclosure 2: Rationale for elimination of highly qualified firms (example enclosed). 

 - Enclosure 3: Interview questions (example enclosed). Common questions asked all 

firms and specific questions asked individual firms. Any information obtained from the 

interviews that influenced the board's decision will be discussed in the rationale for ranking 

the most highly qualified firms. 

 - Enclosure 4: Rationale for ranking the most highly qualified firms (example 

enclosed). 

 - Enclosure 5: SFs 330 of the most highly qualified firms. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

T-2

CESWF-ED-MS (715) 5 August 2004 

MEMORANDUM THRU CHIEF, ENGINEERING DIVISION 

FOR COMMANDER 

SUBJECT: Report of the Architect-Engineer Selection Board - Design of Consolidated 

Tactical Equipment Maintenance Shop, Fort Bliss, TX, Project No. 04145 

1. References: 

 a. FAR 36.602 and supplements thereto. 

 b. EP 715-1-7, Architect-Engineer Contracting, and local supplements thereto. 

 c. Memorandum, CESWF-ED-MS, 28 July 2004, subject: Report of the ArchitectEngineer Preselection Board - Design of Consolidated Tactical Equipment Maintenance 

Shop, Fort Bliss, TX, Project No. 04145 (enclosure 1). 

2. Board Information. The selection board met on 3 August 2004, in the Ft. Worth District. 

The board was conducted in accordance with references 1.a and 1.b. The using agency was 

invited to participate and accepted. The names and positions of all board members are 

shown on page 2. 

3. Evaluation of Most Highly Qualified Firms. The board evaluated the nine highly 

qualified firms in the referenced preselection report using the announced primary selection 

criteria (enclosure 1 to reference 1.c.). The board determined that the three firms listed in 

paragraph 5 have the highest qualifications for the required services and are the most highly 

qualified firms. The other firms were eliminated from further consideration as explained in 

enclosure 2. 

4. Interviews. Telephone interviews were conducted with each of the most highly qualified 

firms to confirm and clarify information submitted in response to the synopsis, and to discuss 

each firm's approach for the project and their capabilities. Firms were asked the questions 

listed in enclosure 3. 

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104.
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

T-3

CESWF-ED-MS 

SUBJECT: Report of the Architect-Engineer Selection Board - Design of Consolidated 

Tactical Equipment Maintenance Shop, Fort Bliss, TX, Project No. 04145 

5. Recommended Firms. After the interviews, the board ranked the most highly qualified 

firms as discussed in enclosure 4. Since there were no technically equal firms, the secondary 

selection criteria were not applied. The selection board recommends that the following 

firms, in order of preference, be approved for negotiations. The SFs 330 for these firms are 

at enclosure 5. 

 a. Jones Architects, Inc., Houston, TX. 

 b. Richards and Roberts, P.C., San Antonio, TX. 

 c. Building Design Associates, Inc., Atlanta, GA. 

______________________________ _____________________________ 

Name Name 

Grade/Position/Title Grade/Position/Title 

Office/Organization Office/Organization 

Member Member 

______________________________ _____________________________ 

Name Name 

Grade/Position/Title Grade/Position/Title 

Office/Organization Office/Organization 

Member Chairperson 

5 Encls 

The recommendations of the selection board are approved. 

______________________________ ______________________________ 

Name Date 

Commanding 

2 

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

T-4

CESWF-ED-MS 

SUBJECT: Report of the Architect-Engineer Selection Board - Design of Consolidated 

Tactical Equipment Maintenance Shop, Fort Bliss, TX, Project No. 04145 

RATIONALE FOR ELIMINATION OF HIGHLY QUALIFIED FIRMS 

 Smith and Wesson, Inc., Dallas, TX. This firm has designed three maintenance facilities 

similar to this project in the last five years, whereas the most highly qualified firms have 

designed five or more similar facilities. Pipes and Fanz, the mechanical consultant, has done 

24 fire protection projects for $326,000 in gross fees in the last five years (profile code F03, 

SF 330, Part II, block 10), compared to the fire protection consultants proposed by all of the 

most highly qualified firms which have each done at least 50 projects for over $1,500,000 in 

fees in the last five years. Smith and Wesson has considerably less experience in sustainable 

design than the most highly qualified firms. The proposed lead architect has designed only 

one equipment shop compared to three or more for the lead architects proposed by the most 

highly qualified firms. The experience of the mechanical engineer is mostly in 

administrative buildings, not heavy equipment maintenance shops as demonstrated by the 

mechanical engineers proposed by most highly qualified firms. Finally, this firm has little 

experience in designing in hot, arid climates. 

 Other firms would be discussed similarly. 

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104 

Encl 2 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

T-5

CESWF-ED-MS 

SUBJECT: Report of the Architect-Engineer Selection Board - Design of Consolidated 

Tactical Equipment Maintenance Shop, Fort Bliss, TX, Project No. 04145 

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS 

All Firms: 

1. Have there been any significant changes in your qualifications since you submitted your 

SFs 330 for this project? 

2. List your Department of Defense A-E contract awards in the last 12 months. 

3. Discuss three important lessons learned from the relevant projects on your SF 330 Part I 

that would be applicable to this project. 

4. Discuss your quality control procedures to ensure the proper coordination of disciplines. 

5. How will your firm manage the project to ensure the concept design is finished by June 

2005? 

6. Describe your firm's approach for involving the actual facility users in the design process. 

Jones Architects, Inc.: Will your cost estimator prepare the cost estimate independent of the 

individual designers, or will the designers prepare their appropriate parts of the estimate and 

the cost estimator compile the overall estimate? 

Building Design Associates, Inc.: Although your firm and your mechanical consultant have 

each designed many equipment maintenance shops, you have only designed one shop 

together as a team, and that was three years ago. How will you overcome this lack of 

familiarity with each other's work methods? 

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104. 

Encl 3 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

T-6

CESWF-ED-MS 

SUBJECT: Report of the Architect-Engineer Selection Board - Design of Consolidated 

Tactical Equipment Maintenance Shop, Fort Bliss, TX, Project No. 04145 

RATIONALE FOR RANKING OF MOST HIGHLY QUALIFIED FIRMS 

 1. Jones Architects, Houston, TX. This firm was ranked first for the following reasons: 

 a. Specialized Experience and Technical Competence. This firm has designed nine 

heavy equipment maintenance shops in the last five years (including four Army), more than 

any other responding firm. Their fire protection consultant has designed 110 projects in the 

last five years, earning $5,500,000 in fees, the most fire protection experience of any 

responding firm. The firm and its consultants have strong experience in sustainable design, 

especially energy conservation, use of recovered materials, and use of the SpiRiT and LEED 

methodologies. The firm presented a very thorough design quality management plan, 

including effective procedures for coordinating disciplines and consultants. During the 

interview the firm discussed several important lessons they learned from designing other 

maintenance shops that will be beneficial to this project, such as a new type of non-slip 

flooring for shop areas. 

 b. Professional Qualifications. All of the lead professional personnel are registered and 

have extensive experience in this type of project. In particular, the lead architect has 21 

years experience, including 11 years with Jones Architects, and has designed eight 

maintenance facilities in the last five years. Also, the fire protection engineering will be 

performed by a registered fire protection engineer who has 33 years experience, and has 

designed the fire protection systems for all of the nine maintenance facilities designed by 

Jones Architects in the last five years. 

 c. Past Performance. Jones Architects has a very good performance record on DoD 

contracts based on a review of the evaluations in ACASS: two excellent, four above average, 

and one average. Both of the excellent ratings were for Army equipment maintenance 

facilities. 

 d. Capacity. All of the nine maintenance shops designed by Jones Architects in the last 

five years have been very similar in size to this project. There have adequate depth in all 

disciplines. Their current workload is moderate. 

 e. Knowledge of Locality. The firm and its consultants have designed several buildings 

in hot, arid climates similar to Ft. Bliss. 

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104.

Encl 4 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

T-7

CESWF-ED-MS 

SUBJECT: Report of the Architect-Engineer Selection Board - Design of Consolidated 

Tactical Equipment Maintenance Shop, Fort Bliss, TX, Project No. 04145 

 2. Richards and Roberts, P.C., San Antonio, TX. This firm was ranked second for the 

following reasons: 

 a. Specialized Experience and Technical Competence. This firm has designed seven 

heavy equipment maintenance facilities in the last five years, slightly less relevant 

experience than the top ranked firm. Also, the mechanical/electrical consultant has been in 

business only three years, and has somewhat less fire protection design experience than the 

consultant proposed by the top ranked firm. They presented a very effective design quality 

management plan. 

 b. Professional Qualifications. All of the lead professional personnel are registered and 

have considerable experience in this type of project, though typically less than the top ranked 

firm. Specifically, the lead architect has 15 years total experience, including five with 

Richards and Roberts, and has designed five maintenance shops. Also, the mechanical and 

electrical engineers have only done two maintenance facilities, compared to seven facilities 

designed by the mechanical/engineer consultants of the top ranked firm. 

 c. Past Performance. This firm has a satisfactory performance record on DoD contracts, 

though not as strong as the top ranked firm. The firm has four evaluations in ACASS: one 

above average and three average. 

 d. Capacity. This firm's capacity to perform the project is comparable to the top ranked 

firm. 

 e. Knowledge of Locality. The firm and its consultants have designed several buildings 

in hot, arid climates similar to Ft. Bliss. 

 3. Building Design Associates, Inc., Atlanta, GA. This firm was ranked third for the 

following reasons: 

 a. Specialized Experience and Technical Competence. Building Design Associates has 

considerable experience in designing maintenance shops (five in the last five years), but not 

as much as the first and second ranked firms. Also, this firm has only done one shop design 

with their mechanical consultant whereas the first and second ranked firms have substantial 

experience with their important consultants. 

