AEservcs

EP 715-1-7
31 July 2002
ARCHITECT-ENGINEER
CONTRACTING
Approved for public release. Distribution is unlimited.

CECW-ET DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY EP 715-1-7
CEPR-P U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington, DC 20314-1000
Pamphlet
No. 715-1-7 31 July 2002
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 U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (USACE).
b. 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.
d. AR 215-4, Nonappropriated Fund Contracting.
This pamphlet supersedes EP 715-1-7, dated 31 May 1999.

CECW-ET DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY EP 715-1-7
CEPR-P U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington, DC 20314-1000
Pamphlet
No. 715-1-7 31 July 2002
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

Definition of A-E Services 2-3 2-1
North American Industry Classification System 2-4 2-2
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 2-5
CHAPTER 3. ANNOUNCEMENT AND SELECTION
Principles 3-1 3-1

General 3-2 3-1
Public Announcement 3-4 3-2
ACASS 3-5 3-4
Board Membership 3-6 3-4
Selection Criteria 3-7 3-5
i
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
CHAPTER 3. ANNOUNCEMENT AND SELECTION (Continued)
General Procedures for Evaluation Boards 3-8 3-7

Preselection Board 3-9 3-8
Selection Board 3-10 3-9
Approval of Selections 3-11 3-10
Notifications 3-12 3-11
Debriefings 3-13 3-12
Disposition of SFs 254 and 255 3-14 3-12
Special Cases 3-15 3-12
EP 715-1-4 3-16 3-14
CHAPTER 4. NEGOTIATION AND AWARD
Principles 4-1 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 4-2
Partnering 4-8 4-3
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 4-5
Negotiation of ID Contracts 4-14 4-8
Subcontracting Plan 4-15 4-9
Price Negotiation Memorandum 4-16 4-9
Preaward Survey 4-17 4-9
Contract Preparation and Award 4-18 4-10
Task Order Issuance 4-19 4-10
NAF Contracts 4-20 4-10
Continuing Contracts Clause 4-21 4-10
CHAPTER 5. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT
Introduction 5-1 5-1

Principles 5-2 5-1
General 5-3 5-1
ii
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
CHAPTER 5. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT

(Continued)
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

Regulatory Background 6-3 6-1
General Procedures 6-4 6-2
Monitoring Performance 6-5 6-4
Interim Evaluations 6-6 6-4
Evaluation of A-E Performance after Completion 6-7 6-5
of Design or Engineering Services
Evaluation of A-E Performance after Completion 6-8 6-6
of Construction
Approval, Distribution and Revision of Evaluations 6-9 6-7
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
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 Closeout 7-8 7-11
Reporting 7-9 7-11
iii
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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
iv
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
APPENDIX P EXAMPLE SYNOPSIS FOR INDEFINITE-DELIVERY P-1

CONTRACT
APPENDIX Q A-E CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION SUPPORT Q-1

SYSTEM (ACASS)
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
v
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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 Technical Policy Branch, Engineering and Construction Division, Directorate of

Civil Works, HQUSACE (CECW-ET):
(1) Is responsible for USACE technical guidance and procedures for A-E contracting,
including maintenance of this pamphlet. CECW-ET, 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.
d. The Technology Integration Branch, Engineering and Construction Division,

Directorate of Civil Works, HQUSACE (CECW-EE) is the proponent of 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.
1-1
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
e. The Contracting Division, Portland District (CENWP-CT) is responsible for

operation and maintenance 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.
1-4. Training. The following courses provide valuable training regarding A-E contracting.
a. “Architect-Engineer Contracting,” USACE Proponent Sponsored Engineer Corps

Training (PROSPECT) Course Number 004.
b. “Architect-Engineer Contracting,” Defense Acquisition University (DAU) Course

Number CON 243.
1-5. Internet Addresses. Appendix F is a list of useful Internet addresses pertinent to A-E
contracting, and contracting in general.
1-2
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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, and other appropriate personnel, as
well as the Deputy for Small Business (DSB).
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 indefinite-
delivery (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.
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
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).
2-1
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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.
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 must be procured as A-E services.
Industry NAICS Small Business

Code Size Standard
Architectural Services 541310 $4.0 M
Landscape Architectural Services 541320 $5.0 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) 541370 $4.0 M
Services, and Mapmaking
Interior Design Services 541410 $5.0 M
Environmental Consulting Services (except 541620 $5.0 M
Environmental Engineering Services under 541330)
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), Historically Underutilized
Business Zone (HUBZone) SB or the SBA 8a Program, in accordance with current laws and
regulations. The DSB will 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 and SDB to compete.
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
2-2
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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-bid-
build, 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 can not be
estimated with any reasonable degree of confidence. 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.
2-3
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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 contract or task
order. As a last resort, use a 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 are suitable, initiate a new announcement and selection process.
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.
2-4
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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. 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.
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.
2-5
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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.
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)).
d. Commanders may designate qualified professional personnel, by name and/or
3-1
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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)1, 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:
(1) specifying the minimum number of personnel in a firm;
1
The FBO website is also called the Governmentwide point of entry (GPE). USACE
contracting offices are required to post public announcements on the Army Single Face to
Industry (ASFI) website (http://acquisition.army.mil), which is in turn linked to the FBO
website.
3-2
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
(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) that must be performed "in-house";
(4) requiring certification of personnel by a private organization2;
(5) requiring metric design experience3;
(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 and

contracting personnel, and be fully staffed, including the DSB (see paragraphs 2-6 and 3-1.b).
Obtain legal review of a synopsis for a complex or unusual contract. 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.
3-5. ACASS. ACASS is an automated database of A-E qualifications (blocks 1 - 10 of

2
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.
3
Metric design is still not a common practice in the U.S. commercial market.
3-3
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
Standard Form (SF) 254, Architect-Engineer and Related Services Questionnaire),

Department of Defense (DoD) A-E contract awards, and performance evaluations of A-E
contractors. ACASS is the only authorized automated system for this A-E information in
DoD. Appendix Q provides additional information on the background, regulatory authority,
contents and use of ACASS. ACASS is part of the Contractor Appraisal Information Center
(CAIC) maintained by 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. 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. Professional registration of other board members is encouraged. 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
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
3-4
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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 DFARS 236.602-1(a)(6) specify

the general A-E selection criteria. DFARS 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 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 projects4 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,
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
4
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.
3-5
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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.
- Since it may be difficult for a firm to accurately predict required staffing based on the
information in a synopsis, a firm should not be disqualified or downgraded because of its
proposed number of personnel for a project shown in Block 4 of the SF 255. Instead, a board
should consider the total strength of the key disciplines in the prime firm and its consultants
in the offices proposed to perform the work in relationship to the firms' current workloads.
(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 DFARS 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 system5. The
secondary criteria are listed in the order of importance which are usually most appropriate for
USACE contracts.
(a) SB and SDB Participation (DFARS 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 consideration6.
5
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.
6
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
3-6
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
(b) Geographic Proximity (FAR 36.602-1(a)(5)). Proximity is simply the physical

location of a firm7 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 (DFARS 236.602-1(a)(6)(A)).
- DFARS 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. The synopsis may also request firms to submit DoD contract award data in block 10 of
the SF 255. Only consider awards of A-E contracts. Include awards to all branch offices of a
company, except as indicated in DFARS 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:
SF 254, as submitted or from ACASS; SF 255, with 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 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
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.
7
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.
3-7
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
15.207 and 15.208, including the late proposal rules in FAR 15.208. A firm will not be
considered if block 11 of its SF 255 is not signed, unless the SF 255 is accompanied with a
signed cover letter or a current signed SF 254. If a firm does not submit a SF 254 with its SF
255, or have one on file in ACASS, it will not be considered (FAR 36.603(b)).
(2) Although firms are encouraged to update their SF 254 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 254 or SF 255. 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 254. 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 method8, such adjectival or
color coding, to evaluate and compare the qualifications of the firms relevant to each
selection criterion.
e. 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
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 3.104" and be
protected as required by FAR 3.104-5.
3-9. Preselection Board.
a. General. Preselection boards are permitted by FAR 36.602-2(a) and authorized by

