formerfed

Bringing in those contracts such as GSA Alliant 2 and EIS unnecessarily complicates this discussion. Both contracts are the IDIQ type and contain an initial 5 year base period of performance. Alliant has a series of potential five one-year periods to place orders while EIS has two additional five year option periods. Edit: I just realized you may be talking about placing orders under those contracts instead. I can’t think of a way to overly complicate orders but perhaps it’s due to factors such as your agency procedures, lack of contract specialists understanding of order placement, or not grouping CLINS into logical groups consistent with events like fiscal renewal or requirements fluctuations.

@FrankJon I’ve done acquisition consulting work for a long time and been in quite a few contracting offices across the government. The only interpretation I’ve ever seen in practice is yours.

I found this out using ChatGPT and Claude by accident at first. I also notice when using Google search, it relies on Google’s Gemini AI product and prompts at the bottom for me to ask more questions for further detailed research. I just Googled for termination clauses in construction contracts. It replied with the standard answers and asked if I had a specific agency in mind? If so, it will search agencies policy and clauses. Nothing remarkable but shows how AI is progressing.

This is excellent guidance for the short term, in my opinion. But how long will this situation last where contracting professionals remain competitive and viewed as necessity? I can see over a relatively short time the bulk of the contracting work transitioning directly to program offices either using program personnel or by 1102s who migrated there to perform. This will be due to management noting there’s no advantage to maintaining a separate contracting function of any significant size but several cons in doing so. Perhaps the only functions remaining in the contracts office are limited policy and review/approval of major awards. If I were an 1102 now I would be thinking how I can best position myself into that program office role. The keys are from what I said earlier:

A friend in consulting that supports several CIOs said CIOs, in general, want more objective data to evaluate experience in source selections. He couldn’t provide specifics because of NDAs but mentioned this article from Government Executive. https://about.govexec.com/insights/federal-buyers-case-studies-2026/ He added than CIOs don’t want more written proposal fluff about experience but demand data as proof of success.

The only meaningful and relevant performance data I’ve ever received was through personal contact (phone and in person conversations). This was both as a government employee and as a consultant. It wasn’t easy because it took effort. I had to really go in unscripted and let the conversation lead into the real issues. I met with COs, CORs, PMs and technical experts to find out candidly how the companies did. Not surprisedly, the feedback was much less favorable than the CPARS. I compared it to checking employment references when hiring. It takes effort to dig out the important points. I’ll add though, it’s still mostly an expression of opinion with very little actual facts.

This is an excellent idea in my opinion. The times are right for experimenting with something different. Get an individual deviation as a pilot. It shouldn’t be too difficult especially with GSA.

An expert, as opposed to a lay person who can cite regulations and policies, takes facts/knowledge and applies it to practical situation in meaningful and holistic ways, achieving peer recognition. In the case of contracting, experts can sort through the entire body of regulations, policies, procedures, case law, and best practices and determine the most appropriate application to produce optimal results for some specific situation. A large share of 1102s can cite regulations, practices, and procedures but will have problems choosing among alternatives and properly applying them to specific situations. An expert doesn’t have this difficulty based upon a more comprehensive understanding of the subject and their prior experiences. The expert can analyze data, consider alternatives, weighs the pros and cons, factor in experience, and correctly decide the best method of proceeding. I would guess this is something 10% or 20% of the 1102 workforce can do. To survive in the future, 1102s need to bring a more strategic and critical thinking focus to their jobs. They must position themselves to understand program needs and demonstrate benefit to the program by tailoring or crafting new approaches to fulfill mission requirements. As part of this role, they need to have AI tool literacy and utilize AI for assistance but not solely relying on it. They study the marketplace, technology, and developing trends affecting acquisition. They develop and improve upon interpersonal skills - lead and facilitate dialogue, brainstorming ideas, building consensus, utilize critical thinking and identify benefits and risks of various options, and serve as negotiation expert with industry and contractors. They focus on complex negotiations and the unique nuances of face-to-face interactions. For some, AI is just another tool that improves performance. I once had a manager for IT contracting. When he started the CIO office had their own small contracting staff as well as relying on other agencies to conduct the major acquisitions for them. My new IT contract manager spent months convincing the CIO to let his staff do the contract work instead. In time, he ended up with all the contracting work. He demonstrated value he brought to the CIO. Later at one point, my IT manager said he couldn’t make an appointment because he was attending the CIO staff meeting. I asked why and was a new acquisition being discussed? He replied no but the CIO valued his judgement and critical thinking and wanted his input on everything his office discusses. Now that is someone who became indispensable.

I started several responses to the questions and quit. What troubles me is the future AI impact is really unknown. The easiest and usually instinctive way of proceeding is assuming we just apply AI to our existing contracting processes and assume AI just assists in their performance. That is the typical way we respond to new technology. But is that proper or will AI cause a massive reformation? Using the financial loan example cited in Don’s post, rather than look how AI can revise the loan process, the larger question will AI eliminate the need for traditional banks? In the case of contracting, and specifically the role of 1102s, will AI assume a larger role and eliminate the need for traditional 1102s? Can AI prepare solicitation's, receive and evaluate responses, perhaps negotiate, and make selection decisions with minimal human input along the way. Can AI eliminate the need for many 1102s and allow many decisions and actions to be made by program and senior management officials? I don’t know, but imagine agencies, in reality, will still want contracting experts to be involved just to perform the truly specialized roles. I also assume these individual will be fewer in numbers and selected to those positions based upon possessing a wide range of attributes favorable to a broader role of mission accomplishment such as business strategist, budgetary/financial analyst, and supporting senior leadership on a variety of issues.