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

T-8

CESWF-ED-MS 

SUBJECT: Report of the Architect-Engineer Selection Board - Design of Consolidated 

Tactical Equipment Maintenance Shop, Fort Bliss, TX, Project No. 04145 

 b. Professional Qualifications. The qualifications of the key personnel are very similar 

to the second ranked firm. 

 c. Past Performance. Building Design Associates has two performance evaluations in 

ACASS, both average. 

 d. Capacity. This firm has only three architects and does not have the depth in this 

discipline that the first and second ranked firms have. This project will require two 

architects. If the firm takes on much additional work it could impact their ability to perform 

this project on time. 

 e. Knowledge of Locality. The firm and its consultants have designed two buildings in 

hot, arid climates similar to Ft. Bliss. 

 

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

U-1

APPENDIX U 

ADVANCE SELECTION PROCESS 

1. Authorization. The advance selection of A-E firms for a specific type of work is 

authorized by EFARS 36.602(S-100). This appendix provides implementing procedures. 

2. Applicability. 

 a. If two or more A-E contracts for the same type of work are reasonably anticipated in a 

given period in a particular geographic area, a single synopsis and selection process covering 

that particular type of work may be conducted prior to receiving specific authorization for 

any work of that type. The contracts must have similar requirements such that generally the 

same firms would have been interested and selected if the contracts were synopsized and 

selected individually. This process does not apply to ID contracts.

 b. This process is appropriate for the design of a specific type of construction project 

(such as barracks, Army Reserve Centers, airport runways, utility monitoring and control 

systems, family housing upgrades, flood protection structures, or shoreline erosion 

prevention), specific types of engineering or architectural services (such as seismic studies, 

asbestos surveys, interior architectural renovations, or real property master planning), or 

topographic or hydrographic surveying and mapping services. If one or more of the 

anticipated projects have unique requirements such as special seismic, geologic, or 

environmental conditions, this procedure is not appropriate for those unique projects. 

Specific unique projects can be cited as being excluded in the synopsis and separate synopses 

issued for those projects. 

 c. This method may either be applied on a district or MSC basis. If applied on a MSC basis, 

the MSC will select a lead district to issue the synopsis and coordinate the A-E evaluation 

board(s). 

3. Synopsis. A brief, written justification will be approved by the Chief, Contracting 

Division prior to issuing a district-wide synopsis. Similarly for an MSC-wide synopsis, a 

justification will be approved by the Director of Contracting, and provided to the lead district 

to issue a synopsis. The synopsis will indicate that none of the projects are yet authorized 

and that funds are not presently available for any contracts (see FAR 32.703-2(a) and 32.705-

1(a) and the clause at 52.232-18). An example synopsis is enclosed. 

4. Selection. 

 a. For a MSC-wide synopsis, all concerned districts should participate in the preselection 

(if held) and selection boards. Using agency participation is not required. 

 b. The selection process will proceed through the approval of a ranked list of most highly 

qualified firms. All of the selected firms must be technically equal and most highly 

qualified, based on the primary selection criteria. The ranking of the selected firms must be 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

U-2

based only on the secondary selection criteria38. The number of selected firms may be more 

or less than the anticipated number of contracts, but at least three firms must be deemed 

technically equal and most highly qualified. Otherwise, the synopsis must be canceled and 

regular selection procedures used. 

 c. A selection based on a district-wide synopsis must be approved by the MSC if the 

price of any contract resulting from the synopsis is estimated to exceed the district’s 

delegated selection authority. A selection based on a MSC-wide synopsis must be approved 

by the MSC. The selected firms will be notified of their ranking. The selected list of firms 

must be used for all work of the designated type during the period stated in the public 

announcement. Separate synopses for specific contracts for this type of work shall not be 

issued later unless specifically identified as excluded in the generic synopsis. 

5. Negotiation and Award. When the first contract for the designated type of work is 

authorized, the top ranked firm will be issued a request for price proposal and negotiations 

initiated. When a subsequent contract is authorized or when negotiations on a previously 

authorized contract have not been successful, negotiations shall begin with the next ranked 

firm that has not been offered a contract for negotiation. If the list of ranked firms is 

exhausted, the negotiation cycle shall begin again with the top ranked firm. If a selection is 

MSC-wide, the MSC will control the approved list of ranked firms. When a district 

authorized to perform a project, they will advise the MSC and be assigned the next firm for 

negotiation. Contracts resulting from an advance selection process may be awarded for a 

period of up to one year after the date of selection approval. 

 38 The Brooks Act requires that negotiation begin with the highest qualified firm. Hence, 

all of the selected firms must be equally (and highest) qualified in order that negotiation of 

the second and subsequent contracts may begin with other than the first firm on the 

selection list. The highest qualified firms are determined by application of the primary 

selection criteria which considers technical capabilities. Their ranking is then determined 

by the secondary selection criteria, which are socioeconomic, and not technical, in nature. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

U-3

EXAMPLE ADVANCE SELECTION SYNOPSIS 

C -- DESIGN OF VEHICLE MAINTENANCE SHOPS IN AR, LA, NM, OK & TX 

General Information 

Document Type: Presolicitation Notice 

 Solicitation Number: W9126G-04-R-0024 

 Posted Date: Jun 24, 2004 

 Original Response Date: Jul 24, 2004 

 Current Response Date: Jul 24, 2004 

 Archive Date: Aug 23, 2004 

 Classification Code: C – Architect and engineering services 

Contracting Office Address 

US Army Corps of Engineers, Ft. Worth District, P.O. Box 17300, ATTN: 

CESWF-ED-MS, Room 705, 819 Taylor Street, Ft. Worth, TX 76102-0300 

Description 

1. CONTRACT INFORMATION: a. General: This contract is being procured in 

accordance with the Brooks A-E Act as implemented in FAR Subpart 36.6. Firms will be 

selected for negotiation based on demonstrated competence and qualifications for the 

required work. See Numbered Note 24 for general information on the A-E selection process. 

North American Industrial Classification System code is 541330, which has a size standard 

of $4,000,000 in average annual receipts. This announcement is open to all businesses 

regardless of size. b. Nature of Work: A-E services are expected to be required for the 

design of approximately four Army and Air Force vehicle maintenance shops in the 

Southwestern Division (Ft. Worth and Tulsa Districts) of the Corps of Engineers (AR, LA, 

NM, OK & TX). A-E services may include site investigation, planning, engineering studies, 

concept design, final design (option), and construction phase engineering support (option). 

The A-E contracts will be awarded between Oct 2004 and Sep 2005. Concept designs will 

usually be completed within 3-6 months of contract award and final design completed within 

6-9 months of concept design approval. c. Contract Award Procedure: This will be the only 

announcement for the design of vehicle maintenance shops in the Southwestern Division 

during the next 12 months, except for a maintenance shop at Ft. Hood, which will be 

announced and selected separately due to special site conditions. A separate firm-fixed-price 

contract will be negotiated and awarded for each project. A list of at least three most highly 

qualified and technically equal firms will be selected using the primary criteria listed below. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

U-4

If there are not at least three most highly qualified and technically equal firms, the synopsis 

will be canceled. The firms will be ranked for order of negotiation using the secondary 

criteria listed below. When a directive for the first project of this type is received, 

negotiations shall begin with the top ranked firm. When a directive is received for a 

subsequent project, or if negotiations with a firm for a project are unsuccessful, negotiations 

shall begin with the next ranked firm that has not been offered a contract for negotiation. If 

the list of ranked firms is exhausted, the negotiation cycle shall begin again with the top 

ranked firm. None of the projects have been authorized for design and funds are not 

presently available for any contracts (see FAR 52.232-18). To be eligible for contract award, 

a firm must be registered in the Central Contractor Registration (CCR). Register via the CCR 

Internet site at http://www.ccr.gov. d. Subcontracting Plan: If a large business is selected 

for this contract, it must comply with FAR 52.219-9 regarding the requirement for a 

subcontracting plan on that part of the work it intends to subcontract. The subcontracting 

goals for the Fort Worth District which will be considered in the negotiation of this contract 

are: (1) at least 61% of a contractor's intended subcontract amount be placed with small 

businesses (SB); (2) at least 9% of a contractor's intended subcontract amount be placed 

with small disadvantaged businesses (SDB); (3) at least 5% of a contractor's intended 

subcontract amount be placed with women-owned SB (WOSB); (4) at least 3% of a 

contractor's intended subcontract amount be placed with service-disabled veteran-owned SB; 

(5) at least 3% of a contractor's intended subcontract amount be placed with veteran-owned 

SB; and (6) at least 3% of a contractor's intended subcontract amount be placed with 

HUBZone SB. The plan is not required with this submittal, but will be required with the fee 

proposal of the firm selected for negotiations. 2. PROJECT INFORMATION: Vehicle 

maintenance shops ranging from 25,000 to 150,000 square feet. Facilities typically include 

traveling bridge cranes, vehicle and industrial exhaust systems, fuel dispensing, battery 

charging, arms room with intrusion detection system (power conduit rough-in only), fire 

protection systems, oil-water separators, and waste oil disposal system. Supporting facilities 

typically include water, sewer, natural gas, HVAC, electric service, security lighting, 

parking, storm drainage, and information systems. The estimated construction cost range of 

individual projects is $1,000,000 to $10,000,000. 3. SELECTION CRITERIA: The 

selection criteria for this particular project are listed below in descending order of 

importance (first by major criterion and then by each sub-criterion). Criteria a-e are primary. 

