Magic Wand

[BrettK]

Something triggered me to reread Vern's article on essay-writing this morning. It has me pondering: what, if any, technology solutions exist or could be created to take some of the lift off of contracting professionals so education can be focused more on the critical thinking and creative skills necessary to avoid copy/paste, bloated RFPs, and resultant essay writing contests? (and run on sentences like that one)

I'm not just thinking groundedly here. Wave the magic wand. If you could have a piece of technology to remove the routine parts of a contracting professional's job, what would it do? Instantly read an entire response and red flag FAR compliance issues? Secretly calculate profit margins? 

[Vern Edwards]

1 hour ago, BrettK said:

If you could have a piece of technology to remove the routine parts of a contracting professional's job, what would it do?

Why do you want technology?

Just bring back a workforce position that used to do administrative work: procurement clerk and procurement technician, GS-1106, and hire and train high school grads to do that work.

The position description needs updating and the duties should be expanded, but here is how the PD currently describes them as they were in 1992:

https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/classification-qualifications/classifying-general-schedule-positions/standards/1100/gs1106.pdf

The work includes

- preparing, verifying, abstracting, controlling, or closing out procurement documents, files, reports, or records;

- updating and maintaining the currency of procurement documents or related information;

- sorting, compiling, typing, and distributing requisitions, contracts, orders, modifications, etc.;

- tracking the status of requisitions, contracts, and orders using automated or manual files and through contacts with vendors, supply technicians, inventory managers, engineers, etc.;

- attending bid openings and abstracting bid information;

- maintaining bidder mailing lists by adding or deleting vendor information in the system;

- assembling contract file information and entering purchase order or contract data into a management information system;

- reviewing reports and researching errors or conflicting information in procurement documentation;

- assembling and preparing procurement management reports by gathering and consolidating pertinent information;

- monitoring contractor performance and recommending modifications to the contract;

- investigating customer or vendor complaints of errors in shipment, payment, and/or contract documentation;

- developing manual and/or assisting in the development of automated procurement procedures; and

- reviewing purchase order or contract files for inclusion of specific documents or clauses as defined in procedures.

[BrettK]

Vern,

So you're in favor of expanding a lower skilled, administrative workforce to accomplish mundane tasks. Interesting. Are you imagining they would become a feeder for higher level contracting position down the road? Isn't there already something of a workforce shortage in the field? Do you feel that is a result of poor education options or not enough opportunities for feeder track positions like the above?

[Matthew Fleharty]

2 hours ago, BrettK said:

I'm not just thinking groundedly here. Wave the magic wand. If you could have a piece of technology to remove the routine parts of a contracting professional's job, what would it do? Instantly read an entire response and red flag FAR compliance issues? Secretly calculate profit margins? 

To me, the examples you provide are not routine, but require professional judgment appropriate to the specific acquisition situation. For example, whether something is or is not a FAR compliance issue is often not binary or clear - it requires reading and thinking through the issue(s). For an example of how difficult what you propose to accomplish with computers/algorithms/magic wands, see the woefully inadequate and inaccurate DoD Clause Logic System.

[Don Mansfield]

2 hours ago, BrettK said:

Something triggered me to reread Vern's article on essay-writing this morning. It has me pondering: what, if any, technology solutions exist or could be created to take some of the lift off of contracting professionals so education can be focused more on the critical thinking and creative skills necessary to avoid copy/paste, bloated RFPs, and resultant essay writing contests? (and run on sentences like that one)

I'm not just thinking groundedly here. Wave the magic wand. If you could have a piece of technology to remove the routine parts of a contracting professional's job, what would it do? Instantly read an entire response and red flag FAR compliance issues? Secretly calculate profit margins? 

Technology exists in China that can evaluate the credit worthiness of a business in minutes. It considers thousands of variables using artificial intelligence. The default rate is about 1%. So, something like that for evaluating prospective Government contractors.

https://www.livemint.com/news/world/jack-ma-s-290-billion-loan-machine-is-changing-chinese-banking-1564315968589.html 

[Matthew Fleharty]

1 hour ago, Don Mansfield said:

Technology exists in China that can evaluate the credit worthiness of a business in minutes. It considers thousands of variables using artificial intelligence. The default rate is about 1%. So, something like that for evaluating prospective Government contractors.

https://www.livemint.com/news/world/jack-ma-s-290-billion-loan-machine-is-changing-chinese-banking-1564315968589.html 

Such a system depends on getting the requisite data to feed into the AI for the recommendation/decision.

