The SF 330 is the Architect-Engineer Qualifications form used by federal agencies to evaluate firms for professional services. Many state and local agencies and other organizations use it as well. For federal procurements covered by the Brooks Act, selection is based on qualifications before price negotiations. Read the announcement carefully: it tells you what the agency wants, how to submit, and what it will evaluate. Find current forms at GSA Forms and background on the process at Brooks Act Qualifications-Based Selection.
Understand the two parts
Part I presents your qualifications for a specific contract. Part II gives general qualifications for each office included in the submission. Treat them as connected pieces. Part I should show why this team fits this assignment. Part II should support that case with clear, consistent firm information.
Build a contract-specific Part I
Start with the announcement's evaluation criteria and required services. Make a simple outline that maps each criterion to evidence in the form. Then choose the team, projects, and details that best support those points. Do not begin by copying a prior submission and changing the title.
Show the team and its structure
Identify the prime firm, subconsultants, and key roles. Make the organization chart easy to read. Show who reports to whom, who leads each discipline, and how the team will coordinate. Use the same names, titles, and firms throughout the submission.
Make Section E resumes specific
Section E contains resumes for proposed personnel. Connect each person's experience to the role they will perform. Include relevant education, licenses, skills, and project work. Describe what the person actually did, not only the project's overall scope. Keep titles and project names consistent with Sections F and G. A short, relevant resume is more useful than a long list of unrelated work.
Select strong Section F projects
Section F presents example projects. Choose examples that match the announcement's services, setting, scale, and challenges. Explain the client, scope, results, and the work your firm performed. Make the proposed team's connection to each example clear. Do not imply that an individual worked on a project if they did not. If the project involved a joint venture or a subconsultant, describe your firm's part accurately.
Make Section G prove the team's experience
Section G is the team project matrix. Use it to show how proposed staff worked together on relevant projects. Ensure project names and personnel match Sections E and F. A matrix with many marks but no clear relationship to the proposed work is hard to assess. Accuracy matters more than filling every available space.
Use Section H to add useful context
Section H provides additional information. Use it for details the other sections do not capture and that help answer the evaluation criteria, such as your approach to coordination or quality control. Keep it focused. Do not repeat the same firm description in every section.
Complete Part II for each office
Prepare Part II general qualifications for every office identified in the submission. Check the office's name, address, contacts, services, and other firm information for accuracy. Part II is not a substitute for contract-specific evidence in Part I. Keep office records current so staff are not rushing to correct basic details during a response.
Tailor the submission to the announcement
Use the announcement as your working checklist. Follow its requested format and instructions, and address each evaluation criterion directly. Put the strongest relevant evidence where evaluators can find it. Use the agency's terms when they accurately describe your work. Avoid generic claims such as "experienced team" unless you support them with relevant people, roles, and project examples.
Keep a resume and project library
Maintain a central library of approved resumes, project descriptions, office information, licenses, and team relationships. Assign someone to verify changes when staff move, credentials change, or projects close. Record each person's role and each firm's scope on joint projects. A reliable library saves time, but it does not replace tailoring. Review every item against the current announcement before using it.
Common mistakes
- Reusing a submission without aligning it to the new criteria.
- Listing projects that sound relevant but do not show the proposed team's work.
- Using vague resume descriptions that hide each person's role.
- Showing different project names, titles, or team members across sections.
- Leaving the organization chart unclear about responsibility and reporting.
- Adding generic marketing language or repeated content instead of useful evidence.
- Failing to follow submission instructions or check the final file for legibility and completeness.
Final review checklist
- Does the response follow the announcement's format and submission instructions?
- Can a reviewer quickly see how the team addresses each evaluation criterion?
- Are roles, reporting lines, and firm relationships clear?
- Do Section E resumes explain relevant experience and each person's contribution?
- Do Section F projects match the work and accurately describe your firm's role?
- Does Section G agree with the resumes and project descriptions?
- Does Section H add relevant information without repeating other sections?
- Is Part II complete and accurate for every office listed?
- Have names, titles, dates, spelling, page order, and file legibility been checked?