Criteria f and g are secondary and will only be used as "tie-breakers" among firms that are 

essentially technically equal. a. Specialized experience and technical competence in: (1) 

Design of vehicle maintenance shops. (2) Fire protection design for maintenance shops. (3) 

Design of waste oil collection and disposal systems. (4) Design of fuel dispensing facilities. 

(5) Sustainable design using an integrated design approach and emphasizing environmental 

stewardship, with experience in energy and water conservation and efficiency; use of recovered 

and recycled materials; waste reduction; reduction or elimination of toxic and harmful substances 

in facilities construction and operation; efficiency in resource and materials utilization; 

development of healthy, safe and productive work environments; and employing the LEED 

evaluation and certification methods. (6) Producing quality designs based on evaluation of a 

firm's design quality management plan (DQMP). The evaluation will consider the 

management approach, coordination of disciplines and subcontractors, quality control 

procedures, and prior experience of the prime firm and any significant subcontractors on 

similar projects. b. Qualified professional personnel in the following key disciplines: 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

U-5

project management (architect or engineer), architecture, fire protection engineering, 

mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, structural engineering, and civil engineering. 

The lead architect or engineer in each discipline must be registered to practice in the 

appropriate professional field. The evaluation will consider education, certifications, 

training, registration, overall and relevant experience, and longevity with the firm. c. Past 

performance on DoD and other contracts with respect to cost control, quality of work, and 

compliance with performance schedules, as determined from PPIRS and other sources. d. 

Capacity to perform the work in the required time. The evaluation will consider the 

experience of the firm and any significant consultants in similar size projects, and the 

availability of an adequate number of personnel in key disciplines. e. Experience in the 

design of buildings in the general region of the Southwestern Division. f. Extent of 

participation of SB (including WOSB), SDB, historically black colleges and universities, and 

minority institutions in the proposed contract team, measured as a percentage of the total 

estimated effort. g. Volume of DoD A-E contract awards in the last 12 months, with the 

objective of effecting an equitable distribution of DoD A-E contracts among qualified firms, 

including SB and SDB. 4. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS: Interested firms having the 

capabilities to perform this work must submit two copies of SF 330 Part I, and two copies of 

SF 330 Part II for the prime firm and all consultants, to the above address not later than 4:00 

PM on the response date indicated above. The SF 330 Part I shall not exceed 50 pages (8.5” 

x 11”), including no more than 5 pages for Section H. Each side of a sheet of paper is a 

page. Use no smaller than 12 font type. Include the firm's DUNS number in SF 330, Part I, 

Section H. In Section H describe the firm's overall DQMP. A project-specific design quality 

control plan must be prepared and approved by the Government as a condition of contract 

award, but is not required with this submission. In Section H also indicate the estimated 

percentage involvement of each firm on the proposed team. Facsimile transmissions will not 

be accepted. Solicitation packages are not provided and no additional project information 

will be given to firms during the announcement period. This is not a request for proposal. 

Point of Contact 

John Smith, (817)334-1234 

Email your questions to US Army Engineer District, Forth Worth – Military at 

john.smith@usace.army.mil 

Place of Performance N/A 

EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

V-1

APPENDIX V 

EXAMPLE STATEMENT OF WORK 

SCOPE OF WORK 

ARCHITECT-ENGINEER SERVICES FOR 

PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS 

RIO DESCALABRADO SECTION 205 FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT 

SANTA ISABEL, PUERTO RICO

1. REFERENCES. 

1.1. Indefinite Delivery Contract (IDC). This task order will be issued under IDC W9126G-03-

D-0022, dated 12 July 2003. 

1.2. Federal, State/Commonwealth, and Industry Standards. Some applicable Federal, 

state/commonwealth, and industry standards are referenced below and listed in Exhibit A. All 

applicable standards, including those that are not referenced or listed, constitute criteria for the 

design of this project. 

2. PRECEDENCE. This Scope of Work (SOW) and the accompanying Exhibit A provide 

specific instructions for the design of this project and, in case of conflicts, take precedence over 

the requirements of Section C of the IDC. 

3. OVERVIEW. The project is located in the floodplain of the Rio Descalabrado basin at the 

rural community of Playita Cortada. Playita Cortada is located on the southern coast of Puerto 

Rico and is part of the Municipality of Santa Isabel. Playita Cortado lies on the south side of 

Highway 1, about 5 kilometers west of the town of Santa Isabel and 20 kilometers east of Ponce. 

The community extends along the east flood plain of Rio Descalabrado from the highway to the 

coastline. Approximate ground elevation in the area ranges from 1 meter mean sea level (msl) at 

locations near the sea to 6 meters msl at P.R. Highway 1. East of the community, along the 

beach, is a mangrove forest approximately 13 hectares (32 acres) in size. A small creek, which 

runs east of Playita Cortada, forms the eastern border of the mangrove forest. Another smaller 

creek runs parallel to the eastern border of the community and merge the first mentioned creek 

within the mangrove forest. The Rio Descalabrado drainage area is about 49.3 square kilometers 

(19 square miles). The project consists of: 

3.1. Levees: A 3,690 meter long ring levee, designed to protect against the standard project 

flood, will be constructed along the west, north and east side of Playita Cortada. P.R. Highway 1 

will ramp over the levee at two locations at the northwest and northeast section of the levee. 

3.2. Drainage Ditches: Minimum drainage ditches and culverts to convey local runoff are included 

on the interior and exterior levee sides. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

V-2

3.3. Culverts: Six drainage structures consisting of corrugated metal pipes (CMP) with concrete 

headwalls and wingwalls. Three of these six structures will provide interior drainage. Culverts 

near the ocean will be equipped with flapgates on the levee floodside to prevent backflow into 

the interior protected area. 

3.4. Recreation Features: A 6’-wide asphalt biking and hiking trail will be constructed on the 

levee crown. The P.R. Highway 1 ramps will include self-actuated traffic lights and appropriate 

signs in order to accommodate pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Bollards will be installed on the 

levee to prevent vehicle from accessing the levee at these crossings. A sufficient number of 

lockable, removable bollards will be provided for authorized vehicle access to the levees. Four 

covered picnic tables will be installed on each end of the levee near the ocean. 

4. DESCRIPTION OF WORK. This SOW covers all services required to prepare plans, 

specifications, and other supporting documents necessary for construction of the project features 

described in the Rio Descalabrado Final Detailed Project Report, dated February 2003. A 

complete design, including a bid schedule, an order of work clause, a construction contractor 

submittal register, quantity and cost estimates, M-CACES construction cost estimates, a 

proposed construction schedule, design analyses and calculations, a design documentation report, 

an engineering considerations and instructions report, and a draft operations and maintenance 

manual shall be developed for this project. 

5. REQUIRED A-E SERVICES. The A-E shall perform the services indicated in this Scope 

of Work, including Exhibit A, and Section C of the IDC. These services will be provided in 

three distinct phases: 

 - Concept (30%) Design 

 - Preliminary (60%) Design 

 - Final (100%) Design 

The drawings, specifications, and all other submittal items for this task order will be prepared 

using metric units of measurement. 

5.1. Drawings. 

 5.1.1. General. The A-E shall prepare drawings in a manner that clearly and adequately 

delineates the work to be accomplished by the construction contractor. Design documents will 

be sufficiently detailed to permit construction contractors to submit responsive bids without 

visiting the project site. The cover sheet will be signed and stamped by principal of the firm who 

is a registered professional engineer. All drawings will be created using Computer Aided Design 

and Drafting (CADD) technology and shall conform to the Tri-Service A/E/C CADD Standards, 

Release 1.7. These CADD standards are available on the Internet at 

http://tsc.wes.army.mil/News/aecs.asp. Additional criteria for preparation of drawings are 

contained in ER 1110-2-1200. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

V-3

 5.1.2. CADD Files. One CADD (*.DGN) file shall be used per drawing (sheet). All design 

and site condition features will be shown in each CADD drawing file. No reference files will 

remain except for the border file, photos and other raster files (*.COT). 

 5.1.3. Format. All drawings and sketches will be provided in both hard copy and 

MicroStationTM file format. Full-sized drawings shall be developed as “F” sized sheets (41” x 

29” at the trim line) and shall utilize the standard Corps of Engineers Jacksonville District title 

block. Half-sized drawings are to be provided on 201⁄2” x 141⁄2” (at the trim line) sheets. Original 

drawings and details must be of adequate size, and be clear and sharp, so that the use of half-size 

reproducibles will result in legible and easy to read copies. 

5.2. Specifications. 

 5.2.1 General. The A-E shall utilize the Corps of Engineers Guide Specifications (CEGS) 

which are the set of master guide specifications reflecting HQUSACE technical policy. These 

guide specifications are available over the Internet at http://www.usace.army.mil/usace-docs/. 

SPECSINTACT software will be used for the preparation of project specifications in accordance 

with ER 1110-1-8155. This software is available from the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration over the Internet at http://www-de.ksc.nasa.gov/specsintact/. Specifications shall 

conform with industry standards for format and content as established by the CSI Manual of 

Practice. 

 5.2.2. Bid Schedule and Contract Clauses. The A-E shall prepare a project bid schedule that 

includes all required payment items. Consult the Jacksonville District Project Engineer in 

developing the bid schedule. The Government retains responsibility for preparation of Division 

00 contract clauses (Sections 00010, 00100, 00600, 00700, and 00800). 

 5.2.3. Outline Specifications. The A-E shall develop an outline specification listing the 

proposed guide specifications and A-E-prepared sections that will be used for the project. The 

outline specification will list the guide specification number and title for each proposed section. 