DFARS 236.602-2(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
(DFARS 236.602-2(a) and EFARS 36.602-2 (S-100)).
8
Numerical scoring is prohibited by AFARS 5115.304(b)(2)(iv).
3-8
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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 member. However, all evaluations must be discussed by the entire board and a
consensus reached on each firm. The firms which 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.
c. Determination of Most Highly Qualified Firms. All members must personally

evaluate the SFs 254 and 255 of all of the highly qualified firms. The firms which
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 recommended9 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.
9
If the selection board can not 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.
3-9
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
(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. 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.
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 DFARS 236.602-4(a), 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 and DFARS 236.602-4 provide 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.
3-10
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
3-12. Notifications.
a. Notifications of firms shall be made within 10 days after selection approval in

accordance with EFARS 36.607(a)10. 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.
c. Debriefings will be conducted by telephone, electronically or in person, as
10
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.
3-11
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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 SFs
254/255 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 254 and 255. SFs 254 and 255 will be carefully safeguarded, and
retained in accordance with EFARS 36.603(b). SFs 254 received by a USACE office will be
promptly sent to ACASS if requested by a firm.
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 254 and possibly a SF 255 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 which 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
3-12
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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 Act11. Firms present their qualifications using a SF 254, and a
SF 255 if required by the selection board. 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-E).
h. Advance Selection Process. EFARS 36.602 (S-100) authorizes an advance A-E
11
A change to EFARS 19.800(b) is pending that will delete reference to a sole-source award of
an 8(a) A-E contract.
3-13
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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.
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.
3-14
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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.
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

4-1
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
243 (same title).
(2) A course on basic Federal contracting, approved by the local Director/Chief of

Contracting, such as DAU course 101, Basics of Contracting, or a commercial course.
(3) A course on Government contract law, approved by the local Director/Chief of

Contracting, such as DAU course 210, Government Contract Law, or a commercial course.
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, 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 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.
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
4-2
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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)1.
(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).
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
1
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.
4-3
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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 U.S.
Department of Labor (DoL) for the service employees anticipated in the contract. In most
cases, the WD may be obtained electronically through the Labor Advisor in the local Office
of Counsel. 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 shall
be used instead for the WD for the location of the work2.
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).
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
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
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.
4-4
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
2(a)(i)3, 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 Memorandum (PnM) which includes the significant details of the
contracting action and the course of action the negotiators intend to pursue (AFARS
5115.406-1(b)).
(2) The review and approval of the PnM 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 PnM 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.
3
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).
4-5
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
(2) Construction Cost. For a contract involving design, agreement must be reached on
the estimated construction cost (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(6)). 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
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
4-6
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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.
(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.4 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.
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 PNM 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.
4
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, 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.
4-7
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
(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)
for contract option periods must also be negotiated.
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).
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
4-8
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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(S-103)(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 can not be considered.
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 255 must be approved by
the KO (FAR 44.201-3(a)); 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 DoD Central Contractor Registration
(CCR)5 to be eligible for a contract (DFARS 204.73 and 252.204-7004).
4-18. Contract Preparation and Award.
a. General. An A-E contract will be prepared using the uniform contract format in
5
A firm does not have to be registered in the CCR, nor have a Data Universal Numbering System
(DUNS) number or Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code (both of which are required
by the CCR), to be considered by an A-E evaluation board. Hence, a synopsis may request that
interested firms include their DUNS number and/or CAGE code on their SF 255, if already assigned,
but not mandate that firms obtain these identifiers as a condition of submission.
4-9
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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 guarantee (EFARS

16.504(a)(1)), 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 guarantee shall be obligated6 at the time of
contract award using 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 Contracts Clause. 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 for
civil works projects, including ID contracts7. The clause is used for incrementally-funded
contracts when no contracting authority exists to obligate the entire contract price in advance of
appropriations. Each increment of funding should produce a deliverable, such a required interim
submittal.
6
Immediately upon award of a task order(s) in sufficient amount to satisfy the minimum guarantee,
the KO must deobligate the funds used to award the ID contract.
7
A change to EFARS 32.705-100 is pending that will allow use of the “true” continuing
contracts clause in A-E contracts for civil works water resource projects specifically adopted by
Congress in authorizing legislation.
4-10
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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 to accommodate 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
5-1
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
KO, and have considerable experience in contract administration. There is no regulation

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 element1 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 services2.
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 guarantee.
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.
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
1
For example, a PM may be a COR, depending on local practices.
2
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.
5-2
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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.
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
5-3
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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.
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 unsatisfactory. 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.
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.
5-4
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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 can not 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
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.
5-5
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
(5) Final SFs 294 and 295.
5-6
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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 ratings1 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 sent copies of completed performance evaluations.
a. The Chief of Engineering in each operating command2 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 implements3:
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,
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
1
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.”
2
See definition in paragraph 2-2.a.
3
FAR Subpart 42.15, and the supplements thereto, addresses recording and maintaining contractor
performance information, but, by its terms, does not apply to A-E services.
6-1
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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 contracts4 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).
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.
(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).
d. Evaluation Form. Performance evaluations shall be prepared on DD Form 26315

(DFARS 236.604(a)) in accordance with the instructions in Appendix AA. The performance
evaluation software provided by the Contractor Appraisal Information Center will be used
instead of the actual form to facilitate the preparation and routing of evaluations, as well as
the transmittal and entry into ACASS. A hard copy must be printed and signed by the rating
and reviewing officials for inclusion in the contract file and for sending to the A-E firm.
e. 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.
4
Exclusive of ID contracts, which are evaluated on the basis of individual task orders.
5
The ACASS software presently conforms to the November 1992 edition of DD Form 2631. This
software will continue to be used until it is updated to reflect the current edition of the form.
6-2
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
(1) "Exceptional.” All or almost all of the significant disciplines and attributes are
rated "exceptional." No discipline or attribute should be “marginal” or "unsatisfactory."
(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.
f. 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.”
g. 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.
h. 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.
i. 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
6-3
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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. 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. 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 12 months (EFARS
36.604(S-102))6.
6
A change is pending to EFARS 36.604(S-102) to change 12 months to 18 months.
6-4
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
(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.
(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. 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 distributed 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. Fax a copy of the interim
evaluation to the CAIC (503-808-4596), with a request that the evaluation be removed. 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. 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 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.
6-5
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
6-8. Evaluation of A-E Performance after Completion of Construction.
a. General. 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 will prepare the A-E construction evaluation, assign the overall rating,
and sign the form as the rating official. The evaluation, with any supporting documentation,
will be forwarded through the Chief of Construction to the Engineering Division.
c. Review and Approval. Engineering Division will promptly review and approve an
A-E construction evaluation after receipt from 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 and faxed to the
CAIC (503-808-4596) in accordance with paragraph 6-9.c(1). A statement shall be made in
Item 20, "Remarks," giving the reason(s) for the revision.
e. 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
7). Refer to the instructions in Appendix AA. An updated evaluation will be transmitted to
ACASS as specified in paragraph 6-9.c(2) if there is a later change in the A-E liability
6-6
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
information. Completion of an evaluation shall not be delayed because liability

