Issuu

Qualifications-Based Selection A FIDIC Paper

September 2026

What is FIDIC FIDIC, the International Federation of Consulting Engineers, is the global representative body for national associations of consulting engineers, representing over one million engineering professionals and 40,000 firms in around 100 countries worldwide. Founded in 1913, FIDIC promotes and implements the consulting engineering industry’s strategic goals on behalf of its member associations and disseminates information and resources of interest to its members. FIDIC publishes internationally recognised standard forms of contract, together with business practice documents, policy statements, position papers and guidelines covering key issues affecting the consulting engineering and infrastructure sectors. It also delivers an extensive programme of conferences, seminars, capacity-building initiatives and training. Through its work, FIDIC seeks to elevate the consulting engineering industry and its members through an engaged global network driving thought leadership, best practice, standard contracts and capacity building.

Acknowledgements FIDIC would like to thank Bradley J. Saull (ACEC), Ines Ferguson (EFCA), John Gamble (ACEC Canada), Catherine Karakatsanis (FIDIC Board), Benoît Clocheret (FIDIC Board), Susanna Zammataro (FIDIC Secretariat), Graham Pontin (FIDIC Secretariat) and Basma Eissa (FIDIC Secretariat) whose input and review have made this publication possible.

Disclaimer This document was produced by FIDIC and is provided for information purposes only. The contents of this document are general in nature and therefore should not be applied to the specific circumstances of individuals. Whilst we undertake every effort to ensure that the information within this document is complete and up to date, it should not be relied upon as the basis for investment, commercial, professional or legal decisions. FIDIC accepts no liability in respect of any direct, implied, statutory and/or consequential loss arising from the use of this document or its contents.

Copyright FIDIC 2026. All rights reserved. This publication may be shared and quoted for non-commercial purposes, provided that appropriate acknowledgement is given to FIDIC and the source is clearly referenced. Extracts may be reproduced with proper attribution and without alteration or misrepresentation of the original context. Reproduction, adaptation or use of this publication, in whole or in substantial part, for commercial purposes requires prior written permission from FIDIC. Requests should be addressed to FIDIC, P.O. Box 311, CH-1215 Geneva 15, Switzerland; e-mail: fidic@fidic.org

FIDIC QBS Paper 2026

Acronyms Acronym A/E

Full term Architect-Engineer / Architecture and Engineering

ACEC

American Council of Engineering Companies

Artificial Intelligence

APWA

American Public Works Association

ASCE

American Society of Civil Engineers

CEA

Consulting Engineers of Alberta

CFR

Code of Federal Regulations

CQS

Consultant’s Qualifications-Based Selection

DND

Department of National Defence (Canada)

EFCA

European Federation of Engineering Consultancy Associations

EIB

European Investment Bank

European Union

FAR

Federal Acquisition Regulation

FHWA

Federal Highway Administration

FIDIC

International Federation of Consulting Engineers

FIMS

FIDIC Integrity Management System

GSA

General Services Administration

IMS

Integrity Management System

IPF

Investment Project Financing

ISO

International Organization for Standardization

LCC

Life-Cycle Costing

LCCA

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis

MAT

Most Advantageous Tender

MEAT

Most Economically Advantageous Tender

NGO

Non-Governmental Organisation

NSPE

National Society of Professional Engineers

O&M&R

Operations, Maintenance and Rehabilitation

OAA

Ontario Association of Architects

QBS

Qualifications-Based Selection

QCBS

Quality- and Cost-Based Selection

QMS

Quality Management System

RAIC

Royal Architectural Institute of Canada

RFP

Request for Proposals

TCO

Total Cost of Ownership

TOR

Terms of Reference

United Kingdom

US / U.S.

United States

USACE

United States Army Corps of Engineers 2

FIDIC QBS Paper 2026

Contents Executive summary..................................................................................................................... 4 What is QBS................................................................................................................................. 5 What QBS delivers....................................................................................................................... 6 Benefits in the Design Phase (Leading to Construction Success).......................................... 8 Benefits in the Construction Phase....................................................................................... 9 A Numerical Example........................................................................................................... 9 Current practices in QBS and related approaches................................................................ 10 QBS in America.................................................................................................................. 11 QBS in Canada.................................................................................................................. 11 Other methods used in Europe and the UK........................................................................ 12 QBS in World Bank procurement framework...................................................................... 13 How to effectively implement QBS.......................................................................................... 14 Agreement......................................................................................................................... 14 Informed Purchaser............................................................................................................ 14 Transparency...................................................................................................................... 15 Integrity Management System............................................................................................ 15 Fair Competition................................................................................................................. 16 Life-Cycle Cost................................................................................................................... 16 Monitoring.......................................................................................................................... 16 Identifying and Evaluating the Most Appropriate Consultant................................................ 17 The Role of Nationality and Capacity Building..................................................................... 17 Governance and Competence of Evaluation Teams............................................................ 17 Optimising the Administrative Lifecycle of the Tender.......................................................... 17 Protecting Intellectual Property and Encouraging Innovation............................................... 18 Market Filtering: The Role of Long-Listing and Short-Listing............................................... 19 Integrating QBS into the lifecycle of infrastructure............................................................... 20 Appendix – Growing evidence base for QBS as a strategic tool - Selected Organisations Supporting QBS........................................................................................................................... 21

