The Future Role of the Contracting Officer, Maldonado, DAU (2020)

The Future Role of the Contracting Officer.pdf

This paper really hits in mark in my opinion.

I personally dislike the business advisor term but I can’t think of something better. A contracting officers future value will be judged in how well they solve program and mission needs and not how well they know the regulations and pass internal reviews by policy analysts, legal, and oversight boards. Automated tools will take over much of that work spouting out the FAR and preparing the perfect solicitation and contract.

What’s needed is empowering contracting officers and holding them accountable for results. Rewarding them for exceptional results and removing/downgrading for blatant failures. We shouldn’t be holding back capable 1102s because incompetent ones aren’t doing jobs. We also should be appropriating rewarding the exceptional ones and not with the current trivial recognitions like a certificate or a step increase.

The future role of the contracting officer is unclear in light of the arrival of AI.

COs are what Peter Drucker called "knowledge workers." Their job is to analyze information and make informed decisions. Their value lies in what they know and how well they think.

What will be left for them to do after AI is fully integrated into contract work? Quite a bit has been written in an attempt to answer that kind of question.

See, e.g., Gupta, "The Rise of AI Copilots: Redefining Human-Machine Collaboration in Knowledge Work," International Journal of Humanities and Information Technology (2025):

Because of how rapidly artificial intelligence (AI) has advanced, numerous fields have seen major changes, with knowledge work being one of the areas with the greatest impact. Since many economies are transitioning to industries that use information heavily, writing, coding, analyzing data and making decisions are central to productivity. Because of this, the arrival of AI copilots representing advanced generative AI systems now makes knowledge work different in both thought and execution. Identifying AI copilots like GitHub Copilot, Microsoft 365 Copilot and ChatGPT brings a change in assistance, as the AI itself joins knowledge workers in their tasks. In contrast to regular automation tools that are meant to resume common tasks, AI copilots share work and support people. Because they rely on large language models and extensive training data, these systems can write as humans, understand different topics, react to users and provide helpful suggestions in many work areas. Such systems are now being introduced into software development, business software, tools for legal research, schools and education and customer support, a development that heavily changes the relationships between workers and technology at work (Zamfirescu et al., 2023; Microsoft, 2023).

This is not only about technology but about the way organizations are formed. By adding AI copilots, workplaces are changing how work gets done, who is responsible for what tasks and what qualifies someone as expert or independent. Since AI plays a bigger role in human thinking, there are concerns regarding AI outputs being biased, about transparency, privacy and the dangers of overusing AI too much in daily tasks. Moreover, because AI can take over legal argument drafting, suggest design ideas and correct errors in complicated code, it introduces questions about human agency, who is responsible and the job market in knowledge industries (Binns et al., 2022). The article focuses on examining how AI copilots are changing the way humans and machines interact while doing knowledge work. It has the goal of: Survey what AI copilots are made of and determine their working capabilities.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=10&q=AI+and+knowledge+workers&hl=en&as_sdt=0,48

What will COs have to know about AI?

See "With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility: What Shapes AI Literacy for Responsible Interactions of Knowledge Workers With AI?", Passlack et al., Information Systems Frontier (2024):

Digital technologies based on artificial intelligence (AI) are widely used in knowledge workers’ daily lives (Dwivedi et al., 2023); their growing power reminds us of the old adage that “with great power comes great responsibility.” This growing power stems from AI’s increased cognitive and self-learning abilities to generate knowledge (Berente et al., 2021), prepare decisions, and carry out tasks that were previously done by individuals (Rai et al., 2019), thus transforming aspects of contemporary society and business life (Constantinescu et al., 2021). The greater responsibility arises from the blurred lines of responsibilities when AI technologies operate (semi-)autonomously, and accountability for unintended consequences remains unclear (Giermindl et al., 2022; Matthias, 2004). A lack of the skills required for interacting with AI may lead to gaps between individuals who are and are not able to use AI technologies responsibly (Celik, 2023). It may also result in unintended consequences that create inequalities, such as the exclusion of marginalized groups of people (Alexopoulou et al., 2022; Celik, 2023).

To avoid such inequalities and mitigate potential negative or unintended consequences of human-AI interaction, we need to rethink the concept of AI literacy...

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10796-025-10648-5

What coming? Are you ready?

Will you still want a career in contracting? If so, what will be left for you to do?

2 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

The future role of the contracting officer is unclear in light of the arrival of AI.

…….

Will you still want a career in contracting? If so, what will be left for you to do?

No doubt things will be much different in the future. People can speculate but AI will bring about lots of new things no one can anticipate including opportunities. As long as we stay inquisitive, eager to learn, excited about discoveries, and flexible, a challenging career will still be there. A career that’s just not possible to precisely identify right now.

What is needed is a good professional education about acquisition concepts, principles, rules, processes, procedures, methods, and techniques.

I am conducting an advanced study seminar on the role of contracts in Department of War major systems acquisitions. There are ten participants, who applied for the program. No one was involuntarily assigned. The program is very challenging.

