Brooks Act — Qualifications-Based Selection of Architects & Engineers
The Brooks Architect-Engineers Act (40 U.S.C. §§ 1101–1104) establishes a unique procurement method for federal architectural and engineering (A/E) services: qualifications-based selection (QBS) — meaning the government selects A/E firms based on their professional qualifications, experience, and technical competence, then negotiates a fair and reasonable price with the most qualified firm. Unlike virtually every other category of federal procurement — where price is a key evaluation factor, as codified in the Competition in Contracting Act — the Brooks Act prohibits using price as a selection criterion for A/E services. This reflects Congress's judgment that when selecting professionals to design buildings, bridges, dams, and other infrastructure where public safety is at stake, the quality of the design is more important than the cheapest bid. The Act is implemented through the Federal Acquisition Regulation and applies to approximately $5+ billion in annual A/E contract awards.
Current Law (2026)
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| Governing law | 40 U.S.C. §§ 1101–1104 (Brooks Architect-Engineers Act, 1972) |
| Implementing regulation | FAR Subpart 36.6 (Architect-engineer services) |
| Selection method | Qualifications-Based Selection (QBS) — competence, experience, past performance |
| Price as factor | Prohibited during selection — price is negotiated after the most qualified firm is chosen |
| Applies to | Architectural, engineering, surveying, mapping, and related professional services |
| Annual A/E awards | $5+ billion across federal agencies |
| Evaluation board | Each agency must use a permanent or ad hoc evaluation board to review A/E qualifications |
| SF 330 | Standard form for submitting A/E qualifications (architect-engineer qualifications statement) |
| Negotiation | Agency negotiates fair and reasonable compensation with the top-ranked firm; if unsuccessful, moves to the second-ranked |
Legal Authority
- 40 U.S.C. § 1101 — Policy (federal policy to publicly announce requirements for A/E services, encourage firms to submit statements of qualifications, and select the most highly qualified firm based on demonstrated competence and qualifications)
- 40 U.S.C. § 1102 — Definitions (defines "architectural and engineering services" broadly to include architecture, engineering, surveying, mapping, and related services including construction management and environmental remediation design)
- 40 U.S.C. § 1103 — Selection procedure (agency must publicly announce each A/E requirement; evaluate the qualifications submitted using a permanent or ad hoc evaluation board; select at least three firms deemed most qualified; rank them in order of preference based on criteria including professional qualifications, specialized experience, technical competence, past performance, capacity, and geographic proximity to the project)
- 40 U.S.C. § 1104 — Negotiation of contract (agency negotiates a contract with the top-ranked firm at compensation that is "fair and reasonable" to the government; if negotiations are unsuccessful, the agency breaks off and negotiates with the second-ranked firm, then the third if necessary)
How It Works
The Brooks Act rests on a straightforward public-safety argument: the quality of architectural and engineering design directly affects whether buildings, bridges, and dams perform safely over their lifetime. A poorly designed structure may cost less upfront but far more in maintenance, energy, and — in the worst case — catastrophic failure. By prohibiting price as a selection factor, Congress ensures the government gets the best design talent for critical infrastructure, not the cheapest. Studies have found QBS-selected projects generate lower change-order rates, fewer construction delays, and lower total lifecycle costs than price-selected ones. The three-step statutory process (40 U.S.C. § 1103): agencies publicly announce the requirement and solicit qualifications on SF 330; an evaluation board of architecture, engineering, or construction professionals scores and ranks at least three firms on professional qualifications, specialized experience, technical competence, past performance, capacity, and geographic proximity; then the agency negotiates with the top-ranked firm for fair and reasonable compensation (§ 1104) — moving to the second-ranked firm only if negotiations fail.
The Act covers professional services connected to design and construction — architecture, structural/mechanical/electrical engineering, civil engineering, landscape architecture, surveying, mapping, environmental remediation design, and construction management. It does not cover construction itself (awarded by competitive bid under Federal Buildings & Construction) or unrelated professional services such as IT consulting. The Brooks Act applies only to federal procurement, but over 45 states have enacted their own QBS laws modeled on the federal statute, making qualifications-based selection the dominant procurement method for A/E services at every level of government. The Federal Highway Administration also requires QBS for A/E services on federally funded highway projects, extending the principle to state DOT procurements using federal transportation dollars.