FIDIC QBS Paper 2026

Executive summary The success of any infrastructure project depends on selecting the right engineering consultant — one who brings technical qualifications, innovation, and integrity to the design process. While consultancy services typically account for only around 1–2% of an infrastructure asset’s total whole-life cost, their influence on project performance, safety, sustainability and long-term value is profound. Poor consultant selection can lead to construction cost overruns, delays and diminished quality, whereas informed selection delivers long-term value, better solutions for society and risk reduction. Decades of international evidence demonstrate that Qualifications-Based Selection (QBS) consistently delivers better project outcomes than price-led consultant selection. QBS is a proven procurement methodology that enables clients to secure the technical quality needed to deliver higher-quality, more innovative and better-performing infrastructure. International financial institutions, multilateral development banks and governments apply a range of quality-led procurement approaches reflecting their respective legal and institutional frameworks, while sharing the common objective of selecting the most qualified expertise to deliver better project outcomes and long-term value. Within this broader landscape, FIDIC advocates Qualifications-Based Selection (QBS) as its preferred procurement methodology for engineering and architectural consultancy services, particularly where quality, innovation and long-term value are critical. While procurement frameworks vary across jurisdictions, consultant selection should be led by quality and professional competence rather than by price. Implemented through a fair and transparent process, QBS enables firms of all sizes to compete on the basis of their experience, capability, expertise and value, selecting the consultant best suited to the project’s needs before fee negotiations. QBS enables clients to address increasingly complex challenges including climate change, ageing infrastructure, resilience, security and emerging technologies, from the earliest stages of project development. A substantial body of international evidence demonstrates that QBS delivers: •

Project preparation: Better project preparation, clearer project definition and more robust decision-making from the earliest stages of project development.

•

Cost Efficiency: QBS projects experience lower construction cost growth than the national average.

•

Schedule Certainty: QBS minimises schedule delays and improves milestone adherence.

•

Innovation: Projects using QBS are more likely to deliver innovative solutions.

•

Lifecycle Value: Investing in qualified design professionals saves billions in future maintenance, change orders and risk mitigation.

•

Risk reduction: QBS by focusing on overall delivery reduces the risk of failure compared to procuring based on factors such as cost.

Selecting engineering consultants primarily on price often creates a false economy, increasing construction costs, project risks and whole-life costs. By prioritising expertise and long-term value, QBS delivers more resilient, sustainable and cost-effective infrastructure. It should therefore be viewed not simply as a procurement methodology, but as a proven strategic investment supported by international evidence and decades of successful implementation.

FIDIC QBS Paper 2026

What is QBS? Qualifications-Based Selection (QBS) is a competitive procurement approach for engineering, architectural and other professional consultancy services in which consultant engineers are evaluated on the basis of their qualifications, experience, technical competence and ability to deliver the required quality and value, with price negotiated later in the process based on a scope of work. The precise process may vary according to the jurisdiction, client and nature of the assignment. Depending on the approach used, assessment may include relevant experience, expertise, key personnel and resources, project understanding, technical approach or methodology, innovation and other appropriate qualitative criteria. The fundamental principle is that price is not used as a competitive criterion in determining the most qualified or appropriate consultant. Price is negotiated at a second stage, after the preferred consultant has been identified. Once the preferred consultant has been identified, the client and consultant develop and agree on a well-defined scope, including the approach and resources required to deliver it, and negotiate a fair and reasonable fee on that basis. This helps ensure that the scope is clearly understood and that the agreed fee reflects the services, resources and quality required by the client. If agreement cannot be reached, the client may proceed to negotiations with the next-ranked consultant. By placing professional capability and technical qualifications at the centre of consultant selection, QBS enables clients to identify the team best equipped to understand the assignment, manage risk, develop effective and innovative solutions and deliver long-term value. Rather than treating consultancy services primarily as an upfront cost, QBS recognises the influence that early professional decisions have on construction performance, whole-life cost, resilience and the overall quality of the resulting infrastructure.

What QBS delivers Time and again, research and post-project completion reviews have conclusively documented that projects utilising the QBS procurement framework for engineering services have better outcomes for owners in terms of cost, risk, schedule and innovation. University studies have shown that QBS saves time, saves taxpayer money, delivers innovation and results in better project outcomes. More than a decade after an initial QBS study, a 2022 study of the United States once again found that Qualifications-Based Selection (QBS) provides direct benefits in both the design and construction phases of projects. The most comprehensive data on QBS performance comes from two landmark studies commissioned by the ACEC Research Institute and conducted by Dr. Paul Chinowsky (University of Colorado) and Dr. Gordon Kingsley (Georgia Institute of Technology).1 The initial 2009 study was updated with new data in 2022, analysing a wide range of public projects to compare QBS performance against national averages.2 Once again the updated study found that QBS projects consistently outperform national performance averages in key project metrics: 1.

Cost Growth: QBS projects exhibited an overall project cost growth of 3%3, which is half of the national average cost growth of 6%4. When isolating this to construction cost growth, the increase remained low at 4%.

Other supporting studies confirm this trend, with one university study finding QBS lowered project change order rates from a 10% average down to 3%5, a finding echoed by advocacy groups.6

Schedule Fidelity: QBS projects had a schedule growth of 7%, outperforming the national metric of 10%7. This represents a 30% reduction in typical schedule growth.

Analysed differently, 48% of the QBS projects in the study met all construction milestones with no schedule adjustment required, compared to only 32% of non-QBS projects. This means QBS projects are approximately 50% more likely to meet their original schedule milestones.8

Qualifications- Based Selection, accessed on November 13, 2025, http://www.qbs-ky.org/uploads/4/6/1/9/46197111/ananalysisofissuespertainingtoqbs-uofcolorado-gainstituteoftech.pdf 2 An Analysis of QBS in the Procurement of Engineering Services - ACEC, accessed on November 13, 2025, https://www.acec.org/resource/ an-analysis-of-qbs-in-the-procurement-of-engineering-services/ 3 Qualification Based Selection saves money and time, reduces headaches and increases value - About ACEC IOWA, accessed on November 13, 2025, https://aceci.memberclicks.net/assets/QBS/ACEC_QBS%20Primer%20Final.pdf%20%287%29.pdf 4 Qualifications-Based Selection (QBS) - ACEC/MW, accessed on November 13, 2025, https://www.acecmw.org/qbs 5 PowerPoint Presentation - National Society of Professional Engineers, accessed on November 13, 2025, https://www.nspe.org/sites/default/ files/QBS-New%20Mexico%20Presentation-AS%20Edits.ppt 6 Qualifications-Based Selection - American Council of Engineering Companies of New York, accessed on November 13, 2025, https://acecny. org/page/qbs 7 Qualifications-Based Selection (QBS) - ACEC/MW, accessed on November 13, 2025, https://www.acecmw.org/qbs 8 Qualifications-Based Selection: Prioritizing Expertise over Initial Cost | Procore, accessed on November 13, 2025, https://www.procore.com/ library/qualifications-based-selection 1

FIDIC QBS Paper 2026

QBS Project Performance vs. National Average (2022 Data) Performance Metric

QBS-Procured Projects

National Average / Non-QBS

Performance Delta

Project Cost Growth

QBS projects have 50% less cost growth.

