NOTICE
The Federal Facilities Council (FFC) is a continuing activity of the Board on Infrastructure and the Constructed Environment of the National Research Council (NRC). The purpose of the FFC is to promote continuing cooperation among the sponsoring Federal agencies and between the agencies and other elements of the building community in order to advance building science and technology—particularly with regard to the design, construction, and operation of federal facilities. Currently, 17 agencies sponsor the FFC:
Department of the Air Force, Office of the Civil Engineer
Department of the Air Force, Air National Guard
Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers
Department of Energy, Office of Project and Facilities Management
Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Department of State, Office of Foreign Buildings Operations
Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Construction Management
General Services Administration, Public Buildings Service
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Facilities Engineering Office
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Building and Fire Research Laboratory
National Endowment for the Arts, Design Arts Program
National Institutes of Health
National Science Foundation
Smithsonian Institution, Office of Facilities Service
U.S. Information Agency, International Broadcasting Bureau
U.S. Public Health Service, Office of Management
U.S. Postal Service, Facilities.
As part of its activities, the FFC periodically publishes reports like this one that have been prepared by committees of government employees. Since these committees are not appointed by the NRC, they do not make recommendations, and their reports are not reviewed and approved in accordance with usual NRC procedures. Consequently, the reports are considered FFC publications rather than NRC publications.
For further information on the FFC program or FFC reports, please write to: Director, Federal Facilities Council, Board on Infrastructure and the Constructed Environment, 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20418.
FEDERAL FACILITIES COUNCIL STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING
Chairman
Donald Evick,
Engineering Division, Directorate of Military Programs, Headquarters, Army Corps of Engineers
Members
Ronald Adam,
Office of Construction Management, Department of Veterans Affairs
Roger Amende,
Office of the Principal Assistant Responsible for Contracting, Headquarters, Army Corps of Engineers
Lee Anderson,
Facilities Division, Air National Guard Readiness Center
Wade Belcher,
Public Buildings Service, General Services Administration
Donald Dormstetter,
Office of Design and Construction, Smithsonian Institution
Jon Erikson,
Acquisition Management Division, International Broadcasting Bureau
Catherine Fairlie,
Installation Restoration Program Branch, Air National Guard Readiness Center
Pat Folts,
Acquisition Management Division, International Broadcasting Bureau
Robert Fraga,
Major Facilities Purchasing, U.S. Postal Service
Bob Henry,
Division of Engineering Services, National Institutes of Health
Deanna Bentz Murphy,
Environmental Management Division, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Thomas Napier,
Facility Management Division, Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratories
Walt Norko,
Construction Division, Directorate of Military Programs, Headquarters, Army Corps of Engineers
Brent Peavler,
Acquisition Management Division, International Broadcasting Bureau
Steve Rider,
Facilities Division, Air National Guard Readiness Center
Joyce Runyan,
Contracts Policy Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Department of the Navy
Donna Smigel,
Engineering Division, Directorate of Military Programs, Headquarters, Army Corps of Engineers
Frank Sullivan,
Office of Construction Management, Department of Veterans Affairs
Joyce Sweasy,
National Institutes of Health, Public Health Service
William Timperley,
Contracts Policy Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Department of the Navy
Leroy Wallin,
Office of Foreign Buildings Operations, Department of State
Gerald Zaffos,
Public Buildings Service, General Services Administration
Program Committee Liaison Member
Robert Wilson,
Facilities Division, International Broadcasting Bureau
Non-federal Liaison Members
Jeffrey Beard,
Design-Build Institute of America
Stuart Binstock,
American Institute of Architects
Nick Kolesnikoff,
The Associated General Contractors of America
Brien Lorenze,
American Consulting Engineers Council
Christopher Monek,
The Associated General Contractors of America
Howard Noel,
Council on Federal Procurement of Architecture and Engineering Services
Laurie Swenningsen,
Associated Builders and Contractors
Bruce Vogelsinger,
National Institute of Building Sciences
Survey Subcommittee
Don Evick, Chair,
Army Corps of Engineers
Ron Adam,
Department of Veterans Affairs
Jon Erikson,
International Broadcasting Bureau
Catherine Fairlie,
Air National Guard
Bob Henry,
National Institutes of Health
Joyce Runyan,
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Donna Smigel,
Army Corps of Engineers
Stuart Binstock,
American Institute of Architects
Staff
Lynda Stanley, Director,
Federal Facilities Council
Lena Grayson, Program Assistant,
Federal Facilities Council
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This survey was conducted by the Standing Committee on Procurement and Contracting of the Federal Facilities Council (FFC). Its purposes were to evaluate the current use of Standard Forms (SF) 254 and 255 which are used for the submission of qualifications by architect-engineer (A-E) firms interested in Federal contracts, and identify possible improvements to these forms which would better serve the needs of Federal agencies and the A-E industry. SF 254 and 255 have changed little since their introduction in 1975, although the variety of A-E services has greatly expanded. The data supplied by the survey are intended to be used as a basis for determining whether changes to the forms are needed and if so, what changes might be desirable. Follow-up actions by the Federal agencies, which are outside the sphere of the FFC, are required before any actual changes to SF 254 and 255 can occur.
In March 1995, a questionnaire developed by the Committee was distributed to all 17 FFC member agencies as well as several other agencies. Agencies were allowed to distribute the survey within their organization in any appropriate manner. In some agencies, only one consolidated response was requested from a field activity. Other agencies allowed individuals to respond, resulting in many responses from a single activity. The questionnaire was also provided to various A-E industry organizations for distribution to their member firms. The responses were catalogued in an electronic data base and evaluated by an ad hoc subcommittee of the Committee on Procurement and Contracting.
Because the method of distribution was not consistent among federal agencies and because the results were not weighted, the survey responses cannot be considered statistically valid in a technical sense. Noting those qualifications, the committee found that the data received indicate that Standard Forms 254 and 255 are effective formats for presenting A-E qualifications in accordance with the Brooks A-E Act. All of the information on these forms is used by various agencies and should be retained. However, these forms can be improved, which will enhance their effectiveness and simplify their use. Many specific changes were recommended by the respondents and are included in this report.
Two of the key findings were related to the requirement for submitting SF 254 with SF 255 and development of an automated data base. Agencies usually
request that A-E firms submit SF 254 with their SF 255 to ensure that the SF 254 is current and tailored for the project. The survey showed support for deleting the requirement for a SF 254 (and the SF 254 of any consultants) when a SF 255 is required, and including all pertinent information on the SF 255. However, the SF 254 would still be needed and maintained on file with agencies to identify qualified A-E firms for projects that were not publicly announced. The surveys also indicated that there was strong agreement that the preparation and submission of SF 254 should be automated, but there was not strong support for a central Federal automated database of SF 254.