59–006 

114TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 114–691 

CONSTRUCTION CONSENSUS PROCUREMENT 

IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2016 

JULY 14, 2016.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. CHAFFETZ, from the Committee on Oversight and Government 

Reform, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H.R. 5199] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, to whom 

was referred the bill (H.R. 5199) to amend title 41, United States 

Code, to improve the manner in which Federal contracts for construction and design services are awarded, and to prohibit the use 

of reverse auctions for design and construction services procurements, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with 

an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Committee Statement and Views ........................................................................... 2 

Section-by-Section .................................................................................................... 4 

Explanation of Amendments ................................................................................... 6 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 6 

Roll Call Votes ......................................................................................................... 6 

Application of Law to the Legislative Branch ....................................................... 6 

Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the Committee ...... 6 

Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives .................................... 6 

Duplication of Federal Programs ............................................................................ 7 

Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings ..................................................................... 7 

Federal Advisory Committee Act ............................................................................ 7 

Unfunded Mandate Statement ............................................................................... 7 

Earmark Identification ............................................................................................ 7 

Committee Estimate ................................................................................................ 7 

Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate .................... 7 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 9 

The amendment is as follows: 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

1Data source is the Federal Procurement Data Systems-Next Generation (FPDS-NG) available 

at: http://www.fpds.gov. 2 41 U.S.C. § 3309. 

3The federal government has used this design-build method since the late 1980s and early 

1990s. Ralph C. Nash & John Cibinic, Design-Build Contracting: Can the Federal Government 

Use This Technique Effectively? No. 12 Nash & Cibinic Rep. 68 (1994). 4 48 C.F.R. § 36.303. 

In section 3, in the matter proposed to be inserted by subsection (a)(1), strike 

‘‘$750,000’’ each place it appears (including any headings) and insert ‘‘$3,000,000’’. 

COMMITTEE STATEMENT AND VIEWS

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

H.R. 5199, the Construction Consensus Procurement Improvement Act of 2016, was introduced to encourage competition and reduce the costs of bidding for federal construction contracts. The bill 

encourages the use of the two-step bid and proposal process for design-build construction contracts in order to reduce the costs of 

competing in the government marketplace, and reduce the time 

contracting officers must spend reviewing numerous complicated 

design proposals in the one-step process. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

The federal government spent $439 billion in fiscal year (FY) 

2015 on contracts for goods and services. Approximately $21.4 billion (or five percent) of this amount was spent on federal construction and architect and engineering (A&E) projects. Small business 

prime contractors received approximately $7.4 billion (or 35 percent) of this spending.1 Construction contracting would benefit 

from a streamlining of the procurement process to ensure robust 

small business participation on design-build proposal teams. 

Typically, the federal government uses one of two processes for 

buying construction and A&E services. First, under the ‘‘design-bidbuild’’ process, design and construction are treated as two separate 

requirements and contracts are awarded sequentially and separately. Under the second ‘‘design-build’’ process design and construction are combined into a single requirement with a single contract awarded to one company (which is often a team) responsible 

for both the design and construction.2

There are two source selection processes for design-build contracts.3 There is the single-step design-build selection process 

where all construction and design teams must submit detailed and 

costly full proposals up front. The procuring agency then evaluates 

all proposals and selects an awardee. There is also a two-phase design-build selection process.4 Under this process, teams submit information related to experience and past performance in phase one. 

The procuring agency then selects a limited number of the most 

qualified offerors (generally three to five) to advance to phase two 

of the competition. During phase two, these offerors submit detailed price and technical proposals that the procuring agency evaluates in order to make an award decision. 

Encouraging the use of the two-step design-build process 

There are recognized benefits to design-build contracting that include having a single accountable prime contractor. However, this 

process also requires highly complicated and often costly proposals. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

5 Assessing Government’s Use of Design-Build Contracts: Hearing before the Subcomm. on Federal Workforce, US Postal Service and the Census of the H. Comm. on Oversight and Gov’t Reform, 113th Cong. (2013) (statement of Charles D. Dalluge on behalf of the American Institute 

of Architects). 6 41 U.S.C. § 3309(d). 

