40 U.S.C. § 1101
Policy
The policy of the Federal Government is to publicly announce all requirements for architectural and engineering services and to negotiate contracts for architectural and engineering services on the basis of demonstrated competence and qualification for the type of professional services required and at fair and reasonable prices.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1991–2025 · leading case: BBF Eng'g Servs., PC v. State of Mich., 573 F. App'x 377 (6th Cir. 2014).
BBF Eng'g Servs., PC v. State of Mich., 573 F. App'x 377 (6th Cir. 2014). “MDOT selects its engineering consultants pursuant to the Brooks Act, 40 U.S.C. § 1101 , and picks based on quality, not price.”
Prof'l Engineers in California Gov't v. Kempton, 2007 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3855 (Cal. 2007). “” As the Court of Appeal explained: “Federal law requires the use of a qualifications-based selection procedure where the construction of federal-aid highways is to be performed by a state transportation department or under its supervision, contracts for architectural and…”
Mgmt. Ass'n for Private Photogrammetric Surveyors v. United States, 467 F. Supp. 2d 596 (E.D. Va. 2006). “ors and engineers challenge a regulation promulgated by the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council (“FAR Council”) that allows federal agencies to procure mapping services based on competitive bidding, a practice plaintiffs allege is (i) contrary to the engineers’ professional…”
Weston Solutions, Inc. v. United States, 95 Fed. Cl. 311 (Fed. Cl. 2010). “” 40 U.S.C. § 1101 (2006). The Brooks Act further requires the agency to select in order of preference, at least three firms that the agency considers most highly qualified to provide the services required.”
Bd. of Trs. of Cmty. Coll. Dist. No. 502 v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 842 N.E.2d 1255 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006). “The statute states that “a State agency may comply with federal law and regulations including, but not limited to, Public Law 92 — 582 (Federal Architect— Engineer Selection Law, Brooks Law, [ 40 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq. (Supp.)]) and take all necessary steps to adapt its rules,…”
Saratoga Dev. Corp. v. United States, 777 F. Supp. 29 (D.D.C. 1991). “In addition, defendants highlight the portion of the Federal Triangle Development Act relating to the selection process for the Project.”
Prof'l Eng'rs in Cal. Gov. v. Kempton, 155 P.3d 226 (Cal. 2007). “" As the Court of Appeal explained: "Federal law requires the use of a qualifications-based selection procedure where the construction of federal-aid highways is to be performed by a state transportation department or under its supervision, contracts for architectural and…”
Mgmt. Ass'n for Private Photogrammetric Surveyors v. United States, 492 F. Supp. 2d 540 (E.D. Va. 2007). “” 40 U.S.C. § 1101 . In other words, the Brooks Act does not allow federal agencies to award A-E contracts on the familiar lowest-bidder basis, but rather mandates a procedure for procuring these services, known as qualification-based selection (QBS), in which agen *543 cies (i)…”
Saratoga Dev. Corp. v. United States, 21 F.3d 445 (D.C. Cir. 1994). “Moreover, the Federal Triangle Development Act, 40 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq. (1988) (“FTDA”), contains no explicit indicia of a congressional intent to exempt the Federal Triangle Project from the requirements of CICA or FAR.”
Foster v. Judnic, 963 F. Supp. 2d 735 (E.D. Mich. 2013). “) They state MDOT selects professional engineering firms in accordance with the Brooks Act, 40 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., 23 U.S.C. § 112 .”
Jacobs Eng'g Grp. Inc v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2025). “Background The National Guard Bureau (“NGB”) issued this underlying procurement under the Brooks Act, 40 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., see Pub. L. No.”
Culpepper v. Birmingham Jefferson Cnty. Transit Auth. (BJCTA) (N.D. Ala. 2022). “40 U.S.C. § 1101 ; see also United States v.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.