National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Survey Findings on Standard Form 254
Suggested Citation:"Survey Findings on Standard Form 255." National Research Council. 1996. Survey on the Use of Standard Forms 254 and 255 for Architect-Engineer Qualifications. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9145.
×

3
SURVEY FINDINGS ON STANDARD FORM 255

The survey had 15 questions on the SF 255. Questions 6, 7, 9, 10 and 13 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 78% of the responses on the SF 255 portion of the questionnaire were from federal agencies and 22% from A-E firms. In general, one response per A-E firm was submitted. (The sum of the percentages on certain questions exceed 100% because multiple answers were possible.)

SF 255 QUESTION 1. IS THE SF 255 EFFECTIVE FOR PRESENTING AN A-E TEAM’S QUALIFICATIONS FOR A SPECIFIC PROJECT?

There were 232 responses to this question (183 from agencies and 49 from A-E firms) which are summarized below:

Gov’t

A-E

Overall

 

90%

73%

87%

Yes.

10%

27%

13%

No.

Synopsis of Comments:

There was a very strong consensus among the respondents that the SF 255 is generally an effective format for presenting A-E qualifications for a specific project. Hence, the basic SF 255 structure should be maintained, but can be improved. Recommended improvements are discussed under the relevant questions below.

Suggested Citation:"Survey Findings on Standard Form 255." National Research Council. 1996. Survey on the Use of Standard Forms 254 and 255 for Architect-Engineer Qualifications. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9145.
×

SF 255 QUESTION 2. ARE A-E FIRMS TYPICALLY REQUIRED TO SUBMIT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BESIDES THAT ALREADY ON THE SF 255?

There were 235 responses to this question (187 from agencies and 48 from A-E firms) which are summarized below:

Gov’t

A-E

Overall

 

67%

40%

61%

No.

33%

60%

39%

Yes. What type of information and how is it used?

Synopsis of Comments:

Generally, agencies are not requiring much information in addition to that already required on the SF 255. However, A-E firms often do voluntarily submit additional items such as brochures, manuals and photographs, which agencies typically do not review. The additional information agencies occasionally request includes:

  • CADD capabilities.

  • Equipment information.

  • Organizational chart and management plan.

  • Quality assurance procedures.

  • Matrix of team members, qualifications and past projects.

  • Current workload and available capacity.

  • Comparison of cost estimates to bids on past projects.

  • Comparison of planned and actual design schedules on past projects.

  • Department of Defense (DoD) contract awards.

  • More specific project experience.

  • Subcontracting plan.

  • Awards and letters of recommendations.

  • Insurance coverage.

  • Discussion of firm’s qualifications with respect to each selection criteria, especially those which are not covered by standard blocks of SF 255.

Suggested Citation:"Survey Findings on Standard Form 255." National Research Council. 1996. Survey on the Use of Standard Forms 254 and 255 for Architect-Engineer Qualifications. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9145.
×

SF 255 QUESTION 3. ARE A-E FIRMS TYPICALLY REQUIRED TO SUBMIT INFORMATION ON THE SF 255 IN A DIFFERENT FORMAT?

There were 233 responses to this question (184 from agencies and 49 from A-E firms) which are summarized below.

Gov’t

A-E

Overall

 

95%

57%

87%

No.

5%

43%

13%

Yes. What information? What format? Why?

Synopsis of Comments:

Typically, agencies are not asking A-E firms to submit information already on the SF 255 but in a different format. However, agencies are often requesting the following information as an extension of the SF 255 data:

  • Expansion of Block 8 to show more project details.

  • Matrices showing proposed key personnel, their firm and office location, their role in the relevant projects in Block 8, and their role and percentage of time to be assigned in the announced project.

  • Matrices clarifying personnel strengths in different offices of the prime firm and consultants.

SF 255 QUESTION 4. WOULD THE A-E SELECTION PROCESS BE SIMPLIFIED IF THE SF 255 INCLUDED ALL NECESSARY INFORMATION, ELIMINATING THE NEED ALSO FOR A SF 254 FOR THE PRIME FIRM AND ALL CONSULTANTS?