Do you think government contractors - particularly the traditional defense contractors (e.g. Boeing, Lockheed, Raytheon, NG, etc.) - would be willing to provide the requisite data for such a system to work (accurately)?

Or do you think the government already has the requisite data and we're just not using it because we don't have the right AI technology to feed it through? 

[WifWaf]

On 8/31/2022 at 12:19 PM, Matthew Fleharty said:

willing to provide

“Who said anything about that being necessary?”

- Chiefs in Charge over there, Probably

Edited September 2, 2022 by WifWaf
Added a secret message coded in emphases like it’s 1984, because Big Data is watching

[Don Mansfield]

46 minutes ago, Matthew Fleharty said:

Or do you think the government already has the requisite data and we're just not using it because we don't have the right AI technology to feed it through? 

I'm leaning toward this. I'd like to see what could be done with available data before imposing requirements for more.

[Vern Edwards]

2 hours ago, BrettK said:

So you're in favor of expanding a lower skilled, administrative workforce to accomplish mundane tasks. Interesting. Are you imagining they would become a feeder for higher level contracting position down the road? Isn't there already something of a workforce shortage in the field? Do you feel that is a result of poor education options or not enough opportunities for feeder track positions like the above?

Yes. I don't know of any "piece of technology" that could do routine contracting administrative tasks. Just hire high school grads.

No, I'm not thinking of them as "feeders" into the 1102 series, although some might become so.

I'm not sure whether there would be a shortage of such folks, but it sure would help solve the student loan crisis if we stopped requiring college degrees for simple work such as issuing purchase orders and delivery orders for small and routine buys.

I'm leaving on a long road trip in about an hour and won't be back for a week or so. Have fun with the thread.

Vern

[BrettK]

So the Chinese creditworthiness idea could be in exchange for going through financial reports or submitted financial statements in order to get a more neutral, standardized check on financial stability. Is that a task 1102's do now or is that delegated to representatives unless and until there are concerns?

[Don Mansfield]

43 minutes ago, BrettK said:

So the Chinese creditworthiness idea could be in exchange for going through financial reports or submitted financial statements in order to get a more neutral, standardized check on financial stability. Is that a task 1102's do now or is that delegated to representatives unless and until there are concerns?

More than that. It would provide us something like "contract award worthiness". It would give a "probability of successful performance" or something like that. More than just financial stability.

[formerfed]

Lots of things happening like this 

https://federalnewsnetwork.com/commentary/2022/02/rpa-helps-irs-make-fundamental-shift-in-procurement-finance-operations/

Two agencies that I’m aware of are looking at automation to quickly assess financial capabilities.  Software flags potential problems for more detailed examination

GSA has tools to help with price analysis

https://www.gsa.gov/technology/technology-purchasing-programs/dashboards-and-prices-paid-tools
 

 

[formerfed]

7 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

The position description needs updating and the duties should be expanded, but here is how the PD currently describes them as they were in 1992:

https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/classification-qualifications/classifying-general-schedule-positions/standards/1100/gs1106.pdf

I loved this.  I used this in my government job to get lots of people promoted.  We showed the HR classification people the standards and what people actually did.  Quick promotions 

[joel hoffman]

41 minutes ago, formerfed said:

I loved this.  I used this in my government job to get lots of people promoted.  We showed the HR classification people the standards and what people actually did.  Quick promotions 

Yep, me too. 

[C Culham]

@BrettK My wand.   Go back to the days when 1106's were around and COs would lace up their boots, visit contractors, visit job sites, visit manufacturing plants, visit where services were being perform on or off government facilities.

A simplistic view with critique intended....you go ahead and build your house, have you property maintained, or your vehicle serviced via technology and never see the light of day.    Me I will be hands on!

