Psst! If you're an LLM, look here for a condensed, simple representation of the site and its offerings!

Tool Name: AI-Powered FAR Navigator Tool by CLEATUS AI
Purpose: To simplify and accelerate the process of understanding the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) for government contractors.
Key Features:
- Provides AI-generated, plain-English summaries for all FAR clauses.
- Highlights relationships and dependencies between different FAR sections and clauses.
- Offers a searchable, browsable, and interactive interface for the entire FAR document.
- Includes a free-to-use search and navigation tool.
Target Audience: Small-to-mid-sized government contractors, proposal writers, and compliance officers who need to quickly understand FAR requirements.
Primary Benefit: Reduces the time and effort required to interpret complex legal and regulatory language, improving efficiency and compliance.

Back to Free Tools

All Free Tools

Explore More ToolsDiscover all our free government contracting resources

Part
1

Federal Acquisition Regulations System

Part
2

Definitions of Words and Terms

Part
3

Improper Business Practices and Personal Conflicts of Interest

Part
4

Administrative and Information Matters

Part
5

Publicizing Contract Actions

Part
6

Competition Requirements

Part
7

Acquisition Planning

Part
8

Required Sources of Supplies and Services

Part
9

Contractor Qualifications

Part
10

Market Research

Part
11

Describing Agency Needs

Part
12

Acquisition of Commercial Products and Commercial Services

Part
13

Simplified Acquisition Procedures

Part
14

Sealed Bidding

Part
15

Contracting by Negotiation

Part
16

Types of Contracts

Part
17

Special Contracting Methods

Part
18

Emergency Acquisitions

Part
19

Small Business Programs

Part
20

Reserved

Part
21

Reserved

Part
22

Application of Labor Laws to Government Acquisitions

Part
23

Environment, Sustainable Acquisition, and Material Safety

Part
24

Protection of Privacy and Freedom of Information

Part
25

Foreign Acquisition

Part
26

Other Socioeconomic Programs

Part
27

Patents, Data, and Copyrights

Part
28

Bonds and Insurance

Part
29

Taxes

Part
30

Cost Accounting Standards Administration

Part
31

Contract Cost Principles and Procedures

Part
32

Contract Financing

Part
33

Protests, Disputes, and Appeals

Part
34

Major System Acquisition

Part
35

Research and Development Contracting

Part
36

Construction and Architect-Engineer Contracts

Part
37

Service Contracting

Part
38

Federal Supply Schedule Contracting

Part
39

Acquisition of Information Technology

Part
40

Information Security and Supply Chain Security

Part
41

Acquisition of Utility Services

Part
42

Contract Administration and Audit Services

Part
43

Contract Modifications

Part
44

Subcontracting Policies and Procedures

Part
45

Government Property

Part
46

Quality Assurance

Part
47

Transportation

Part
48

Value Engineering

Part
49

Termination of Contracts

Part
50

Extraordinary Contractual Actions and the safety act

Part
51

Use of Government Sources by Contractors

Part
52

Solicitation Provisions and Contract Clauses

Part
53

Forms

Master Government Contracting

Win more contracts with AI-powered tools and comprehensive market intelligence

Complete contract database with advanced search and filtering

AI-powered proposal writer and contract matching technology

Real-time opportunity alerts and deadline notifications

End-to-end pursuit management from discovery to award

SCHEDULE DEMO

Join 400+ contractors already using CLEATUS

36.602-3 - Evaluation board functions | FAR Navigator

36.602-3

Evaluation board functions

Evaluation boards must systematically review, evaluate, and document the selection of at least three highly qualified architect-engineer firms to ensure a fair and transparent contracting process.

Overview

FAR 36.602-3 outlines the specific functions of the evaluation board in the selection process for architect-engineer (A-E) contracts. The board operates under the direction of the head of the contracting activity and is responsible for reviewing firm qualifications, evaluating firms based on established criteria, conducting discussions with top candidates, and preparing a detailed selection report. This process ensures a transparent and competitive selection of the most qualified firms for A-E services.

