A STATE AND LOCAL VIEW, PRESENTED BY THE PURCHASING AGENT FOR BALTIMORE, ARGUES AGAINST THE FEDERAL PROCUREMENT PROCEDURE FOR ARCHITECT/ENGINEER SERVICES. THE FEDERAL PROCEDURE, SPECIFIED IN PUBLIC LAW 92-582 (THE BROOKS BILL), PROHIBITS CONSIDERATION OF COST AS A FACTOR IN THE SELECTION OF ARCHITECT/ENGINEER SERVICES FOR FEDERAL PROJECTS. THE SELECTION MUST BE BASED SOLELY ON THE BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS OF THOSE COMPETING FOR A PARTICULAR JOB. SUCH A PROCEDURE IS VIEWED AS LIMITING COMPETITIVE BIDDING WHICH AIMS AT ACHIEVING THE QUALITY OF WORK DESIRED FOR THE LOWEST COST TO THE TAXPAYER. A SECOND VIEW, REPRESENTING THAT OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, ARGUES FOR CONTINUATION OF THE GOVERNMENT POLICY IN THE INTEREST OF SECURING QUALITY WORK REGARDLESS OF COST. THE INTRODUCTION OF THE COST FACTOR IN THE BIDDING IS BELIEVED TO UNDERMINE CONSIDERATION OF QUALITY. FURTHER, PROJECTS INVOLVING ARCHITECT/ENGINEER SERVICES DO NOT PRESENT REQUIREMENTS IN SUFFICIENT DETAIL SUCH THAT SUBMITTED COSTS WOULD BE ON THE SAME ITEMS. A THIRD VIEW, PRESENTED BY A FORMER GENERAL COUNSEL FOR PROCUREMENT MATTERS WITH THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE, ARGUES FOR THE PRESENTATION OF REASONABLY DETAILED APPROACHES TO THE PERFORMANCE OF A PARTICULAR JOB BY EACH COMPETITOR, WITH ESTIMATES OF COST ACCOMPANYING EACH SUBMISSION. SELECTION WOULD THEN BE BASED ON PREFERENCE FOR A PARTICULAR APPROACH, WITH COST AS A FACTOR IN THE DECISION. (RCB)