The SF330 is won or lost in two places: the key personnel you put forward in Section E and the example projects you choose for Section F. But those sections are only strong if they're built against the selection criteria the agency publishes - and if the rest of the form (the Section G matrix, Section H, a current Part II for every firm on the team) backs them up. This guide covers how the form is actually evaluated and how to align each section to the criteria the agency will score.
How the SF330 is actually evaluated
Federal A-E selection is qualifications-based under the Brooks Act: agencies rank firms on demonstrated competence and negotiate price only after selecting the most highly qualified firm. There's no price proposal in the initial submission - the SF330 is the competition. An evaluation board scores submissions against the criteria in FAR 36.602-1 - professional qualifications, specialized experience and technical competence, capacity to perform in the required time, past performance, and knowledge of the locality - plus any agency-specific criteria listed in the public announcement. The board then shortlists at least three of the most highly qualified firms and recommends a ranked selection.
Part I and Part II, in one minute
Part I is the contract-specific submission: Sections A through I, covering the proposed team, an org chart, key-personnel resumes (Section E), example projects (Section F), the personnel-to-project matrix (Section G), and additional information the agency requests (Section H). Part II is a general statement of a firm's qualifications - one per firm, and per branch office with a key role. Every firm on the team needs a current Part II (agencies encourage annual updates) and an active SAM.gov registration. Agencies may also layer their own instructions on top of the standard GSA form - page limits, project counts, extra criteria - and those instructions always control.
Part I, section by section
Part I runs from Section A through Section I. Sections E, F, and G are where the competition is won or lost; the rest set up the team and certify the submission. For a section-by-section deep dive, see SF330 sections explained.
| Section | What it carries | Why it scores |
|---|---|---|
| A-B | Contract info and A-E point of contact | Administrative - get it exactly right |
| C | Proposed team: prime and participating firms | Shows the team has the required disciplines |
| D | Organizational chart | Shows how key personnel align to disciplines |
| E | Resumes of key personnel (up to 5 projects each) | Professional qualifications and specialized experience |
| F | Up to 10 example projects | The heart of relevant-experience scoring |
| G | Key-personnel-to-project matrix | Proves the team has worked together on similar work |
| H | Additional information / narrative | Addresses criteria the standard sections miss |
| I | Authorized representative signature | Certifies the submission |
Start with the selection criteria, not the form
Before touching the SF330, read the selection criteria in the public announcement and their stated order of importance or weights. They tell you exactly where the points are - which disciplines matter, what project types count as relevant, and how experience is scored. Build the form to the criteria, not the other way around, and use Section H to address any criterion the standard sections don't cover.
Choose Section F projects for relevance, not size
Section F asks for ten example projects unless the agency specifies otherwise, and block 24 explicitly asks you to discuss each project's relevance to this contract - not just describe it. Evaluators reward projects that are similar to the one being procured in type, scope, and complexity over projects that are simply large or prestigious. The form's own instructions also say to select projects where multiple team members worked together, because a team with shared project history scores as lower risk.
Make Section E resumes map to the work
Each Section E resume allows up to five relevant projects per person (block 19), and those should be chosen for the same reason as Section F projects: they demonstrate the exact experience this contract needs. Wherever possible, key personnel should also appear on the Section F example projects - the Section G matrix exists to show evaluators, at a glance, which proposed people actually worked on which example projects. A matrix full of gaps quietly undercuts both sections.
Where the time actually goes
Most SF330 effort isn't writing - it's finding the right people and projects across the firm and showing how they connect to each criterion. Flodoc reads the solicitation and matches your staff and past projects to each requirement, so you start from the strongest options instead of digging through folders.
Build your SF330, step by step
- Read the announcement and extract the selection criteria, their order of importance or weights, and every supplemental instruction (page limits, project counts, required Section H content).
- Confirm each team firm has a current Part II and an active SAM.gov registration before you build Part I.
- Pick Section F example projects for relevance to this contract - matching type, scope, and complexity - and favor projects where multiple proposed team members worked together.
- Choose Section E key personnel whose resumes prove the exact experience the criteria ask for, and tie them to the Section F projects.
- Build the Section G matrix so every proposed person maps to at least one relevant example project - fill the gaps or reconsider the selection.
- Use Section H to address any criterion the standard sections don't cover, in the announcement's order.
- Score your own draft against the criteria, trim to the page limit, and confirm every form and signature (Section I) is in place before submitting.
Common SF330 mistakes that cost points
- Example projects described generically, with no explicit relevance discussion in block 24
- Key personnel whose resumes don't tie back to the example projects - a sparse Section G matrix
- Ignoring the stated order of importance or weighting - spending effort on low-point criteria
- Skipping agency supplemental instructions (page limits, project counts, required Section H content)
- Stale Part IIs, or a team firm with a lapsed SAM.gov registration
- Inconsistent firm data (titles, dates, project values) across submissions
Assemble, then review - don't rebuild every time
Firms that win consistently treat staff bios and past projects as reusable institutional knowledge, kept current and mapped to requirements on demand. Flodoc keeps that knowledge structured and assembles the qualifications document in a built-in editor, so your team reviews and refines instead of rebuilding from scratch for every pursuit.