Sections shall be arranged within their respective divisions, in numerical order. New 

specification sections, developed by the A-E, will be numbered to fall in their respective division 

at a logical location. 

 5.2.3.1. Division 1. Division 1 consists of the following sections: 

 Section 01000 - General Requirements 

 Section 01320 - Contractor Prepared Network Analysis System 

 Section 01330 - Submittal Procedures 

 Section 01410 - Environment Protection 

 Section 01411 - Turbidity Monitoring 

 Section 01451 - Contractor Quality Control 

The Government will provide Jacksonville District’s Master Guide Specifications for these 

sections. The A-E shall edit these specification sections and, if necessary, convert them into 

SPECSINTACT format. Jacksonville District’s Project Engineer will provide input for certain 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

V-4

sections. This input consists of the construction contract performance period, liquidated 

damages, accommodations for Government personnel, Government field office requirements, 

contractor-furnished radios and vehicles for Government personnel, contractor quality control 

staffing requirements, and annotated hard copies of specification Sections 01410 and 01411. 

The A-E will obtain all other information necessary to complete Division 1 specification 

sections. 

The A-E shall also prepare an “Order of Work” clause for insertion in Section 01000. The clause 

shall either state the required sequence of construction operations for this project or state that the 

order of work shall be at the discretion of the construction contractor. 

 5.2.3.2. Divisions 2 through 16. The A-E must edit and adapt CEGS to satisfy the 

project requirements and provide a complete set of construction specifications. In instances 

where there are no appropriate guide specifications available for use, the required specifications 

will be prepared by the A-E. These specifications shall list the essential features, functions, and 

other factors to clearly indicate the type and quantity of items/work required. All specifications 

will be prepared by listing parameters and requirements that can be met by several 

manufacturers. The use of trade names and proprietary items in the specifications must be 

specifically approved by the Jacksonville District’s Project Engineer. 

 5.2.3.3. Construction Contractor Submittal Register. The specifications require the 

construction contractor to submit shop drawings, samples, manufacturer’s data, certificates, test 

reports, and other items to the Government. The A-E shall prepare a complete listing of 

construction contractor submittal requirements on Eng Form 4288 using SPECSINTACT. These 

submittals will be classified as either “Government Approval” or “For Information Only.” All 

non-critical submittals should be classified as “For Information Only”. Those submittals that are 

critical to safety, construction execution, and system or facility operation should be classified as 

“Government Approval”. The type of submittals requiring government approval are extensions 

of design, critical materials, deviations, O&M manuals, or those involving equipment that must 

be checked for compatibility with the entire system. 

5.3. Quantity and Cost Estimates. 

 5.3.1. Format. The A-E shall prepare quantity computations, cost estimates, and 

construction cost estimates for this project. All construction cost estimates shall be developed 

using M-CACES (version 5.30) software. These estimates must conform with the requirements 

contained in ER 1110-1-1300, ER 1110-2-1302, and EI 01D010. A controlled materials report is 

not required for this task order. 

 5.3.2. Cost Estimate Submittal. The M-CACES cost estimates shall be submitted in 2 hard 

copies only, separate from the other design documents, and in electronic form on a 3.5-inch 

computer diskette(s). Cost estimates shall be submitted only to Ms. Penny Wise, P.E., Chief, 

Cost Engineering Branch, Engineering Division. 

 5.3.3. Proposed Construction Schedule. The A-E shall prepare a proposed schedule for 

construction that is consistent with the project construction cost estimate. During development 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

V-5

of this schedule, due consideration will be given to standard construction practices, durations of 

tasks, the sequence of construction, procurement of materials, climatic conditions, etc. The 

Proposed Construction Schedule should be in the form of a bar chart. Engineering Instructions 

01D010 contain additional guidance regarding preparation of this schedule. 

5.4. Design Analysis (DA). The A-E shall develop a DA that addresses general project 

parameters, functional and technical requirements, design objectives, design assumptions, and 

contains calculations applicable to the project’s design. Guidance regarding the content and 

procedures for preparation of the DA are contained in ER 1110-345-700. The DA will be 

updated during each phase of design. 

5.5. Quality Control. 

 5.5.1. Quality Control Plan. The A-E shall prepare a Quality Control Plan (QCP) which 

includes the following as a minimum: 

 5.5.1.1. Identification and discussion of all organizational and technical interfaces. 

 5.5.1.2. Design team members and their areas of responsibility. 

 5.5.1.3. Team members responsible for checking the design 

 5.5.1.4. Team members responsible for checking the electronic files 

 5.5.1.5. Independent Technical Review (ITR) team and an explanation of how they will 

perform their duties 

 5.5.1.6. Project Schedule showing key milestones and review periods. 

 5.5.2. Independent Technical Reviews (ITR). The A-E shall perform an ITR during each 

phase of design development. These ITRs will be conducted by qualified engineers (one per 

discipline) who are not part of the design team and documented in accordance with the 

requirements contained in Appendix F of ER 1110-2-1150. Formal written comments will be 

generated by each member of the ITR team and annotated by designers to indicate the intended 

corrective action. These corrective actions will be incorporated into the design during the same 

phase in which the review is conducted, prior to submission to the Government. Copies of all 

annotated ITR review comments and certification statements shall be furnished as an appendix to 

the Design Documentation Report. ITR certifications shall be certified by one of the firm’s 

principals or authorized representative. 

 5.5.3. Quality Assurance. The Jacksonville District will perform a quality assurance review 

of all A-E work to confirm that proper criteria, regulations, laws, codes, principles and 

professional procedures have been used. This should confirm the utilization of clearly justified 

and valid assumptions that are in accordance with policy. It should also assure resolution of 

legal, technical and policy review issues. The Jacksonville District will review the work of the 

A-E during each phase of design and return comments using the DrChecks system. 

5.6. Design Documentation Report (DDR). The A-E shall prepare a DDR and update it during 

each phase of design. The content and format of this report must conform with requirements 

contained in Appendix D of ER 1110-2-1150. ITR comments and certification statements, 

documentation of QC reviews, and minutes of meetings will be incorporated into the DDR as 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

V-6

separate appendices. The DDR shall also contain copies of site visit reports and all records of 

discussions. 

5.7. Engineering Considerations and Instructions (ECI) Report. The A-E shall prepare an 

Engineering Considerations and Instructions for Field Personnel Report in accordance with 

Appendix G of ER 1110-2-1150. The purpose of the ECI is to inform field personnel of critical 

quality control issues that must be addressed during construction. The ECI should also highlight 

important elements of the design and provide a better understanding of the project’s intended 

function. 

5.8. Operations and Maintenance Manual. The A-E shall prepare a draft Operation, 

Maintenance, Repair, Replacement, and Rehabilitation Manual (OMRR&R Manual) in 

accordance with ER 1110-2-401. The Government will insert construction history and as-built 

information upon completion of construction. 

5.9. Site Visits, Meetings/Conferences, and Discussions. 

 5.9.1. Site Visits. The A-E shall visit the project site during the Concept (30%) Design 

Phase. The purpose of this visit is to observe and evaluate existing field conditions and to gather 

supplemental site data necessary for performing the design. A follow-up site visit will be 

conducted during the Preliminary (60%) Design Phase. The Jacksonville District Project 

Engineer will be notified of these site visits well in advance of their occurrence. Reports 

summarizing the conditions observed, personnel contacted, and data gathered during the visits 

shall be prepared and included in the Design Documentation Report. 

 5.9.1.1. Concept (30%) Design Phase Site Visit. The following A-E representatives shall 

participate in this two-day site visit: Project Manager, Senior Civil Engineer (General Site and 

Drainage Design), Civil Engineer (Highway Design), Senior Geotechnical Engineer, and Senior 

Electrical Engineer. 

 5.9.1.2. Preliminary (60%) Design Phase Site Visit. The 60% site visit shall include 

coordinating the latest design with the local agencies including the Puerto Rico Department of 

Natural Resources, the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA), the Puerto Rico 

Aqueduct and Sewer Authority (PRASA), the Puerto Rico Department of Transportation and 

Public Works (DTPW), through its Highway and Transportation Authority (PRHTA). The 

following A-E representatives shall participate in this two-day site visit: Project Manager, Senior 

Civil Engineer (General Site and Drainage Design), Senior Geotechnical Engineer, and Senior 

Electrical Engineer. 

 5.9.2. Meetings/Conferences. The following is a list of meetings and conferences the A-E 

shall attend under this task order. The A-E representatives required to attend these conferences 

are defined below. The exact location, date, and time of each conference will be established by 

Jacksonville District’s Project Engineer. 

 5.9.2.1. Initial Technical Coordination Meeting. The A-E will host a one day technical 

coordination meeting during the concept design phase. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

V-7

 5.9.2.2. Preliminary (60%) Design Review Conference. A one-day Preliminary (60%) 

Design Review Conference will be held at the Jacksonville District Office. A-E representatives 

shall be: Project Manager and Senior Civil Engineer.

 5.9.2.3. Final (100%) Design Review Conference. A one-day Final (100%) Design 

Review Conference will be held at the Jacksonville District Office. A-E representatives shall be: 

Project Manager, Senior Civil Engineer (General Site and Drainage Design), Civil Engineer 

(Highway Design), Senior Geotechnical Engineer, and Senior Electrical Engineer. 

The A-E shall take notes and prepare minutes for all meetings and conferences attended during 

design. Minutes will be prepared in typed form, signed by the A-E Project Manager, and 

furnished to Jacksonville District’s Project Engineer within five calendar days after the 

meeting/conference for concurrence and distribution to attendees. Copies of all 

meeting/conference minutes will be included in the Design Documentation Report. 