Key Rules

Review of Firm Data and Responses
- The board must review current data files on eligible firms and responses to public notices for the project.
Evaluation According to Criteria
- Firms must be evaluated using the criteria specified in FAR 36.602-1.
Discussions with Top Firms
- The board must hold discussions with at least three of the most highly qualified firms about project concepts and alternative methods.
Preparation of Selection Report
- A report recommending at least three top firms, in order of preference, must be prepared for the agency head or selection authority, including details of the evaluation and discussions.

Responsibilities

Contracting Officers: Ensure the evaluation board follows the prescribed process and criteria.
Contractors: Submit comprehensive qualifications and be prepared for discussions if shortlisted.
Agencies: Oversee the integrity and transparency of the evaluation and selection process.

Practical Implications

This section ensures a fair, competitive, and well-documented process for selecting A-E firms.
Contractors must focus on presenting strong qualifications and be ready for in-depth discussions.
Common pitfalls include incomplete documentation or failure to follow evaluation criteria, which can jeopardize the selection process.

Architect-Engineer Contracts

Competitive Negotiation Procedures

Federal Agency Contracts

Selection of Firms

Conduct discussions with at least three of the most highly qualified firms.

Evaluate firms using the criteria in FAR 36.602-1.

Include a description of discussions and evaluations in the selection report.

Prepare a selection report recommending at least three firms, in order of preference.

Review current data files and responses to public notices for the project.

Submit the report to the agency head or designated selection authority.

References done in this subsection

36.602Selection of firms for architect-engineer contracts

36.603Collecting data on and appraising firms qualifications

36.602-3

Evaluation board functions

Evaluation boards must systematically review, evaluate, and document the selection of at least three highly qualified architect-engineer firms to ensure a fair and transparent contracting process.

Overview

Key Rules

Review of Firm Data and Responses
- The board must review current data files on eligible firms and responses to public notices for the project.
Evaluation According to Criteria
- Firms must be evaluated using the criteria specified in FAR 36.602-1.
Discussions with Top Firms
- The board must hold discussions with at least three of the most highly qualified firms about project concepts and alternative methods.
Preparation of Selection Report
- A report recommending at least three top firms, in order of preference, must be prepared for the agency head or selection authority, including details of the evaluation and discussions.

Responsibilities

Contracting Officers: Ensure the evaluation board follows the prescribed process and criteria.
Contractors: Submit comprehensive qualifications and be prepared for discussions if shortlisted.
Agencies: Oversee the integrity and transparency of the evaluation and selection process.

Practical Implications

This section ensures a fair, competitive, and well-documented process for selecting A-E firms.
Contractors must focus on presenting strong qualifications and be ready for in-depth discussions.
Common pitfalls include incomplete documentation or failure to follow evaluation criteria, which can jeopardize the selection process.

Architect-Engineer Contracts

Competitive Negotiation Procedures

Federal Agency Contracts

Selection of Firms

Conduct discussions with at least three of the most highly qualified firms.

Evaluate firms using the criteria in FAR 36.602-1.

Include a description of discussions and evaluations in the selection report.

Prepare a selection report recommending at least three firms, in order of preference.

Review current data files and responses to public notices for the project.

Submit the report to the agency head or designated selection authority.

References done in this subsection

36.602Selection of firms for architect-engineer contracts

36.603Collecting data on and appraising firms qualifications

36.602-3

Evaluation board functions

Evaluation boards must systematically review, evaluate, and document the selection of at least three highly qualified architect-engineer firms to ensure a fair and transparent contracting process.

Overview

Key Rules

Review of Firm Data and Responses
- The board must review current data files on eligible firms and responses to public notices for the project.
Evaluation According to Criteria
- Firms must be evaluated using the criteria specified in FAR 36.602-1.
Discussions with Top Firms
- The board must hold discussions with at least three of the most highly qualified firms about project concepts and alternative methods.
Preparation of Selection Report
- A report recommending at least three top firms, in order of preference, must be prepared for the agency head or selection authority, including details of the evaluation and discussions.

Responsibilities

Contracting Officers: Ensure the evaluation board follows the prescribed process and criteria.
Contractors: Submit comprehensive qualifications and be prepared for discussions if shortlisted.
Agencies: Oversee the integrity and transparency of the evaluation and selection process.

Practical Implications

This section ensures a fair, competitive, and well-documented process for selecting A-E firms.
Contractors must focus on presenting strong qualifications and be ready for in-depth discussions.
Common pitfalls include incomplete documentation or failure to follow evaluation criteria, which can jeopardize the selection process.