Project Schedule Growth

10%

QBS projects have 30% less schedule growth.

Projects Meeting All Milestones

48%

32%

QBS projects are 1.5x more likely to meet all milestones.

High/Very High Owner Satisfaction

89%

(Not specified)

Demonstrates a very high level of success and owner satisfaction.

Source: ACEC

The quantitative data above is the result of a simple but profound economic principle: the “false economy” of low-bid procurement. The central argument for QBS is that professional design services typically represent only around 1–2% of an infrastructure asset’s total whole-life cost, yet this small investment influences virtually every cost that follows throughout the asset’s life. The decisions made during the design phase determine construction materials, energy efficiency, facility layout, and mechanical systems. These decisions, in turn, dictate the vast majority of the asset’s total cost, as Operations, Maintenance & Rehabilitation (O&M&R) can account for up to 85% of a facility’s total life-cycle costs.9 A cost-driven procurement approach that produces poorer design, will result in higher costs in the other 99% of the asset’s life—first, through construction cost growth from change orders10, and second, through decades of high maintenance, energy and operational costs.

Operations and Maintenance (O & M)

Construction

Consulting

Life-Cycle Costs A Prediction Model for Life Cycle Costs Based on Design Quality, accessed on November 13, 2025, https://www.irbnet.de/daten/iconda/ CIB9261.pdf 10 Qualifications-Based Selection (QBS): Best Practice for Architecture, Engineering and Construction Management/General Contractor Procurement in Canada - the OAA, accessed on November 13, 2025, https://www.oaa.on.ca/oaa/assets/images/bloaags/text/final_qbs_report_ sep_1_2018.pdf 9

FIDIC QBS Paper 2026

Benefits in the Design Phase (Leading to Construction Success) The improvements in cost and schedule performance are strongly associated with the quality of the design output facilitated by QBS: •

Quality of Documents: The authors of the ACEC study, concluded that there is a strong association between using QBS, the quality of construction documents developed by the design team, and the final cost and schedule performance. Selecting experienced design firms leads to documents and solutions that reduce costs and schedules during construction. This is also something FIDIC advocates and encourages in its latest report around organisational and project quality including the use of Quality Management Systems (QMS).

•

Reduced Design Deficiencies: The superior quality of design documents obtained through QBS is cited as the reason for much of the cost efficiency created. Experienced teams consistently produced documents that resulted in fewer delays during the construction process caused by incomplete documents or documents requiring clarifications.

•

Innovation: QBS leads to increased innovation on projects. Projects incorporating QBS have a greater likelihood of producing innovative solutions, often because firms have greater opportunities to explore innovations and collaborations when cost is not the driving factor in selection. QBS projects were 23% more likely to have moderate or significant innovation in the solutions compared to non-QBS projects.

•

Risk Mitigation: By selecting the most appropriate expertise at the outset, QBS helps clients better address complex challenges such as climate resilience, ageing infrastructure, digital transformation and emerging technologies through more informed project preparation and design.

Case Study: Town Creek Culvert (Greenville, NC) •

Project Context: A $33 million project to replace a failing, 1930s-era stormwater culvert in Greenville’s downtown urban core the problem was severe, causing chronic flooding and pavement failures the situation was made more urgent by a new NCDOT project set to divert more stormwater into the already-failing system.

•

QBS-Enabled Outcome: This project was highlighted as a QBS case study. The city selected the firm WK Dickson. A low-bid process would have resulted in the cheapest possible replacement pipe. The QBS process, however, selected a partner that designed and administered a highly innovative, complex, and high-value solution. This included eleven separate Best Management Practices (BMPs) and the largest Regenerative Stormwater Conveyance (RSC) project in North Carolina.

•

Improved Outcome: The project successfully solved the flooding, but its true value was in the un-biddable extras. The green infrastructure solution is expected to remove up to 250 pounds of nitrogen per year—an environmental impact “akin to converting ten city blocks into coastal plain forests”. The city’s Director of Engineering praised the firm’s “creative solutions”. This is a textbook example of QBS selecting a partner that delivers transformative community and environmental value, not a contractor that simply delivers a commodity.

FIDIC QBS Paper 2026

Benefits in the Construction Phase The experience identified through the QBS process directly impacts constructability and schedule certainty during the execution phase: •

Meeting Construction Milestones: QBS projects demonstrated superior performance in meeting construction milestones. 48% (about half) of QBS projects met all construction milestones with no schedule adjustment required.

•

Enhanced Construction Process: This performance rate is significantly better than non-QBS projects, where only 32% had the same performance, marking a 50% increase in the number of projects that met all schedules using QBS.

Fewer Delays: The study found that QBS enhances the construction process. The selection of design firms with greater experience results in fewer project delays and a greater likelihood of owner satisfaction with the overall project, due to expertise in developing construction documents and defining clear project roles and responsibilities.

Stronger collaboration between clients and suppliers Architectural-Engineering Services (A/E Services) represent a small portion of lifetime ownership costs (~2% of an infrastructure asset’s total whole-life cost) but are perhaps the most significant influencers of infrastructure safety, cost savings, innovation, performance, and durability through the life of the project. Simply put, the investment in engineering services through the competitive selection of qualified design professionals saves hundreds of billions later in reduced change orders, repairs, lawsuits, accidents, and risks to human life.

A Numerical Example This link between a cost-driven procurement approach and poorer design and higher costs throughout the asset’s life is not theoretical. A Ph.D. study by Linda Newton for the Canadian Department of National Defence (DND) analysed between 55 and 215 DND buildings. The research “developed a methodology to retroactively establish the quality of the original design, then demonstrated a strong correlation between lower life cycle cost and design quality”.11 A powerful anecdote illustrates this principle: an architect working on a $700 million new hospital project was able to demonstrate that by spending an additional $500,000 in design fees (for a corridor realignment), the hospital would save $40 million in long-term operational staffing costs over the building’s life.12 QBS is specifically designed to capture this $40 million savings opportunity. •

In a Fee driven process, the innovative architect’s bid would be $500,000 higher. They would lose the project.