 5.9.3. Discussions. The A-E shall provide a written record of all significant discussions and 

telephone conversations that the firm’s representatives participate in, on matters relative to this 

project. Copies of these records will be included in the Design Documentation Report. 

5.10. Topographic Surveys. The Government has performed topographic surveys in the vicinity 

of this project. These surveys will be provided to the A-E as Government furnished materials 

(Survey No. 00-216, Aerials No. 00-148, and Aerials No. 00-915). This task order may be 

modified, at some later date, to have the A-E perform supplemental surveys as required. 

5.11. Geotechnical Investigations. The Government has performed geotechnical subsurface 

investigations and laboratory testing for this project. The results of these investigations shall be 

provided to the A-E as Government furnished materials. 

5.12. Environmental Investigations and Permits. The Government will conduct investigations to 

delineate wetlands and identify the habitat of endangered species. The A-E shall show these 

environmentally sensitive areas on the civil site drawings, but is not required to obtain any 

related permits. The Government will prepare applications and perform any agency coordination 

that is necessary to secure environmental and water quality certification permits. 

5.13. Responsibility after Design Completion. The A-E is required to support the Jacksonville 

District should errors or omissions in the documents create problems in bidding or administering 

the contract for construction. As needed, the A-E will clarify the design intent and correct any 

errors or omissions in the original documents. The corrections shall be done in a timely manner 

at no additional cost to the Government. The A-E shall incorporate amendment changes on the 

original drawings and/or CADD drawings when requested to do so after the bidding process at 

no extra cost to the Government. In addition, the A-E shall incorporate amendment changes on 

the submittal registers and submit one copy in SPECSINTACT format on a disk or CD labeled 

with the project title, location, and construction contract number. Also, during the bidding 

period, the A-E is required to assist in answering all bidders inquiries pertaining to the design. If 

clarifications are required, the A-E will prepare the required amendment. The A-E, however, 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

V-8

shall not receive or respond to any direct inquiries from bidders. All inquiries or responses shall 

be through the Jacksonville District Project Engineer. 

5.14. A-E Services During Construction. No A-E services during construction, other than the 

responsibilities described above, are contemplated at the present time. However, this task order 

may be modified at some later date to include review of construction contractor submittals, onsite inspections, review of value engineering change proposals, review of contractor 

substitutions, preparation of design modifications, or other similar services during construction. 

6. SUBMITTALS AND PERFORMANCE SCHEDULE. 

6.1. Distribution of Submittals. Deliverables for each phase of design shall include a complete 

set of MicroStationTM (*.DGN) files and hard copies of all drawings. Narrative and text 

documents, specifications, design analysis and cost estimates will be provided in Government 

approved electronic formats, with hard copies. Electronic files for cost estimates and 

specifications should be furnished on 3.5” high-density diskettes. All other electronic files 

should be furnished on recordable compact discs, 650MB/74 minute, DOS compatible, ISO 

standard. The distribution list and number of copies of each document are shown in Exhibit B. 

6.2. Government Review and Comment Resolution. The Government will review all submittals 

identified under this task order. Formal comments generated during the review will be provided 

to the A-E via the DrChecks automated review system, and the A-E will respond to the 

comments via DrChecks. Both parties will discuss these comments, if necessary, and attempt to 

resolve any unsettled issues that may arise from the review. The time frame for Government 

review and comment resolution varies however; this process is typically completed within 30

calendar days. 

6.3. Performance Periods and Submission Schedules. The performance periods and submission 

schedules for each phase of design are indicated below. Time for reproduction and mailing is 

inclusive to the stated durations. The A-E may choose to perform work, at its own risk, during 

the Government review and comment resolution period, however, comments resulting from that 

review must be incorporated into the design prior to the next submittal. In the event a 

subsequent design phase is not authorized, the A-E shall incorporate all available review 

comments into the design to complete the current phase. 

6.4. Concept (30%) Design Phase Submittals. 

 6.4.1 Quality Control Plan. The A-E shall submit a Quality Control Plan, for review and 

approval, 15 calendar days after issuance of Notice to Proceed. 

 6.4.2 Concept (30%) Design Submittal. The A-E shall submit the Concept (30%) Design, 

for review and approval, 45 calendar days after the issuance of the notice to proceed. This 

submittal will include drawings, design analysis, a design documentation report, quantity and 

cost estimates, a bid schedule, an M-CACES construction cost estimate, and other supporting 

documents. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

V-9

6.5. Preliminary (60%) Design Phase Submittal. The A-E shall submit the Preliminary (60%) 

Design, for review and approval, 45 calendar days after receipt of Concept (30%) Design review 

comments. This submittal will include drawings, outline specifications, design analysis, a design 

documentation report, quantity and cost estimates, a bid schedule, an M-CACES construction 

cost estimate, a proposed construction schedule, site plans identifying all right-of- ways (for 

construction and perpetual operations), a complete order of work clause describing the required 

sequence of construction operations, and other supporting documents. 

6.6. Final (100%) Design Phase Submittals. 

 6.6.1 Final (100%) Design Submittal. The A-E shall submit the Final (100%) Design, for 

review and approval, 45 calendar days after receipt of Preliminary (60%) Design review 

comments. This submittal will include detailed working drawings and specifications necessary 

for the effective coordination and efficient execution of the construction work. The Final 

(100%) Design shall also include a construction contractor submittal register, design analysis, a 

design documentation report, quantity and cost estimates, a bid schedule, an M-CACES 

construction cost estimate, a proposed construction schedule, site plans identifying all right-ofways (for construction and perpetual operations), and other supporting documents. 

 6.6.2 Corrected Final Design Submittal. The A-E shall submit the Corrected Final Design, 

for review and approval, 28 calendar days after receipt of Final (100%) Design review 

comments. This submittal will include the same items that are required for the Final (100%) 

Design submittal. 

6.7. Amended Plans And Specifications. The A-E shall provide revised plans and 

specifications, which include all amendment changes, 14 calendar days after bid opening. 

6.8. Request for Payment. The A-E shall include a progress report along with the Payment 

Estimate – Contract Performance, ENG Form 93 as justification for the amount of payment 

requested. The progress report shall include in narrative form a Summary of Activities, 

Estimated Percentage Complete, Project Schedule Evaluation, and Problems and Recommended 

Solutions. 

7. AUTHORIZED CHANGES. The A-E shall accept instructions only from the Contracting 

Officer or his/her duly appointed representative. However, coordination of routine technical 

matters with Corps of Engineers personnel will be accomplished through the Jacksonville 

District Project Engineer, Tony Tiger, CESAJ-EN-DL. Direct requests from other agencies 

should be forwarded to the Project Engineer for consideration. 

8. EXHIBITS. 

 A: Technical Instructions (not included) 

 B: Review Distribution List (not included) 

EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

W-1

APPENDIX W 

REQUEST FOR PRICE PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS 

 A RFPP to an A-E firm will include the SOW, proposal instructions, preproposal 

conference date (if needed), proposal due date, name(s) and telephone number(s) of the 

Government negotiator(s), and the contract terms and conditions. An RFPP will direct the 

firm to submit the following information, as appropriate, for the contract action. The items 

in italics are not required for ID contract task orders. 

 1. The name(s) and title(s) of the person(s) authorized to negotiate and sign a contract 

or task order. 

 2. The labor rates and supporting payroll data for all position classifications anticipated to 

be used under the contract by the prime firm and any subcontractors. Include the basis for any 

escalation in labor rates. 

 3. Financial data and the methodology used to calculate the proposed overhead rates for 

the prime firm and subcontractors. Identify costs not allowed by FAR 31.2. 

 4. The name and address of any Government audit agency that has conducted an audit of 

the firm within the last year. 

 5. Submission of cost or pricing data for proposals over $650,000 as required by FAR 

15.403-4(a)(1), 15.403-5(b)(1) and Table 15-2 of 15.408. For task orders, only cost or 

pricing data that was not included in negotiation of the basic ID contract need be submitted. 

 6. Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data if the negotiated price exceeds $650,000 

(FAR 15.406-2). A certificate is not required for a task order if no additional cost or pricing 

data (item 5 above) is required. The certificate should not be executed and submitted until 

negotiations are completed. 

 7. Executed Representations, Certifications and Other Statements of Offeror. (Note: 

Contractors must complete the most common representations and certifications through the 

Online Representations and Certifications Application website listed in Appendix F.) 

 8. Detailed price breakdown with tasks, position classifications, labor-hours, costs and 

profit for all phases and sub-phases of work. Indicate which work will be performed by the 

prime firm and each subcontractor. Identify factual and judgmental items. Discuss any 

assumptions made in developing the proposal. Include price quotes for any commercial 

supplies and services. 

 9. Subcontracting plan for the utilization of SB and SDB if the prime firm is a large 

business and the contract is expected to exceed $500,000 (FAR 19.702(a)(1) and 19.704). 

 10. Acknowledgment that the firm, or any subsidiaries or affiliates, may not be awarded a 

construction contract for the project to be designed (FAR 36.209 and 36.606(c)). The firm 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

W-2

should also be advised not to release any information to prospective bidders for the construction 

contract (FAR 9.505(b)). 

 11. A letter from a banker, creditor, or other appropriate financial institution confirming 

the firm's business and financial reputation, integrity and ability to execute the contract. 

