FAR 36.602—Selection of firms for architect-engineer contracts.

Selection criteria.

FAR 36.602-1 sets out the selection criteria agencies must use when evaluating firms for architect-engineer (A-E) services and related design work under the Brooks Act framework. It covers the required qualifications-based factors: professional qualifications, specialized experience and technical competence, capacity to perform on time, past performance, geographic location and local knowledge, and any other appropriate evaluation criteria. It also addresses when agencies may use design competition, including the special approval requirement, the limited situations where it is appropriate, and the conditions that must exist before it is used. Finally, it requires discussions with at least three of the most highly qualified firms about concepts, alternative methods, and ways to incorporate recovered materials, waste reduction, and energy-efficiency in facility design. In practice, this section is important because it shapes how agencies shortlist and rank design firms, limits the role of price in the initial selection, and ensures the government considers technical merit, sustainability, and project-specific capability before negotiating a contract.

Evaluation boards.

FAR 36.602-2 explains how agencies must set up architect-engineer (A-E) evaluation boards and what conflict-of-interest restriction applies to firms whose personnel serve on those boards. It covers the requirement to establish one or more permanent or ad hoc boards, the possible use of preselection boards when agency regulations allow, the required mix of board expertise in architecture, engineering, construction, and Government and related acquisition matters, and who may be appointed to the board. It also requires that one Government member be named chairperson. In addition, it bars any firm from receiving an A-E contract while any of its principals or associates are serving on the awarding agency’s evaluation board. Practically, this section is meant to protect the integrity and fairness of the Brooks Act selection process by ensuring qualified, balanced evaluation panels and preventing self-dealing or the appearance of favoritism.

Evaluation board functions.

FAR 36.602-3 explains what an architectural-engineering (A-E) evaluation board must do once a project has been publicly announced and firms have responded. It covers four core topics: reviewing current data files and public notice responses, evaluating firms using the qualification criteria in FAR 36.602-1, holding discussions with at least three of the most highly qualified firms about concepts and alternative methods of performing the work, and preparing a selection report for the agency head or other designated selection authority. The section exists to support the Brooks Act-style qualifications-based selection process, where firms are chosen based on demonstrated competence and professional qualifications rather than price. In practice, this means the board must build a documented, defensible record showing how it identified the most qualified firms and why it recommended them in order of preference. The selection authority relies on that report to make the final shortlist decision, so the board’s analysis and documentation are central to a compliant A-E procurement.

Selection authority.

FAR 36.602-4 explains who has the authority to make the final selection in architect-engineer (A-E) procurements and how that decision must be documented and communicated. It covers the role of the agency head or designated selection authority, the requirement to review the evaluation board’s recommendations, the use of technical and staff advice, the need to rank the most highly qualified firms in order of preference, and the special documentation required when the top-ranked firm is not the board’s top recommendation. It also addresses the rule that all firms on the final selection list become “selected firms” eligible for negotiation under FAR 36.606, the prohibition on the selection authority adding new firms to the report, the procedure for returning an inadequate report for revision, and the duty to promptly inform the board of the final selection. In practice, this section preserves the integrity of the Brooks Act A-E selection process by separating evaluation from final selection, limiting discretion to the firms already evaluated, and creating a clear audit trail for any departure from the board’s ranking. For contracting officers and selection officials, it is a control point that affects competition, documentation, and the start of negotiations; for firms, it determines who may be invited into negotiations and in what order.

Short selection process for contracts not to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold.

FAR 36.602-5 describes a streamlined architect-engineer (A-E) selection process that may be used only when the agency has authorized it and the contract is not expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. It covers two short selection paths: selection by the board and selection by the chairperson of the board when formal board action is unnecessary. The section explains how the selection report functions as the final selection list, how it is routed to the contracting officer, and how it authorizes the start of negotiations under FAR 36.606. In practice, this provision is meant to reduce administrative burden for lower-dollar A-E acquisitions while preserving the core Brooks Act-style qualifications-based selection framework. If the agency has not authorized the short process, the normal procedures in FAR 36.602-3 and 36.602-4 must be followed instead. The section is important because it defines who can make the selection decision, what approvals are required, and when the contracting officer may lawfully begin negotiations.