•

In a Best-Value process, their $500,000 price penalty would likely outweigh their “innovation” score in the formula. They would still lose.

•

In a QBS process, this architect would be selected as #1 based on their qualifications. During the scope and fee negotiation , they would present this trade-off to the owner. The owner, seeing the $40 million-for-$500,000 value proposition, would immediately approve it and negotiate it into the “fair and reasonable” fee.

This demonstrates that QBS is not just about selecting the right expertise; it is a commercial framework that enables quality-driven, high-value, and life-cycle-saving ideas to be proposed and adopted. 11 12

FIDIC QBS Support Material, accessed on November 13, 2025, https://fidic.org/sites/default/files/FIDIC%20QBS%20Support%20Material.pdf Qualifications-Based Selection of Building Enclosure Consultant Services | IIBEC, accessed on November 13, 2025, https://iibec.org/qbs/

FIDIC QBS Paper 2026

Current practices in QBS and related approaches QBS adoption continues to vary across different jurisdictions, reflecting differences in national legislation, procurement frameworks and institutional capacity. In some countries and industry contexts, the terms Qualifications-Based Selection and Quality-Based Selection are sometimes used interchangeably or to describe closely related approaches. In others, they have distinct formal meanings and refer to different selection procedures. The approaches themselves can also vary in practice. Depending on the jurisdiction, client and nature of the assignment, different emphasis may be placed on the qualifications and experience of the firm and key personnel, project understanding, technical approach or methodology, and other qualitative criteria. The nature and extent of the technical submission required during the selection process may also vary. These differences make it important to distinguish between terminology and the underlying principles of the selection process. For clarity and consistency, this report uses QBS to mean Qualifications-Based Selection as described in this report: the fundamental principle is that price is not used as a competitive criterion in determining the most qualified or appropriate consultant. Price is discussed at a second stag, after the preferred consultant has been identified. FIDIC advocates QBS as its preferred approach for the procurement of engineering and architectural consultancy services.

QBS in America QBS is very widely used in North America – namely in the United States and Canada. The modern QBS framework originated in and is mandated by the United States federal government. It is mandated because it is recognised as the preferred method of procurement to produce the most successful projects. The cornerstone of this policy is Public Law 92-582, the Brooks Architect-Engineers (A/E) Act, enacted in 1972.13 The Brooks Act is unambiguous: it requires the federal government to select architecture and engineering firms “based upon their competency, qualifications and experience rather than by price”. Specifically, (1) Professional qualifications necessary for satisfactory performance of required services; (2) Specialized experience and technical competence in the type of work required; (3) Capacity to accomplish the work in the required time; (4) Past performance on similar work; (5) Knowledge of the location of the work. As such, QBS remains the general law of the land for procuring design services in the United States for both the federal government and forty-seven state governments. The primary driver for QBS use continues to be federally funded projects, particularly transportation projects.

QBS in Canada Canada’s experience with QBS is characterised by a growing recognition of its benefits, particularly in addressing persistent project delivery inefficiencies, though its wider adoption still faces certain barriers across various jurisdictions. However, many municipalities recognise the value and benefits of QBS and procure their projects with QBS when allowed. The procurement of professional engineering services through QBS continues to gain momentum in Canada, and the federal government launched a pilot programme14 for implementing QBS in early 2018. For example, in the absence of federal leadership, QBS adoption in Canada has been driven from the “bottom-up” by provinces and municipalities:15 •

Established approaches: The Province of Québec’s procurement framework permits provincial public bodies to use a qualifications-only selection process followed by negotiation of the contract price for certain architecture and engineering services related to construction. It also permits combined qualifications-and-price evaluation for relevant assignments. The City of Calgary has a long-established policy and practice of using qualifications-based selection for professional consulting services, with price negotiated after selection of the preferred proponent; while not legislated, this is a well-established public procurement practice.

•

Variations & pilots: Other public owners are adopting it independently. BC’s Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure uses an “acceptable variation of QBS”. In Ontario, the regional transit agency Metrolinx launched QBS pilot projects for major transit infrastructure.

To overcome the subjectivity concerns associated with QBS, research has focused on developing an analytical decision-support system for consultant evaluation and ranking, using artificial intelligence and machine learning techniques. This system analyses criteria, sub-criteria, and weights from RFPs used by public organisations in Alberta to provide objective measurements for qualitative criteria. Qualifications-Based Selection of Engineering Services | National ..., accessed on November 13, 2025, https://www.nspe.org/resources/ issues-advocacy/action-issues/qualifications-based-selection-engineering-services 14 Updated Analysis of QBS in the Procurement of Consulting Services - the OAA, accessed on November 13, 2025, https://www.oaa.on.ca/ Assets/Common/Shared_Documents/Documents/QBS-Canada-Final-Report-April-13-2022.pdf 15 Yes2QBS - ACEC-Canada, accessed on November 13, 2025, https://acec.ca/advocacy/yes2qbs.html 13

FIDIC QBS Paper 2026

The evidence from Canadian studies strongly suggests that QBS improves design documents, thereby benefiting the client and the entire project delivery team throughout the project life cycle.

