The public comments on this fall's FAR rules say two things. Keep the 6 percent fee cap fix, in the statute's exact words. And spell out A/E selection: seven of 11 substantive A/E comments on Part 36 asked for the criteria list or the Brooks Act in the text. The fee cap drew the praise. The criteria drew the pages.
Comments on both proposed rules closed October 19, 2026, and the filings are now public on regulations.gov. The Part 36 docket, FAR-2026-0010, shows 35 comments. I read all 35: 24 attached letters and 11 comments typed into the web form. On the fee-cap docket, FAR-2026-0003, I searched the 52 attached letters. Three address the cap.
Who Commented on the FAR Part 36 Rule?
Most of the 35 comments are not about A/E selection at all. They cover construction bonds, site data, self-insurance, clause numbering, and requests for more time. Eleven make substantive asks about how architects and engineers are selected. Six are letters from associations and companies:
| Filer | Main A/E asks |
|---|---|
| American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC) | Criteria back in the text, dominant-extent rule, debriefs, QBS for IDIQ task orders |
| American Institute of Architects (AIA) | Criteria baseline, dominant-extent rule, design-build Phase One |
| ABA Section of Public Contract Law | Criteria, dominant-extent rule, mandatory debriefs |
| Professional Services Council (PSC) | Criteria, dominant-extent rule, a way to request an explanation |
| Design-Build Institute of America (DBIA) | Shortlist of three, limit Phase Two design effort, stipends |
| Bristol Bay Native Corporation | Mandatory debriefs, criteria back in 36.202-1 |
The other five came from individuals. Two architects asked for the Brooks Act to be named in the text: a retired principal who has completed more than 300 federal A/E projects, and the 2015 AIA president, who runs an architecture firm. Two commenters took on design-build. A bid specialist who supports construction contractors asked to keep debriefings.
Six more filers backed qualifications-based selection, or the split between construction and A/E rules, without a specific A/E ask. One was an architect who spent 20 years in federal service. The National Hydropower Association called the split "a welcome improvement, as is the restored direction on debriefings."
The Criteria Were the Main Ask
The proposed rule keeps the Brooks Act and the evaluation board. It drops the list of what the board evaluates firms on. The Part 36 rule breakdown covers what moved where.
Five filers asked for that list back: ACEC, AIA, the ABA section, PSC, and Bristol Bay. ACEC was the most direct: "ACEC urges the FAR Council to reinsert the five core selection criteria explicitly into FAR 36.102-2 regulatory text."
The two architects asked for the statute itself. The 2015 AIA president recommended that the FAR "prominently reference The Brooks Act in 36.102.2(a); FAR 36.202-1, and other relevant paragraphs." The retired principal warned that new text calling selection competitive is something contracting officers "will interpret as price competitive."
The ABA section named the cost to firms. Leaving criteria to each agency, it wrote, "increases the likelihood of divergent criteria, different Standard Form 330 instructions, and inconsistent expectations for firms that compete across agencies."
That sentence is the one to keep in mind if you pursue federal work at more than one agency. It describes your proposal team's workload, not a policy debate.
The Dominant-Extent Gap Got Almost as Much Attention
Four filers raised the same second problem. Today, FAR 36.601-3(c) requires A/E selection procedures when a scope mixes A/E and other services and, "substantially or to a dominant extent," calls for work by a licensed architect or engineer. The proposed rule drops that test.
The ABA section spelled out the risk: "Without a dominant-extent rule, an agency could characterize a predominantly A-E requirement as a mixed-scope services contract and use a procedure in which price is an evaluation factor." PSC asked the final rule to "explain how agencies determine which selection procedures apply."
The Associations Didn't Agree on Everything
It would be easy to read the docket as one industry voice. It isn't.
AIA was the softest of the A/E filers. It "strongly supports the proposed rule's preservation of the Brooks Act and the essential mechanics of qualifications-based selection." On debriefings, AIA "does not recommend restoring every prior notification or debriefing provision." It asks instead for guidance on communicating selection outcomes.
The others split on debriefings too. ACEC supports the new debriefing section and asks that it require a debriefing "upon written request." The ABA section and Bristol Bay want the current mandatory wording back. The ABA letter says the rule "should use 'will be held,' as in the current rule, rather than 'may be held.'" The bid specialist asked that a debriefing "remain available upon the timely request of an unsuccessful firm."
Design-build got its own thread. DBIA, AIA, and one individual commenter favor shortlists of three teams, rather than the five the rule allows, when three give enough competition. All three also want limits on how much design work teams do before award, and stipends for the teams that lose. A second commenter flagged that the FAR Companion guide describes a Phase One design the rule text excludes.
On the 6 Percent Fee Cap, Three Filers Asked for the Same Words
The fee cap rule narrows the 6 percent limit to "cost-type contracts." ACEC, AIA, and the same retired principal who filed on Part 36 all support the change. All three asked for one more edit: use the statute's term.
ACEC asked the Council to change "cost-type contracts" to "the specific statutory term 'cost-plus-a-fixed-fee contract.'" AIA asked for the same swap in 15.404-9(c)(4)(ii). The retired principal wrote that the statute "is very clear and specific that the fee limitation only applies to a cost-plus-a-fixed-fee AE contract."
This is a small edit with real stakes. "Cost-type" covers more contract types than cost-plus-fixed-fee does. A broader term leaves room to keep applying the cap where Congress didn't put it.
What Should a Mid-Size A/E Firm Do With This?
Nothing in the docket changes the rules yet. What the docket does tell you is where the fight is.
- Plan for agency-specific criteria. Five filers asked for the list back, and the Council may not restore it. Build each federal SF330 from the solicitation's own evaluation factors, not from memory of the current FAR list.
- Flag price in a mostly-design scope. If a solicitation that is mostly design work scores price, ask about it during the question period. That is the exact gap four filers described.
- Ask for the debriefing in writing. Today's FAR says debriefings "will be held," so you don't have to ask. The proposed text makes them the agency's call. A written request costs nothing, and what a debriefing covers is still worth having.
Criteria that change by agency make your staff and project records do more work. The firm that can re-weight the same people and projects for each agency's factors keeps up. The firm that rebuilds each SF330 from a go-by file falls behind.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I still comment on the FAR Part 36 rule?
No. Comments on FAR Case 2026-010 and FAR Case 2026-003 closed October 19, 2026. A separate paperwork notice on one construction information collection is open to November 23, 2026, but it does not cover A/E selection. The next overhaul rule will open its own comment period. How to comment on a FAR proposed rule walks through it.
Where can I read the comments?
On regulations.gov, under docket FAR-2026-0010 for Part 36 and FAR-2026-0003 for the fee cap. Each comment has its own page, and most associations attached a PDF letter. ACEC filed the same 20-page letter to both dockets.
Did ACEC and AIA support the proposed rule?
In part. Both support keeping qualifications-based selection and narrowing the 6 percent fee cap. Both asked for the selection criteria baseline and clearer rules for mixed-scope contracts. ACEC asked for more changes than AIA did, including debriefings on request and a qualifications-based process for task orders.
When will the final Part 36 rule come out?
No date is set. The FAR Council reviews the comments and then publishes a final rule, which may differ from the proposal. Until then, the current FAR applies, or the FAR overhaul deviation at agencies that adopted it. Ask the contracting officer which one governs a given procurement.