determinations have not been resolved.
6-9. Approval, Distribution 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 signature is the official date of the evaluation.
b. Distribution.
(1) The original signed copy of each interim and final performance evaluation shall be
placed in the A-E contract file. Performance evaluations will be promptly transmitted
electronically to ACASS, except when rebutted by the A-E firm in accordance with
paragraph 6-10.
(2) A copy of each interim and final performance evaluation will be promptly sent to
the A-E firm. The cover correspondence may be signed by the COR, except for "marginal"
or "unsatisfactory" ratings, which shall be signed by the KO.
c. 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, highlighted in colored marker to show the changes, will be
sent to the CAIC, accompanied by a memorandum signed by the reviewing official. The
revised evaluation will also be sent to the A-E firm and included in the A-E contract file.
The CAIC will make the requested changes.
(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. A
copy of the evaluation will be marked-up to show the changes and sent to the CAIC. The
updated or corrected evaluation will also be sent to the A-E firm and included in the A-E
contract file. The CAIC will make the requested changes.
6-10. Marginal and Unsatisfactory Performance.
a. General. This section implements FAR and EFARS 36.604(a)(4).
b. Documentation. Documentation of marginal or unsatisfactory performance must be
6-7
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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.
c. Preparation and Notification.
(1) A performance evaluation will be prepared documenting the marginal or

unsatisfactory performance, but not signed by the rating and reviewing officials. A summary
of the deficiencies will be given in Item 20, "Remarks." The KO will send a letter to the A-E
firm notifying it of the intended rating and enclosing the proposed evaluation and supporting
documentation.
(2) The A-E firm will be advised in the letter that it has 30 days from receipt of the
letter to rebut the rating. The A-E firm will be advised of its right to have comments entered
in Item 20, "Remarks," of the evaluation form in accordance with FAR 36.604(a)(4). If the
A-E firm does not respond in writing within the allotted time, the evaluation will be finalized
and distributed.
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 letter, 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). If the firm has submitted any written
comments, they will be added to Item 20, "Remarks." The evaluation will be signed by the
rating official, and the Commander shall sign as the reviewing official.
(3) The KO will send a letter to the A-E firm advising of the Commander’s decision
and enclosing the signed evaluation. If the rating is "marginal," the letter will notify the firm
that the decision is final. If the rating is "unsatisfactory," the firm will be advised that it can
further rebut the evaluation to the MSC Commander, and, if so, that it must respond within
15 days of the date of receipt of the letter.
(4) If a firm rebuts an "unsatisfactory" rating, the MSC Commander will be briefed
prior to the meeting with the A-E firm. The meeting between the MSC Commander and the
6-8
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
A-E firm will be held within 30 days of the meeting with the District Commander, to the
maximum extent possible.
(5) The MSC Commander will decide whether to support or change the
"unsatisfactory" rating assigned by the District Commander. If the MSC Commander decides
not to change the rating, the contract file will be documented to show the reason(s). The KO
will send a letter to the A-E firm advising of the MSC Commander’s decision and that the
“unsatisfactory” evaluation is final.
(6) If the MSC Commander decides that the “unsatisfactory” rating should be changed,
the performance evaluation will be revised and signed by the rating official. The MSC
Commander will sign as the reviewing official. The KO will send a letter to the A-E firm
with a copy of the final revised evaluation.
(7) For Centers, the role of the District Commander will be filled by the highest level
person in the engineering functional area. Rebuttals of a "unsatisfactory" rating are made to
the Center Commander.
(8) Performance evaluations that are rebutted by A-E firms will not be transmitted to
ACASS until the above rebuttal process is completed (EFARS 36.604(a)(4)).
6-9
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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. 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.
a. MSC. MSC commanders are responsible for overseeing the AERMP in their
subordinate districts to ensure timeliness, cost-effectiveness, and compliance with this
7-1
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
pamphlet. MSC Commanders will appoint an MSC 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 Commands1.
(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.
(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.
1
See definition in paragraph 2-2.a.
7-2
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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 design-
related 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.
(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.
7-3
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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 cost-
effectiveness 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.
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
7-4
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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 funds2 for other types of projects, will be used to investigate and
pursue A-E liability actions that occur during planning or design.
e. For a project under construction, the initial investigation and documentation of A-

E liability and damages by Construction Division will be charged to the Supervision &
Administration (S&A) account. Thereafter, project contingency funds will be used to
investigate and pursue A-E liability. For MILCON projects, P&D funds can also be used3.
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 request
will give an explanation of the design deficiencies and damages, breakdown of estimated
2
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
appropriations.
3
P&D funds for A-E liability action on MILCON projects must be requested from HQUSACE,
ATTN: CEMP-M, on a case-by-case basis. The request must include the amount of P&D funds
required, an updated ENG Form 4858A-R (Quarterly A-E Liability Case Report), and a
discussion of the likelihood and estimated amount of recovery. CEMP-M will make a risk
assessment in evaluating the funds request.
7-5
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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 notified4 as soon as a design deficiency is
discovered, requested to provide a corrective design,5 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
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
4
Notification will be made by a person identified in the A-E contract, such as the AE/RE, COR or
PM.
5
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.
7-6
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
of its 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 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-of-
fact 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
findings-of-fact will be included in the contract file.
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.
7-7
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
(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 sent 6. Interest is not
assessable until, and if, a demand letter 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 KO7. 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.
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.
6
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.
7
The KO may assign a contract specialist to the negotiation team with the AERC.
7-8
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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 is an informal Government claim against the A-E firm. It
notifies the A-E firm of the claim and 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 interest charges will accrue on the damages if the claim is not
settled within 30 days (FAR 32.614-1), and that the damages will be adjusted for costs
incurred by the Government subsequent to the demand letter. The letter shall also 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. The interest clause in the contract (FAR 52.232-17) allows for interest from the date
of the first written demand by the KO. (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.)
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 techniques8. If a firm does not
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
8
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.
7-9
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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.
(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
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.
7-10
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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: CEMP-
EC, 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.
7-11
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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.
A-1
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
§ 543. Requests for data on architectural and engineering services
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 therefrom, 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.
A-2
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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)
CADD computer-aided design and drafting
CAGE Commercial and Government Entity (code)
CAIC Contractor Appraisal Information Center
CCASS Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System
CCR Central Contractor Registration
CECW-E Engineering and Construction Division, Directorate of Civil Works, HQUSACE
CECW-ET Technical Policy Branch, CECW-E
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
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
DoL Department of Labor
DQMP design quality management plan
DPM Deputy District Engineer for Program and Project Management
DSB Deputy for Small Business
DUNS Data Universal Numbering System (number)
B-1
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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
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
PA preliminary assessment
PARC Principal Assistant Responsible for Contracting
PCB polychlorinated biphenyl
P&D planning and design (applies to MILCON only)
PDT project delivery team
PM project manager
PnM prenegotiation memorandum
PNM price negotiation memorandum
B-2
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
PNO prenegotiation objectives

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
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
WD wage determination (from DoL)
WGM weighted guidelines method (for profit)
B-3
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
APPENDIX C
A-E CONTRACTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST
DISTRICT __ DATE __________________
REQUIREMENT REFERENCES YES/ NO?

(EP = EP 715-1-7) REMARKS
1. Is acquisition planning for FAR 7.102
A-E services fully coordinated EFARS 7.102, 7.103
among all pertinent functional EP 2-1.b, 2-2.a, 2-7
elements and reflected in the
project management plans?
2. Is there an Overall EFARS 7.1(S-101)
Acquisition Strategy that
addresses A-E IDCs?
3. Are preselection and EP 3-3.c(1), 3-6.b
selection board chairpersons
properly appointed and
qualified?
4. Are preselection and EP 3-3.d, 3-6.b
selection board members
properly designated and
qualified?
5. Is selection approval EFARS 36.602-4(a)
authority properly delegated? EP 3-3.c(2), 3-11.a
6. Is A-E contract negotiation EP 4-1.a, 4-4.a(1)
a team effort among the KO,
technical personnel,
contracting specialists, and
others?
7. Are engineers and architects EP 4-4.b
who are primary participants in
A-E negotiations properly
trained?
8. Are streamlining techniques EP Appendix M
being effectively employed?
9. Are there written procedures
EP 6-4.a
for preparing, reviewing and
approving A-E performance
evaluations?
C-1
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
REQUIREMENT REFERENCES YES/ NO?

