Survey on the Use of Standard Forms 254 and 255 for Architect-Engineer Qualifications (1996)

The survey had 12 questions on the SF 254. Questions 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, and 10 were pertinent to Federal agencies only; the responses from A-E firms on these questions were not considered in the statistical analysis. The statistical response and synopsis of comments on each question are presented below. Approximately 90% of the responses to the SF 254 portion of the questionnaire were from federal agencies and only 10% from A-E firms. Therefore, the answers are primarily reflective of government agency opinion. (The sum of the percentages on certain questions exceed 100% because multiple answers were possible.)

There were 179 agency responses to this question which are summarized below:

Synopsis of Comments:

Paper files are the primary method of maintaining SF 254, and typically at regional or local contracting or engineering offices. The only central automated database of SF 254 is the Architect-Engineer Contract Administration Support System (ACASS) maintained by the Army Corps of Engineers. The Department of Veterans Affairs and the Naval Facilities Engineering Command also report using ACASS for SF 254 information.

There were 180 agency responses to this question which are summarized below:

Synopsis of Comments:

The SF 254 is primarily used in conjunction with the SF 255. However, the SF 254 is also commonly used to identify qualified firms when a project is not synopsized in the Commerce Business Daily. Although 26% said “seldom or never used,” this does not necessarily mean that SF 254 were not maintained on file or submitted by the firms.

There were 202 responses to this question (186 from agencies and 16 from A-E firms) which are summarized below:

Synopsis of Comments:

A majority agree that the SF 254 is effective. However, numerous respondents commented that the SF 254 is redundant with the SF 255 and that the SF 255 is the primary form used for evaluation. Many respondents commented that the use of a SF 254 could be eliminated for synopsized projects if the pertinent information on the SF 254 (and the SF 254 of any consultants) were added to the SF 255.

Private sector A-E firms commented that they often “tailor” a SF 254 for a specific project announcement and some agencies even request this. Several firms complained about the effort required to update and customize their SF 254 (and the SF 254 of any consultants) for specific projects. One A-E commented that for large, diverse firms, it is difficult to represent the full capabilities of the entire company on a single corporate SF 254. Consequently, different market areas and branch offices of the firm must prepare individual SF 254 to properly present their capabilities.

There were 196 responses to this question (178 from agencies and 18 from A-E firms) which are summarized below:

Synopsis of Comments:

The majority of the respondents felt the preparation and submission of the SF 254 should be automated.

Comments in favor of automating the SF 254:

• Automation is the wave of the future.

• Makes good business sense.

• Easier to update.

• Improves accuracy.

• Ensures consistent format.

• Saves time and cost.

• Decreases paperwork and filing space.

• Easier to retrieve and sort.

Comments opposing automating the SF 254:

• Some agencies and A-E firms may not have the computer equipment.

• Compatibility problems.

• Still need hard copies for evaluation boards.

• Many agencies would still require the SF 254 to be prepared and submitted for individual projects.

• Makes agency responsible for extracting SF 254 from the database.

• Not worth the effort. No added value.

• Only advantageous if there is a central Federal database.­

• Automated form restricts presentation flexibility.

• A large database would be too difficult to use.

• Firms may not be interested in working for all agencies.

There were 200 responses to this question (183 from agencies and 17 from A-E firms) which are summarized below:

Synopsis of Comments:

There was no clear support for a central automated database.

Comments in favor of a central automated SF 254 database:

• Easier to retrieve information.

• Allows access to a larger group of A-E firms.

• Reduces paper storage requirements.

• Cost efficient.

• Eliminates duplication of effort.

• Allows A-E firms to submit to a single office.

Comments opposing a central automated SF 254 database:

• Who would control the database?

• Local database is adequate. Do not need information on firms nationwide.

• SF 254 should be submitted/updated for individual project/agency.

• Loss of local control.

• Retrieval would be difficult and time consuming.

• Down time would cause problems.

• Difficult to maintain and update.

• Expense would not be worth it.

• Not all agencies and firms have the necessary computer equipment.

There were 184 agency responses, which are summarized below:

Synopsis of Comments:

Many synopses for A-E services request the submission of a SF 254 with a SF 255 when the firm does not have a current SF 254 on file with the agency. This question did not reflect this possibility. The predominant reason for requesting a SF 254 is to ensure that it is current. Also, a SF 254 is often requested with the SF 255 so that it can be tailored for the project. Some agencies request SF 254 with each SF 255 submission to eliminate the effort to retrieve the SF 254 from their files or database. Two respondents were concerned that the agency becomes responsible for the firm’s submission if the agency has to retrieve a SF 254 from its files or a database. One agency respondent stated that the submission of a complete SF 254 is required since ACASS does not store Block 11 information on example projects.