7 Assessing Government’s Use of Design-Build Contracts: Hearing before the Subcomm. on Federal Workforce, US Postal Service and the Census of the H. Comm. on Oversight and Gov’t Reform, 113th Cong. (2013) (statement of Charles D. Dalluge on behalf of the American Institute 

of Architects); The Hill, A Better Way to Build More Efficient Government by Helen Combs 

Dreiling (Oct. 4, 2014). 8 Assessing Government’s Use of Design-Build Contracts: Hearing before the Subcomm. on Federal Workforce, US Postal Service and the Census of the H. Comm. on Oversight and Gov’t Reform, 113th Cong. (2013) (statement of Charles D. Dalluge on behalf of the American Institute 

of Architects). 

Experts have said that in order to develop accurate construction 

cost proposals, bidders must complete up to 80 percent of the design work and determine detailed space and material needs.5 Current law encourages the use of a two-step process for design-build 

contracts and the selection of no more than two to five firms for 

phase two in order to encourage selection of the most qualified 

firms and limit the cost burden of these types of proposals.6

However, concerns have been expressed that agencies awarding 

construction contracts (typically the General Services Administration (GSA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)) are 

overly reliant on one-step design-build contractors. In addition, 

when the two-step process is used there are concerns that these 

agencies may be allowing too many offerors into phase two.7

While the one-step process can offer the advantage of speed to 

the government, it can also be more expensive, burdensome and 

time-consuming for potential contractors, who must make a significant investment in proposal costs with limited chances of being 

awarded the contract. This can discourage firms from competing. 

A 2012 survey by the American Institute of Architects found that 

between 2007 and 2011, architecture firms spent a median of 

$260,000 for each design-build project, which is a significant investment, particularly for small businesses.8 Under the two-step process, there is a lower initial cost because bidders’ proposals are focused on demonstrating experience and past performance qualifications. Then, as the number of potential bidders decreases in phase 

two, bidders have a greater chance of winning the award and 

therefore a greater return on investment from their cost proposals. 

The advantages of the two-step process are limited though when 

over five bidders advance to phase two. 

This bill will encourage the use of the two-step process for construction procurements. The two-step design-build process can help 

to ensure that the most qualified bidders are selected for phase two 

and that those firms have a greater incentive to submit a competitive proposal because they will have a greater chance of winning 

the award. Encouraging the use of the two-step process for design 

and construction services will reduce the costs of competing in the 

government marketplace and reduce the time contracting officers 

must spend reviewing numerous complicated design proposals. 

Prohibiting the use of reverse auctions for design and construction 

services 

The term ‘‘reverse auction’’ is not defined in statute. However, 

the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has released guidVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:10 Jul 17, 2016 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR691.XXX HR691

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 

9OMB Memorandum on Effective Use of Reverse Auctions from Office of Federal Procurement 

Administrator Anne E. Rung Memorandum for Chief Acquisition Officers and Senior Procurement Executives (June 1, 2015). 10 USACE, Final Report Regarding the USACE Pilot Program on Reverse Auctioning 11 

(2004). 11 House Report 113–668 (Dec. 12, 2014). 

ance on how to effectively use the reverse auctions.9 Reverse auctions provide a method for bidding down prices and is a particularly useful tool for the purchase of commodities. However, the reverse auction tool may not be appropriate for the procurement of 

complicated design and construction services. 

The USACE conducted a year-long study of reverse auctions for 

construction services and found that it did not deliver the promised 

savings in construction contracts. Specifically, the USACE found 

that using reverse auctions for construction projects did not provide 

‘‘any significant or even marginal edge in savings’’ and that construction was too variable a service to be considered a commodity.10

This bill prohibits the use of reverse auctions as part of the twophase process for construction and design services. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

H.R. 5199, the Construction Consensus Procurement Improvement Act of 2016, was introduced on May 11, 2016 by Congressman Mark Meadows (R–NC) and referred to the Committee on 

Oversight and Government Reform. 