How It Affects You
If you're an architect, engineer, or A/E firm pursuing federal contracts: Federal A/E work is won on qualifications, not price — which means your competitive positioning depends on your project portfolio, your team's credentials, and your past performance ratings, not on submitting the lowest fee. The standard submission vehicle is SF 330 (Architect-Engineer Qualifications), a standardized form that captures your firm's organizational data, key personnel, project experience (up to 20 relevant projects), and any specific data requested in the announcement. Search for A/E opportunities at sam.gov and beta.sam.gov under NAICS codes 541310–541370. Strong SF 330s lead with projects that are genuinely similar in scope, complexity, and building type to what's being solicited — don't pad with unrelated projects. Past performance evaluations from prior federal contracts matter significantly; cultivate good relationships with your contracting officers and respond promptly to CPARS performance evaluations. If you're small business, woman-owned, service-disabled veteran-owned, or HUBZone-qualified, many A/E contracts are set aside for these categories — target set-aside opportunities as part of your growth strategy. A/E contracts often have multiple task orders; winning an IDIQ vehicle can provide years of follow-on work. If you lose a competition, request a debriefing from the contracting officer to understand how you ranked.
If you're a federal contracting officer or project manager overseeing A/E procurement: The Brooks Act's three-step process — announce, evaluate/rank, negotiate — has specific procedural requirements that GAO protests frequently challenge on. The SF 330 evaluation must be done by a qualified evaluation board; the criteria (professional qualifications, specialized experience, technical competence, past performance, capacity, and geographic proximity) must be applied to the published announcement factors. The key legal prohibition: you may not request or consider price during the evaluation and ranking phase. Fee negotiation begins only after the ranking is final and only with the top-ranked firm. If you try to use the negotiation phase to drive fees below reasonable rates, you undermine the QBS rationale — and if a demoralized top firm declines and you move to the second-ranked firm, that's not a problem (it's the intended backstop). For IDIQ contracts with multiple task orders, the initial selection remains qualifications-based, but individual task order scopes are negotiated with the selected firm(s). Protest risk is highest when evaluation criteria are not clearly defined in the solicitation or when scores are not adequately documented.
If you're a construction firm working on federal projects: A/E selection under Brooks Act happens before construction procurement — the design firm is in place before you're involved. But the quality of the A/E selected under QBS directly affects your project outcomes. Better-designed drawings mean fewer RFIs, fewer change orders, and fewer construction-phase disputes. Studies find that QBS-selected A/E projects have lower change-order rates than price-selected ones, which translates to more predictable construction costs for your firm. When a project has extensive change orders and RFIs, that often traces to inadequate design — which is more likely when the A/E was selected on low fee rather than qualifications. If you're pursuing government construction work, understanding who the A/E of record is (available from the contracting agency) helps you anticipate design quality and responsiveness to RFIs.
If you're a state or local government procuring A/E services: Over 45 states have enacted their own QBS laws modeled on the federal Brooks Act — but coverage and requirements vary. The Federal Highway Administration requires QBS for A/E services funded with federal-aid highway dollars, even when procured by a state DOT, so if you're receiving federal transportation funding, federal Brooks Act principles apply regardless of your state law. Your state's QBS law may have different threshold amounts, different evaluation criteria requirements, or allow price as a secondary factor after qualifications are ranked — check your state statute. For locally funded projects in states without QBS laws, you have discretion in procurement method, but AIA and ACEC both document that QBS-selected projects have superior lifecycle outcomes. The American Council of Engineering Companies (acec.org) tracks state QBS laws and provides model legislation for states considering adoption.
