SF330 Sections A-I Explained: What Each One Is Scored On

Part I of the SF330 runs from Section A through Section I. Some sections are administrative; three of them - E, F, and G - are where the evaluation board actually scores your team. This guide walks each section in order and explains what it asks for and why it matters. For the strategy of how the whole form is evaluated, start with how to write an SF330 that wins.

Sections A and B: contract info and point of contact

Section A captures the contract title, location, and the announcement details exactly as published. Section B names the architect-engineer point of contact for this submission. These are administrative, but errors here look careless - copy the title and solicitation number precisely from the announcement.

Section C: the proposed team

Section C lists the prime and every participating (subconsultant) firm, with each firm's role on the contract. This is where evaluators confirm the team actually carries the disciplines the project requires. Include each firm's Part II reference and make sure every listed firm has a current one.

Section D: the organizational chart

Section D is a chart showing how the proposed team is organized and how key personnel align to the required disciplines and roles. A clean chart makes the team's structure legible at a glance and should agree with the people named in Section E.

Section E: resumes of key personnel

Section E holds a resume for each key person, and block 19 allows up to five relevant projects per person. Choose those projects the same way you choose Section F projects: for direct relevance to this contract. Wherever possible, the projects in a person's resume should also appear in Section F - that overlap is what makes the Section G matrix strong.

Section F: example projects

Section F asks for up to ten example projects (unless the agency specifies otherwise) that best illustrate the team's qualifications for this contract. Block 24 explicitly asks you to discuss each project's relevance - not just describe it. Evaluators reward projects similar in type, scope, and complexity over projects that are merely large, and the instructions favor projects where multiple proposed team members worked together.

Section G: the matrix

Section G is a matrix cross-referencing the key personnel in Section E against the example projects in Section F. It lets evaluators see, at a glance, whether the proposed team has actually worked together on relevant work. A matrix full of gaps quietly undercuts otherwise strong resumes and project sheets - if a proposed person maps to no relevant project, reconsider the selection.

Section H: additional information

Section H is the narrative. Use it to address any evaluation criterion the standard sections don't cover - management approach, quality control, capacity and current workload, knowledge of the locality - in the order the announcement lists the criteria. Some agencies cap Section H, so follow the supplemental instructions exactly.

Section I: the signature

Section I is the authorized representative's signature certifying the submission. It is the easiest section to complete and an embarrassing one to forget - confirm it is signed before the package goes out.

Part II: the firm's general qualifications

Part I is only half of a submission. Part II is a separate, reusable record of a firm's overall qualifications - ownership and small-business status, year established, staff counts by discipline, annual revenue range, and a profile of the firm's experience. Every firm on the proposed team (prime and each subconsultant) generally needs a current Part II, and agencies encourage updating it at least annually. Because it changes slowly, Part II is the part you maintain once and reuse across pursuits - unlike Part I, which is rebuilt for every contract.

How Sections E, F, and G work as one system

The scoring sections are not independent. Section E says who your key people are, Section F says what relevant work the team has done, and Section G proves the two overlap by mapping people to projects. When the three agree - the person you propose as lead designer actually appears on the similar projects you feature - the submission reads as low risk. When they diverge, evaluators notice: a strong resume with no matching Section F project, or a marquee project none of the proposed staff touched, both quietly cost points. Build the three sections together, not in isolation.

A worked example: one criterion, three sections

Say the announcement weights 'experience with wastewater treatment plant upgrades' heavily. In Section F, you feature two comparable plant-upgrade projects and, in block 24, state exactly how each matches this contract in process type and capacity. In Section E, the proposed process lead's resume lists those same two projects among her five (block 19). In Section G, her row shows checks against both projects. An evaluator scanning that one criterion sees a consistent story across all three sections - which is the entire point of the form's structure.

Formatting and page limits that get submissions cut

The standard form is only the baseline. Agencies routinely add supplemental instructions - a maximum number of Section F projects, a Section H page cap, font and margin rules, a required file format, or extra criteria - and those instructions override the generic form. Read them before you build, because trimming a finished 60-page package to a 50-page limit at the deadline is where strong content gets cut in the wrong places.

The through-line across every section

If there is a single principle that ties Part I together, it is relevance to this contract. The right team in Section C, the resumes in Section E, the projects in Section F, and the matrix in Section G should all point at the same thing: that this firm has done work like this, with these people, and can do it again. Sections that each look strong in isolation but do not reinforce that one message leave points on the table. Build every section to the criteria, and make them agree.