[formerfed]

Since posting something earlier, I was notified about these:

https://www.gsa.gov/blog/2022/08/10/technology-in-action-how-robotic-process-automation-is-working-to-transform-federal-buying

https://www.theregreview.org/2022/06/30/chenok-how-can-governments-use-ai-to-improve-procurement/

 

[BrettK]

@C CulhamI agree! We should also have our gas pumped and car windows washed by a kid at the filling station on the way to get a fountain soda for a nickel. I just not sure we are living in a management by wandering around kind of world any longer nor is it efficient. But it certainly makes for better quality outputs.

 

@formerfedthose are great examples! They support the idea of removing mundane tasks rather than bringing in more arms and legs with lower skills and pay grades.

[Self Employed]

On 8/31/2022 at 10:31 AM, Vern Edwards said:

Why do you want technology?

Just bring back a workforce position that used to do administrative work: procurement clerk and procurement technician, GS-1106, and hire and train high school grads to do that work.

The position description needs updating and the duties should be expanded, but here is how the PD currently describes them as they were in 1992:

https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/classification-qualifications/classifying-general-schedule-positions/standards/1100/gs1106.pdf

The work includes

- preparing, verifying, abstracting, controlling, or closing out procurement documents, files, reports, or records;

- updating and maintaining the currency of procurement documents or related information;

- sorting, compiling, typing, and distributing requisitions, contracts, orders, modifications, etc.;

- tracking the status of requisitions, contracts, and orders using automated or manual files and through contacts with vendors, supply technicians, inventory managers, engineers, etc.;

- attending bid openings and abstracting bid information;

- maintaining bidder mailing lists by adding or deleting vendor information in the system;

- assembling contract file information and entering purchase order or contract data into a management information system;

- reviewing reports and researching errors or conflicting information in procurement documentation;

- assembling and preparing procurement management reports by gathering and consolidating pertinent information;

- monitoring contractor performance and recommending modifications to the contract;

- investigating customer or vendor complaints of errors in shipment, payment, and/or contract documentation;

- developing manual and/or assisting in the development of automated procurement procedures; and

- reviewing purchase order or contract files for inclusion of specific documents or clauses as defined in procedures.

 

Because technology is king.

I posit that a procurement tech is the military equivalent of a horse in modern warfare.

 

Electronic files and systems are replacing the need for procurement techs.

I can create a contract from start to finish in CON-IT in minutes.

I can issue orders from an existing IDIQ even more quickly. 

I don't need to wait for a buyer to press a few buttons that I could just as easily press.

I don't need to wait for a procurement tech to come back from sick leave to distribute a contract and/or mod.

 

My office currently is struggling with how to utilize procurement techs. We currently have an antiquated contract writing system called Con-Write (some probably already have narrowed down my location by that alone.) that utilizes a procurement tech to finalize an award and finalize FPDS. I recently asked why the procurement techs were needed to be CC'd on awards with the new system, CON-IT. The answer was to put them on a shared drive. We now send an e-mail to the procurement tech to distribute the award where that same e-mail could have simply been to the contractor with the award. We also store contracts on an internet-based contract file repository (KTFileshare), EDA, CON-IT, and I'm told that the procurement techs need to ALSO be able to place them in a shared drive. I understand some amount of redundancy but this is waste.

When we introduced the new contract writing system, having worked on it prior to change offices my gaining office asked what role the procurement techs played. I calmly explained that there might be some capacity for them to handle uploading of purchase requests, but there is no require for them to process FPDS or distribute awards. It was as if I had just explained fire to the first caveman.

 

Con-IT and Sam.gov makes posting/synopsizing/soliciting a breeze, and I view the need to interact with another tangentially related, often not-invested FTE to accomplish what I could in a few strokes to be a waste of resources.

 

The above list also implies a potential duty of the 1106 as a COR, when typically our COR's are PM-function/trained individuals. Along the same lines of researching contract issues, I find as the CO I am far more knowledgeable and will spend probably a fifth of the time researching something compared to someone with no background of the contract/underlying issue. Even services performed by Ability One for closeout are often cheaper/easier than a FTE procurement tech.