10. Is there a system for
EP 6-4.a
tracking when A-E
performance evaluations are
due and when they are
completed?
11. Are there written EP 7-5.a
procedures implementing the
AERMP?
12. Is there an AERC EP 7-3.b(1)
appointed?
13. Is the AERRB established EP 7-3.b(2), 7-7.k
and does it meet as required?
14. Does the AERA EP 7-5.c-d
periodically review the cost
effectiveness and timeliness of
A-E liability cases?
15. Are customers regularly EP 7-9.a
apprised of A-E liability
actions?
16. Are quarterly and annual EP 7-9.b
AERMP reports prepared and
submitted?
Other Remarks:
C-2
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
APPENDIX D
A-E CONTRACT CHECKLIST
CONTRACT NO. _______________________
CONTRACT TITLE _________________________________________________________
REQUIREMENT REFERENCES YES, NO or N/A?

1. ACQUISITION PLANNING
1-1. Was appropriate acquisition FAR 7.1

planning performed and DFARS 207.1
documented (formal or informal AFARS 5107.1
acquisition plan), including EFARS 7.1
consideration of contract type, EP Chapter 2
options and small business?
1-2. Was a DD Form 2579 DFARS 219.201(c)(9)(B)
prepared and coordinated with the EFARS 19.201(c)(9)(B)
KO, DSB and SBA prior to EP 2-6, 3-4.e
releasing the synopsis?
2. SYNOPSIS AND SELECTION
2-1. Does the synopsis conform FAR 5.207

to the standard format? EP 3-4.c-d, Appendix N
2-2. Is the scope of an IDC as EFARS 16.501(S-102)(b)
specific as possible?
2-3. Has a proper waiver been EFARS 36.601-3-90(e)-(h)
obtained for an IDC exceeding
$3,000,000 and/or 3 years?
2-4. Are the selection criteria FAR 36.602-1
clear and reasonable, in DFARS 236.602-1
conformance with criteria in FAR EP 3-4.d, 3-7, Appendix N
and DFARS, free of unnecessary
restrictions, and in order of
importance?
D-1
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02

2-5. Do the preselection and FAR 36.602-2(a)
selection reports show that all EFARS 36.602-2(a)
board members are highly EP 3-6
qualified professional employees
with the appropriate expertise?
2-6. Do the preselection and FAR 36.602-3(d)
selection reports clearly explain EP 3-8.e, 3-9.c, 3-10.f
the primary reasons for
eliminating the firms that were
not most highly qualified, and do
those reasons properly relate to
the selection criteria?
2-7. Were effective and FAR 36.602-3(c)
meaningful interviews held with EP 3-10.d
the most highly qualified firms?
2-8. Does the selection report FAR 36.602-3(d)
clearly explains the reasons for EP 3-10.e-f
ranking the most highly qualified
firms, and do those reasons
properly relate to the selection
criteria?
2-9. Has the selection report been FAR 36.602-4
approved by the designated DFARS 236.602-4
authority? EFARS 36.602-4
EP 3-11.a
2-10. Were all firms promptly FAR 15.503, 36.607
notified of their selection status? EFARS 36.607
EP 3-12
2-11. Were meaningful FAR 15.505, 36.607
debriefings promptly held with EFARS 36.607
the firms who requested a EP 3-13
debriefing?
D-2
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
3. NEGOTIATION AND CONTRACT AWARD
3-1. Does the scope of work EP 4-5

thoroughly address the project
description, scope of A-E
services, schedule, deliverables,
reviews, conferences, criteria and
standards, Government-furnished
information, and administrative
instructions?
3-2. Was the Service Contract FAR 22.10
Act considered, and a wage EP 4-9
determination incorporated in
contract negotiation, if
appropriate?
3-3. Does the PNM indicate that EFARS 36.604(a)
the key contract clauses and EP 4.7.b
performance evaluation process
were discussed with the firm
during negotiation?
3-4. Is/does the IGE: FAR 36.605
- Based on a detailed analysis of EFARS 15.404-73-101,
required work? 36.605
- Include profit based on alternate EP 4-10, Appendix X
structured approach to weighted
guidelines method?
- Include a check on the 6% limit?
- Properly approved prior to
receiving the A-E proposal?
3-5. Is the proposal analysis in FAR 15.404
adequate detail for the size and EP 4-12.a, Appendix Z
complexity of the action, and does
it address technical, price, and
cost considerations?
3-6. Are the PNO documented in FAR 15.406-1
adequate detail in a PnM, and the AFARS 5115.406-1
significant differences among the EFARS 15.406-1
IGE, proposal and PNO EP 4-12.c
explained?
D-3
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
3-7. Is there an approved FAR 19.702, 19.704,

subcontracting plan, if applicable? 19.705
EP 4-15, Appendix J
3-8. Does the PNM: FAR 15.404-4(c)(4)(i)(B),
- Describe the principal elements 15.406-3
of the negotiation? DFARS 236.606-70
- Explain the significant AFARS 5115.406-3
differences between the final EFARS 15.406-3, 36.606-
agreed price and the PNO? 70
- Support that a fair and EP 4-13.c, 4-16
reasonable price agreement was
reached?
- Show that the final A-E proposal
complies with the 6% limitation?
3-9. Was the contract awarded EP 2-11, Appendix L
within the pertinent time standard,
exclusive of justifiable delays?
4. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT
4-1. Is there a COR with DFARS 201.602-2

appropriate training appointed in EP 5-4
the contract?
4-2. Is there evidence that the EP 5-3, 5-5, 5-9
Government closely monitored
and managed the A-E firm’s
performance and reviewed the
A-E products for technical
adequacy?
4-3. Is there evidence of FAR 36.608, 36.609-2
enforcement of the A-E firm’s EP Chapter 7
responsibility and liability for
design errors and deficiencies?
4-4. Is there evidence of FAR 36.609-1, 52.236-22
enforcement of the firm’s EP 7-4.b
responsibility for design within
the construction funding
limitation?
4-5. Were progress payments FAR 52.232-10
processed promptly and retainage EP 5-7
withheld as appropriate?
D-4
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
4-6. Was there an appraisal of the FAR 36.604

A-E performance prepared after DFARS 236.604
each submission or phase of work, EFARS 36.604
and the final performance EP Chapter 6
evaluation prepared and sent to
ACASS and the firm?
4-7. Were subcontracting reports FAR 52.219-9
(SF 294/295) submitted by the EP 5-8, Appendix J
contractor, if applicable?
Other Remarks:
D-5
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
APPENDIX E
A-E TASK ORDER CHECKLIST
CONTRACT NO. _______________________ TASK ORDER NO. ___________
TASK ORDER TITLE _______________________________________________________

