Motorcity

I agree, but I think more people will rely on various AI tools to help offer options or various pathways and strategies to get to a decision.

See, AI isn't coming. It is already here and folks should accept it and learn to let AI work for us, rather than having us work for AI.

I think that contracting personnel are going to get very comfortable with whatever tool that can expedite processes. The processes can really be anything from clause selection, to drafting various documents and even solicitations. That being said, writing, reviewing, and editing is all one package, is it not?

I think that a great deal of AI product and output can be pretty solid during these early stages of this sort of "revolution" with this technology. Keep in mind that the results rely on quality input from the user or requestor. The garbage in/garbage out mantra still applies here in every sense. If the requestor isn't specific and fairly detailed, then the results will be lacking to say the least. Lazy AI users will receive lazy results a great deal of the time. What is waiting for us down the line is a set of systems that keeps relearning and retooling, which takes slop and turns it to gold if allowed to do so. At the moment, a good system needs "good" users. Various AI tools are used at my agency, at least for daily admin tasks. Frankly, management has encouraged the utilization of our AI platform. I have mentioned on here before about sitting through various demos of procurement-related AI tools and was pretty much blown away. I think we are going to see a huge shift to AI in the next 2 to 3 years in the fed procurement arena. We are going to see contract "writing" systems process most of the work that 1102s currently perform. While yes, there will be slop, but that can only last for so long. These tools tend to correct themselves and relearn much faster than humans can and do.

There is still a heavy emphasis, at least at my agency, on 1102s being "business advisors" that handle many aspects, including things that are normally done by supporting offices. I think program offices have grown quite comfortable with having CO's pick up all these extra duties. The amount of meetings and "planning" that goes into maintaining and even understanding these complex procurement systems is massive. We spend far more time studying and debating means and methods than we do with the fundamentals.

My shop has a custom dashboard that pulls information from our contract writing system (not PRISM). This dashboard tracks unassigned PRs, POP expirations, burn rates, and other related information. I think it also tracks offices, CORs, NAICS, and PSCs as well. We also track outstanding FPDS and CPARS, but I think that is done on a different dashboard. The challenge here is that sometimes, the quality of the info output is only as good as the input.

One interesting observation is the difference between the "super" 8(a) firms (ANCs, Tribals, & NHOs), and the standard 8(a) firms. Senator Ernst seems to be targeting the entire program, yet the current administration seems to be meeting its mission/goals much faster with 8(a) contracting, than without. Perhaps that is one of the reasons why the super 8(a)s were left nearly unscathed by the FAR "overhaul" with regard to the competition requirements? I'd like to see how these differences play out in the media, as well is in the various planned audits. I know that the ANC lobby is very powerful in DC, so it's not going down without a major fight. Plus, Ernst is leaving the Senate soon, so I find it strange that she is picking this battle, and frankly, this hill. That being said, my assumption is that more guardrails will be implemented with stricter reporting and subcontracting rules. I can't see the program going away, but it will look slightly different. I can say that my agency has been able to accomplish a lot of great things via 8(a) contracts. That is certainly not an endorsement but more a statement of fact.

The archaic business processes that focus on procurement-related reviews and approvals tend to beat the curiosity out of even the most curious younger employees. I have found that when a curious employee points out an issue, the higher-ups either ignore it, or laugh it off. It could be a glaring problem, but rarely are these problems addressed. The curious employee then packs it up after 4 years and moved to the private sector, never to be a fed again.

I am curious to see how the new 19.108-7 Competitive 8(a) and sole source 8(a) policy will play out: Below competitive thresholds. To ensure fair market pricing and to prepare 8(a) participants for competition, SBA has approved certain government-wide contracts for competition amongst the 8(a) contract-holders (see 19.111-2) at any dollar value, including below the competitive thresholds. Where an acquisition is below the competitive threshold (see paragraph (a)(2) of this section), contracting officers must first try conducting the acquisition as a competitive 8(a) order using these government-wide contracts before proceeding with a sole source 8(a) award. To determine whether SBA has provided approval for a particular government-wide contract, refer to the ordering procedures for that contract. Anyone have any insight into these so-called SBA-approved government-wide contracts? Which PSCs will they cover? Which NAICS? Would these contracts cover construction and facilities management? This seems rushed.

Good luck with that. I understand that the avg US adult in 2025 has an attention span of something like 47 seconds on a single unit/screen.

Tell that to our finance and comptroller folks, along with the IG auditors. They seem think there is a magic set of books with prices already built in, as if it's a one-stop shop for all your "pricing" needs.

The team looked at the FAR prescriptions and manually reviewed/compared each clause to verify accuracy. One if the hiccups was fill-in sections of various clauses. For instance, the spaces in 52.217-8 and -9, but I guess this firm was actively working on "flagging" anything that requires a fill-in. Nonetheless, this technology is only going to get better and we are absolutely going to be relying on it heavily on the procurement realm. Matter of fact, I see its usage as being mandatory very soon.

Yes, it was so very close.

I agree with the current AI tools available at some agencies. On the flip side, I have sat through a number of procurement-related AI demos where the clause selection was 98% accurate in some cases and perfect in others, and these weren't routine commercial buys, either. The room was floored.

Yes, it is and it's here to stay as us humans roll off and out of various fields. It is just a matter of (short) time before various AI tools take over most of the procurement process in the Govt and related industries. The naysayers will be left behind for sure, so doubt AI at your own peril. Bit of a sidebar here but it reminds me of my father who worked for forty years in the auto industry as a designer. Computers had been utilized for various design inputs for years, at least since 1960 (Plymouth Valiant) but they "arrived" for good in the early 80s. Many engineers and designers just refused to believe that a computer could take over the role of 2D manual drafting efforts. Lee Iacocca mandated a hard shift to CADCAM in maybe 1978 or so right after he came onboard. Many engineers of all ages took to it with great enthusiasm, but quite a few did not and stuck to their old manual ways. When the company removed the manual drafting boards for good in the late 80s, those who didn't calibrate their skills were put out to pasture. The new system required far fewer designers and took much less time and effort. The only major company to continue using manual boards was Daimler and I think they were forced to transition with the times when they merged in the mid 90s.