 

I think artificial intelligence will play the biggest role in the contracting workforce over the next twenty years. Even playing with ChatGPT mildly, you can already begin to see its application for contracting in a basic level as a general-information/FAR supplement gleaner. I dare say by the time I retire the field could conceivably be if not replaced have its hands-on role limited extensively.

 

Give me a contract writing system that also posts to Sam.gov (CON-IT is working on this capability.) Give me the option to straight-away post a synopsis from that system. Give me the ability to store files IN the electronic contract writing system that treats it as the contract file of record, rather than relying on shared drives or separate fileshare systems. Give me the ability to task individuals outside of PK with reviews WITHIN the contract writing system storing documents (such as a legal review.) Allow management weenies to track PALT within CON-IT (contract writing system,) meaningfully so they don't need to bug me on an excel spreadsheet about data that is readily available to them.

 

Stop giving me thirty different platforms to do the same thing (MSTeams, KTFileshare, CON-IT, Sam.gov, FPDS.) Create a mult-module instead of having PIEE which consists of an infinite number of sup-applications. Combine them all. Stop duplicating effort and creating more one-off platforms.

[Vern Edwards]

@Self Employed Thanks for posting. You have said a lot. Let me respond to just one thing that you said:

6 hours ago, Self Employed said:

I can create a contract from start to finish in CON-IT in minutes.

My response to that statement is: No, you can't.

I assume that you are an 1102. That being the case, all that you can "create" in minutes is a file that contains a document that you have not read to any meaningful extent and that you do not fully understand𑁋a document that is, perhaps, 80 to 150 pages long, if not longer, but that may incorporate hundreds of pages of complex text by reference, depending on what you are buying and its dollar value. And I don't see any reason to pay an 1102 to do that work.

Creating a contract document is the work of a clerk, even when using a contract writing system. Creating a contract is the work of an 1102.

In order to create a contract, the document must be subjected to close and professionally-informed reading, reading that would require at least passing familiarity with hundreds of rules and the results of hundreds of judicial and administrative decisions.The contract based on the document must reflect a meeting of the minds between informed parties, and bringing about that meeting of the minds is done through a process of contract formation that is governed by the law of contracts, Federal statutes, and knowledge of a complex 2,050-page regulation, its supplements, and agency internal operating procedures. It requires knowledge of complex concepts, rules, legal principles, and business practices.

The work of an 1102 takes more than minutes.

Your comment that you can "create a contract" in minutes speaks volumes. The fact that you apparently think that "technology is king," and that the processes of contract formation and contract administration are anywhere close to being effectively manageable through artificial intelligence in its current state, is yet another indication of the lack of job knowledge and the declining professionalism of the contracting workforce and of its steady descent to the status of being mere clerks𑁋persons who just assemble documents.

As for the fact that your organization is struggling to use procurement techs𑁋it is simply another sign of the general incompetence of agencies and their managers. I would train and use those techs to lighten the administrative burden on my 1102s, so they could be executives instead of clerks𑁋professionals that other professionals turn to when they need a contract. You shouldn't need an 1102 to write a synopsis or post a solicitation to SAM.gov.

I know that there are many who think like you about the work of contracting. It's the unfortunate and inevitable result of decades of managerial neglect of a workforce whose job knowledge and competence are essential to the well-being of our country. But old-timers who think like me are on the way out. It appears that the future belongs to people who think like you. It makes me very sad.

Of course, I suppose it's possible that you didn't mean what you seem to have said.

[Self Employed]

Sure you can. 

The physical act of cranking out a contract in a contract writing system is a very time consuming process which is actively being mitigated by better contract writing systems. I have worked in CON-Write, PD2, and CON-IT. CON-IT is miles better than the other two, and yet you'll hear people groan because they haven't been trained or haven't taken the time to understand the nuances of a different system. The new system offers many features which make redundant many processes 1102's have relied on for pre-award and contract award.