A companion bill, S. 1526, the Construction Consensus Procurement Improvement Act of 2015, was introduced by Senator 

Portman on June 8, 2015. On February 10, 2016, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee ordered the 

bill, as amended, favorably reported. 

Two other related House bills were introduced in 2015, including 

H.R. 1666, the Design-Build Efficiency and Jobs Act of 2015, and 

H.R. 838, the Security in Bonding Act of 2015. 

On December 12, 2014, in the 113th Congress, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee reported H.R. 2750, the 

Design-Build Efficiency and Jobs Act of 2014.11 H.R. 2750 would 

have required a two-phase selection process for the award of civilian and defense design and construction contracts having a value 

of greater than $1.5 million, but did not include language on reverse auctions. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION

Section 1. Short title; table of contents 

Designates the bill as the ‘‘Construction Consensus Procurement 

Improvement Act of 2016.’’ 

Section 2. Congressional findings 

Makes six findings: (1) acquisition procedures that are often used 

effectively to procure productions and other forms of services are 

not always appropriate for procurement of design and construction 

services; (2) federal procurement officials often adopt contracting 

techniques from the private sector and have used those techniques 

effectively to procure products and services; (3) design-build is a 

procurement technique federal officials have adopted from the private sector that has worked well for procurement of design and 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
5 

construction services; (4) the current statutory framework for design-build could benefit from legislative refinement; (5) reverse auctions are another procurement technique federal officials have 

adopted from the private sector and used successfully to award contracts for the purchase of products that are commercially equivalent to commodities; and (6) despite their success in other contexts, 

reverse auctions are generally inappropriate for procurement of design and construction services, given the unique nature of each 

such project. 

Section 3. Design-build construction process improvement 

For civilian contracts for design and construction of a public 

building, facility or work, the bill would require two-phase selection 

procedures be used for contracts with a value of $750,000 or greater. 

For such contracts valued at less than $750,000, the bill would 

require the contracting officer to make a determination on whether 

to use two-phase selection procedures based on consideration of 

several factors. The contracting officer would be required to consider the following factors: (1) whether the contracting officer anticipates three or more offers will be received; (2) design work must 

be performed before an offeror can develop a price or cost proposal; 

(3) whether the offeror will incur a substantial amount of expense 

in preparing the offer; and (4) other information including the: (i) 

extent to which the project requirements have been adequately defined; (ii) time constraints for delivery of the project; (iii) capability 

and experience of potential customers; (iv) suitability of the project 

for use of the two-phase selection procedures; (v) capability of the 

agency to manage the two-phase selection process; and (vi) other 

agency-established criteria. 

Requires annual agency reports on each instance by which the 

agency awarded a design-build contract in which more than five finalists were selected for phase-two requests for proposals or the 

contract was awarded without using two-phase selection procedures. OMB would be required to make the agency reports publicly 

available. 

Requires the Government Accountability Office to analyze agency 

compliance with the requirements of this bill on design-build contracts. 

Section 4. Prohibition on the use of a reverse auction for the award 

of a contract for design and construction services 

States a finding that reverse auctions bid down the price compared to traditional auctions where buyers bid up on the price. 

Requires the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council in consultation with the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy to 

amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation to prohibit the use of reverse auctions as part of the two-phase selection procedure for 

awarding contracts for construction and design services. 

Defines ‘‘design and construction services’’ as site planning and 

landscape design, architectural and engineering services (including 

surveying and mapping), interior design, performance of substantial construction work for facility, infrastructure, and environmental restoration projects, delivery and supply of construction maVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:10 Jul 17, 2016 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR691.XXX HR691

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
6 

terials to construction sites, or construction or substantial alteration of public buildings or public works. 

Defines ‘‘reverse auction’’ as a real-time auction conducted 

through an electronic medium among two or more offerors who 

compete by submitting bids for a supply or service contract with 

the ability to submit revised lower bids at any time before the closing of the auction; and the award of the contract, delivery order, 

task order, or purchase order to the offeror in whole or in part, 

based on the price obtained through the auction process. 