There were 228 responses to this question (179 from agencies and 49 from A-E firms) which are summarized below:

Gov’t

A-E

Overall

 

56%

53%

56%

Yes. What information from the SF 254 should be added to the SF 255?

44%

47%

44%

No.

Synopsis of Comments:

The statistical and narrative responses indicate support for making the SF 255 a stand-alone document for synopsized projects. The responses suggest that the data in Blocks 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 of the SF 254 for the prime firm and all consultants would need to be integrated into the SF 255. Also, the responses

Suggested Citation:"Survey Findings on Standard Form 255." National Research Council. 1996. Survey on the Use of Standard Forms 254 and 255 for Architect-Engineer Qualifications. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9145.
×

indicated that the location of all offices and the number of personnel in each discipline in each office must be clearly presented.

SF 255 QUESTION 5. SHOULD THE PERSONNEL STRENGTH IN BLOCK 4 BE:

There were 228 responses to this question (177 from agencies and 51 from A-E firms) which are summarized below:

Gov’t

A-E

Overall

 

61%

45%

57%

Personnel to be utilized for the project (like the 11–92 edition)? or

39%

55%

43%

Total personnel in the firms (like the 10–83 edition but with separate blanks for prime and consultants)?

Synopsis of Comments:

The mixed response to this question indicates that both the total personnel in the firms and the number of personnel to be utilized in the project should be included on the SF 255. Additionally, the following relevant comments were made:

  • Provide a breakdown of personnel in each discipline for each office location.

  • Provide a breakdown of registered and non-registered personnel in each discipline.

  • Provide a breakdown of personnel in the branch office doing the work.

  • Put prime as first column and consultants as the second column.

SF 255 QUESTION 6. SHOULD BLOCK 7 BE MODIFIED TO PRESENT THE ROLES OF THE PROPOSED KEY PERSONNEL IN THE EXAMPLE PROJECTS IN BLOCK 8?

There were 187 agency responses to this question, which are summarized below:

Gov’t

 

81%

Yes.

19%

No.

Suggested Citation:"Survey Findings on Standard Form 255." National Research Council. 1996. Survey on the Use of Standard Forms 254 and 255 for Architect-Engineer Qualifications. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9145.
×

Synopsis of Comments:

The response is overwhelmingly in favor of showing the roles of the proposed key personnel on the example relevant projects. The use of matrices for this purpose was recommended by many. Other comments included:

  • Include the branch office of the firm in Block 7.c.

  • Add university name to Block 7.e.

  • Increases work for firm to prepare SF 255.

  • Many personnel are well qualified based on experience with other firms, which should not be discounted.

SF 255 QUESTION 7. SHOULD BLOCK 8 BE EXPANDED TO PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION ON THE RELEVANCY OF THE EXAMPLE PROJECTS TO THE ANNOUNCED PROJECT?

There were 235 responses to this question (183 from agencies and 52 from A-E firms) which are summarized below:

Gov’t

A-E

Overall

 

70%

63%

69%

Yes.

30%

37%

31%

No.

Synopsis of Comments:

The response is overwhelming in favor of expanding Block 8 to show the relevancy of the example projects to the announced project. Numerous respondents reported that this was already commonly done. The following other changes to Block 8 were recommended:

  • Add the names of key personnel and subcontractors who worked on the projects.

  • Provide a matrix of the projects in Block 8 and the key personnel in

  • Block 7 to show which projects were done by whom.

  • Clarify whether the estimated cost is the A-E fee or the construction cost.

  • Clarify whether the completion date is for the A-E services or the construction project.

  • Incorporate projects for the key consultants.

  • Allow 1–2 projects per page.

  • Add a field for any awards or performance evaluation received on the project.

  • Add a field for the A-E’s construction estimate vs the bid amount.