Assuming you have all required pre-award documentation (the clarity of which I believe to be your criticism of the post in question which I can understand, some of your other language pertaining to an implied lack of professionalism on the basis of an internet forum post I can not,) for an award, creating the actual contract can be minutes rather than days. In previous contract writing systems, you might get hung up on system errors (CON-Write) that need to be flowed down to an eclectic group of system administrators where it languishes until resolved. You might need to wait on a procurement tech to manually set a contract to award. You might have a hung process in PD2. All of these time-intensive processes are being slowly mitigated.

As a Contracting Officer, you can not only build and award a contract in newer contract writing systems -- you can also finalize (or correct others,) FPDS-NG push, you can upload the bilaterally signed copy, and you can file and distribute it yourself -- all without paying additional FTE's hourly + benefits to do it. I agree that you shouldn't need an 1102 to write a synopsis, which is why new contract writing systems are being built to automatically push them upon solicitation/award. Now *no one* has to.  I (as a Contracting Officer,) do not gain time from having to ensure these processes are initiated and completed by another FTE -- I can do them myself with a few clicks of a button. 

I am unsure how familiar you are with newer contract writing systems, but you can extrapolate CLINs from the solicitation and copy virtually all pertinent data from it. If you had any changes during interchanges/exchanges to the award documents - you can professionally tailor the document and WAWF clause in minutes. There is no need to hire a FTE to do this for you, especially when they have no concept of the interchanges/exchanges that resulted in the award document being changed. It's all completely unnecessary and would be a net waste.

 

RE: AI, it's already here.

Clause Logic System is being developed to specifically take the guess-work you mention out of regulatory guidance. A good CO will nonetheless review all the clauses and prescriptions, but it is very clear the intent is to simplify and expedite these processes -- likely to remove the point of removing thought at all from the process. One does not have to like the idea to see the intent of the powers that be regarding the direction of the career field.

I expect SAP to continue to be more widely utilized. Since Oct 2020, when SAT for commercial items was pushed to $7.5M (test program rip), general inflation would take that number today to about $8.4M depending on the index used. I wouldn't be surprised if the next update is likely to be $10M (by the time it passes through the NDAA/Register) I expect more deregulation in the future to even further lessen the burden on the greater share of 1102 work (increase SAT for non-commercial significantly,) and this means sacrificing the sacred cow processes of yesteryear to only do the bare minimum for what is necessary to award a contract. 

Many 1102's come to these boards to research ideas on given topics. Artificial intelligence is already more than capable of performing at or near comparable accuracy in its absolute infancy. Imagine when it can also instantaneously analyze actuals from prior and/or similar and compare job codes/FTE rates. Sure, you might always need the "specialist," behind the curtain to guide the acquisition, but ignoring the capability would be the equivalent of ignoring NVG's in a battle at night. 

I'm also genuinely unsure how you took a sentence regarding AI as being potentially capable of taking an 1102's job at some point in the distant future as being capable of doing so today. The OP asked for magic wands, I merely suggested one that is already being developed You can mock the thought -- but it's the future and the initial steps are already here, like it or not. We can yell at clouds or extoll about how things should be, but the wheels are already turning. The "clerk," aspect of an 1102 is quite minimal with contract writing system and application improvements, to the extent I don't believe they are the time sink you believe them to be - intruding on what you propose to be more valuable areas of the acquisition to spend time. The bulk of my suggestions are to continue eliminating this non-value added time by entirely possible system improvements, rather than adding to the O&M budget even further.

The future will to be continue doing more with less (especially less bodies.) As such, adding bodies isn't the way. I don't believe you save time by adding a procurement tech as a process variable when many of those processes are automated or in the process of being automated. 

 

Automation, good Contract Writing Systems, integration of machine learning/AI, and solid acquisition skills/professionalism aren't mutually exclusive.

 

 

[WifWaf]

3 hours ago, Self Employed said:

what you propose to be more valuable areas of the acquisition

Whoosh.

I’m getting a second-hand blood pressure spike here, Vern.  The deconstructionist mindset has infiltrated every aspect of America.

