3 Procurement Approaches You’re Probably Not Using, But Should Know About
Owners Perspective Magazine | Spring 2026
There is more than one way to skin a cat.
And just like cat skinning, there are many agencies across the country procuring architecture, engineering, and construction services using vastly different methods.
This article will tackle a few approaches agencies are taking that differ from the "norm." Are they better? Will they make procurement less like skinning a cat? I have no idea.
But a new understanding of what other owners are doing might lead to new ideas on how you can improve or adjust your procurement strategy. Again, these are not recommendations. These are just examples of what else is out there.
So, let's take a look at three.
SF330
The Federal government buys a lot of architecture, engineering, and construction services. It's likely that they buy even more than your organization.
Over 20 years ago, they devised a method to "level the playing field" when it came to proposals. They call it the SF330. It's essentially a form every proposer fills out. And it's the only thing they submit.
The SF330 was, in my humble opinion, one of the greatest creations in the history of procurement. It's comprised of two parts. Part One contains project-specific information, and Part Two contains general firm information.
But the beauty of the SF330 is that it forces firms to be concise and specific. All the information about who is proposing and who their teaming partners are is contained on one page. All general firm information on the firm proposing (like how many people they have and when the firm was established) fits on a single page.
And the SF330 also has rules. For example, a firm can only show 10 example projects. And those projects must all be within the last 5 years. Each project example must identify the firms involved in the project, a reference contact, and the year the work was completed. All the information provided about the project is intended to fit on one page.
People like me often hate SF330s. In fact, one large firm recently had trouble finding proposal coordinators because the candidates didn't want to work on SF330s. Why? It's hard to get "creative" with your submission. The SF330 creates a very "black and white" and "apples to apples" comparison.
For example, the “dreaded” section G requires you to list all the staff you are proposing and all the example projects you provided. You then fill out a matrix to show which staff members worked together on these projects. What that means is the SF330 makes it impossible to make it seem like the team worked together when they really didn't.
But that doesn't mean the SF330 isn't flexible. It is. You can create your own rules. For example, you can limit the resumes to two pages instead of one. You can ask for five projects within the last ten years.
There is also Section H. This is basically a blank section of the form that you can ask the proposer to provide extra information. Got a specific question about how they would approach a tricky issue on your project? Just ask them to address it in Section H. You can ask for anything in Section H and limit the page amount however you like.
Most importantly, it levels the playing field. You don't need a graphic designer to submit an SF330. If you have all the information, they are actually easy to put together. I've done entire SF330 submissions in a day.
And from a reviewer's standpoint, it's "just the facts." The typical SF330 is far smaller than your average proposal submission. No more 10-page resumes that you won't read. No more long, flowery, diatribes on the firm's history. You get just the information you need.
I've seen the Federal government award $250M contracts with only a SF330 submission. No interview.
And states from California to Connecticut have adopted the SF330 for some of their state agencies.
You can learn more about the SF330 at https://www.gsa.gov/reference/forms/architectengineer-qualifications
or at https://www.helpeverybodyeveryday.com/proposal-development/2356-sf330
TXDOT Streamlined Process (With Interview)
At one point, the "streamlined" process was the Texas Department of Transportation's (TXDOT) primary method of procurement. The process was created because TXDOT was receiving, on average, 75 proposal submissions for each contract.
It's a bit hard to describe, but I'll try. The streamlined process has two parts. One is a pass/fail evaluation of your people. The second is a series of three to five questions, in which you get extremely limited space to answer them.
For example, the RFP might ask for a project manager who is licensed in Texas and has 10 years of experience designing interchanges in highly trafficked areas. TXDOT's form gives you 2,525 characters (including all blank spaces) to prove they have that. Keep in mind, this paragraph alone has 309 characters.
Your project manager is not graded by how "great" they are. They either pass or fail. If they fail, your proposal is disqualified. The same goes for every required person you submit.
So, how do they make their decision amongst the firms that pass? That's where the questions come in. The proposers are given a series of questions to answer. Here's a real-life example:
Question 1: Assume your team is tasked to provide construction scheduling services for highway projects, but not limited to interchanges, roadways, culverts, and overlays. Discuss the importance of an initial baseline schedule and how it is used in the evaluation of monthly updates and any proposed revisions.
As the proposer, you are given 5,050 characters (including spaces) to answer that question. But proposal standards, that's not much space at all. The form won't let you add a single character more.
But here's the tricky part. Your answer is graded from 1-5. And TXDOT has already determined what the answer should be. That's tricky because you've got to give TXDOT the answer they want. But even if you give them the exact answer they want, you get a 3. The other two points are left up to "evaluator discretion." So, you've got to cram in two points worth of "wow" in your answer (beyond answering the question). And that's not easy with the extreme character limit.
Shortlisted firms get to the interview phase. But these interviews have an interesting hitch. Your proposed project manager can only attend one interview. So, if you decide to submit as a prime and a teaming partner, the project manager can only attend the prime interview.
Is there potential for TXDOT to use those two extra points as a means to shortlist "who they want?" Absolutely. But I find the pass/fail approach to qualifications quite interesting.
Port Of Seattle Debrief Approach
Debriefs can be a challenge for both parties. First, they are time-consuming. And second, owners often want to be careful that they don't provide more information in a debrief to any single firm, creating an unlevel playing field.
At one point, the Port of Seattle had an interesting solution to this. They didn't provide face-to-face debriefs. Instead, they compiled all their selection notes into a debrief for each firm. Then they sent the document (containing all the firms' debriefs) to every firm that submitted.
As a proposer, even when I won, I appreciated this approach. Everybody got the exact same feedback. You could learn from your feedback, but you could also learn from the feedback of other proposers. While this might not seem like The COAA Way, the debriefs are not disparaging or insulting to any firm. The debrief document includes strengths and weaknesses for all firms.
I believe this to be the best approach to debriefs I've ever experienced. You can see an example here: https://seatacnoise.info/wp-content/uploads/00321214-Selection-Summary-Final-Signed-1.31.2023.pdf
There are many different procurement approaches used throughout the country. We're just scratching the surface. I’m not suggesting you adopt these approaches, but I’m trying to share what others in our industry are doing.