EXPLANATION OF AMENDMENTS

During Full Committee consideration of the bill, Ranking Member Elijah Cummings (D–MD) offered an amendment on behalf of 

Congressman Stephen Lynch (D–MA) that would raise the contract 

value threshold from $750,000 to $3 million on the requirement to 

use the two-phase selection procedure for design and construction 

contracts. The amendment was adopted by voice vote. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On May 17, 2016, the Committee met in open session and ordered reported favorably the bill, H.R. 5199, as amended, by voice 

vote, a quorum being present. 

ROLL CALL VOTES

No roll call votes were requested or conducted during Full Committee consideration of H.R. 5199. 

APPLICATION OF LAW TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

Section 102(b)(3) of Public Law 104–1 requires a description of 

the application of this bill to the legislative branch where the bill 

relates to the terms and conditions of employment or access to public services and accommodations. This bill makes amendments to 

improve competition in the area of federal construction contracting. 

As such this bill does not relate to employment or access to public 

services and accommodations. 

STATEMENT OF OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF

THE COMMITTEE

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause (2)(b)(1) 

of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee’s oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the 

descriptive portions of this report. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

In accordance with clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee’s performance goals and 

objectives of the bill are to improve the manner in which Federal 

contracts for construction and design services are awarded, and to 

prohibit the use of reverse auctions for design and construction 

services procurements. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
7 

DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS

No provision of this bill establishes or reauthorizes a program of 

the Federal Government known to be duplicative of another Federal program, a program that was included in any report from the 

Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to section 

21 of Public Law 111–139, or a program related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. 

DISCLOSURE OF DIRECTED RULE MAKINGS

The Committee estimates that enacting this bill does not direct 

the completion of any specific rule makings within the meaning of 

5 U.S.C. 551. 

FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT

The Committee finds that the legislation does not establish or 

authorize the establishment of an advisory committee within the 

definition of 5 U.S.C. App., Section 5(b). 

UNFUNDED MANDATE STATEMENT

Section 423 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act (as amended by Section 101(a)(2) of the Unfunded Mandate 

Reform Act, P.L. 104–4) requires a statement as to whether the 

provisions of the report include unfunded mandates. In compliance 

with this requirement the Committee has received a letter from the 

Congressional Budget Office included herein. 

EARMARK IDENTIFICATION

This bill does not include any congressional earmarks, limited 

tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9 of rule 

XXI. 

COMMITTEE ESTIMATE

Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the Committee of the costs that would be incurred in carrying out this bill. 

However, clause 3(d)(2)(B) of that rule provides that this requirement does not apply when the Committee has included in its report 

a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the 

Congressional Budget Act of 1974. 

BUDGET AUTHORITY AND CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST

ESTIMATE

With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of 

the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 308(a) of the 

Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect to requirements 

of clause (3)(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 

1974, the Committee has received the following cost estimate for 

this bill from the Director of Congressional Budget Office: 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
8 

JUNE 13, 2016. 

Hon. JASON CHAFFETZ, 

Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 5199, the Construction 

Consensus Procurement Improvement Act of 2016. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Matthew Pickford. 

Sincerely, 

KEITH HALL. 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 5199—Construction Consensus Procurement Improvement Act 

of 2016 

H.R. 5199 would modify the federal government’s procedures for 

awarding design and construction contracts for federal facilities 

and would prohibit the use of reverse auctions for such awards. 

Specifically, the legislation would require a two-phase selection 

process for designing and constructing any federal facility with a 

cost of more than $3 million. In phase one, firms would provide 

basic information on their experience and past performance; agencies then would select a few firms and invite them to submit a 

more detailed proposal in phase two. 

CBO reviewed information on the process of awarding construction contracts by the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the 

General Services Administration (GSA), two agencies that oversee 

construction of many federal facilities. Those agencies often use a 

two-phase process to select firms for construction projects but also 

use other acquisition strategies to award contracts. On the basis of 

information from those agencies, CBO estimates that implementing 

H.R. 5199 would cost $3 million over the 2017–2021 period—about 

$600,000 a year—because agencies that currently evaluate projects 

using a one-phase process would incur somewhat higher costs to 

evaluate two rounds of proposals before selecting a firm for each 

construction project. 