 12. Design quality control plan. 

 13. Verification of registration in the Central Contractor Registration system. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

X-1

APPENDIX X 

INDEPENDENT GOVERNMENT ESTIMATES 

1. General. An IGE for A-E services will be developed from a detailed analysis of the 

SOW, assuming reasonable economy and efficiency, and modern and effective methods. An 

IGE shall not be based on a percentage of construction cost, arbitrary ceilings, the 

availability of funds, or any cost or pricing information provided by the A-E firm. The intent 

of an IGE is to determine a price for the required work which is fair and reasonable to the 

Government (Comptroller General decision Dworsky Associates, B-248216, June 18, 1992, 

92-1 CPD ¶ 533). 

2. Preparation. An IGE will be prepared by engineers, architects, and/or other appropriate 

personnel having expertise (education, training and professional experience) in the type of 

work being contracted. Where available, cost and pricing specialists or auditors should be 

consulted for information on overhead, labor rates, and other pertinent unit costs and prices. 

An IGE will be marked "FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY" and protected accordingly. 

3. Approval. An IGE will be approved by a supervisor having expertise in the type of work 

being contracted. The level of supervisory approval will be appropriate for the complexity 

and dollar value of the contract action. An IGE will be approved prior to opening the related 

A-E price proposal. Internal management controls will be established to ensure that each 

IGE is prepared independently of the A-E proposal. 

4. Revision. An IGE should be revised whenever there is a significant change in the SOW 

or a significant error or omission is discovered in the IGE. A revised IGE should normally 

be approved by the same person who approved the original IGE. Revision of an IGE is not 

required to justify accepting a proposal greater than the IGE if the significant differences are 

adequately explained in the PNM. 

5. Statutory Limitation. The 6 percent statutory limitation for the "production and delivery 

of designs, plans, drawings and specifications” (FAR 15.404-4(c)(4)(i)(B) and 36.606(a), and 

EFARS 36.606-70(c)) will be carefully considered when preparing an IGE. An IGE will be 

clearly organized to show the elements of estimated price, including associated overhead and 

profit, subject to the 6 percent limitation, and the total of these elements of price expressed 

as a percentage of the estimated construction cost (excluding contingencies, and supervision 

and administration). For additional work or redesigned work, the estimated construction cost 

will be increased by the value of the additional or redesigned work (DFARS 236.606-70(b)). 

6. Labor and Overhead Rates. 

 a. FFP Contracts. An IGE for a FFP contract will use labor and overhead rates 

representative of the class of A-E firms that have been selected as most highly qualified to 

perform the required work (EFARS 36.605(a)). Class includes such factors as firm size, 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

X-2

market area, specialization, and capabilities39. Appendix Y lists sources of information on 

labor and overhead costs in the A-E industry. Rates for the Government or the firm under 

negotiation will not be used since the objective of an IGE is to independently estimate a fair 

price for a competitive and efficient private firm, not the Government nor the firm under 

negotiation, to perform the required A-E services. The estimated labor rates for work of 

extended duration or for later phases of work will be adjusted for escalation. Arbitrary limits 

on the overhead and labor rates used in an IGE are prohibited. 

 b. ID Contracts. An IGE for an ID contract will consist of an independent analysis of 

fair and reasonable rates for labor, overhead and other costs. An IGE for a task order (or 

modification to a task order) will use the contract rates for labor, overhead, travel, supplies, 

services, and possibly profit (if the same profit rate is applicable to all orders) in effect at the 

time the order (or modification to a task order) is issued. 

7. Breakdown of Costs. An IGE will be organized to correspond to each phase or sub-phase 

of work in the SOW. The estimated price for each phase or sub-phase will be itemized to 

show the direct labor costs, overhead costs, travel costs, other direct costs, and profit. 

 a. Direct Labor Costs. The labor-hours needed for each position classification (types of 

disciplines at certain levels of expertise) are determined by analysis of the required tasks and 

products in the SOW. Reasonable effort must also be included for project management, 

quality control and assurance, clerical support, and coordination between disciplines. If the 

SCA applies to the contract, the labor rates and benefits for service employees must be at 

least equal to those in the appropriate DoL wage determination. 

 b. Overhead. Overhead costs (also called indirect costs) include overhead on direct labor 

and general and administrative overhead. FAR 31 provides detailed guidance on overhead 

costs. An IGE will normally be prepared using a single overhead factor which combines 

overhead on direct labor with general and administrative overhead, expressed as a percentage 

of the total direct labor costs. This method is representative of the accounting practices of 

most A-E firms and is compatible with the market surveys in Appendix Y. Other overhead 

structures may be used in an IGE if representative of the class of firms selected for the work. 

An IGE may be prepared using separate overhead rates for the prime contractor and primary 

subcontractors if considered reasonable and typical for the type of work. 

 c. Travel. Travel requirements are determined from analysis of the SOW for tasks such 

as field investigation and meetings, based on the location of the firm selected for negotiation. 

Typical travel costs include rental car, company car mileage, airfare, parking fees, and per 

diem expenses. The labor of personnel when traveling will be included in the direct labor 

portion of an IGE. The unit cost and quantity of each travel item will be identified. Per 

 39 For example, for a major military command headquarters, the IGE would likely use 

labor and overhead rates representative of national, "top 100" firms. Conversely, for a 

standard vehicle maintenance building at a typical Army installation, the IGE would likely 

use rates of local, small-to-medium size firms. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

X-3

diem and airfare costs are limited by FAR 31.205-46. The prevailing privately owned 

vehicle mileage reimbursement rate for Government personnel will be used to estimate car 

mileage costs. 

 d. Other Direct Costs. Include all other necessary direct costs not included in direct 

labor and travel, and not ordinarily included in the overhead of an A-E firm. Commercial 

quotes from suppliers are usually available for these items. Typical other direct costs 

include: reproduction of documents for Government review, supplies, photographs, 

renderings, models, colorboards, long distance communications, laboratory tests, computer 

use, and postage. 

 e. Profit. Profit rates will be determined in accordance with EFARS 15.404-73-101. 

The profit rate will be applied to all costs (direct labor, overhead on direct labor, general and 

administrative overhead, travel, reproduction and other direct costs) to estimate the dollar 

amount of profit. An IGE will not be structured with redundant levels of profit (no profit on 

profit)40. Hence, if an IGE is structured with subcontractors, the estimated costs (without 

profit) for the prime contractor and the subcontractors will be added to give the total cost 

base for applying the profit rate. However, it is not necessary to deduct reasonable profit 

embedded in the prices of commercial supplies and services, such as travel, lab tests, printing 

and express mail. 

 40 The EFARS alternate structured approach to the weighted guidelines method (WGM) 

for A-E contracts yields profits that are substantially greater than the WGM in DFARS 

215.404-71. Hence, estimating additional profit for layering of subcontractors is not 

warranted. 

EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

Y-1

APPENDIX Y 

A-E COST INFORMATION 

 The following sources of cost information can be used in preparing IGE for A-E services 

and evaluating A-E price proposals. 

Publication: A/E Financial Performance Survey 

Contents: Overhead rates (overall and elements) for various sizes, types and locations of 

firms. Also, data on profit, staffing, labor costs, and automation use and costs. 

Publisher: PSMJ Resources, Inc., Ten Midland Avenue, Newton, MA 02458; Phone: 800-

537-7765; http://www.psmj.com/index.asp. 

Note: This firm also publishes: A/E Management Salary Survey and A/E Fees and Pricing 

Survey. 

Publication: Income & Salary Survey 

Contents: Detailed data on salaries for engineers for various disciplines, education levels, 

lengths of experience, levels of responsibility, and locations. 

Publisher: National Society of Professional Engineers, 1420 King Street, Alexandria, VA 

22314; Phone: 703-684-2800; http://www.nspe.org. 

Publication: Compensation at US Architecture Firms 

Contents: Average salaries for architects for various levels of responsibility, sizes of firms, 

and regions. Also includes similar data for landscape architects, interior designers, drafters 

and CADD operators. 

Publisher: American Institute of Architects, 1735 New York Avenue, NW, Washington, 

D.C. 20006, Phone: 800-AIA-3837; http://www.aia.org. 

Publication: Engineers Salary Survey 

Contents: Detailed data on salaries for engineers for various disciplines, education levels, 

lengths of experience, levels of responsibility, and locations. 

Publisher: D. Dietrich Associates, Inc., 61 North Forge Manor Drive, Phoenixville, PA 

19640; Phone: 610-935-1563; http://www.dsurveys.com. 

Note: This firm also publishes other similar surveys on engineering executives, architectural 

positions, drafters and designers, construction services positions, scientists, and laboratory 

technicians. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

Y-2

Publication: Compensation and Benefits in Consulting Engineering Firms 

Contents: Salary and benefit data on 41 engineering positions, such as managers, drafters, 

technicians, and surveyors. 

Publisher: Abbott Langer & Associates, 548 First Street, Crete, IL 60417; Phone: 708-672-

4200; http://www.abbott-langer.com. 

Publication: Financial Performance Survey of A/E/P and Environmental Consulting Firms 

Contents: Over 30 different major financial performance statistics on architectural, 

engineering and environmental firms. 

Publisher: Zweig White, P.O. Box 8325, One Apple Hill Drive, Natick, MA 01760-2085, 

Phone: 1-800-466-6275; http://www.zweigwhite.com/. 

Publication: MAPPS Non-Cash Benefits and Salary Survey 

Contents: Salary and benefit information for photogrammetric mapping firms. 

Publisher: Management Association of Private Photogrammetric Surveyors, 1760 Reston 

Parkway, Suite 515, Reston, VA 20190; Phone: 703-787-6996; 

http://www.mapps.org/WageSurvey.asp. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

Z-1

APPENDIX Z 

A-E PRICE PROPOSAL ANALYSIS 

1. General. Technical, price and cost analysis will generally be performed on every A-E 

price proposal. The extent of the analysis and documentation depends on the dollar value 

and complexity of the proposal. For small actions (typically below the IGE threshold of 

$100,000), the proposal analysis can be efficiently performed by annotating the A-E 

proposal. 

