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:

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.

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.