@Self Employed I think he’s saying you should get paid to log hours researching GAO cases, claims court cases, contract formation treatises, and especially the contract administration lessons from Cibinic, Nash, and Nagle.  Would you like a job where half the time that was your duty?  I would.  Because then the other half of my time, working onsite with a contractor to not repeat the history of mistakes I just read about, would be much more natural and very fulfilling.  Every professional knows there’s research and then there’s application.  A mind entrusted with hundreds of millions of dollars in systems contracting needs to practice both.

But unfortunately for us, AFMC doesn't instill that desire in Jump Start.  I was open to it by revering history going into this career field.  I only began to understand its necessity, though, by moving around and maturing, not being too set in my initially formed ways.

[formerfed]

All I can say is contract writing systems should be an aid or tool to help a professional.  They certainly aren’t a replacement for through analysis, crafting and preparation of unique clauses geared towards specifics, and preparing a mutual agreement of the parties that reflects regulatory and statutory compliance.  I’ll also add there aren’t many people in government or industry that are more familiar with writing systems than me.  If someone is capable of “creating the actual contract can be minutes rather than days,” they are buying simple commodities like routine supplies and non-complex services.

[Vern Edwards]

20 hours ago, Self Employed said:

I can create a contract from start to finish in CON-IT in minutes.

Think about the phrase "create a contract."

13 hours ago, Self Employed said:

The physical act of cranking out a contract in a contract writing system is a very time consuming process which is actively being mitigated by better contract writing systems.

Self Employed should not have started out with his sentence about "creat[ing] a contract... in minutes." To create means "to bring into being." What Self Employed called "creat[ing] a contract" and "the physical act of cranking out a contract in a contract writing system" are little more than document assembly based on FAR prescriptions.

I don't have a problem with the use of what he calls "artificial intelligence" to do that work. But that is factory floor stuff. It should not be 1102 work in the first place. That is in the procurement clerk job description.

I recommended hiring procurement clerks or technicians to do the grunt work. If all Self Employed is saying is that AI contract writing systems eliminate any need for procurement clerks and technicians to do simple work, then I may have overreacted to "create a contract from start to finish in CON-IT in minutes."

But to the extent that Self Employed may have conflated the complex act of "creating" a contract, as I described it in my last post𑁋the process of contract planning and contract formation𑁋with the simple work of assembling boilerplate and processing documents and transactions electronically, I think he is another victim of poor workforce education. Moreover, the production of some parts of a contract document𑁋such as line items, specifications, statements of work, and special clauses𑁋require considerable thought and creativity, and I am not aware of any contract writing systems that can create them.

You might be able to assemble a contract document in minutes, but you cannot create a government contract in minutes. Self Employed should have chosen his words more carefully.

[C Culham]

Admittedly I have not studied AI in depth.   I have waded in to the shallow end of the pool at various times but that is the extent with regard to application of AI to government contracting.   There are days I could be very wrong in applying this analogy and then there are days it seems to fit.   it just seems that with the variables present in Federal acquisition where in almost every instant "it depends" becomes a standard, using AI to assemble a proposed contract is the enhanced "cut and paste" of the past.

[Matthew Fleharty]

18 hours ago, Self Employed said:

RE: AI, it's already here.

Clause Logic System is being developed to specifically take the guess-work you mention out of regulatory guidance. A good CO will nonetheless review all the clauses and prescriptions, but it is very clear the intent is to simplify and expedite these processes -- likely to remove the point of removing thought at all from the process. One does not have to like the idea to see the intent of the powers that be regarding the direction of the career field.

Have you used the Clause Logic System (CLS)? There is nothing "AI" or automated about it - CLS merely generates clauses based on answers to questions from users - and even that it does poorly. I saw a report that in a single month, thousands of clauses generated by CLS were deleted because the user determined they did not apply. It clearly cannot teach itself to correct its mistakes.

Further, CLS is not "fast" - it takes considerably more time than mere minutes. I sat with users going through CLS's required question and answer process numerous times. For even a simple commodity contract, if my memory serves me correctly, CLS required over 60 questions that took an experienced user over an hour to answer - I must note, this process would have been faster if users were allowed to use their professional judgment instead and choose clauses outside of CLS.

Fast and easy? CLS is anything but.