1. ACQUISITION PLANNING
1-1. Was appropriate acquisition FAR 7.1

planning performed and DFARS 207.1
documented (formal or informal AFARS 5107.1
acquisition plan), including EFARS 7.1
consideration of contract type, EP Chapter 2
options and small business?
1-2. Was a DD Form 2579 DFARS 219.201(c)(9)(B)
prepared and coordinated with the EFARS 19.201(c)(9)(B)
KO, DSB and SBA prior to EP 2-6, 3-4.e
committing to issue of the task
order?
2. NEGOTIATION AND TASK ORDER ISSUE
2-1. Does the scope of work EP 4-5

thoroughly address the project
description, scope of A-E
services, schedule, deliverables,
reviews, conferences, criteria and
standards, Government-furnished
information, and administrative
instructions?
2-2. If this task order could have FAR 16.500, 16.505(b)
been issued under more than one EFARS 16.505(b)(1)
IDC, is the contract file EP 4-14.f(2)
documented to justify the basis
for issuing the task order under
this contract?
2-3. If this task order is over EFARS 36.601-3-90(c)
$500,000, is the use of a task EP 4-14.f(2)
E-1
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02

order instead of initiating a new
contract justified in the file?
2-4. Is the scope of work for this FAR 16.505(a)(2)
task order within the scope of the EP 4-14.f(2)
IDC?
2-5. Was the Service Contract FAR 22.10
Act considered, and a wage EP 4-9
determination incorporated in
contract negotiation, if
appropriate?
2-6. Is/does the IGE: FAR 36.605
- Based on a detailed analysis of EFARS 15.404-73-101,
required work? 36.605
- Include profit based on alternate EP 4-10, Appendix X
structured approach to weighted
guidelines method?
- Include a check on the 6%
limit?
- Properly approved prior to
receiving the A-E proposal?
2-7. Is the proposal analysis in FAR 15.404
adequate detail for the size and EP 4-12.a, Appendix Z
complexity of the action, and
does it address technical, price,
and cost considerations?
2-8. Are the PNO documented in FAR 15.406-1
adequate detail in a PnM and the AFARS 5115.406-1
significant differences among the EFARS 15.406-1
IGE, proposal and PNO EP 4-12.c
explained?
2-9. Does the PNM: FAR 15.404-4(c)(4)(i)(B),
- Describe the principal elements 15.406-3
of the negotiation? DFARS 236.606-70
- Explain the significant AFARS 5115.406-3
differences between the final EFARS 15.406-3, 36.606-
agreed price and the PNO? 70
- Support that a fair and EP 4-13.c, 4-16
reasonable price agreement was
reached?
E-2
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02

- Show that the final A-E
proposal complies with the 6%
limitation?
2-10. Was the task order awarded EP 2-11, Appendix L
within the pertinent time
standard, exclusive of justifiable
delays?
3. TASK ORDER ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT
3-1. Is there evidence that the EP 5-3, 5-5, 5-9

Government closely monitored
and managed the A-E firm’s
performance and reviewed the A-
E products for technical
adequacy?
3-2. Is there evidence of FAR 36.608, 36.609-2
enforcement of the A-E firm’s EP Chapter 7
responsibility and liability for
design errors and deficiencies?
3-3. Is there evidence of FAR 36.609-1, 52.236-22
enforcement of the firm’s EP 7-4.b
responsibility for design within
the construction funding
limitation?
3-4. Were progress payments FAR 52.232-10
processed promptly and retainage EP 5-7
withheld as appropriate?
3-5. Was there an appraisal of FAR 36.604
the A-E performance prepared DFARS 236.604
after each submission or phase of EFARS 36.604
work, and the final performance EP Chapter 6
evaluation prepared and sent to
ACASS and the firm?
Other Remarks:
E-3
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
APPENDIX F
INTERNET ADDRESSES FOR A-E CONTRACTING
USACE HOME PAGE:

http://www.usace.army.mil
USACE PROJECT MANAGEMENT BUSINESS PROCESS:

http://www.hnd.usace.army.mil/P2
HQUSACE, ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION DIVISION:

http://www.usace.army.mil/inet/functions/cw/cecwe/
BROOKS A-E ACT:

http://uscode.house.gov/usc.htm 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/dp/dars/dfars.html
ARMY FAR SUPPLEMENT:

http://acqnet.saalt.army.mil/library
CORPS OF ENGINEERS FAR SUPPLEMENT:

http://www.hq.usace.army.mil/cepr/asp/main/parc.asp Click on “Library”, then “EFARS”
DEFENSE ACQUISITION DESKBOOK: Comprehensive collection of DoD acquisition

policies and procedures.
http://www.deskbook.osd.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 715-1-4, 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
F-1
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
CECW-ET HOME PAGE (HQUSACE PROPONENT OFFICE FOR A-E CONTRACTING

PROGRAM):
http://www.hq.usace.army.mil/cemp/c/cemp-c.htm
FEDERAL BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES:

http://www.fedbizopps.gov
ARMY SINGLE FACE TO INDUSTRY:

http://acquisition.army.mil
COMMERCE BUSINESS DAILY (CBD):

http://www.govcon.com/
http://cbdnet.access.gpo.gov
http://www.ld.com/cbd/today
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION:

http://www.SBAonline.SBA.gov
NORTH AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (NAICS):

http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/naics.html
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: Federal Register

http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs
STANDARD FORMS 254 AND 255:

http://www.gsa.gov/regions/r11/wph/forms/forms.htm
COMPTROLLER GENERAL DECISIONS:

http://www.gao.gov
CENTRAL CONTRACTOR REGISTRATION:

http://www.ccr.gov
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
LIBRARY OF CADD DESIGNS:

http://cadlib.wes.army.mil/NewCadlib/Default.asp
TRI-SERVICE SOLICITATION NETWORK:

http://tsn.wes.army.mil
ARCHITECT-ENGINEER CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION SUPPORT SYSTEM:

https://www.nwp.usace.army.mil/ct/i
F-2
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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.
G-1
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
"(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 are a substantial
or dominant part of the work. Substantial means a considerable percentage of the work but
not necessarily a majority of the 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.
G-2
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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 or the
development or revision of record drawings is not A-E services, even if the SOW requires
approval 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 the design of the foundations for a high-rise building 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.
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.
G-3
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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.
G-4
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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. Design of munitions and ordinance closures in accordance with RCRA.
7. Preservation surveys, management plans, and restoration designs for historic structures.
8. Development of Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) which include the
design of appropriate diversion structures.
H-1
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
9. Design of repair, removal and/or replacement of underground storage tanks (UST) and
design of leak detection systems for UST.
10. Design of boiler replacement or upgrade projects, such as installation of low NOx
systems.
11. Design of a new or upgraded RCRA Part B permitted hazardous waste management
unit.
12. Closure procedures, documentation and certification for RCRA Part B permitted
hazardous waste management unit.
13. Design of a new or upgraded solid waste land based unit.
14. Design of support systems under the excavation standards of the Occupational Safety
and Health Act for excavations greater than 20 feet.
15. 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 management plans, surveys and/or emissions reporting, such as for:
b. Asbestos
c. Radon
d. CFC and halon
4. Water resources management plans and/or laboratory testing, such as for:

a. Drinking water
b. Wastewater
5. Data management for the Army Automated Environmental Management Information

System.
6. Pollution prevention opportunity assessments.
7. Hazardous materials management plans in accordance with:

a. Toxic Substances Control Act
b. Applicable Department of Transportation regulations, including:
H-2
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
(1) Polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) management and reporting