Other methods used in Europe and the UK In Europe and the UK, public clients generally use either an open procedure with a single stage process, or a restricted procedure with prequalification to only invite the prequalified firms to submit a bid. The award criterion is the Most Economically Advantageous Tender (MEAT), that is based on best overall value, not just lowest price, and quality often carries 60–90% of the weighting. MEAT therefore reflects many of the same principles as a Quality and Cost-based selection (QCBS) approach, and it differs from Qualifications-Based Selection (QBS) in the way price is evaluated during consultant selection. In the UK, MEAT is evolving to MAT “Most Advantageous Tender”, allowing even broader quality criteria, such as social value, sustainability and innovation. This is pushing consulting engineering firms to build on their value proposition well beyond the technical excellence. The complexity resides in the interpretation of MEAT across the continent. In several European countries, contracting authorities are interpreting MEAT as the lowest price, often due to the lack of time and resources for the tender procedure, and to avoid litigation. The European Commission is currently reviewing the European Public Procurement Directive with the intention of simplifying public procurement and reinforcing the weight of quality, sustainability and innovation in the award criteria. The European Parliament has approved in September 2025 a report on the Public Procurement Directive review clearly stating that intellectual services should be awarded based on MEAT and explaining that the non-price considerations should be given a substantial weight in the overall rating, and especially “for engineering services, which are essential to ensure high-quality, profitable projects in the long term, while protecting innovation and deterring the submission of abnormally low tenders”.16 The European Investment Bank is also updating its procurement policy, and MEAT becomes the standard award criteria for its tenders inside and outside the EU. The EU MEAT approach is conceptually compatible when it comes to evaluating the consultant with the objectives underlying Qualifications-Based Selection (QBS) as applied to consulting engineering services in the United States and Canada. Both approaches recognise the predominantly qualitative and professional nature of engineering services and permit the client’s assessment to focus substantially on competence, experience, technical merit and the quality of the proposed team and methodology. The principal distinction is when the consultant cost is introduced. QBS considers the cost after the consultant selection. EU MEAT incorporates the cost as part of the consultant selection. QBS excludes price from the competitive ranking and negotiates compensation with the highest-qualified consultant, MEAT requires the economically most advantageous tender to be determined through an award methodology incorporating a price or cost element.

DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION EXCELLENCE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES - GSA, accessed on November 13, 2025, https://www.gsa. gov/system/files/DE_Policies_and_Procedures_issued_17Nov2022.pdf

FIDIC QBS Paper 2026

QBS in World Bank procurement framework The World Bank’s procurement framework illustrates the importance of recognising differences in terminology and practice across international procurement systems. Under the World Bank Procurement Regulations for IPF Borrowers, QBS refers to Quality-Based Selection and it is similar to the Qualifications Based Selection described in this paper. Consultant’s Qualifications-Based Selection is separately defined as CQS. These are distinct selection methods within the World Bank framework. Under the World Bank’s Quality-Based Selection (QBS) method, the quality of proposals is evaluated without price being used as an evaluation criterion. The highest-ranked firm proceeds to the financial proposal stage, followed by negotiation. This approach is based on the same fundamental premise as Qualifications-Based Selection: price is not a factor in the initial selection of the firm. By contrast, under Consultant’s Qualifications Selection (CQS), there is no full competition based on technical proposals followed by financial evaluation and negotiation. Instead, the firm considered best qualified is selected and then invited to submit its proposal and/or enter into discussions, in accordance with the applicable procurement procedure.17 The 2025 World Bank Procurement Framework expressly recognises CQS as an approved selection method and distinguishes it from QCBS and QBS, which involve different approaches to the evaluation and selection process. The World Bank’s rationale for choosing between its consulting-selection methods is based on factors such as: •

complexity of the assignment;

•

consequences of poor-quality services;

•

difficulty of defining the assignment;

•

technical risk; and

•

the importance of quality.

The Quality-Based Selection (QBS) method of the World Bank is closely aligned in its underlying principles to the QBS approach being advocated for in this paper and applied in the United States and Canada for the procurement of professional consulting services. The three approaches share the same fundamental procurement philosophy: for assignments where the quality of professional services and the consequences of inadequate performance are critical, selection should be driven principally by the qualifications, competence and technical quality of the consultant rather than by price competition. In all three contexts, QBS is therefore distinguishable from price-quality scoring models such as QCBS or MEAT/BPQR, since price is not intended to determine the competitive ranking of consultants at the initial selection stage. Nevertheless, it should be noted that World Bank QBS operates within the World Bank’s own procurement framework and is subject to its specific rules concerning shortlisting, evaluation, negotiation and contract award. Accordingly, World Bank QBS can appropriately be described as substantively and conceptually aligned with North American QBS, and functionally comparable to it, while remaining institutionally and procedurally distinct.

Procurement Regulations for IPF Borrowers, Seventh Edition, September 2025 - World Bank, accessed on September 1, 2026, Procurement Regulations for IPF Borrowers

FIDIC QBS Paper 2026

The World Bank’s use of Quality-Based Selection for appropriate consulting assignments is also consistent with the greater emphasis on quality reflected in its use of Rated Criteria in the evaluation of works tenders. Greater emphasis on quality in the selection of consulting engineering services can contribute to better designs and tender documents, enabling more accurate, innovative and tailored contractor proposals and making technical scoring more meaningful and achievable. It can also support higher sustainability outcomes, improved risk management and innovation, stronger competition, efficiency gains and the creation of highly qualified jobs. FIDIC recognises that procurement approaches vary across jurisdictions and operate within different legal and institutional frameworks. Where Qualifications-Based Selection is not currently provided for, FIDIC encourages clients and procurement authorities to move progressively towards QBS by placing greater emphasis on qualifications, technical competence and quality in the selection of professional services.

How to effectively implement QBS Agreement In the QBS process, the Agreement is finalised once the most appropriate consultant has been selected based on qualifications. A key strength of this approach is the alignment it creates between scope, quality, resources and fee. The client and consultant can develop and agree on a well-defined scope and ensure that the expected services and outcomes are clearly understood from the outset. The methodology, team and resources required to deliver that scope can then be agreed, with a fair and reasonable fee negotiated on that basis. This enables the client to understand what it is paying for and helps ensure that the agreed fee reflects the level and quality of professional services required. A clearly defined and mutually understood scope also provides a stronger basis for successful project delivery. Effective Qualifications-Based Selection (QBS) projects are recommended to use standard Agreements for engaging Engineering Consultancy Services. Specifically, the preferred form of agreement recommended for Consultancy Services Agreements is the FIDIC Client/Consultant Model Services Agreement – The ‘White Book’. Informed Purchaser Effective QBS projects rely heavily on the client acting as an Informed Purchaser (or Informed Client), which involves a strong commitment to understanding both the technical and procedural aspects of the project and consultant selection. In practice, effective QBS projects utilise certain concrete strategies depending on the project type: 1.

