GSAM

GSAM

Change Number: Change 155 GSAM Case 2021-G525
Effective Date: 08/30/2022

Subpart 536.6 - Architect-Engineer Services

536.602 Selection of firms for architect-engineer contracts.

536.602-1 Selection criteria.

      (a) FAR 36.602-1 requires that agencies include “location in the general geographical area of the project and knowledge of locality of the project” as one of several selection criteria.

           (1)  Do not use this evaluation factor as a minimum qualification requirement for determining whether a firm is eligible to compete for a proposed project.

           (2)  This factor must not exceed 5percent of the total weight of all evaluation criteria. In order to receive the maximum score for this factor, the architect-engineer firm(s) must demonstrate that at least 35 percent of the architect-engineer contract services (based on the total contract price) will be accomplished within the geographical boundaries established for the project.

           (3) Under an approved class deviation from FAR 36.602-1(a)(5), this factor does not apply to projects that the Chief Architect of GSA determines have national significance.

      (b)  The public announcement (FedBizOpps notice) for a proposed project should identify the general geographical area of the project by either:

           (1)  A radius in miles or other appropriate unit of measure.

           (2)  The Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area, county(ies), state(s) surrounding the project, or other appropriate geographic boundaries.

      (c)  Architect-engineer selections under the Design Excellence Program must apply the geographical evaluation criteria in the second phase.

      (d)  The public announcement (FedBizOpps notice) must provide the number of calendar days the architect-engineer of record has to establish a production capability within the general geographical area of the project. You may allow the architect-engineer of record up to 45 calendar days after contract award to establish this production capability.

536.602-2 Evaluation boards.

      (a)  Architect-engineer evaluation board members must be experts in the fields of architecture, engineering or related design professions, such as landscape architecture, urban design and interior design, except as provided in 536.602-2. Board members must also collectively have expertise in construction, government, and related acquisition matters.

      (b)  The majority of board members must be GSA employees. Other members may include other Federal agency employees or members of the GSA National Register of Peer Professionals who are private sector practitioners of architecture, engineering or related design professions.

      (c)  Evaluation boards must not exceed five (5) voting members. If fewer, the board must have an odd number of voting members. The voting members of the evaluation board shall include:

           (1)  One (1) highly qualified architect or a related design professional employed by GSA.

           (2)  One (1) highly qualified engineer employed by GSA.

           (3)  One (1) representative of the Chief Architect of GSA.

           (4)  For new construction and prospectus level modernization projects, one (1) private sector practitioner of architecture designated from the GSA National Register of Peer Professionals. For other types of projects this slot may be filled by another GSA design professional.

           (5)  One (1) representative of the client organization(s), at the client’s option. GSA’s policy is to afford the client organization(s) the opportunity to participate in the architect-engineer selection process. Although not mandatory, GSA strongly recommends that this voting member be a highly qualified design professional.

      (d)  A maximum of two (2) non-voting advisors may participate in all activities of the evaluation board except voting. The client organization(s) may have only one (1) non-voting advisor to the board. The GSA may also have one non-voting advisor.

      (e)  Other than you and the individuals appointed under paragraphs (c) and (d) of this subsection, there must be no other advisors, or participants in the official activities of the board.

      (f)  The selection authority officially appoints the evaluation board members. For new construction and prospectus level modernization projects, the selection authority must obtain the concurrence of the Chief Architect of GSA on the appointment of board members.

      (g)  Each board member (voting and non-voting) must sign a “Conflict of Interest Acknowledgement and Nondisclosure Agreement” (Figure 515-1) before the activities of the board commence. No person may serve as a board member if that person or any member of that person’s family has any direct financial or employment interest in any of the firms being evaluated. The board member is responsible for identifying any possible conflict of interest once you identify the competing architect-engineer firms. You determine whether to disqualify the member from the board.

536.602-3 Evaluation board functions.

      (a) The evaluation board performs the functions described in FAR 36.602-3.

      (b)  Evaluation board members who are private sector design professionals from the GSA National Register of Peer Professionals may participate in all activities of the board, including deliberations and voting. However, they must provide their individual and independent evaluation of each competing architect-engineer firm to you.

      (c)  Evaluation boards recommend, in order of preference, the most highly qualified architect-engineer firms for the specific project to the selection authority.

           (1)  Each board member is responsible individually for evaluating and rating the qualifications of each firm being considered following the established evaluation criteria.

           (2)  The Chairperson of the board must maintain the integrity of the evaluation process and ensure that the final selection report is prepared and submitted to the selection authority.

           (3)  The selection authority concurs with the recommendations from the evaluation board which lists in order of preference the most highly qualified firms. If the selection authority does not concur with the recommendation from the evaluation board, the selection authority must provide for the contract file a written explanation of the reason.