SF-330 (Architect-Engineer Qualifications)

Context

The SF-330 exists because federal procurement of architect-engineer services follows a different process than federal procurement of construction. Under the Brooks Act, codified at 40 U.S.C. §§ 1101-1104 and implemented in FAR Part 36.6, federal agencies are required to select A-E firms on the basis of demonstrated competence and qualifications, then negotiate a fair and reasonable price with the most qualified firm. Price is not a selection factor in the initial evaluation. The SF-330 is the form that carries the qualifications evidence the agency uses to make that selection.

The form replaced the older SF-254 and SF-255 in 2004 and is now the universal qualifications submission for federal A-E work, used by GSA, the Corps of Engineers, NAVFAC, the VA, the Department of State, and most other agencies that procure design services. Some agencies layer their own supplemental forms or instructions on top of the SF-330, but the SF-330 itself is the common foundation.

For general contractors, the SF-330 becomes relevant on design-build solicitations and on integrated project delivery arrangements where the contractor leads a team that includes the design firms. The contractor’s bid response on those solicitations often has to include SF-330s for the design partners on the team, alongside the contractor’s own qualifications package.

Components

The SF-330 has two main parts. Part I is contract-specific. Part II is firm-level and reusable.

• Part I, Section A. Contract information and basic identification of the prime firm and any subconsultants on the team for this specific contract.
• Part I, Section B. Names of the proposed key personnel, the role each will play on this contract, and the firm each is associated with.
• Part I, Section C. Organization chart showing the team structure for this specific contract, including how the prime firm and subconsultants relate to one another.
• Part I, Section D. Resumes of the key personnel listed in Section B. Each resume sits on its own page and follows the standard format the form prescribes, with role, education, registration, relevant projects, and years of experience.
• Part I, Section E.Up to 10 example projects that demonstrate the team’s qualifications for the specific contract being competed for. Each project gets its own page, with owner information, scope description, project value, completion date, and the role each team member played.
• Part I, Section F.Summary of the team’s experience, often presented as a matrix that maps the example projects in Section E to the work types or evaluation criteria the agency has called out.
• Part I, Section G. Additional information specific to this contract, including responses to any agency-specific evaluation factors that go beyond the standard form.
• Part I, Section H. Authorized representative signature block.
• Part II. A standing qualifications statement for each firm on the team. Part II covers firm-level information including office locations, total staff by discipline, annual revenues, and a sampling of recent and ongoing work. Each firm maintains its own current Part II and the prime contractor includes the relevant Part IIs alongside the contract-specific Part I when assembling a submission.

Common Mistakes

• Reusing a stale Part II. Part II is firm-level and feels reusable, but the staffing numbers, revenue figures, and recent project list go out of date quickly. Submitting an old Part II that does not reflect current capacity gives the evaluator a misleading picture of the firm and can hurt the score on capability factors.
• Picking the wrong example projects in Section E. Section E allows up to 10 projects, and the instinct is to pick the most impressive ones. The projects that score best are usually the ones most similar to the contract being competed for, even if they are smaller or less prestigious than other work the firm has done. The evaluator is reading Section E to assess relevance, not range.
• Treating Section G as a formality. Section G is where agency-specific evaluation factors get answered, and on agencies like USACE or NAVFAC the supplemental factors can carry significant evaluation weight. A thin Section G response on a contract where the agency has called out specific factors leaves points on the table.
• Submitting resumes that read as generic. Section D resumes follow a standard format, but the relevant-project entries on each resume should be selected to reinforce the specific contract being competed for. A resume listing five unrelated projects from a long career reads as less qualified than one listing five projects in the same building type, scale, or delivery method.
• Missing the agency-specific instructions.Some agencies post supplemental SF-330 instructions that modify page limits, add forms, or change the way Section E examples should be presented. Reading only the form itself and skipping the agency’s solicitation-specific instructions is a frequent source of non-conforming submissions.

How ScalaBid Handles This

On federal design-build solicitations and integrated delivery arrangements where the contractor’s team includes A-E partners, the ScalaBid Submission Packageis built to incorporate the SF-330 content alongside the rest of the bid response and delivered inside the 72-hour engagement window. The compliance matrix flags every SF-330 section the solicitation requires, the supplemental instructions any agency has layered on top, and the page limits or formatting rules that apply. The action checklist captures the items that have to come from the design partners, including current Part IIs and the signed Section H. The contractor’s team works with the design partners to confirm the qualifications content while the rest of the package is assembled around it, which keeps the SF-330 from becoming a separate workstream that runs on its own clock.