Independent Consultant/Trusted Advisor: For projects that are large, technically complex, or have long timelines, if the Client lacks sufficient in-house expertise, they often engage an independent Consultant to act as a Client representative and trusted advisor for the Consultant engagement phase. This independent Consultant must be knowledgeable and act in a neutral manner. They can also provide guidance in relation to incremental Fee agreements.

Internal Cost Estimates: Some Clients (including government and private sector) develop estimates for Costs expected for the professional Fees on a project. They then use these estimates when negotiating the Price/Fee with the top-ranked Consultant.

FIDIC QBS Paper 2026

Direct Negotiation (Private Sector): Well-informed private sector clients commonly directly approach Consultants known to have appropriate expertise and experience. They then negotiate a Fee on a mutually developed and agreed Scope, treating the Consultant as a Trusted Advisor. This approach embodies the core principles of QBS.

Qualifications Review: During the formal selection phase, the client uses a review of Qualifications statements to select a shortlist of firms, focusing the competition on criteria that deliver the best project outcome.

By adopting these rigorous practices, informed purchasers aim to ensure that the initial investment in design and pre-project planning is adequate, which positively correlates with the completeness and suitability of design documents, ultimately leading to improved project delivery efficiency and best overall project value. Transparency Effective QBS projects rely on a high degree of transparency to ensure fairness, encourage competition, and minimize the risk of corruption. FIDIC advocates for maintaining the maximum degree of transparency during Consultant selection in the interest of all parties. A good Integrity Management System (IMS) for Qualifications-Based Selection (QBS) projects is embodied by the FIDIC Integrity Management System (FIMS). The FIDIC Integrity Management System (FIMS) is designed to be standards-based and can be easily integrated into a consulting firm’s existing quality management system, such as one based on ISO 9001:2015. FIDIC has also published guidelines outlining the policies and principles for such a system in the consulting industry. Integrity Management System A good Integrity Management System serves as the foundational ethical compass for a QBS project, ensuring that the selection of the most technically capable team (the “Qualifications”) is not undermined by questionable practices.

FIDIC QBS Paper 2026

Fair Competition Competition can be an important driver of innovation and efficiency, it is therefore important that where competition is deemed appropriate and in the public interest, it allows firms to compete with each other in the provision of services on a transparent, “level playing ﬁeld” basis. Furthermore, whenever publicly funded bodies such as government enterprises, NGOs, universities or similar, and other Not-For-Proﬁt Organizations compete with independent firms, selection should be made by QBS, and the evaluation scores for publicly funded bodies should consider the following potential limitations: •

Adequate Professional Liability Insurance

•

Supporting resources and range of technical expertise

•

Private business, Contract Management and construction works experience

•

The extent of supporting network of Engineering Consultants

•

Competing demands on staff time from whoever is supporting their funding

A detailed Request for Proposals (RFP) with well-defined Terms of Reference (TOR) considerably contributes to fair competition. Sometimes pre-proposal conferences are considered desirable for clarification about the information provided in these documents. Life-Cycle Cost When procuring infrastructure, Life Cycle Costing (LCC) shifts the perspective from the “capital focused price” to the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO), accounting for everything from design and construction to decades of maintenance, energy consumption, and eventual decommissioning. In major projects like bridges or power plants, the initial capital expenditure often represents only 20% to 30% of the total cost over the asset’s lifespan. By prioritising LCCA, procurement teams ensure they aren’t inadvertently committing future generations to unaffordable or unsustainable costs. A robust understanding of life cycle costs facilitates better risk management and financial planning. By treating infrastructure as a long-term service rather than a one-time purchase and using tools such as QBS it can be ensured that public and private funds are invested in projects that remain functional, sustainable, safe, and economically viable for their entire intended service life. Monitoring Where there is a series of successive projects over time, there is the opportunity to monitor and analyse the outcomes and assess the performance of Consultants against the methods adopted for selection. Where possible and appropriate, such information may be provided transparently to improve project outcomes and/or to optimise operations etc. in the future. This will also become increasingly important with the advancement of technologies and the use of tools such as AI on large datasets. The overriding concern should be to maintain an appropriate quality of the professional Services provided, with due attention to suitability, economy and value, sustainability, efficiency, integrity, management of risks, public welfare, fair opportunity for all Consultancy Firms, and transparency of the process.

FIDIC QBS Paper 2026

Identifying and Evaluating the Most Appropriate Consultant Evaluation teams should focus on the “most appropriate” fit, considering the complexity, scope, and location of the project. This requires an assessment of the key personnel who will be performing the services, rather than the firm’s general staff list. Key staff should be evaluated based on their education, sector-specific experience, and knowledge of the local region, including language and cultural nuances. The Role of Nationality and Capacity Building In international procurement, particularly within developing nations, the nationality of the consultant is often a factor in selection due to capacity-building objectives. Failure to distinguish between “National Consultants,” “Foreign Consultants,” and “Locally Based Foreign Consultants”, however, can undermine these goals. Locally based foreign firms are often subsidiaries of international corporations; while they contribute to the local economy, they possess different resource profiles than domestic firms. Governance and Competence of Evaluation Teams The successful application of QBS is entirely dependent on the technical and professional maturity of the evaluation team. The assignment of under-qualified or inexperienced evaluators introduces two primary risks. First, evaluators may be overwhelmed by technical jargon, leading them to award roughly equal scores to all participants, which nullifies the selection process. Second, truly innovative or alternative technical solutions may be misunderstood or overlooked, resulting in the undervaluation of the most creative proposals. Effective evaluation teams should: •

Be composed of experienced professionals with appropriate technical expertise.

•

Utilise outside expert support when internal knowledge is insufficient, provided that conflict-of-interest protocols are strictly followed.

•

Operate with a clear, pre-defined scoring and weighting system that is not modified once submissions are received.

•

Consist of an odd number of members to facilitate decisive outcomes.