(2) Nuclear reactor monitoring
8. Planning, release reporting and response actions under the NCP, such as for:
a. Oil
b. Hazardous substances
c. Installation Spill Contingency Plan
d. Toxic release inventory
9. Testing and management plans required by RCRA, including:

a. Hazardous materials and hazardous waste management plans
b. Solid waste management plans
c. Recycling plans
d. UST management plans and testing
10. Hazardous and toxic waste and materials management, including compliance with the
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act.
11. Chemical inventories.
12. Chemical testing.
13. Lead based paint surveys.
14. General environmental program management functions.
15. Forestry management plans.
16. Wildlife surveys and management plans, including endangered species.
17. Archaeology surveys and management plans.
18. Pest management plans.
19. Wetland identification surveys and management plans.
20. Coastal zone management plans.
21. Land management and restoration plans.
22. Solid waste management functions.
23. Wastewater management functions.
H-3
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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
3. Preparation of air quality permits, such as for:

b. Asbestos
c. Radon
d. CFC and halon
4. Preparation of permits for water resources, such as for:

a. Drinking water
b. Wastewater
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.
H-4
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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 USACE-
wide 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
(SF) 255. 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.
I-1
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
7. For a response action contract1, 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.
1
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.
I-2
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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 U.S.
and which makes a significant contribution to the U.S. 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.
“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 U.S. 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 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.
J-1
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
“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.
“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). Economic Disadvantaged: is an individual denied access to capital and credit
opportunities because of their identification as a member of a specific group. The SBA certifies
SDBs for participation in procurements aimed at overcoming the effects of discrimination.
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 Pro-Net. 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 could 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, and PMs)
must participate in a timely manner in the planning and execution of the 8(a) program. The
acquisition team, including the customer when practicable, shall select those projects that are
J-2
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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 should 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
command must request approval from the SBA National Office. No dollar threshold exists for
tribally owned firms or an Alaska Native Corporation.
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, (3) whether the firm is an emerging small business and (4) the
applicability of the Small Business Competitiveness Demonstration Program (SBCDP).
All 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 judgement call made by the contracting officer, based on procurement history
and knowledge of the industry.
A-E services in connection with a military construction project or a military family

housing project must be set-aside for small business if they are under $85,000 and must be
awarded under unrestricted competition if they are $85,000 or over. The dollar threshold does
not apply to 8(a) procurements.
The SBCDP tests the ability of small businesses to compete successfully in unrestricted
competition in four designated industry groups (DIG), including A-E services. The program
established a small business participation goal of 40 percent of the contract awards and requires
each participating agency to reestablish small business set-asides whenever small business
awards in any individual DIG falls below the 40 percent threshold. The DoD reviews contract
award statistics on a yearly basis for the purpose of reestablishing or suspending set-aside
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) A-E services for
military construction projects or military family housing projects; and (2) A-E procurements
above $50,000 must continue to be considered for placement under the 8(a) Program and the
HUBZone Program.
The Small Business Subcontracting Program: Any A-E firm receiving a contract for more
than $500,000 and that has subcontracting possibilities, must submit an acceptable
J-3
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
subcontracting plan. 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 are considered in negotiation of subcontracting

plans, but do not necessarily have to be met for the plan for an individual contract 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 255 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.”
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 which 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 the 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. The SBA
regulates and implements the program, determines which businesses are eligible to receive
HUBZone contracts, maintains a listing of qualified HUBZone small businesses 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 should have a reasonable expectation of receiving a sufficient number of
responses from HUBZone firms to proceed with a HUBZone procurement. Also, large
J-4
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
businesses must address their HUBZone subcontracting efforts in their Small Business
Subcontracting Plan.
Veteran-Owned Small Business and Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business

(SD/VOSB) 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 SD/VOSB in prime
Government contracts and subcontracts. There is no set-aside preference for these categories.
Large business contractors must address their VOSB subcontracting efforts in their Small
Business Subcontracting Plan.
Pro-Net: Pro-Net is an Internet-based database of information on 200,000 small, disadvantaged,

8(a), HUBZone, and women-owned businesses. The SBA manages Pro-Net, which is available
to government contracting personnel as well as large DoD prime contractors as a resource for
seeking potential small business sources. Pro-Net 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-procurement-shop. Pro-Net is free to and
state government agencies as well as prime and other contractors seeking small business
contractors, subcontractors and/or partnership opportunities. Businesses profiled on the Pro-Net
system can be searched by NAICS codes, key words, location, quality certifications, business
type, ownership race and gender, etc. The Internet address is http://pro-net.sba.gov.
Sub-Net: The SBA has established a new web site for locating and posting subcontracting
opportunities called Sub-Net. (Access available through the Pro-Net home page.) 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.
J-5
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
Order of Precedence:
Less than $50,000 Set-aside for emerging small business*

Greater than $50,000 Consider for placement under the 8(a) and
HUBZone Programs*
For MILCON & Military Family Consider small business set-aside*
Housing, $50,000 to $85,000
Greater than $50,000, other than Consider small business set-aside under
MILCON & Military Family Housing SBCDP*
Unrestricted after consideration of 8(a) Program, HUBZone Program and SBCDP
* Provided the contracting officer determines that there is a reasonable expectation of at
least three most highly qualified firms in accordance with Brooks A-E Act procedures.
J-6
ACQUISITION PLANNING PHASE SELECTION PHASE PROPOSAL PHASE
BEGIN TIME STANDARD
PRELIM. DETAILED
SCOPE SCOPE OF
OF WORK WORK
SMALL
BUSINESS
COORDI-
NATION
AUTHORI- REVIEW ACQUISI- PREPARE SYNOPSIS PRE- SELECTION REQUEST A-E PRE-
ZATION REQUIRE- TION SYNOPSIS PERIOD SELECTION SELECTION APPROVAL FOR PRICE REVIEW PROPOSAL
A-E CONTRACTING PROCESS

MENTS PLAN PROPOSAL SOW MEETING
A
PROPOSAL PHASE NEGOTIATION PHASE CONTRACT AWARD PHASE
APPENDIX K
K-1
END TIME STANDARD
DETAILED TECHNICAL CERTIFY

GOV’’T ANALYSIS FUNDING
ESTIMATE
COST/ NEGOTI- REVIEW &

REVISED A-E PRICE AUDIT PRICE REVIEW & NEGOTIATE ATION REVIEW & PREPARE AWARD
SCOPE OF PROPOSAL ANALYSIS APPROVE DOCUMEN- APPROVE CONTRACT CONTRACT
WORK & PNO PnM TATION PNM OR T.O. OR T.O.
A
FACT-
FINDING
EP 715-1-7
ABBREVIATIONS: ARCHITECT-ENGINEER CONTRACTING PROCESS
31 Jul 02
A-E = ARCHITECT-ENGINEER
ACTIVITY NOT REQUIRED
PNO = PRICE NEGOTIATION OBJECTIVES
ACTIVITIES ARE DEFINED ON PAGES K-2 THROUGH K-4 FOR ALL CONTRACTS OR
PnM = PRENEGOTIATION MEMORANDUM
TASK ORDERS
PNM = PRICE NEGOTIATION MEMORANDUM
SOW = SCOPE OF WORK ACTIVITIES IN ITALICS ARE NOT REQUIRED FOR TASK ORDERS
T.O. = TASK ORDER
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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) 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.
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
K-2
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
evaluation by preselection and selection boards, including SFs 254 and 255 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.
NEGOTIATION PHASE
Technical Analysis. Evaluation of the judgmental elements of the A-E proposal in

accordance with FAR 15.404-1(e).
K-3
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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
Memorandum (PnM). Coordination with customer and/or higher authority on estimated
funding requirements.
PnM Review and Approval. Review and approval of the PnM, in accordance with local
procedures.
Negotiation. Negotiation of a fair and reasonable price in accordance with the PnM.
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.
K-4
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
APPENDIX L
TYPICAL DURATIONS FOR A-E CONTRACTING ACTIVITIES
Duration (Calendar Days)

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/PnM 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*
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.
L-1
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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, PnM,
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, PnM 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.
M-1
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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 254 and 255
since the board members must still personally review the SFs 254 and 255 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 254 and 255 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 "tie-
breaker" 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.
M-2
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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
PnM 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 PnM 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.
M-3
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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. If this is not possible, expedite the award of a fixed-
price contract using an award letter similar to the following sample.
M-4
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
SAMPLE AWARD LETTER
FIXED-PRICE CONTRACT
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
SUBJECT: Contract No. __________________________
A-E Firm Name

Address
Gentlemen:
Your final proposal dated _________ in the amount of $__________ for