Suggested Citation:"Survey Findings on Standard Form 255." National Research Council. 1996. Survey on the Use of Standard Forms 254 and 255 for Architect-Engineer Qualifications. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9145.
×

SF 255 QUESTION 8. HOW IS THE 10 PROJECT LIMIT IN BLOCK 8 APPLIED?

There were 228 responses to this question (180 from agencies and 48 from A-E firms) which are summarized below:

Gov’t

A-E

Overall

 

39%

60%

43%

10 Projects for total team.

34%

12%

29%

Do not limit number of projects.

22%

21%

21%

10 Projects for prime firm and 10 projects for each consultant.

11%

27%

14%

10 Projects for prime firm and 10 projects for all consultants (total 20 projects all together).

Synopsis of Comments:

The comments indicate a lot of variation in agency practices regarding the number of projects allowed in Block 8. Although the single largest block of responses said Block 8 should be limited to 10 projects total for the team, the majority of the responses (the sum of all of the other response choices) supported allowing more than 10 projects, especially when consultants are involved. One person suggested that the projects be limited to the last 5 years.

SF 255 QUESTION 9. ARE SOME OF THE PROJECT OWNERS IN BLOCK 8 TYPICALLY CALLED TO CHECK ON A FIRM’S PAST PERFORMANCE?

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

Gov’t

 

58%

Yes.

42%

No.

Synopsis of Comments:

The response indicates that owners are often called by agencies and the name and telephone number of the owner’s project manager should be retained in Block 8. Many agency respondents said they preferred using written performance evaluations instead of calling references.

Suggested Citation:"Survey Findings on Standard Form 255." National Research Council. 1996. Survey on the Use of Standard Forms 254 and 255 for Architect-Engineer Qualifications. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9145.
×

SF 255 QUESTION 10. HOW IS THE CURRENT FEDERAL WORK INFORMATION IN BLOCK 9 USED?

There were 171 agency responses to this question which are summarized below:

Gov’t

 

74%

To assist in evaluating a firm’s capacity for the project.

49%

For application of a selection criterion regarding distribution of contracts.

41%

To contact other agencies for information on a firm’s performance.

15%

Do not use this information.

14%

Other use.

Synopsis of Comments:

The response clearly indicates that the current Federal work information in Block 9 is used by the agencies and should be retained on the form. The other uses for the information in Block 9 were reported as follows:

  • To see how busy a firm is.

  • To determine a firm’s Government experience and/or knowledge of agency procedures, regulations and requirements.

  • To check experience, especially with similar type of projects.

  • To crosscheck Block 8.

The following changes to Block 9 were recommended:

  • Show DoD work separate from other Federal work.

  • Clarify if Block 9.e is A-E fee or construction cost.

SF 255 QUESTION 11. ARE A-E FIRMS TYPICALLY REQUIRED TO PROVIDE AN ORGANIZATION CHART FOR THE PROPOSED TEAM, INCLUDING OFFICE LOCATIONS AND KEY PERSONNEL, WITH THEIR SF 255?

There were 215 responses to this question (168 from agencies and 47 from A-E firms) which are summarized below:

Gov’t

A-E

Overall

 

45%

70%

50%

Yes.

55%

30%

50%

No.

Suggested Citation:"Survey Findings on Standard Form 255." National Research Council. 1996. Survey on the Use of Standard Forms 254 and 255 for Architect-Engineer Qualifications. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9145.
×

Synopsis of Comments:

Agencies frequently require the submission of an organization chart, and some A-E firms provide it even if not requested. Both government and A-E respondents indicated that an organization chart is helpful in presenting and understanding the structure of the proposed team.

SF 255 QUESTION 12. ARE A-E FIRMS TYPICALLY REQUIRED TO PROVIDE THEIR CORPORATE QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (OR A SUMMARY THEREOF) WITH THEIR SF 255?

There were 215 responses to this question (168 from agencies and 47 from A-E firms) which are summarized below:

Gov’t

A-E

Overall

 

59%

51%

58%

No.

41%

49%

42%

Yes.