Altogether, the participants will read about 500 pages of materials in five weeks, discuss the readings, and write short papers about them.

I have attached a copy of the first reading assignment, to give you an idea about the program.

Sample Reading Assignment.pdf

50 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

What is needed is a good professional education about acquisition concepts, principles, rules, processes, procedures, methods, and techniques.

Yes, this is a necessity for what the paper is about. You can’t have empowerment, trust, and accountability unless one has the proper education as a foundation for practicing.

It’s too bad completion of your type of seminar along with some means of testing knowledge isn’t a requirement to receive a contracting officer warrant.

Attached is the original announcement of the program. The start was postponed due to the shutdown.

Advanced Study Seminar.pdf

The program is excellent, Vern. This is so much related to the topic here on the CO of the future. Students learn the concepts, principles, practices, and techniques of contracting instead of just being about to spout FAR language by rote.

What I have seen over the course of years is the diminishment of the contracting officer. Once upon a time you could find studies and articles with titles such as:

• The Contracting Officer: His Authority to Act and His Duty to Act Independently (1966)

• The Judicial Role of the Contracting Officer in U.S. Government Contracting (1972)

• A Follow-On Study of the Authority Relationships of Contract Officers in a Project/Program Management Environment (1976)

• A Handbook for Entry-Level System Buyers: The Role-Relationship of the Contracting Officer and Program Manager and the System Program Office Interfaces (1985)

• Measuring Satisfaction in the Program Manager - Procuring Contracting Officer Relationship (1997)

• Identification of Critical Roles of Program Managers and Contracting Officers (2001)

I haven't seen any such studies lately. The change began during the late 1990s.

The "business advisor" thing never passed the reality check.

Then, in 2010, we saw this in the Public Contracts Law Journal: "The Incredible Shrinking Contracting Officer."

What happened? Why the loss of status?

29 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

What happened? Why the loss of status?

I occasionally think about this issue. I can’t come up with a single solid reason but I suspect it’s partially due to some of these situations:

• When I started, the contracting officer was well respected. Few 1102s received a warrant. It took years of experience and demonstrated competence to earn one. They possessed knowledge that few others had.

• A trend started throughout the government to provide warrants to many more people. At some agencies, almost everyone received a warrant with dollar limitations consistent with their position grades. This meant less qualified 1102s with warrants making improper and incorrect decisions and diluting the previous respect and prestige of contracting officers.

• Access to contracting regulations, policies, and procedures became widely available. 1102s no longer became the sole keeper of information so program officers and others could research issues on their own, formulate positions and strategies which may differ from the contracting officers, and challenge their opinions.

• A trend toward “team based activities” that eliminates stovepipes, isolated processing of work components, and sequential processing of steps. Instead of each member responsible for their specialized piece, everyone does a little of each other’s jobs to formulate a team work product. The contracting officers job is considered less of a unique one.

• The growth of policy, oversight, and legal in roles of reviewing and approving actions. Often a contract specialist/contracting officer doesn’t do a thorough research and preparation because they feel their work will be overridden by others. This just further diminishes their role.

1 hour ago, formerfed said:

because they feel their work will be overridden by others.

Or because they feel it will be done by others.

38 minutes ago, FrankJon said:

Or because they feel it will be done by others.

Exactly. I’ve performed lots of reviews of the contracting office function across many agencies. A very common theme of both legal and policy personnel is they seem expected to review, critique, and revise what looks like rough drafts from contracting staff.

The work of contracting officers is to make administrative and business arrangements in furtherance of program objectives. They must effectuate the pursuit and achievement of those objectives. In doing that they must be effectuators—yes, that’s a word— people who make things happen.

 In order to be value-added effectuators in the new world of AI, CO's must be thinkers. In order to be thinkers, they must learn to ask good questions, evaluate answers, and then act. Think of the OODA Loop.

 In the near future, anyone who has not studied thinking and questioning, and who has not worked on their thinking and questioning skills, is going to be reduced to the status of an AI clerk.

 Here’s a meaningful (and fun) thought exercise that I found in a book:  

 How would you describe a spoon to a Martian?

Don't sneer. It's the kind of question asked during interviews of persons applying for admission to Oxford and Cambridge. The interviewers don't care about the interviewee's answer, they care about the interviewee's thought processes.

Jeff Bezos once asked a job applicate to estimate tne number of panes of glass in Seattle.

CNBC

Jeff Bezos hired this Amazon applicant ‘on the spot’—here...

In 2002, after several rounds of job interviews at Amazon, Ann Hiatt was hired on the spot by Jeff Bezos. She shares the two questions he asked and her answers.

What do such questions have to do with contracting? Everything, in a fast-movie world of accelerated innovation and process improvement employers (and program managers) want people who can think.

Most of the RFPs I see at SAM—line item structures, statements of work, evaluation factors, and proposal preparation instructions—are not the products of good thinking by skilled effectuators.