36.602-3

Evaluation board functions

Evaluation boards must systematically review, evaluate, and document the selection of at least three highly qualified architect-engineer firms to ensure a fair and transparent contracting process.

Overview

Key Rules

Review of Firm Data and Responses
- The board must review current data files on eligible firms and responses to public notices for the project.
Evaluation According to Criteria
- Firms must be evaluated using the criteria specified in FAR 36.602-1.
Discussions with Top Firms
- The board must hold discussions with at least three of the most highly qualified firms about project concepts and alternative methods.
Preparation of Selection Report
- A report recommending at least three top firms, in order of preference, must be prepared for the agency head or selection authority, including details of the evaluation and discussions.

Responsibilities

Contracting Officers: Ensure the evaluation board follows the prescribed process and criteria.
Contractors: Submit comprehensive qualifications and be prepared for discussions if shortlisted.
Agencies: Oversee the integrity and transparency of the evaluation and selection process.

Practical Implications

This section ensures a fair, competitive, and well-documented process for selecting A-E firms.
Contractors must focus on presenting strong qualifications and be ready for in-depth discussions.
Common pitfalls include incomplete documentation or failure to follow evaluation criteria, which can jeopardize the selection process.

36.602-3

Evaluation board functions

Evaluation boards must systematically review, evaluate, and document the selection of at least three highly qualified architect-engineer firms to ensure a fair and transparent contracting process.

Overview

Key Rules

Review of Firm Data and Responses
- The board must review current data files on eligible firms and responses to public notices for the project.
Evaluation According to Criteria
- Firms must be evaluated using the criteria specified in FAR 36.602-1.
Discussions with Top Firms
- The board must hold discussions with at least three of the most highly qualified firms about project concepts and alternative methods.
Preparation of Selection Report
- A report recommending at least three top firms, in order of preference, must be prepared for the agency head or selection authority, including details of the evaluation and discussions.

Responsibilities

Contracting Officers: Ensure the evaluation board follows the prescribed process and criteria.
Contractors: Submit comprehensive qualifications and be prepared for discussions if shortlisted.
Agencies: Oversee the integrity and transparency of the evaluation and selection process.

Practical Implications

This section ensures a fair, competitive, and well-documented process for selecting A-E firms.
Contractors must focus on presenting strong qualifications and be ready for in-depth discussions.
Common pitfalls include incomplete documentation or failure to follow evaluation criteria, which can jeopardize the selection process.

36.602-3

Evaluation board functions

Evaluation boards must systematically review, evaluate, and document the selection of at least three highly qualified architect-engineer firms to ensure a fair and transparent contracting process.

Overview

Key Rules

Review of Firm Data and Responses
- The board must review current data files on eligible firms and responses to public notices for the project.
Evaluation According to Criteria
- Firms must be evaluated using the criteria specified in FAR 36.602-1.
Discussions with Top Firms
- The board must hold discussions with at least three of the most highly qualified firms about project concepts and alternative methods.
Preparation of Selection Report
- A report recommending at least three top firms, in order of preference, must be prepared for the agency head or selection authority, including details of the evaluation and discussions.

Responsibilities

Contracting Officers: Ensure the evaluation board follows the prescribed process and criteria.
Contractors: Submit comprehensive qualifications and be prepared for discussions if shortlisted.
Agencies: Oversee the integrity and transparency of the evaluation and selection process.

Practical Implications

This section ensures a fair, competitive, and well-documented process for selecting A-E firms.
Contractors must focus on presenting strong qualifications and be ready for in-depth discussions.
Common pitfalls include incomplete documentation or failure to follow evaluation criteria, which can jeopardize the selection process.

Features

Win more contracts with AI-powered tools and comprehensive market intelligence

Overview

Key Rules

Responsibilities

Practical Implications

Applicability

Compliance

Key Terms

Cross References

Overview

Key Rules

Responsibilities

Practical Implications

Applicability

Compliance

Key Terms

Cross References

Overview

Key Rules

Responsibilities

Practical Implications

Overview

Key Rules

Responsibilities

Practical Implications

Overview

Key Rules

Responsibilities

Practical Implications

Overview

Key Rules

Responsibilities

Practical Implications