2. Technical Analysis (FAR 15.404-1(e)). Technical analysis is the evaluation of the 

judgmental elements of a proposal and the approach for accomplishing the work. Technical 

analysis involves comparing the proposal with the IGE, and: 

 a. Evaluating the general approach for performing the work and any assumptions included 

in the proposal. Ensure that the proposal includes appropriate modern and cost-effective 

design methods (FAR 36.606(d)) and is based on reasonable efficiency and economy (FAR 

15.404-1(e)). 

 b. Ensuring that all requirements in the SOW are addressed, and no unnecessary items 

are included. 

 c. Evaluating the design quality control plan, if required, to ensure that the firm is using 

procedures, practices and tools that will produce quality engineering and design services and 

products in accordance with ER 1110-1-12. 

 d. Ensuring that all Government-provided information and materials are considered in 

the proposal. 

 e. Evaluating the need for the proposed position classifications (types of disciplines with 

certain levels of expertise) and their mixture. Consider the relationship among management, 

professional, technician and drafting hours. 

 f. Evaluating the number of labor hours for each position classification for various tasks, 

products and/or phases of work. 

 g. Evaluating proposed subcontracting and how it interrelates with work done by the 

prime contractor. Ensure that all subcontractors have been approved by the selection board 

(FAR 36.606(e)). 

 h. Evaluating the need for and suitability of proposed special equipment and the hours of 

special equipment usage compared to the labor hours for using the equipment. 

 i. Reviewing the purpose and number of proposed trips, personnel traveling, origin and 

destination, and means. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

Z-2

 j. Reviewing the type and amount of communications, postage, reproduction, materials 

and other direct costs. 

3. Price Analysis (FAR 15.404-1(b)). Price analysis is the evaluation of the proposed total 

price, and the price of major phases or elements of work, without evaluating individual cost 

elements or profit. Price analysis includes, as appropriate, comparing the proposed price(s) 

to other similar contract actions, the IGE, and rough unit price yardsticks, such as dollars per 

drawing for designs or dollars per acre for surveying and mapping. 

4. Cost Analysis (FAR 15.404-1(c)). Cost analysis is the review and evaluation of the 

separate cost elements and proposed profit to determine what the price of the contract should 

be, "assuming reasonable efficiency and economy." Also, the analysis "shall ensure that the 

effects of inefficient or uneconomical past practices are not projected into the future." Cost 

analysis includes (items a -l are appropriate for audit review): 

 a. Verifying labor rates, employee benefits and escalation factors, and evaluating their 

reasonableness. 

 b. Verifying the direct labor base. 

 c. Evaluating the reasonableness of the method for computing overhead rates. When a 

significant amount of the work is to be performed away from a firm's office, such as resident 

on-site construction support, overhead rates applied to that portion of the work should be 

evaluated separately. 

 d. Reviewing for any duplication between direct costs and overhead costs for items such 

as principals and managers, administrative personnel, travel, communications, reproduction, 

computer services, equipment, materials and supplies. 

 e. Evaluating the reasonableness of travel costs and other direct costs such as 

reproduction, computer services, laboratory tests, materials and supplies, using price quotes, 

catalog prices, other recent contracts, and other available data. 

 f. Determining the allowability of direct costs and overhead costs in accordance with 

FAR 31.205. 

 g. Determining the allocability of costs to the contract action for other offices of the 

firm. 

 h. Evaluating the rate for facilities capital cost of money. 

 i. Evaluating the percentage of Government business compared to total business, and the 

impact of the contract action on overhead rates. 

 j. Verifying conformance with Cost Accounting Standards (FAR 30) or generally 

accepted accounting practices. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

Z-3

 k. Identifying and evaluating the necessity and reasonableness of any contingencies 

(FAR 15.402(c) and 15.404-1(c)(2)(i)(A)). 

 l. Verifying mathematical accuracy. 

 m. Verifying that contract rates for the prime and subcontractors are being used for a 

task order under an ID contract. 

 n. Verifying that labor rates for service employees (FAR 22.10) are at least equal to the 

WD by the DoL under the SCA, if the SCA is applicable to the contract. 

 o. Comparing costs with other similar contracts and the IGE. 

 p. Comparing the proposed profit amount with the profit amount determined by the 

Alternate Structured Approach to the Weighted Guidelines Method (EFARS 15.404-73-101). 

 q. Determining that all necessary cost or pricing data has been submitted by the firm. 

 r. Evaluating the extension of the allowable unit costs (such as labor rates, overhead rates, 

travel rates, printing costs) to total prices, considering the results of the technical analysis of the 

judgmental elements (such as labor hours, trips, and number of drawings). 

 s. Evaluating compliance with the 6 percent statutory limitation (FAR 15.404-4(c)(4)(i)(B) 

and 36.606(a), DFARS 236.606-70, and EFARS 36.606-70(c)). 

EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

AA-1

APPENDIX AA 

INSTRUCTIONS FOR DD FORM 2631 

Instructions are provided below for items that are not self-explanatory. 

Item 3a. PHASE OF COMPLETION. Check the "Interim" box for any performance 

evaluation made prior to completion of the design or engineering services 

phase, or construction phase, and enter the percent of completion of the phase. 

The usual instances for interim evaluations are: (1) when performance is 

marginal or unsatisfactory; (2) annual progress evaluations when the 

performance period exceeds 18 months; or (3) a project is deferred for more 

than 3 months and substantial work has been completed. Check "Final" if the 

evaluation is made at the completion of a project phase (i.e., design or 

engineering services phase, or construction phase). 

Item 3b. COMPLETION. Check "Design" if the A-E services are for design of 

construction. Check "Engineering Services" if the A-E services are not 

directly associated with the design of a construction project. Check 

"Construction" for the evaluation of A-E services during construction. 

Item 5. DELIVERY ORDER NUMBER(S). Only applicable for ID contracts. (The 

correct term on the form should be “task order” which applies to services, not 

“delivery order” which applies to supplies.) 

Item 6. NAME AND ADDRESS OF A-E CONTRACTOR. Show primary performing 

office, which may not be the office which signed the contract. 

Item 7b. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT. For HTRW projects, indicate the phase in 

which the A-E firm assumed responsibility for the project. 

Item 8. NAME, ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF OFFICE RESPONSIBLE 

FOR. An example for Item 8a is shown below: 

Engineering Division 

Savannah District 

Savannah, GA 

(912) 944-5465 

Item 9a. TYPE OF WORK PERFORMED BY A-E (DESIGN, STUDY, ETC.). For 

HTRW projects, indicate if performance type specifications were required. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

AA-2

Item 9d. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT. The “Initial Fee” should include 

the basic contract or task order amount plus any options awarded before the 

time of the evaluation. Do not include contract or task order modifications in 

the initial fee amount. “Contract or Task Order Modifications” should include 

all additional work not negotiated at the time of the contract or task order 

award. The “Total Fee” is the sum of the initial fee and the modifications. 

Items 9f,g. NEGOTIATED/ACTUAL A-E CONTRACT COMPLETION DATE (OR 

NUMBER OF DAYS). Report either negotiated/actual completion dates or 

number of days, not both. Include authorized contract extensions. The 

"number of days" is the total period negotiated for performance of the work 

and does not include Government review time, other design stop periods, or 

other Government-caused delays. 

Item 11. A-E LIABILITY. Indicate status of A-E liability at time of completing the 

form. Check "None" if there are no known deficiencies, or if there are and the 

KO has decided not to take action. Check “Undetermined” if there are 

deficiencies and a determination on liability has not been made. Discuss in 

Item 20. Check "Pending" if the contracting officer has determined that action 

will be taken to recover damages from the A-E firm and enter the amount of 

damages. Check "Settlement" if a liability case(s) against the A-E has been 

settled and enter the amount recovered. “Undetermined”, "Pending", and 

"Settlement" may be concurrently marked. 

Item 12. OVERALL RATING. See guidance in Chapter 6, paragraph 6.4.e of this 

pamphlet. The overall rating shall be determined through an assessment of 

ratings of performance elements in Items 16 through 19, and any other 

significant factors not covered by the performance elements. Explain in Item 

20 which disciplines and attributes are significant if not readily apparent from 

the nature of the work. 

Item 14a. NAME, TITLE AND OFFICE OF RATING OFFICIAL. For the evaluation at 

the completion of design or engineering services, indicate the COR. For the 

evaluation at the completion of construction, indicate the Area Engineer or 

Resident Engineer. Give the name of the office, not just the office symbol. 

Item 15. NAME, TITLE AND OFFICE OF REVIEWING OFFICIAL. The 

Director/Chief, or Assistant Director/Chief, of Engineering. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

AA-3

Item 19. CONSTRUCTION PHASE. The AE or RE is responsible for addressing these 

attributes. Any aspect of A-E performance not adequately described by the 

ratings given in the matrix shall be described in Item 20. Examples of items 

that might require special comment are: 

- Field visit support. Did the A-E firm provide the proper individual in a 

timely manner? Were written reports submitted in a timely manner? Did 

solutions to problems appear to be cost effective? Did the A-E firm provide 

information which contributed to the Government’s defense against a claim or 

identification of a construction contractor deficiency? 

- Changes. Did the A-E firm provide designs to correct errors or 

omissions and/or revise criteria in a timely manner? Were the cost estimates 

useful/realistic in support of negotiations? 

- As-Built Drawings and Operation and Maintenance Manuals. Comment 

on the adequacy of the A-E firm’s preparation or review of such documents, if 

applicable. 