__________________(Project Title)_________________ at _______(Location)_________
has been accepted.
The contract is enclosed for your prompt review. If you find the contract acceptable,
you are hereby directed to immediately proceed to work. Please sign and date both copies of
the contract, which I have already signed. Keep one copy and return the other copy to me.
The contract is effective the date you sign it.
If you have any questions, please contact _______(Contract Specialist)_______ at

telephone number ____________.
Sincerely,
Contracting Officer
Enclosures
M-5
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
APPENDIX N
STANDARD SYNOPSIS FORMAT FOR A-E SERVICES
FAR 5.207(a) specifies a standard 19-item format for synopses. Most items are self-
explanatory. Additional instructions are provided below for Items 6, 8, 17 and 18 to
standardize synopses for A-E services throughout USACE. Do not refer to Numbered Note
24 (see FAR 5.207(f)) in A-E synopses since information in the note may conflict with the
selection criteria and submission requirements. The substance of Numbered Note 24 is
incorporated in this standard synopsis format.
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.”
- 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.
N-1
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
- Type of contract, such as FFP, ID, or CPAF.
- 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, woman-owned 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.
SELECTION CRITERIA. List all selection criteria in relative order of importance

following the general FAR and DFARS selection criteria. State any justifiable minimum
N-2
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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 include1:
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.
- Design quality management approach.
- Specialized equipment requirements.
- Knowledge of a foreign language.
1
The criteria are listed in the order of importance which is usually most appropriate, however
they may be ordered differently as warranted for specific contracts.
N-3
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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."
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 ______."
N-4
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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 255 (11/92 edition) and ___ copies of SF 254 (11/92 edition) 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 254 or SF 255.
- Information to include in SF 255, block 10, 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.
N-5
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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: DACA63-02-R-0024
Posted Date: Jun 24, 2002
Original Response Date: Jul 24, 2002
Current Response Date: Jul 24, 2002
Archive Date: Aug 23, 2002
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. 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 2002 and design
completed by Apr 2004. 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
O-1
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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 DoD
Central Contractor Registration (CCR). Register via the CCR Internet site at
http://www.ccr.gov or by contacting the DoD Electronic Commerce Information
Center at 1-800-334-3414. 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 A/E/C CADD Standard
Version 2.0 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 sub-criterion). 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 SPiRiT and
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 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
O-2
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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 ACASS and other sources. d. Capacity to
submit the concept design (35% complete) by Jun 2003 and complete the final design
by Apr 2004. 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 255 (11/92 edition), and two copies of SF 254
(11/92 edition) 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 255 shall not exceed 50
pages, including no more than 5 pages for Block 10. Use no smaller than 12 font type.
Include the firm's ACASS number in SF 255, Block 3b. For ACASS information, call
503-808-4590. In SF 255, Block 10 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 Block 10 also indicate the estimated percentage involvement of each
firm on the proposed team. Include an organization chart of the key personnel to be
assigned to the project. 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

[email protected]
Place of Performance
N/A
O-3
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
APPENDIX P
EXAMPLE SYNOPSIS FOR INDEFINITE-DELIVERY CONTRACT
T - HYDROGRAPHIC SURVEYING, PHOTOGRAMMETRIC MAPPING, AND

BOUNDARY SURVEYING SERVICES FOR ST. LOUIS DISTRICT
General Information

Solicitation Number: DACW43-02-R-0024
Classification Code: T - Photographic, mapping, printing, and publication
services
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. The services will consist of hydrographic, photogrammetric mapping, and
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, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Two indefinite delivery contracts will be negotiated and awarded, each with a base
year and two option years. The amount of each contract will not exceed $3,000,000.
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 2002. 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
P-1
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
employee's office location (not the location of the work). To be eligible for contract
award, a firm must be registered in the DoD Central Contractor Registration (CCR).
Register via the CCR Internet site at http://www.ccr.gov or by contacting the DoD
Electronic Commerce Information Center at 1-800-334-3414. 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 U.S. 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
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
P-2
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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 U.S. 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 ACASS 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 255 (11/92 edition), and two copies of SF 254 (11/92 edition) 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 255 shall not exceed 50 pages, including no more than 5
pages for Block 10. Use no smaller than 12-font type. Include the firm's ACASS
number in SF 255, Block 3b. For ACASS information, call 503-808-4590. In SF 255,
Block 10 describe owned or leased equipment that will be used to perform this
contract, as well as CADD capabilities. In Block 10, 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 Block 10 also indicate the estimated percentage involvement of each
firm on the proposed team. Include an organization chart of the key personnel to be
assigned to the project. 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
P-3
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
Email your questions to US Army Engineer District, St. Louis – Civil Works at
[email protected]
Place of Performance
N/A
P-4
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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. It is maintained and operated by the
Contractor Appraisal Information Center (CAIC) with the Contracting Division of the
Portland District. ACASS is primarily used by DoD agencies, but other Federal agencies
may transmit evaluations to ACASS and access information in ACASS.
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 SF 254 files 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 254 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(c) to distribute performance evaluations to all contracting offices.
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 U.S. Army Engineer Division, North Pacific. The CAIC
has since been transferred to the Portland District.)
(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. Description. ACASS has three parts:
Q-1
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
a. Part I, A-E Qualifications. This part contains data from SFs 254, with the exception
of block 11 (Project Examples, Last 5 Years). SFs 254 are submitted directly to the CAIC by
A-E firms and by contracting offices when received from firms. The data is entered into the
database by the CAIC. A copy of the data as entered is sent to the firm for verification. If
13 months have elapsed since a firm has updated its SF 254, the CAIC sends a reminder
letter. If a response is not received within 3 months, the firm's SF 254 data is removed from
ACASS. However, the firm's name, address and identification number are retained for 6
years, or longer if any records relating to the firm are in Parts II or III of ACASS.
b. Part II, DoD A-E Contract Award Data. This data is obtained electronically from the
Defense Contract Action Data System (DCADS; DFARS 204.670-2 and 3) and is updated
monthly. Contract award data is retained for 3 years after receipt from DCADS.
c. Part III, Performance Evaluations of A-E Contractors. Performance evaluations are

transmitted electronically from contracting activities to ACASS using a special software
program. An evaluation is retained in ACASS for 6 years after the date of the reviewing
official's signature in accordance with FAR 36.604(c).
4. Usage.
a. Instructions. The CAIC issues instructions on accessing and using ACASS.
b. Interactive Procedures. Obtaining information from ACASS is performed by

answering a series of interactive questions. Data on specific firms are retrieved by means of
firm identification numbers (“ACASS Number”) assigned by the CAIC. If a number is not
known, it can be found by means of an interactive search procedure available from the
ACASS main menu. The primary types of information obtainable from ACASS are:
(1) SFs 254, DoD contract award data, and performance evaluations can be retrieved
via the ACASS intranet, or by batch queries. Firm information may be retrieved in the form
of a one-line summary for a quick overview in lieu of a full report. Evaluations may be
retrieved by contract number, firm name, ACASS number, or activity code. Search results
may be further limited to a specific evaluation date range. The batch query mode also has
the capability to retrieve data for up to 40 specified firms in one query.
(2) A set of criteria based on SF 254 data can be queried to find firms with desired
qualifications. This satisfies the requirement of FAR 36.603(c) for classification of firms.
(3) A list of firms (maximum of 40 in one batch query) can be compared to a set of
criteria to determine which firms meet the criteria.
c. Reports. Several reports are available from ACASS. These reports are for various
sorts of contract award data, including awards to SB and SDB firms (batch query), and for
summaries of performance evaluations by office (batch query and intranet). The latter is
useful for offices to verify that evaluations have been prepared and transmitted to ACASS.
Q-2
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
d. Access and Release of Information. ACASS access and use shall be limited to
Federal Government agencies only. SF 254 data and performance evaluations shall be
released only to the respective firm and Government contracting offices having a bona fide
need for this data.
e. Assistance. USACE offices may contact the CAIC for assistance, as follows:
U.S. 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
Q-3
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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.arnet.gov/far/loadmain.html)
c. Guide to Collection and Use of and Past Performance Information (PPI), Department
of Defense (available on the web at: http://www.desk.osd.mil; look under Reference Library,
DoD, Discretionary Documents List).
d. Army Source Selection Guide (available on the web at:

http://acqnet.saalt.army.mil/library/Army_Source_Selection_Guide_Jun_2001.pdf )
3. ACASS is the primary source of information on past performance (DFARS 236.602-