State Variations
The Brooks Act applies to federal A/E procurement:
- Over 45 states have adopted QBS laws for state A/E procurement, modeled on the federal Brooks Act
- Some states have modified QBS to allow price to be considered as a secondary factor after qualifications
- A few states have not adopted QBS, allowing lowest-bid selection of A/E services
- State QBS laws vary in their threshold amounts and procedural requirements
- The Federal Highway Administration requires QBS for A/E services funded with federal-aid highway dollars, even when procured by state DOTs
Implementing Regulations
-
48 CFR Part 36 — FAR Construction and Architect-Engineer Contracts. The complete federal regulatory framework for construction contracting and A-E service procurement. Key subparts:
- Subpart 36.2 — Special Aspects of Contracting for Construction (19 sections): sealed bidding (competitive bids with public opening) is the preferred method for construction contracts; contracting officers must investigate site conditions and make the results available to prospective contractors; the differing site conditions clause (§ 52.236-2) must be included in all construction contracts over $150,000 — it entitles contractors to equitable adjustment when they encounter subsurface or latent conditions materially different from what was indicated in contract documents; liquidated damages provisions (§ 36.206) may be included when timely completion is essential; value engineering clauses are encouraged to incentivize contractor cost savings
- Subpart 36.3 — Two-Phase Design-Build (6 sections): when both design and construction are combined in a single contract (design-build), agencies may use a two-phase selection process — Phase 1 selects offerors based on qualifications and technical approach; Phase 2 is limited to no more than 5 offerors from Phase 1 who then submit price proposals; design-build is appropriate when the agency can define performance requirements without detailed design specifications
- Subpart 36.5 — Contract Clauses (24 sections): mandatory clauses for all construction contracts include: changes (§ 52.243-4 — authorizes the CO to order unilateral changes within the contract's scope); differing site conditions (§ 52.236-2); site investigation and conditions affecting the work (§ 52.236-3); supervision and inspection (§ 52.236-6); accident prevention (§ 52.236-13 — contractor responsible for safety); use and possession prior to completion (§ 52.236-11); Davis-Bacon Act requirements where applicable; payment and performance bonds for contracts over $150,000 (§ 28.102-1 — each in the full penal sum of the contract price)
- Subpart 36.6 — Architect-Engineer Services (23 sections): the Brooks Act selection process — agencies must publicly announce A-E requirements, receive qualification statements (Form SF-330), form an evaluation board of at least three members, rank firms by six criteria (professional qualifications, specialized experience, technical competence, capacity, past performance, and knowledge of the geographic area), shortlist at least three most qualified firms, negotiate fair and reasonable compensation with the top-ranked firm (price competition prohibited at this stage), and proceed to the next-ranked firm only if negotiations fail; contracts are indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) or firm-fixed-price for defined tasks; the total contract value for any single A-E firm may not exceed $500,000 per year on small business set-asides without specific justification
-
48 CFR 236.6 — DFARS Subpart 236.6 — DoD Architect-Engineer Services: defense-specific A-E selection and contracting requirements that supplement FAR 36.6 for Department of Defense procurements, including additional oversight and approval thresholds for large A-E contracts
-
40 USC 1101–1104 — Selection of Architects and Engineers Act: the statutory codification of the Brooks Act that provides the framework for qualifications-based selection, including the mandate to publicly announce requirements, use evaluation boards, rank firms by competence, and negotiate fair and reasonable fees before price is considered
Pending Legislation
No standalone Brooks Act reform bills have been introduced in the 119th Congress. A-E procurement requirements appear in broader infrastructure and federal construction legislation — see Federal Procurement & Contracting.
Recent Developments
The A/E profession continues to defend QBS against periodic proposals to allow price-based selection of design services. The Federal Acquisition Regulation's implementation of the Brooks Act (FAR 36.6) has been stable, though agencies have explored design-build procurement methods that partially integrate A/E selection with construction — raising questions about the boundary between Brooks Act A/E procurement and design-build. The increasing use of Building Information Modeling (BIM) and digital design tools has changed how A/E firms demonstrate technical competence. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law's massive infrastructure investment has increased demand for A/E services, putting pressure on the supply of qualified firms and creating opportunities for firms of all sizes.