Respondents listed approximately 86 different disciplines (although not all were architectural or engineering disciplines under the Brooks A-E Act). The following disciplines were cited five times or more and should be added to Block 4:

• Environmental engineers

• CADD operators/technicians

• Industrial hygienists

• Fire protection engineers

• Chemists

• Geotechnical engineers (could be combined with soils engineers)

• Biologists (could be combined with ecologists)

• Project managers

Some respondents noted that more blank spaces should be added to Block 8 for other disciplines to be written in when needed. Respondents also recommended that the number of registered personnel in each discipline be shown.

There were 184 agency responses to this question which are summarized below:

Synopsis of Comments:

Combining the “sometimes” and “always” responses indicates that the fee summary information in Block 9 is commonly used and should be retained on the form. The primary uses for the Block 9 information were:

• To verify the size (annual receipts) for small business and small emerging business firms.

• To evaluate a firm’s capacity to handle similar size work.

• To evaluate the stability of a firm: is it growing or shrinking?

• To determine how much Federal experience a firm has.

• To apply a “spread the work” criteria.

• Add fee ranges above $10 million.

• Break out Department of Defense work separately.

• Break out work done for the procuring agency separately.

• Reflect small business size standards ($1.25 million for emerging small business and $2.5 million for small business) in the fee ranges.

• Clarify that the fees are only for the branch or subsidiary office submitting the form and not the entire firm.

There were 185 agency responses to this question which are summarized below:

Synopsis of Comments:

Combining the “sometimes” and “always” responses indicates that the experience profile code information in Block 9 is commonly used and should be retained on the form. Some respondents recommended adding the 200 series profile codes from ACASS.

There were 186 agency responses to this question which are summarized below:

Synopsis of Comments:

An overwhelming majority of the respondents use the project examples in Block 11 and this information should be retained on the form. However, a USAGE respondent noted that project examples were dropped from ACASS in FY82.

• Add a project description (including whether new construction or renovation) and the firm’s role (including percentage). For a design-build project, indicate designer’s relationship with the construction company (as prime contractor, as joint-venture partner, or as a consultant).

• Add the owner’s point of contact and phone number.

• Clarify whether the cost of work and completion date fields are for design or construction.

• Include information on the planned cost and schedule of projects versus the actual cost and schedule.

• Include only completed projects.

• Eliminate the profile codes.

• List performance evaluation and/or awards received on a project, if applicable.

There were 186 responses to this question (170 from agencies and 16 from A-E firms) which are summarized below:

Synopsis of Comments:

Generally, the response indicated that the present experience profile codes are adequate. However, 76 other codes were suggested, but only two were listed over 5 times: hazardous and toxic waste remediation, and asbestos abatement. Several respondents suggested including the 200 series codes in ACASS. Also, an industry organization recommended adding design-build as a profile code.

Synopsis of Comments:

A number of other general and specific recommendations for improving the SF 254 were made by the respondents as listed below.

• Clarify when, where, and how to file for firms with multiple offices and affiliated companies.

• Use a vertical instead horizontal format.

• Instructions should be clearer and precede each block.

• Provide a list of the firm’s current active projects.

• Include personnel qualifications.

• Include a list of usual consultants.

• Include a description of quality control and assurance procedures.

• Include computer capabilities, and other specialized capabilities.

• Include fax numbers in Blocks 6, 7 and 11.

• Include ACASS numbers in Blocks 1, 5 and 7.

• Purpose: The word “minority” should not be used in this paragraph. The parenthetical phrase should be eliminated in the third sentence.

• Definitions: Include definitions for “small business,” “small disadvantaged business,” and “woman owned small business”. Clarify what firms receive disadvantaged status. Is there a “Large Disadvantaged Businesses” status?

• Instructions for Filing, Block 4: Add “educational” and “non-profit organization” as types of ownerships. Change “woman-owned” business to “woman-owned small” business.

• Instructions for Filing, Block 8: Allow a person to be split between two disciplines if so qualified.

• Block 4: Change “Woman-Owned Business” to “Woman-Owned Small Business.” Add “Large Business” and “Emerging Small Business.”