CBO also reviewed information on the use of reverse auctions in 

government procurement contracts by the Corps and GSA. Those 

agencies have found that using reverse auctions in complex procurements does not consistently result in lower procurement costs 

than would result from other methods such as sealed bids or negotiated procurements. Those agencies generally do not use reverse 

auctions to obtain such services. On that basis, CBO estimates that 

implementing H.R. 5199 would not result in a significant change 

in the government’s bidding practices and thus would not have a 

significant effect on the federal budget. 

Because enacting the bill could affect direct spending by agencies 

not funded through annual appropriations, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. CBO estimates, however, that any net change in 

spending by those agencies would be negligible. Enacting the bill 

would not affect revenues. CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 5199 

would not increase net direct spending or on-budget deficits in any 

of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2027. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
9 

H.R. 5199 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would 

not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments. 

On March 29, 2016, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for S. 1526, 

the Construction Consensus Procurement Improvement Act of 

2015, as ordered reported by the Senate Committee on Homeland 

Security and Governmental Affairs on February 10, 2016. S. 1526 

and H.R. 5199 are similar, although H.R. 5199 would require agencies to use a two-phase selection process for the design and construction of facilities with a cost greater than $3 million. S. 1526 

which would impose the process for facilities with a cost greater 

than $750,000. CBO estimates that the process imposed in H.R. 

5199 would be less costly. 

The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Matthew Pickford 

and Aurora Swanson. This estimate was approved by H. Samuel 

Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, 

and existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in 

roman): 

TITLE 41, UNITED STATES CODE 

* * * * * * * 

SUBTITLE I—FEDERAL PROCUREMENT 

POLICY 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 33—PLANNING AND SOLICITATION 

* * * * * * * 

§ 3309. Design-build selection procedures 

(a) AUTHORIZATION.—Unless the traditional acquisition approach 

of design-bid-build established under sections 1101 to 1104 of title 

40 or another acquisition procedure authorized by law is used, the 

head of an executive agency shall use the two-phase selection procedures authorized in this section for entering into a contract for 

the design and construction of a public building, facility, or work 

when a determination is made under subsection (b) that the procedures are appropriate for use. 

ø(b) CRITERIA FOR USE.—A contracting officer shall make a determination whether two-phase selection procedures are appropriate 

for use for entering into a contract for the design and construction 

of a public building, facility, or work when— 

ø(1) the contracting officer anticipates that 3 or more offers 

will be received for the contract; 

ø(2) design work must be performed before an offeror can develop a price or cost proposal for the contract; 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
10 

ø(3) the offeror will incur a substantial amount of expense in 

preparing the offer; and 

ø(4) the contracting officer has considered information such 

as the following: 

ø(A) The extent to which the project requirements have 

been adequately defined. 

ø(B) The time constraints for delivery of the project. 

ø(C) The capability and experience of potential contractors. 

ø(D) The suitability of the project for use of the twophase selection procedures. 

ø(E) The capability of the agency to manage the twophase selection process. 

ø(F) Other criteria established by the agency.¿ 

(b) CRITERIA FOR USE.— 

(1) CONTRACTS WITH A VALUE OF AT LEAST $3,000,000.—Twophase selection procedures shall be used for entering into a contract for the design and construction of a public building, facility, or work when a contracting officer determines that the 

project has a value of $3,000,000 or greater, as adjusted for inflation in accordance with section 1908 of this title. 