Optimising the Administrative Lifecycle of the Tender The administrative requirements of the tendering process can significantly impact the quality of the proposals received. Clients frequently request excessive documentation, such as original notarised certificates, at the initial submission stage. This practice is both time-consuming and expensive for consultants and does not contribute to the qualitative evaluation. Best practice recommends that such original documentation be requested only from the top-ranked consultant prior to final negotiations. Furthermore, the timeframe allowed for preparing proposals must be realistic. Overly aggressive deadlines prevent consultants from conducting the deep analysis required for an innovative and well-structured proposal.

FIDIC QBS Paper 2026

Case Study: Lakefront Gateway (I-794 Ramps, WI) •

Project Context: A QBS case study described as a “unique collaboration” between three separate government clients: the City of Milwaukee, Milwaukee County, and the State of Wisconsin. The project’s goal was to address deteriorating I-794 freeway ramps while simultaneously improving public spaces and connecting the downtown to the lakefront.

•

QBS-Enabled Outcome: The project’s primary challenge was multi-agency complexity. The selected A/E firm had to balance the competing, and at times contradictory, goals of a state DOT (focused on freeway safety and operations ) and a city/county (focused on “community connectivity,” pedestrian/bike access, and unlocking development).

•

Improved Outcome: A low-bid process is impossible in such a scenario, as it cannot adjudicate between competing subjective goals. The QBS process allowed the selection of a firm capable of navigating this multi-client relationship. The successful project relocated ramps, improved multi-modal safety, and opened up three acres of lakefront property for new, high-value development.

Protecting Intellectual Property and Encouraging Innovation A fundamental advantage of QBS is its ability to foster innovation, which can lead to superior design solutions and significant cost savings over the life of the project. This innovation is, however, only possible if consultants feel confident that their intellectual property is protected. Clients should include a formal undertaking of confidentiality, promising not to disclose the innovative concepts of unsuccessful participants to third parties. Innovative project methodologies brought forward during the proposal stage should be explicitly rewarded with bonus points in the evaluation scoring. The actual adoption of these innovations should be discussed during the negotiation phase with the successful consultant, where the client retains the right to accept or reject each proposal based on its alignment with the final project goals.

FIDIC QBS Paper 2026

Case Study: Tendering for renovation of Krammersluizen •

Project Context: After approximately 35 years of service, the Krammer Locks in the Philipsdam are due for a major overhaul. We have launched the tender process for the lock renovation.

•

QBS-Enabled Outcome: Prior to the tender, we consulted the market in several meetings (market consultations). This led to adjustments in the project approach. It also provided more time to complete all work in the lock chambers, ensuring they are ready for use again.

•

Improved Outcome: Bubble screen and fish migration - One of the components of the renovation of the lock complex is the creation of a newfresh-salt water separation system. Both push barge locks for commercial shipping will be equipped with a new type of bubble screen. This separates freshwater from saltwater through a combination of air and current, resulting in efficient freshwater-saltwater separation, shorter lockage times, and significant energy savings. To ensure continued fish migration, even after the bubble screen for the freshwater-saltwater separation is installed, tubes will be installed in the lock, allowing the fish to swim through. After the renovation, the complex’s safety will once again comply with the latest guidelines, and the locks will be remotely operated.

•

Maintenance assignment Zeeland - We are working on replacing and renovating the existing infrastructure. Many bridges, tunnels, locks, and viaducts were built in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. They have been subjected to intensive use over the years by increasing volumes and heavier traffic. After the complete renovation, the Krammer Locks complex will be future proof again, and we will ensure that the busy shipping route between Zeeland and the major rivers remains accessible.

Market Filtering: The Role of Long-Listing and Short-Listing The methods used for long-listing and short-listing have a profound effect on the ultimate success of a QBS engagement. Long-listing should aim to encourage widespread participation by limiting submission requirements at the initial stage to the specific needs of the project. Short-listing should be limited to the three to five highest-rated consultants. If more than five firms are short-listed, the participants are likely to invest less effort in their proposals due to the diminished statistical probability of winning. Furthermore, a large short-list creates an excessive burden on the evaluators, increasing the risk of inconsistent scoring. Transparency is maintained by publicly announcing the short-list. This not only demonstrates a fair process but also allows short-listed firms to establish associations with those that were not short-listed, potentially strengthening their position through local partnerships or specialist sub-consultancy.

FIDIC QBS Paper 2026

Integrating QBS into the lifecycle of infrastructure In the modern context, where infrastructure must meet increasingly complex environmental and social standards, the role of the consultant has evolved from a simple service provider to a strategic partner. This relationship is best fostered through a selection process that values expertise, innovation, and integrity. The continued use and refinement of QBS by international organisations, governments, and private developers will remain essential for addressing global challenges. By following the recommended procedures for evaluation, short-listing, and negotiation, procurement professionals can ensure that the “brain” of every construction project - the consultancy services - is as strong and capable as possible, thereby maximising the value, resilience and long-term performance of the infrastructure investment. FIDIC encourages the sector to move steadily towards QBS by placing full emphasis on qualifications, technical competence and quality in the selection of professional services and stands ready to support clients and procurement authorities in this essential journey. Some key considerations to take into account while procurement rules and processes are being reviewed: •

Sustainability and innovation do not start at the worksite. They need to be embedded in the earliest phases, and the scope of the studies and designs need to reflect these objectives. More resources need to be dedicated to project preparation, with a life-cycle approach, to achieve the sustainability, innovation and job-creation objectives projects are designed for.

•

The use of Rated Criteria requires a culture change and increased capacities in contracting authorities worldwide. Additional Technical Assistance support is needed during the procurement phase to evaluate the bids and to ensure that what is offered by the awarded contractor is delivered during the implementation.

•

Consulting Engineers’ participation in Early Market Engagement events is essential. They provide valuable assistance in the definition of procurement strategies to select the optimal procurement criteria and delivery methods for each project to achieve the overall objectives.

