# FAR Part 36 Proposed Rule: What Changes for A/E Proposal Teams > The September 18 FAR Part 36 proposed rule keeps the SF330, drops the A/E selection criteria, and makes debriefs optional. What to change before October 19. _By Oswald B. · Published 2026-09-25 · Updated 2026-09-30_ The FAR Part 36 proposed rule, published September 18, 2026, rewrites the federal rules for buying architect-engineer services. It keeps the SF330 exactly as it is. It drops the six standard A/E selection criteria, turns the automatic debriefing into an optional one, and folds Subpart 36.6 into new section numbers. Comments close October 19, 2026. Most of the early coverage is written for contracts attorneys. This piece is for the people who build the SF330 packages and run the pursuits: what changes on your desk, what doesn't, and whether your firm should comment. ## What Is the FAR Part 36 Proposed Rule? It is the formal rulemaking that would write the FAR overhaul's Part 36 changes into the Federal Acquisition Regulation itself. The citation is [91 FR 59534](https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2026-19158), FAR Case 2026-010, RIN 9000-AO83. It covers Parts 14, 28, 36, and 52 in one document. A companion rule published the same day, FAR Case 2026-003, carries the batch's other A/E change: it would limit [the 6 percent A/E fee cap](/blog/far-6-percent-ae-fee-cap) to cost-type contracts. Since July 2025, the new Part 36 existed only as class-deviation text, which each agency chose whether to adopt. The proposed rule is the next step. If it is finalized, the new text replaces the current Part 36 for every agency, not just the ones that opted in. Three points about where things stand: 1. **Nothing has changed yet.** A proposed rule is not the FAR. The current Part 36, including Subpart 36.6, still governs every agency that has not adopted the deviation. 2. **The proposed rule matches the deviation.** It uses the same three subparts: 36.1 Pre-Solicitation, 36.2 Evaluation and Award, and 36.3 Postaward. If you learned the deviation, you know most of this text. 3. **The comment window is short.** The Federal Register says comments close October 19, 2026. If a regulations.gov listing shows a later date, go by the Federal Register. ## Does the FAR Part 36 Rewrite Change the SF330? No, and the FAR Council said so in writing. In its Paperwork Reduction Act section, the rule addresses OMB Control No. 9000-0157, Architect-Engineer Qualifications (SF 330), and states that the changes "would not affect the information collection or the paperwork burden previously approved by OMB. The collection would remain unchanged." The new text also keeps the SF330 in the same job. Proposed 36.202-5 says a firm's qualifications "as listed in the SF 330, Part II" and "Part I" must be used to evaluate firms before an A/E award. Part I is required above the simplified acquisition threshold, and Part II covers general qualifications. The annual Part II survives too. Proposed 36.102-2(c) says agencies "must encourage firms to submit annually an updated statement of qualifications and performance data" on the SF330 Part II. So [keeping your Part II current](/blog/sf330-part-ii) stays a yearly job. The form stays at its 07/2021 version. The fuller story of how the form question got answered is in [is the SF330 changing in 2026](/blog/sf330-changing-far-council-answer). ## Where Did FAR Subpart 36.6 Go? Subpart 36.6, the A/E subpart proposal teams have cited for decades, does not exist in the proposed text. Its content is split between two sections, 36.102 (before the solicitation) and 36.202 (evaluation and award), with a few pieces moved to 36.301 or dropped. | Current FAR | Proposed rule | What happened | | -------------------------------------------- | --------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------- | | 36.601-1 Public announcement | 36.102-1 | Kept, one sentence | | 36.601-3 Applicable contracting procedures | — | "Dominant extent" test for mixed A/E work is gone | | 36.602-1 Selection criteria | — | **All six criteria removed.** Design competition removed | | 36.602-2, -3 Evaluation boards and functions | 36.202-1 | Kept. "Most highly qualified" dropped from the discussions step | | 36.602-4 Selection authority | 36.202-2 | Kept | | 36.602-5 Short selection processes | 36.202-4 | Kept | | 36.603 Collecting data on firms | 36.102-2(c) | Annual Part II kept. Agency data-file offices removed | | 36.605 Government cost estimate | 36.102-3, 36.202-3(c) | Kept | | 36.606 Negotiations | 36.202-3 | Kept: negotiate in order, then add firms, then re-solicit | | 36.607 Release of information, debriefings | 36.202-3(f) | **Debriefing becomes "may be held."** Release-of-information rules gone | | 36.608 Liability for design errors | 36.301(b)(5) | Kept, in the postaward subpart | | 36.609 Contract clauses | 36.102-4 | Kept | | 36.702 A/E forms | 36.202-5 | Kept: SF 252, SF 330 Parts I and II | Map read from the proposed text in full, September 2026. The core of the Brooks Act process is intact: boards, discussions with at least three firms, a ranked selection report, and negotiation in order of preference. What's missing is the list of what the board is supposed to judge. ## What Happened to the Six A/E Selection Criteria? They are gone from the proposed text. FAR 36.602-1 currently requires agencies to evaluate each firm on: 1. Professional qualifications necessary for the work 2. Specialized experience and technical competence in the type of work required 3. Capacity to accomplish the work in the required time 4. Past performance on government and private contracts 5. Location in the general area of the project and knowledge of the locality 6. Acceptability under other appropriate evaluation criteria Proposed 36.202-1 rebuilds the board. It says who sits on it, that it evaluates the SF330, that it holds discussions, and that it writes a ranked report. It never says what to evaluate the firms on. The only list of qualifications factors anywhere in the proposed Part 36 is for phase one of two-phase design-build. The preamble doesn't mention the criteria at all. The statute still applies. The Brooks Act (40 U.S.C. chapter 11) requires selection on qualifications, not price, and a regulation can't change that. What changes is where the criteria come from. The American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC) argued in its [October 31, 2025 letter](https://www.acec.org/resource/comments-to-revolutionary-far-overhaul-comments-on-far-companion-version-1-0/) that without the FAR list, "each agency head will have the burden of determining appropriate selection criteria." ACEC also warned that firms would have to build "specialized Standard Form 330 documents" for each agency's criteria. For a proposal team, that is the practical effect. Each solicitation's evaluation factors become the only reliable guide to what gets scored. The five traditional factors will still show up often, because they are what boards know. You just can't assume them. ## What Did ACEC Ask For, and What Did the Rule Do? ACEC named three concerns with the deviation, plus one about structure. Each one can be checked against the proposed text. | ACEC's ask | What the proposed rule does | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Put five minimum selection criteria back in 36.102-2 | **Not done.