Item 20. REMARKS. The comments should be tailored to be of maximum usefulness 

to selection boards considering this A-E firm for future work, and to the 

administrators of contracts with this firm in the future. If the effectiveness of 

the firm's project management is not adequately covered by Items 17 and 19, 

add comments as needed. Provide substantive comments to support a 

“Marginal” or “Unsatisfactory” evaluation and include any comments by the 

A-E firm in response to the proposed evaluation. Explain the basis for a “No” 

or “Conditionally” recommendation for future contracts in Item 13. 

EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

BB-1 

APPENDIX BB 

A-E LIABILITY ACTION FLOWCHART 

EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

CC-1

APPENDIX CC 

DETERMINATION OF A-E LIABILITY DAMAGES 

1. General. Detailed and accurate cost records are very important when seeking recovery of 

A-E liability damages. Damage computations must show the source of the data and be 

signed and dated by the preparer. Government labor costs must be determined in accordance 

with normal accounting practices. The computation of damages should be amended as 

required. Damages will be categorized as construction costs, ancillary costs, and 

investigation and recovery costs, as discussed below. 

2. Construction Costs. 

 a. Identifiable costs in a construction change (usually executed by a contract 

modification, but may be a new contract, supplemental agreement, purchase order or other 

type instrument) that would not have been included in the construction contract price had the 

design been correct. Such costs include: tearout and demolition, scrap material, restocking 

charges, premium for expedited delivery, reinstallation, difference in new and salvage value 

of unused or removed material or equipment, delay and impact, and extended overhead. 

 b. Do not include construction costs of items or work that should have been included in 

the design but were omitted or were improper due to the A-E firm's error or omission. The 

Government is entitled to only the extra costs associated with including such omitted or 

improper items or work in the construction, and not the actual construction costs of the items 

or work themselves, unless it can be shown that the costs are more than they would have 

been had the items or work been included in the original construction plans and/or 

specifications. 

3. Ancillary Costs. Include costs such as: 

 a. Construction S&A costs associated with the additional construction costs, in the usual 

percentage of construction costs. 

 b. Administrative costs to prepare and award a purchase order or contract if necessary 

for the remedial construction. 

 c. In-house costs for the corrective design. 

 d. Cost of re-procurement of A-E services, including the associated administrative costs. 

 e. Diminished value. In some instances it is impracticable to remedy an A-E firm's error or 

deficiency. If so, the damage is the difference in value of the facility as it exists and what its 

value would have been had the error or deficiency not occurred. 

 f. Loss of use or function. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

DD-2

4. Investigation and Recovery Costs. Technical and administrative costs to investigate, 

document, and review liability, and recover the damages, including actions by the AERC, 

technical specialists, expert witnesses and counsel (to the extent that the costs are not 

included in overhead). 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

DD-1

APPENDIX DD 

A-E LIABILITY COLLECTION AND SETTLEMENT 

1. Collection of Claims. 

 a. The provisions of FAR 32.6, Contract Debts, and its supplements, apply to claims by 

the Government against A-E firms. These regulations arise from the Debt Collection Act of 

1982. 

 

 b. A claim for payment of damages made in a demand letter to an A-E firm is not subject 

to the provisions of FAR 32.6 until a COD has been issued. When a COD is issued, the 

amount of the claim becomes a "receivable" and the handling of it shall be in accordance 

with the acquisition regulations. A copy of the COD shall be furnished to the local finance 

and accounting officer (FAO), with the following information: 

 (1) A-E firm's billing address, if different from the mailing address; 

 (2) A-E firm's employer identification number, if a US Army contractor; 

 (3) Social security number of A-E firm's contracting officer; 

 (4) Contract number; and, 

 (5) Government KO's name and organization. 

 c. The A-E firm shall be notified in the COD that it may submit a request for deferment 

of collection (FAR 32.610(b)(3)). This is pertinent if the A-E firm has not been paid in full 

for the contract under which the liability action is being taken or has other active contracts, 

as the KO has authority to set off the claim against payments due the A-E firm. Requests for 

deferment by the A-E firm and the granting of deferments by the KO are covered in FAR 

32.613. 

 d. The FAO shall be kept informed of the status of the resolution of a liability case and 

provided copies on all internal and external correspondence concerning the status of the 

claim. The AERC shall support and coordinate the actions of the KO and FAO to comply 

with the regulations cited above. 

2. Settlement Options. 

 a. Settlements can be made by cash payment, installment payments, or in-kind A-E 

services in some instances. The in-kind A-E services should be within the scope of the 

contract (such as a user-requested change order) under which the liability action has been 

taken, but obviously cannot be for corrective design. The value of settlements made by other 

than cash payments shall be estimated and be reported as the settlement amount in reports. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

DD-2

 b. Installment settlements shall be reported as follows: 

 (1) The case shall be reported as settled upon receipt of the first payment. 

 (2) Subsequent payments will increase the amount of recoveries reported, but not the 

number of cases reported as settled. 

 (3) An ENG Form 4858A-R is required for each quarterly report until payment has been 

received in full. 

 (4) If the firm fails to complete payment, the case shall be referred to Counsel for 

collection. 

3. Disposition of Monies Recovered. 

 a. The AERC shall provide written guidance to the FAO for disposition of monies 

collected in liability case settlements. A copy of the disposition document shall be placed in 

the A-E contract file. 

 b. In general, the monies recovered in A-E liability actions are credited to the 

appropriation or account that bore the costs. This applies to project accounts, flat rate S&A 

accounts, and general and administrative overhead accounts. The amounts credited to these 

accounts cannot exceed the charges against them for the liability case. 

 c. In the cases where the costs associated with a liability case were borne by a customer's 

operations and maintenance account, the funds recovered shall be returned to the client without 

regard to whether the return is made in the same year as the costs were incurred. 

 d. When the monies received cannot be credited to an account because the appropriation has 

expired, they shall be returned to the Treasury of the United States as miscellaneous receipts. 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

EE-1

APPENDIX EE 

AERMP REPORTS 

ENG Form 4858-R, Annual A-E Responsibility Management Program Report (Figure EE-1), 

and ENG Form 4858A-R, Quarterly A-E Liability Case Report (Figure EE-2) are used for 

AERMP reporting. The instructions are shown on the reverse of each form. These forms are 

locally reproducible. Also, the forms can be downloaded via the Internet as follows: 

 - Access USACE home page (http://www.usace.army.mil) 

 - Click on “Find Corps Publications” 

 - Click on “Publications Library” 

 - Click on “Engineer Forms” 

 - Click on “Versions 1.1, 2.22, 2.23, FormFlow99 and PDF format” 

 - Scroll to “Eng 4858-r” or “Eng 4858a-r” 

 - Click on “v 2.22” to open form in FormFlow software 

 - Complete form and save 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

EE-2

FIGURE EE-1. ENG FORM 4858-R, ANNUAL AERMP REPORT 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

EE-3

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ENG FORM 4858-R

General: This form is used to consolidate information from individual ENG Forms 4858A-R 

on A-E liability cases in an operating command. This report is submitted annually from 

operating commands to their MSCs, from MSCs to HQUSACE, ATTN: CECW-CE. 

Instructions are provided below for items that are not self-explanatory. Attach additional 

sheets for remarks if needed. 

1. Enter the three character office symbol; e.g., NWO for Omaha District. 

5b./6b. Investigation and recovery costs are for cumulative total for the cases, not just for 

the year. Total damages includes the investigation and recovery costs. 

(Reverse of ENG FORM 4858-R) 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

EE-4

FIGURE EE-2. ENG FORM 4858A-R, QUARTERLY A-E LIABILITY CASE 

REPORT 
EP 715-1-7 

22 May 07 

EE-5

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ENG FORM 4858A-R

General: A separate form is required for each A-E liability case until it is dropped or settled. 

Instructions are provided below for items that are not self-explanatory. Attach additional 

sheets if needed. 

1. .Enter the three character office symbol; e.g., NWO for Omaha District. 

2. Use the following format for the case number: FY-XXX, where FY is the fiscal year in 

which the liability case was originated and XXX is a sequential serial number. 

9. Identify key consultants by name, and city and state address, if involved. 

11. Indicate date(s) and means (T=telephone; L=letter) of initial notification to the A-E. 

15/16. Enter date and docket number of appeal to Armed Services Board of Contract 

Appeals (ASBCA) or Court of Federal Claims (CFC). 

Note for Items 18-22: See EP 715-1-7, Appendix CC for a detailed discussion of the 

determination of damages. Update damages, especially investigation and recovery costs, as 

the case progresses. Round off to nearest dollar. 

18. Enter the additional construction costs the Government incurred due to A-E design 

errors or omissions, or performance deficiencies, such as tearout, reinstallation, premium for 

expedited delivery, and delay and extended overhead. 

19. Enter the S&A costs associated with the additional construction costs. Also include 

costs for redesign (if not performed by the original A-E firm), reprocurement of equipment 

or construction, and lessened value. 

20. Enter all costs to investigate the A-E liability, and to pursue the recovery of damages. 

Do not include labor costs of personnel who normally charge to overhead. 

25. Summarize key events in the case. 

 a. This should generally be a one-line entry for each event. Earlier entries do not have 

to be repeated for liability cases in the later stages of litigation. 

 b. Make a concise statement on the status. For example, when the last step has been a 

conference with the A-E, a statement might be made that there has been no change in the 

Government's position and the A-E has been told that a COD will be issued within 30 days. 

 c. Give a brief statement of any changes in the case from the last report. 

(Reverse of ENG FORM 4858A-R)