The strategic decision to employ QBS is ultimately an investment in the long-term viability of the project. By selecting the most appropriate team rather than the least expensive one, clients mitigate the risks of design failure, construction disputes, construction costs overruns and excessive operational costs. Integrating QBS into the lifecycle of infrastructure delivers value to people, societies and economies.

FIDIC QBS Paper 2026

Appendix - Growing evidence base for QBS as a strategic tool - Selected Organisations Supporting QBS Organisation

Type/Sector

Stance on QBS

Key Document/ Reference

U.S. Federal Government Agencies (Mandating Use) 1. U.S. General Services Administration (GSA)

Government (Federal, U.S.)

Mandates Use

GSA Design Excellence Program18; Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 36.619

2. U.S. Federal Highway Admin. (FHWA)

Government (Federal, U.S.)

Mandates Use (for Federal Aid)

23 U.S.C. §112(b) (2) and 23 C.F.R. §172, requiring state/ local use of QBS for federal-aid projects20

3. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

Government (Federal, U.S.)

Mandates Use

Engineer Pamphlet (EP) 715-1-7 (A-E Contracting Guide), which implements FAR 36.621

U.S. Professional Associations (Advocating & Guiding) 4. American Council Professional of Engineering Association Companies (ACEC) (Engineering)

Advocates & Publishes Research

"An Analysis of QBS in the Procurement of Engineering Services" (2022 Report); QBS Resource Portal22

5. National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE)

Advocates Strongly (Champions "Brooks Act")

Position Statement 08-131; QBS Advocacy Page detailing ongoing legislative battles23

Advocates & Publishes Policy

Policy Statement 304: “Qualifications-Based Selection of Professional Engineers” 24

Professional Association (Engineering)

6. American Society Professional of Civil Engineers Association (ASCE) (Engineering

DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION EXCELLENCE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES - GSA, accessed on November 13, 2025, https://www.gsa. gov/system/files/DE_Policies_and_Procedures_issued_17Nov2022.pdf 19 Subpart 36.6 - Architect-Engineer Services - Acquisition.GOV, accessed on November 13, 2025, https://www.acquisition.gov/far/subpart-36.6 20 Brooks Act - State Aid - MnDOT, accessed on November 13, 2025, https://www.dot.state.mn.us/stateaid/brooks-act.html 21 ARCHITECT-ENGINEER CONTRACTING IN USACE, accessed on November 13, 2025, https://www.publications.usace.army.mil/portals/76/ publications/engineerpamphlets/ep_715-1-7.pdf 22 An Analysis of QBS in the Procurement of Engineering Services - ACEC, accessed on November 13, 2025, https://www.acec.org/resource/ an-analysis-of-qbs-in-the-procurement-of-engineering-services/ 23 Qualifications-Based Selection of Engineering Services | National ..., accessed on November 13, 2025, https://www.nspe.org/resources/ issues-advocacy/action-issues/qualifications-based-selection-engineering-services 24 Policy statement 304 - Qualifications-based selection of professional ..., accessed on November 13, 2025, https://www.asce.org/advocacy/ policy-statements/ps304---qualifications-based-selection-of-professional-engineers 18

FIDIC QBS Paper 2026

Organisation

Type/Sector

Stance on QBS

Key Document/ Reference

U.S. Federal Government Agencies (Mandating Use) 7. American Public Works Association (APWA)

Prof. Assoc. (Public Works)

Advocates & Publishes Guidance

"Selection and Use of Engineers" (Red Book) on QBS; joint commissioner of 2009 QBS study25

Canadian Organisations (Advocating & Adopting) 8. Engineers Canada

Professional Association (Canada)

Advocates (National Standard)

Official Policy Position Statement on Qualifications-Based Selection, urging federal adoption26

9. ACEC-Canada

Professional Association (Canada)

Advocates ("Yes2QBS" Campaign)

"Yes2QBS" Advocacy Page; promotes studies from U. of Alberta and ACEC-US27

10. Royal Architectural Institute of Canada (RAIC)

Professional Association (Canada)

Advocates

Partner in federal advocacy with ACEC-Canada; promotes QBS as a best practice28

11. Consulting Prof. Assoc. Engineers of Alberta (Provincial) (CEA)

Publishes Research Commissioned the 2021 "Impact of Qualifications-Based Selection... on Project Outcomes" study29

International Organisations (Advocating & Guiding) 12. International Federation of Consulting Engineers (FIDIC)

International Federation (Engineering)

Advocates & Publishes Guidance

"Quality Based Selection (QBS) Guidelines"; QBS Marketing Document; FIDIC Code of Ethics (requires members to "Promote... QBS")30

13. European Federation of Consulting Engineers (EFCA)

International Federation (Engineering)

Advocates

Advocates for QBS principles to be incorporated into EU procurement law to foster innovation31

Qualifications- Based Selection, accessed on November 13, 2025, http://www.qbs-ky.org/uploads/4/6/1/9/46197111/ananalysisofissuespertainingtoqbs-uofcolorado-gainstituteoftech.pdf 26 THE ENGINEERING PROFESSION’S POSITION QUALIFICATIONS-BASED SELECTION, accessed on November 13, 2025, https://engineerscanada.ca/sites/default/files/public-policy/positions_qualifications_based_selection.pdf 27 ARCHITECT-ENGINEER CONTRACTING IN USACE, accessed on November 13, 2025, https://www.publications.usace.army.mil/portals/76/ publications/engineerpamphlets/ep_715-1-7.pdf 28 Qualifications-based Selection (QBS) - RAIC, accessed on September 1, 2026, Qualifications-based Selection (QBS) - RAIC | IRAC 29 Yes2QBS - ACEC-Canada, accessed on November 13, 2025, https://acec.ca/advocacy/yes2qbs.html 30 Selection of Consultant 3rd Ed (2019) - FIDIC, accessed on September 1, 2026, FIDIC | Selection of Consultant 3rd Ed (2019) | International Federation of Consulting Engineers 31 Evaluation of EU public procurement legislation and policies EFCA ..., accessed on November 13, 2025, https://www.gzs.si/pripone/Modernisation%20EU%20public%20procurement%20market%20(2011-03-31).pdf 25

FIDIC QBS Paper 2026