I posed the first question of what will the 1102 job be in an AI world to ChatGPT. The result is eye opening because it seems so accurate to me. Edit: Another point that just came to me - it’s so easy to use AI for an initial response and then revise and fine tune. That seems to remove or slant some initial personal thoughts. A GS-1102 — the federal contracting and acquisition workforce — is likely to become more strategic and analytical, not disappear, in an AI-driven environment. The role will probably split into two broad tracks: AI-assisted transactional contracting Human-led strategic acquisition and governance Here’s what that likely looks like. What AI Will Automate First Many of the repetitive parts of federal acquisition are highly structured and rules-based, which makes them ideal for AI support. A future GS-1102 may use AI systems to: Draft solicitations and modifications Generate market research summaries Compare vendor proposals Check FAR compliance Build IGCEs and pricing models Detect clause inconsistencies Summarize protest risks Track contract performance metrics Create acquisition plans from templates Automate procurement package reviews Today, junior 1102s spend substantial time on documentation, formatting, routing, and compliance reviews. AI will shrink much of that administrative burden. The result: Fewer “paper-pushing” functions Faster procurement cycles More contracts managed per specialist Higher expectations for judgment and oversight What Will Become More Valuable The human side of acquisition becomes more important as AI handles mechanics. Future high-performing GS-1102s will likely focus on: Strategic Thinking Understanding: mission impact industrial base issues acquisition strategy vendor incentives risk allocation supply chain resilience Negotiation AI can suggest negotiation positions. Humans will still: read people interpret intent resolve ambiguity build trust make tradeoffs Ethical and Legal Judgment Federal acquisition involves: protests conflicts of interest socio-economic policy competition requirements cybersecurity national security concerns AI can assist, but accountability remains human. Cross-Functional Leadership 1102s increasingly become coordinators between: program offices legal counsel finance cybersecurity AI governance teams industry partners The role moves closer to “business advisor to government leadership.” The Biggest Shift: AI Procurement Itself One of the largest future growth areas for GS-1102s may be buying AI systems. That means contracting officers will need familiarity with: AI model licensing cloud infrastructure data rights algorithmic bias cybersecurity controls continuous model updates AI testing and validation explainability requirements An 1102 who understands both acquisition and AI technologies could become extremely valuable across agencies like: Department of Defense Department of Homeland Security General Services Administration Department of Veterans Affairs National Aeronautics and Space Administration Likely Career Impact by Grade Level GS-7 / GS-9 / GS-11 These developmental roles are the most exposed to automation because they contain: data entry package assembly compliance checks standard documentation Fewer people may be needed for purely administrative acquisition work. GS-12 / GS-13 These roles likely become more influential: acquisition planning negotiation source selection complex services strategic sourcing vendor management AI becomes a force multiplier. GS-14 / GS-15 / SES Senior acquisition professionals may increasingly focus on: AI governance enterprise procurement strategy acquisition modernization digital transformation workforce redesign human oversight of automated systems Skills That Will Matter Most A future-proof 1102 will likely need: Technical Fluency Not coding necessarily, but understanding: cloud services SaaS licensing AI systems cybersecurity data governance Data Literacy Being able to interpret: procurement analytics pricing trends vendor risk data performance dashboards Communication Explaining acquisition strategy to: executives engineers attorneys program managers Adaptability The FAR environment itself may evolve toward: more automation digital acquisition platforms AI-assisted source selection tools People who adapt early will have strong opportunities. What Probably Won’t Change Certain things remain fundamentally human: Signing authority Fiduciary responsibility Ethical accountability Protest defense Congressional scrutiny Balancing mission vs. risk Judgment under uncertainty Government contracting is ultimately about public trust, not just efficiency. Overall Outlook The GS-1102 career field is unlikely to disappear. It is more likely to become: smaller in routine processing more technical more strategic more specialized more influential The strongest acquisition professionals in the AI era will probably look less like administrative processors and more like: business strategists technology advisors risk managers negotiation specialists AI governance professionals For someone already in acquisition, learning AI concepts now could create a major advantage over the next 5–10 years.

Lots of things for the near term such as strategizing with program offices to define and articulate “need,” develop acquisition strategy in collaboration with program offices and stakeholders, conduct negotiations with industry including consideration of tradeoffs, and making source selection decisions after weighing all the evaluation input. But this is only over the short period. I would like to say AI wouldn’t have the capability to do all that until considerable time has lapsed such as five or perhaps ten years. But that is wishful thinking noting how much AI has progressed in the past single year. I think the picture is not bleak for those that get in sync with AI and its progression. The acquisition field needs both AI and knowledgeable and flexible personnel (willing to progress and learn as AI develops). Lots of new opportunities will come out that we haven’t envisioned yet which happens with every new technological implemtation.

Wouldn’t it make more sense to just bring on an additional award rather than replacing one?

FrankJon, Similar procedures to your suggestion have been utilized before. It’s somewhat related to cascading evaluations used to ensure small business receive representative share of awards. Several agencies, including VA, also employed that procedure to provide adequate competition coverage under multiple award IDIQ contracts. The solicitation hypothetically covers multiple functional areas and offerors are free to propose on one or more functional areas. The solicitation states an objective is ensuring there are at least three awards for each functional area. The agency goes through something similar to your Phase 2. If an insufficient number of awards result for any functional area, they reserve the right to bring one of more offerors outside the “Best Value Range.” They simply picked who is next in line in ranking.

Demonstrated prior completion of a task can be an important indicator of likely success. Placing significantly greater emphasis on completing the same task a dozen times can distort the value of experience in source selection.

Great idea, Vern. Because of highly variable market conditions and individual scope of work/locations Joel mentioned, evaluation of fixed costs at the contract level is not practical. Publish that notice in the solicitation and state what the evaluation will consists of. Offerors will then have a limited time to protest.