Synopsis of Comments:

Agencies often request that a corporate quality management plan be submitted with a SF 255, and some A-E firms provide it even if not requested. Typically, agencies request the quality management plan be included in or appended to Block 10.

SF 255 QUESTION 13. DO YOU SET A PAGE LIMIT FOR SF 255?

There were 167 agency responses to this question which are summarized below:

Gov’t

 

91%

No.

9%

Yes. How many pages? For certain blocks?

Synopsis of Comments:

Agencies seldom set a page limit for SF 255. Where used, limits ranged from 10 to 100 pages. Limits of 5 to 20 pages were also occasionally set for Block 10. Several respondents commented that too many pages worked against an A-E firm.

Suggested Citation:"Survey Findings on Standard Form 255." National Research Council. 1996. Survey on the Use of Standard Forms 254 and 255 for Architect-Engineer Qualifications. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9145.
×

SF 255 QUESTION 14. WOULD A LESS STRUCTURED FORMAT FOR THE SF 255 BE BETTER?

There were 211 responses to this question (165 from agencies and 46 from A-E firms) which are summarized below:

Gov’t

A-E

Overall

 

90%

78%

87%

No.

10%

22%

13%

Yes. Why/how?

Synopsis of Comments:

The use of a structured standard form for submitting A-E qualifications is overwhelming supported. Respondents indicate that the structured format saves time and effort and allows efficient and consistent evaluations.

Those respondents favoring a less structured format said qualified firms need more flexibility to submit data appropriate to the project. Also, they felt that some of the structured information on a SF 255 is not useful for specific projects.

SF 255 QUESTION 15. IN ADDITION TO YOUR COMMENTS ABOVE, WHAT OTHER SPECIFIC IMPROVEMENTS (CLARIFICATIONS, DELETIONS, REVISIONS OR ADDITIONS) ARE NEEDED TO THE SF 255?

Synopsis of Comments:

  • Describe CADD equipment.

  • Add a block to show the capacity of the firm and how the work will be accomplished along with other concurrent work.

  • Reflect past experience of the local branch of a firm separately from the national organization.

  • Add fax numbers to Blocks 3.a, 8.c and 9.c.

Suggested Citation:"Survey Findings on Standard Form 255." National Research Council. 1996. Survey on the Use of Standard Forms 254 and 255 for Architect-Engineer Qualifications. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9145.
×
Page 13
Suggested Citation:"Survey Findings on Standard Form 255." National Research Council. 1996. Survey on the Use of Standard Forms 254 and 255 for Architect-Engineer Qualifications. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9145.
×
Page 14
Suggested Citation:"Survey Findings on Standard Form 255." National Research Council. 1996. Survey on the Use of Standard Forms 254 and 255 for Architect-Engineer Qualifications. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9145.
×
Page 15
Suggested Citation:"Survey Findings on Standard Form 255." National Research Council. 1996. Survey on the Use of Standard Forms 254 and 255 for Architect-Engineer Qualifications. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9145.
×
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"Survey Findings on Standard Form 255." National Research Council. 1996. Survey on the Use of Standard Forms 254 and 255 for Architect-Engineer Qualifications. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9145.
×
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"Survey Findings on Standard Form 255." National Research Council. 1996. Survey on the Use of Standard Forms 254 and 255 for Architect-Engineer Qualifications. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9145.
×
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"Survey Findings on Standard Form 255." National Research Council. 1996. Survey on the Use of Standard Forms 254 and 255 for Architect-Engineer Qualifications. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9145.
×
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"Survey Findings on Standard Form 255." National Research Council. 1996. Survey on the Use of Standard Forms 254 and 255 for Architect-Engineer Qualifications. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9145.
×
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"Survey Findings on Standard Form 255." National Research Council. 1996. Survey on the Use of Standard Forms 254 and 255 for Architect-Engineer Qualifications. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9145.
×
Page 21
Next: Conclusions »
Survey on the Use of Standard Forms 254 and 255 for Architect-Engineer Qualifications Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF
  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!