1(a)(4)). ACASS 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 ACASS. 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.
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
R-1
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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 255 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)).
7. If no relevant past performance information is available on a firm, the firm will be given a
neutral evaluation regarding past performance.
R-2
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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 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.
S-1
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
CESWF-ED-MS (715) 28 July 2002
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 2002, for the subject project (enclosure 1).
2. Board Information. The preselection board met on 28 July 2002 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 3.104.
S-2
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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
Member Chairperson
3 Encls
2
S-3
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
PRESELECTION BOARD EVALUATION WORKSHEET - PAGE 1
Synopsis Date: 24 Jun 02 Preselection Board Date: 28 Jul 02

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:

Encl 3
S-4
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
PRESELECTION BOARD EVALUATION WORKSHEET - PAGE 2
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 99
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
S-5
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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 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 254 and 255 of the most highly qualified firms.
T-1
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
CESWF-ED-MS (715) 5 August 2002
MEMORANDUM THRU CHIEF, ENGINEERING DIVISION
FOR DISTRICT ENGINEER
SUBJECT: Report of the Architect-Engineer Selection Board - Design of Consolidated

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 2002, subject: Report of the Architect-

Engineer 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 2002 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.

T-2
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
CESWF-ED-MS
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 254 and 255 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
Member Member
______________________________ _____________________________
Name Name
Member Chairperson
5 Encls
The recommendations of the selection board are approved.
______________________________ ______________________________
Name Date
District Engineer
2
T-3
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
CESWF-ED-MS
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 036,
SF 254, 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 3.104

Encl 2
T-4
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
CESWF-ED-MS
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
All Firms:
1. Have there been any significant changes in your qualifications since you submitted your
SFs 254 and 255 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 designing the relevant projects in block 8 of
your SF 255 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
2003?
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?

Encl 3
T-5
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
CESWF-ED-MS
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.

Encl 4
T-6
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
CESWF-ED-MS
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
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.
2
T-7
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
CESWF-ED-MS
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 evaluation 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
3
T-8
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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 may 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 a 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
U-1
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
based only on the secondary selection criteria1. 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.
1
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.
U-2
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
EXAMPLE ADVANCE SELECTION SYNOPSIS
C -- DESIGN OF VEHICLE MAINTENANCE SHOPS IN AR, LA, NM, OK & TX
General Information

Solicitation Number: DACA63-02-R-0024
Classification Code: C – Architect and engineering services
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.
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 2002 and Sep 2003. 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. 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
U-3
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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 DoD Central Contractor Registration (CCR). Register via the CCR Internet site at
http://www.ccr.gov or by contacting the DoD Electronic Commerce Information Center at 1-
800-334-3414. 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 SPiRiT and 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: 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
U-4
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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 ACASS
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 255 (11/92 edition), and two
copies of SF 254 (11/92 edition) 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 255 shall not exceed 50
pages, including no more than 5 pages for Block 10. Use no smaller than 12 font type.
Include the firm's ACASS number in SF 255, Block 3b. For ACASS information, call 503-
808-4590. In SF 255, Block 10 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 Block 10 also indicate the
estimated percentage involvement of each firm on the proposed team. Include an organization
chart of the key personnel to be assigned to the project. 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

[email protected]
Place of Performance N/A
U-5
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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 DACW17-01-
D-0022, dated 12 July 2001.
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.
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.
V-1
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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 2000. 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.
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
MicroStation™ 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 20½” x 14½” (at the trim line) sheets. Original
V-2
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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
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.
V-3
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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
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
V-4
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
procedures for preparation of the DA are contained in ER1110-345-700. 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
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.
V-5
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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.
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.
V-6
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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,
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, on-
site inspections, review of value engineering change proposals, review of contractor
substitutions, preparation of design modifications, or other similar services during construction.
V-7
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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.
6.5.1 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.
6.5.2 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.
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.
V-8
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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-of-
ways (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)
V-9
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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 $550,000 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 $550,000
(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.
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
should also be advised not to release any information to prospective bidders for the
construction contract (FAR 9.505(b)).
W-1
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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 DoD Central Contractor Registration system.
W-2
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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,
X-1
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
market area, specialization, and capabilities1. 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. 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 will
use the contract rates for labor, overhead, travel, supplies, services, and possibly profit (if the
same profit rate is applicable to all orders).
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. The
estimated labor rates for work of extended duration or for later phases of work will be
adjusted for escalation. 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 diem and airfare costs are limited by FAR 31.205-46. The prevailing
1
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.
X-2
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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, travel and other direct) to
estimate the dollar amount of profit. An IGE will not be structured with redundant levels of
profit (no profit on profit)2. 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.
2
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.
X-3
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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 U.S. 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, N.W., 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.
Y-1
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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.
Y-2
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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.
Z-1
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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.
Z-2
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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)).
Z-3
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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 12 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.
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
AA-1
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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.
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

AA-2
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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.
AA-3
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
APPENDIX BB
A-E LIABILITY ACTION FLOWCHART
BB-1
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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.
CC-1
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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, and expert witnesses.
CC-2
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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 U.S. 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(a)(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 can not 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.
DD-1
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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.
DD-2
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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 “Search and Reference”
- Click on “Headquarters Publications Library”
- Click on “Types of Publications”
- Click on “ENG – 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
EE-1
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
FIGURE EE-1. ENG FORM 4858-R, ANNUAL AERMP REPORT
EE-2
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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-ETE. 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)

FIGURE EE-2. ENG FORM 4858A-R, QUARTERLY A-E LIABILITY CASE REPORT
EE-3
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
EE-4
EP 715-1-7
31 Jul 02
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)
EE-5

AEservcs

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AEservcs

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

AEservcs

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EP 715-1-7

Approved for public release. Distribution is unlimited.

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

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

d. AR 215-4, Nonappropriated Fund Contracting.

This pamphlet supersedes EP 715-1-7, dated 31 May 1999.

Scope 1-1 1-1

CHAPTER 2. ACQUISITION PLANNING

Principles 2-1 2-1

CHAPTER 3. ANNOUNCEMENT AND SELECTION

Principles 3-1 3-1

CHAPTER 3. ANNOUNCEMENT AND SELECTION (Continued)

General Procedures for Evaluation Boards 3-8 3-7

CHAPTER 4. NEGOTIATION AND AWARD

Principles 4-1 4-1

CHAPTER 5. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT

Introduction 5-1 5-1

CHAPTER 5. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT

Contracting Officer’s Representative 5-4 5-1

CHAPTER 6. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

Principles 6-1 6-1

CHAPTER 7. A-E RESPONSIBILITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

Introduction 7-1 7-1

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

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

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

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

APPENDIX P EXAMPLE SYNOPSIS FOR INDEFINITE-DELIVERY P-1

APPENDIX Q A-E CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION SUPPORT Q-1

APPENDIX R CONSIDERATION OF PAST PERFORMANCE IN R-1

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

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

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

c. The Technical Policy Branch, Engineering and Construction Division, Directorate of

d. The Technology Integration Branch, Engineering and Construction Division,

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