** No criteria anywhere in the A/E sections | | Restore the rule that A/E procedures apply when A/E work is "dominant" | **Not done.** No dominant-extent test | | Restore release of award information and "will be held" debriefings | **Partly.** Debriefing returns as "may be held." No release-of-information rules | | Stop scattering A/E sections (36.102, 36.202) among construction subparts | **Not done.** Same layout ACEC cited, though the preamble describes separating A/E from construction | The preamble does describe separating construction rules from A/E rules, and says Part 36's text "originated from 1946 committee recommendations." In the actual text, that separation means A/E gets its own sections, not its own subpart. Sections 36.102 and 36.202 are exactly the ones ACEC cited as scattered. ## What Should Proposal Teams Change Now? Not much yet, because this is a proposed rule. But a few changes are cheap now and costly to make in a rush later. 1. **Stop citing section numbers in boilerplate.** If your SF330 Section H narratives, capture plans, or internal SOPs cite "FAR 36.602-1," that section won't exist if this rule is finalized. Cite the substance ("qualifications-based selection under the Brooks Act") instead. The rule also floats renumbering all Part 52 clauses into a new subpart, so clause citations in teaming agreements have the same problem. 2. **Read every solicitation's evaluation factors fresh.** Build your response from what that document says it scores, not from the six factors. A [compliance matrix](/blog/compliance-matrix-soq-sf330) catches the gap. 3. **Ask about the debriefing before you submit.** Under the proposed text, a debriefing is the agency's call. Ask during the question period whether one will be held. What a debriefing covers when you get one is in [federal A/E debriefings](/blog/federal-ae-debriefing-far-36607). 4. **Keep Part II on its annual cycle.** That requirement survived. Agencies still encourage a yearly update, and boards still evaluate Part II data on file. 5. **Keep your records flexible, not just your documents.** If evaluation factors shift from agency to agency, the team that can re-weight the same people and projects fast has the advantage. Firms that keep staff and project records as structured data, as RFPM.ai does, can pull a different emphasis per solicitation without retyping. Your team still decides who and what goes in. ## Should Your Firm Comment Before October 19? If federal A/E work is a real share of your revenue, yes. Comments on proposed rules get read, and specific ones carry more weight than general objections. The most detailed industry input on record is ACEC's. A useful comment does four things: 1. **Cites the proposed section.** "36.202-1 lists no selection criteria" is stronger than "the rule weakens QBS." 2. **Uses your own numbers.** How many federal SF330s you file a year, and what it would cost to tailor each one to agency-specific criteria. 3. **Proposes the fix.** ACEC's letter includes draft language for 36.102-2. Pointing to it, or writing your own, gives the FAR Council something to act on. 4. **Stays inside Part 36.** Comments about the SF330's design belong in a separate process, and the rule already says the form won't change. To file, go to [regulations.gov](https://www.regulations.gov) and cite "FAR Case 2026-010" in the comment and on any attachment, as the rule instructs. Trade associations such as ACEC and SAME may coordinate responses. For a single firm, adding your numbers to an association letter is often the higher-impact route. The fee-cap rule takes comments on the same date under FAR Case 2026-003, so one sitting can cover both. ## What Happens After the Comment Period? The FAR Council reviews the comments, then publishes a final rule. It may change the text before then. The proposed rule gives no date for a final rule. The broader overhaul is covered in [what the FAR overhaul means for A/E firms](/blog/far-overhaul-ae-firms-2026). Until then, two texts govern real procurements: the current FAR, and the deviation at agencies that adopted it. Ask the contracting officer which one applies. The proposed rule shows where both are heading. ## Frequently Asked Questions ### What is FAR Case 2026-010? It is the FAR overhaul case covering Parts 14, 28, and 36, the part that governs construction and architect-engineer contracts. Its proposed rule published September 18, 2026 at 91 FR 59534, adding Part 52 clause changes. Comments close October 19, 2026. ### Does the FAR Part 36 proposed rule change the SF330? No. The rule states that the SF330 information collection, OMB Control No. 9000-0157, "would remain unchanged." Proposed 36.202-5 still requires SF330 Parts I and II for A/E evaluations, and agencies must still encourage firms to update Part II annually. ### Are the A/E selection criteria in FAR 36.602-1 being removed? In the proposed rule, yes. The six criteria at 36.602-1 have no counterpart in the proposed Part 36. Qualifications-based selection is still required by the Brooks Act, but each solicitation would set its own evaluation factors. The current FAR keeps the criteria until a final rule issues. ### Will A/E firms still get debriefings? Possibly, but not automatically. Current FAR 36.607(b) says debriefings "will be held" after final selection. Proposed 36.202-3(f) says they "may be held." If the rule is finalized as written, whether you get one becomes the agency's decision, so ask before you submit. --- Canonical HTML: https://rfpm.ai/blog/far-part-36-proposed-rule · Site overview: https://rfpm.ai/llms.txt · Sitemap: https://rfpm.ai/sitemap.xml