(2) CONTRACTS WITH A VALUE LESS THAN $3,000,000.—For 

projects that a contracting officer determines have a value of 

less than $3,000,000, the contracting officer shall make a determination whether two-phase selection procedures are appropriate for use for entering into a contract for the design and 

construction of a public building, facility, or work when— 

(A) the contracting officer anticipates that 3 or more offers will be received for the contract; 

(B) design work must be performed before an offeror can 

develop a price or cost proposal for the contract; 

(C) the offeror will incur a substantial amount of expense 

in preparing the offer; and 

(D) the contracting officer has considered information 

such as— 

(i) the extent to which the project requirements have 

been adequately defined; 

(ii) the time constraints for delivery of the project; 

(iii) the capability and experience of potential contractors; 

(iv) the suitability of the project for use of the twophase selection procedures; 

(v) the capability of the agency to manage the twophase selection process; and 

(vi) other criteria established by the agency. 

(c) PROCEDURES DESCRIBED.—Two-phase selection procedures 

consist of the following: 

(1) DEVELOPMENT OF SCOPE OF WORK STATEMENT.—The 

agency develops, either in-house or by contract, a scope of work 

statement for inclusion in the solicitation that defines the 

project and provides prospective offerors with sufficient information regarding the Federal Government’s requirements 

(which may include criteria and preliminary design, budget parameters, and schedule or delivery requirements) to enable the 

offerors to submit proposals that meet the Federal GovernVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:10 Jul 17, 2016 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR691.XXX HR691

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
11 

ment’s needs. If the agency contracts for development of the 

scope of work statement, the agency shall contract for architectural and engineering services as defined by and in accordance 

with sections 1101 to 1104 of title 40. 

(2) SOLICITATION OF PHASE-ONE PROPOSALS.—The contracting 

officer solicits phase-one proposals that— 

(A) include information on the offeror’s— 

(i) technical approach; and 

(ii) technical qualifications; and 

(B) do not include— 

(i) detailed design information; or 

(ii) cost or price information. 

(3) EVALUATION FACTORS.—The evaluation factors to be used 

in evaluating phase-one proposals are stated in the solicitation 

and include specialized experience and technical competence, 

capability to perform, past performance of the offeror’s team 

(including the architect-engineer and construction members of 

the team), and other appropriate factors, except that cost-related or price-related evaluation factors are not permitted. 

Each solicitation establishes the relative importance assigned 

to the evaluation factors and subfactors that must be considered in the evaluation of phase-one proposals. The agency evaluates phase-one proposals on the basis of the phase-one evaluation factors set forth in the solicitation. 

(4) SELECTION BY CONTRACTING OFFICER.— 

(A) NUMBER OF OFFERORS SELECTED AND WHAT IS TO BE

EVALUATED.— 

(i) the technical submission for the proposal, including design concepts or proposed solutions to requirements addressed within the scope of work, or both; 

and 

(ii) the evaluation factors and subfactors, including 

cost or price, that must be considered in the evaluations of proposals in accordance with subsections (b) to 

(d) of section 3306 of this title. 

(B) SEPARATE EVALUATIONS.—The contracting officer separately evaluates the submissions described in clauses (i) 

and (ii) of subparagraph (A). 

(5) AWARDING OF CONTRACT.—The agency awards the contract in accordance with chapter 37 of this title. 

(d) SOLICITATION TO STATE NUMBER OF OFFERORS TO BE SELECTED FOR PHASE-TWO REQUESTS FOR COMPETITIVE PROPOSALS.— 

A solicitation issued pursuant to the procedures described in subsection (c) shall state the maximum number of offerors that are to 

be selected to submit competitive proposals pursuant to subsection 

(c)(4). The maximum number specified in the solicitation shall not 

exceed 5 unless the agency determines with respect to an individual solicitation that a specified number greater than 5 is in the 

Federal Government’s interest and is consistent with the purposes 

and objectives of the two-phase selection process. 

(e) REQUIREMENT FOR GUIDANCE AND REGULATIONS.—The Federal Acquisition Regulation shall include guidance— 

(1) regarding the factors that may be considered in determining whether the two-phase contracting procedures authorVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:10 Jul 17, 2016 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR691.XXX HR691

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
12 

ized by subsection (a) are appropriate for use in individual contracting situations; 

(2) regarding the factors that may be used in selecting contractors; and 

(3) providing for a uniform approach to be used Governmentwide. 

* * * * * * * 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS