Magic Wand

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.

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?

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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

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?

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.

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

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

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.

@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!

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/

@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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Self Employed said:

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

Think about the phrase "create a contract."

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.

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.

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.

Matthew Fleharty said:

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.

CLS is a first step.

I have used it, and most policy shops will credit it for ensuring more required clauses are included than those are left off.

Once there is an appropriate way to input more nuance I do believe it will save time for most CO's moving forward. It's just one example of the powers that be trying to generate a system of sort where the "clerk," portion of acquisition VE speaks of is reduced to a few clicks of a button. 

CLS is also editable. I can add clauses (and having been one of the first users in CON-IT when it was launched am very familiar with the limitations of CLS in CON-IT,) I can manually insert clauses as necessary. I can delete clauses that CLS insists I need that I know I do not.

Yes -- it's not anywhere near perfect, but the approach is not new, only the software. 

CON-IT is a completely different product than three years ago, and is still imperfect. I helped correct an issue regarding Basic Ordering Agreements that was a holdover from lazy copypasta code for IDIQ's two weeks ago. However, it gets better every day. I think it's fair to suggest in twenty years there will be something like CLS with much better quality and aspects of AI that will ensure compliance and provide CO flexibility as required. It's already there, just have to work a little bit harder for now.

Vern Edwards said:

Think about the phrase "create a contract."

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.

Seems a bit pedantic but we got there!

WifWaf said:

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.

Porque no los dos?

Value is in the eye of the beholder. Execution is valued over expertise. 1102's can grumble but a program office or customer whose MPCN you may reside on cares only about the execution of their program. Most probably care about schedule more than a creative way to identify and execute requirements. Expedience is valued over artfulness. They can co-exist, but it's very clear from senior leaders and the IT systems they are producing that technology will continue to augment the 1102 workforce for execution purposes. Regarding research I believe the career field is far too vast and subjects too vapid for most to truly retain information in anything other than a just-in-time fashion. Did you enjoy the recent mandatory subcontracting training? Take a look at USAF's Acquisition FB page and the public willingness of 1102's to mock it. Is that a willingness to learn problem, a hiring problem, a training problem - or is it the material?

You are correct in that someone will pay for the lack of training/and knowledge, but from the direction the career field is moving that is a price that is willing to be paid for execution.

Self Employed said:

Execution is valued over expertise.

Yes, until execution leads to failure mode.

Vern Edwards said:

Yes, until execution leads to failure mode. Then the people in charge look for experts.

Then who is to blame?  

This is how we end up with blanket service training requirements on subcontracting. 500+ slides and a 20 question quiz on a subject most 1102's may never touch in their career. A true failure -- a CO or PM might move from one office to another, or receive a verbal or written admonishment -- there is no true accountability. Bad press might welcome congressional oversight but even that fades. The blame is peanut-butter spread, someone receives a bullet for creating a new MyTraining module, no one questions JA/policy/clearance authorities and life moves on.

There is no incentive for Joe-Buyer/CO to design creative ordering procedures of a multiple award IDIQ that will lead to expedited ordering, there is only the looming threat/shadow of PALT tracking of the original requirement.

I truly do enjoy reading these forums (and have learned quite a bit, especially from yourself,) to help gain an understanding on an acquisition problem. I would like to believe my fellow 1102's enjoy parsing the intent of Congress when they add a new regulation, enjoy having 3-4 monitors up parsing different GAO cases to understand certain problems better. However, the reality is that with the expectation the workforce focus firmly towards execution our philosopher acqui-kings are similarly a thinning breed. Our senior leaders have either made the decision to willingly bake those failures into the cost of acquisition (see: reduced requirements for 1102's in new certification program,) or have by default through inaction made that inevitability a fait accompli.

I feel as if I can yell at clouds or focus on the magic wands that seem achievable and even desired by senior leadership.

I haven't been on base for many years, but when I was, I never knew I was actually being neglected by my managers, because I was a people-pleaser.  Have a look through this thread when you have time to read all of it:

For now, I have no more than a general couple of words to contribute to the above discussion (hoping you're willing to receive it).  Deconstruction of the past is not the way the American Experiment in individual self-governance will continue.  If you submit to anything in life, let it only be in line with your highest calling.  Think very hard about what that highest calling is for federal employees.  You likely made it on your first day on the job, in Bldg. 2, like I did.

We are called to the Constitution before even we are called to the Executive Branch and its blasted OPM position description that fails to classify the 1102 as a professional!  That means it's self-study in off-duty hours, for me.

Self Employed said:

Then who is to blame?

There are two categories of culprits.

The first are the managers who don't train and prepare their workforce. The second are the COs who don't understand the true nature of their work.

Self Employed said:

CLS is a first step.

I have used it, and most policy shops will credit it for ensuring more required clauses are included than those are left off.

Once there is an appropriate way to input more nuance I do believe it will save time for most CO's moving forward. It's just one example of the powers that be trying to generate a system of sort where the "clerk," portion of acquisition VE speaks of is reduced to a few clicks of a button. 

CLS is also editable. I can add clauses (and having been one of the first users in CON-IT when it was launched am very familiar with the limitations of CLS in CON-IT,) I can manually insert clauses as necessary. I can delete clauses that CLS insists I need that I know I do not.

Yes -- it's not anywhere near perfect, but the approach is not new, only the software. 

CON-IT is a completely different product than three years ago, and is still imperfect. I helped correct an issue regarding Basic Ordering Agreements that was a holdover from lazy copypasta code for IDIQ's two weeks ago. However, it gets better every day. I think it's fair to suggest in twenty years there will be something like CLS with much better quality and aspects of AI that will ensure compliance and provide CO flexibility as required. It's already there, just have to work a little bit harder for now.

A first step towards what? AI clause generation? CLS has been around since I entered the career field in 2009 and is not much better now than it was then.

It's interesting watching your comments pivot - previously you mentioned you could write a contract in mere minutes, but when I explained that CLS alone takes almost an hour, you merely claim that eventually "it will save time for most CO's moving forward." I think that is wishful thinking (especially because there is no explanation of how that will happen - what is this "more appropriate way to input more nuance"?).

It's a shame to think that the systems will save us - they won't - the path to professionalism in this career field is through self-study and hard work. No contract writing system can substitute for professional competence. Admiral Rickover once said "Organizations don't get things done. Plans and programs don't get things done. Only people get things done. Organizations, plans, and programs either help or hinder people." I have seen good, hardworking professionals overcoming bad plans, programs, and systems - what I have not seen are individuals who are the opposite do well even with good plans, programs, and systems. You can focus on magic wands if you like - but I think our profession would be better off if we spent more resources on mentoring and educating people.

Matthew Fleharty said:

the path to professionalism in this career field is through self-study and hard work.

It's funny you separate those two, Matthew, because you know what I'm finding after enough serious commitment?  Self-study (research) isn't hard work anymore.  Hard work is in the application of the research.

@WifWaf I agree - we should find joy in learning  

Let’s not kid ourselves either - sometimes learning is difficult. But we shouldn’t shy away from learning when it is tough - in fact, that’s probably a sign we should embrace it because that’s likely the type of learning we need to do to grow.

Matthew Fleharty said:

A first step towards what? AI clause generation? CLS has been around since I entered the career field in 2009 and is not much better now than it was then.

It's interesting watching your comments pivot - previously you mentioned you could write a contract in mere minutes, but when I explained that CLS alone takes almost an hour, you merely claim that eventually "it will save time for most CO's moving forward." I think that is wishful thinking (especially because there is no explanation of how that will happen - what is this "more appropriate way to input more nuance"?).

It's a shame to think that the systems will save us - they won't - the path to professionalism in this career field is through self-study and hard work. No contract writing system can substitute for professional competence. Admiral Rickover once said "Organizations don't get things done. Plans and programs don't get things done. Only people get things done. Organizations, plans, and programs either help or hinder people." I have seen good, hardworking professionals overcoming bad plans, programs, and systems - what I have not seen are individuals who are the opposite do well even with good plans, programs, and systems. You can focus on magic wands if you like - but I think our profession would be better off if we spent more resources on mentoring and educating people.

If you have already generated your solicitation with CLS you needn't re-create the wheel. You simply utilize the clauses issued with the solicitation, or take the twenty seconds to modify them within the contract writing system post-solicitation. I don't know why you're trying to play "gotcha." Creating an award in CON-IT takes minutes with any limited amount of experience and competence. There is no reason to think that CLS or even WAWF can't be augmented by artificial intelligence to better understand a given requirement and increasingly accurately assign clauses and/or invoicing -- eliminating even more clerical work.

People are already being replaced in warfare, work will be no different.

Embrace the golden age when our abilities are augmented instead of outright replaced -- cherish this time for the career field for we too will become a horse and go the way of the procurement technician some day.

After all, Clausewitz could say anything he wished -- it wouldn't save him from an AGM 129A/JASSM today.

Vern Edwards said:

There are two categories of culprits.

The first are the managers who don't train and prepare their workforce. The second are the COs who don't understand the true nature of their work.

If the former degrade certification standards and de-emphasizes the knowledge you speak of, and the latter perform to expectations set for them -- perhaps the problem may not exist at all and the system is working as intended.

Self Employed said:

If the former degrade certification standards and de-emphasizes the knowledge you speak of, and the latter perform to expectations set for them -- perhaps the problem may not exist at all and the system is working as intended.

Who would intend it to work that way?

Would it be an intentional result or the result of incompetence?

The twenty-year disagreement over the proper interpretation of FAR 52.215-1(c)(3)(ii)(A)(2), the failure of the FAR councils to edit the rule for clarity, and the failure of COs to include prophylactic instructions in their RFPs is costing government and industry a lot of money and acquisition delays. Do you think it's intentional? On whose part?

Vern Edwards said:

Intended by whom?

Congress sets the rules save for NAF. I believe our acquisition standards are codified in CFR 41 U.S.C. 433 (except for DoD), are they not? I have a heavy DoD bias, so it is also wonderous to see how corporate lobbying is doing every year in the annual NDAA. If you design the system and tailor the rules of the game for both USG/KTR, perhaps they are most responsible for the system and how it functions.

If in responding to you I ask you a question and you don't answer or say you don't know, then I won't respond to your posts anymore.

Are you suggesting that Congress is to blame?

Is the rule at FAR 52.215-1(c)(3)(ii)(A)(2) statutory?

Could AI fix the problem?

Vern Edwards said:

If in responding to you I ask you a question and you don't answer or say you don't know, then I won't respond to your posts anymore.

You suggest Congress is to blame. Is the rule at FAR 52.215-1(c)(3)(ii)(A)(2) statutory?

Perhaps if you hadn't modified your post from what I quoted to its current form while responding it would've been answered it in its entirety.

The rule is codified in Title 48, Chapter 1, Subchapter H, Part 52. It has been modified several times for various reasons.

see: [62 FR 51259, Sept. 30, 1997; 64 FR 51841, Sept. 24, 1999, as amended at 64 FR 72433, 72451, Dec. 27, 1999; 66 FR 2135, Jan. 10, 2001; 68 FR 69258, Dec. 11, 2003; 82 FR 4715, Jan. 13, 2017; 86 FR 61034, Nov. 4, 2021]

I see no reason why Congress could not settle the question you pose, given it has the capacity to do so. If a system enables an entity to set and modify the rules, and it refuses to do so -- perhaps the entity responsible for the system and its changes should be assigned blame, no?

The FAR council is created via Auth of Title 41, Ch 7, Section 421. 

Congress.

Self Employed said:

Perhaps if you hadn't modified your post from what I quoted to its current form while responding it would've answered it in its entirety.

Sorry. I always edit my posts for clarity. I usually don't become engaged in active and ongoing back and forth. I apologize.

You don't need to provide me with the codification of the rule. I have written about it many times, and I will have a new article out about it next month.

The rule is not statutory. Do you want Congress to make it so?

Do you think Congress understands the issues? 

Do you?

Vern Edwards said:

Sorry. I always edit my posts for clarity. I usually don't become engaged in active and ongoing back and forth. I apologize.

You don't need to provide me with the codification of the rule. I have written about it many times, and I will have a new article out about it next month.

The rule is not statutory. Do you want Congress to make it so?

Do you think Congress understands the issues? 

Do you?

I do the same. That's the fun of internet forums, after all.

I think we're at a philosophical point of inflection regarding whether it needs to understand the issue to be responsible for its action or lack there of.

Just now, Self Employed said:

I think we're at a philosophical point of whether it needs to understand the issue to be responsible.

Huh?
You want to try that sentence again?

Vern Edwards said:

Huh?
You want to try that sentence again?

If I have to wait 10 minutes to respond until you've edited your posts completely, perhaps you can allow me one minute.

Roger. Wilco.

How do you find that the rule is not statutory if it is contained within the CFR? (Assuming clause is applicable, and so forth.)

Self Employed said:

How do you find that the rule is not statutory if it is contained within the CFR? (Assuming clause is applicable, and so forth.)

Wow. I'm a little shocked by that question.

Statutes (laws) enacted by Congress are in the United States Code.

The Code of Federal Regulations contains "rules" promulgated by agencies.

Many rules implement statute, but many do not. While many rules have "the force and effect of law," many do not. You can usually tell when a rule implements statute, because the FAR cites the statute that is being implemented. See, for instance, FAR 19.502-4(a):

Quote

(a) In accordance with section 1331 of the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 ( 15 U.S.C. 644(r)(1)), contracting officers may, at their discretion, set aside a portion or portions of a multiple-award contract, except for construction, for any of the small business concerns identified at 19.000(a)(3) when—

           (1) Market research indicates that a total set-aside is not appropriate (see 19.502-2);

           (2) The requirement can be divided into distinct portions;

           (3) The acquisition is not subject to simplified acquisition procedures;

           (4) Two or more responsible small business concerns are reasonably expected to submit an offer on the set-aside portion or portions of the acquisition that are competitive in terms of fair market prices, quality, and delivery; and

           (5) The specific program eligibility requirements identified in this part apply.

The late proposal "rule" in 48 CFR 15.208 and 52.215-1 does not implement statute. It is the product of policy, not congressional enactment.

That's how I find the rule to not be statutory.

If the "rules," or regulations of the CFR are as legally binding as any statute (which they are,) we're playing at semantics, no? You could say it's not Congress' responsibility, it's the federal register office. I could say Congress passed the federal register act. You could say that was in the 1930s. 

We have officially drifted infinitely far from the intent of the OP's question. I do yield and readily admit that I do not posses as much knowledge on the subject we have deviated to, which seems to be completely beside the point of the topic.

I don't think it's controversial to suggest that technology will continue to automate the career field, or suggest that system advances could vastly reduce workload and eliminate additional bloat in our O&M budget. Folks will need to embrace it or go the way of the dodo.

"Playing at semantics" is the last refuge of a question-evader without an argument. If a rule does not implement a statute, the agency that promulgated it can change it at will, without congressional authorization.

What, specifically, am I supposed to see in 44 USC Public Printing and Documents, Ch. 15, _Federal Register and Code of Federal Regulation_s?

Self Employed, you are dodging my questions. Spending any more time on you in this thread would only let you bask in the sun for a while longer.

We're done. Talk to ✋

.

Self Employed said:

I don't think it's controversial to suggest that technology will continue to automate the career field, or suggest that system advances could vastly reduce workload and eliminate additional bloat in our O&M budget. Folks will need to embrace it or go the way of the dodo.

Have you considered that systems can debase professional knowledge and standards? Consider your example of CLS - those who only utilize it rarely if ever have to crack open the FAR to read, understand, and apply solicitation/clause prescriptions. One day those individuals who have only used CLS will be in charge of writing future solicitation/clause prescriptions - how effective will they be when their only experience is answering "simplified" questions from CLS?

Those placing too much of their faith in technology as their savior will be the flightless birds, not those who make the effort to develop their professional competency.

@Matthew FlehartyI will refer to big Technology and little technology. By Technology I mean the application of science and engineering to practical purposes. By technology I mean specific applications of it, like CLS.

I think Technology can be very useful to the workforce in its performance of mundane tasks like building the clause set for a specific contract. That is a tedious and time-consuming task that requires little professional know-how, but broad familiarity with the FAR. That's why OPM's position classification standard assigns that duty to GS-1106 procurement clerks. The apparent problem with technology like CLS is that the government has not been highly competent at choosing and managing contractors to develop technology applications for administrative work.

AI, machine learning, robotic process implementation, natural language processing, etc., seem to have great promise in application to mundane administrative tasks. See the current issue of Contract Management magazine. But only time will tell how effectively the government can develop and use it for those purposes. I have tried some such technologies, like dictation in MS Word, and I have spent as much time as I have saved correcting errors. I have breached my Technology Annoyance Threshold (TAT) so many times that I have come close to throwing some of my  "devices" into a septic tank. But that's largely due to my incompetence.

The thing about technology is that its effective use requires know-how and proficiency. Which is probably why I have to hand my phone to one of my grandsons to figure out how to do or undo something. When it comes to learning such stuff, my mind is elsewhere. I'm just not interested.

No one is (yet) talking about the application of Technology to developing the custom content of solicitations and contracts: requirements documents, CLINs, special clauses, proposal preparation instructions, and evaluation factors. That's the interesting work. The good stuff. The fun stuff. The work 1102s should be doing. The stuff that requires career-long study and skills development. But management has chosen to burden them with the mundane tasks, and has given them too many poorly-designed "tools" for those purposes. But even if the tools get better, first-rate 1102s should not be using them. It would be like sending an F-22 to take out a balloon.

Vern Edwards said:

It would be like sending an F-22 to take out a balloon.

🤣

Of course, Technology will ultimately produce the Krell machine. And then...

Vern Edwards said:

Krell machine

Some of us working on ACAT I MDAPs are contributors to this timeline.  And to think, it all started with little garments of skin. 🤯

Vern Edwards said:

And then...

I'll be okay. 😇

WifWaf said:

I'll be okay. 😇

Think so? 😈

I'm not going to answer that in a forum like this, @Vern Edwards!  What I will say is, once I truly placed monotheistic undertones on everything I did - just as the Founding Fathers did - studies no longer felt like work to me.  My continuing education on my own time is filling in the gaps that my secular education failed to fill, and it just makes everything else - from CLIN crafting to business acumen - seem so much easier, you know?  Maybe you don't.

Vern Edwards said:

"Playing at semantics" is the last refuge of a question-evader without an argument. If a rule does not implement a statute, the agency that promulgated it can change it at will, without congressional authorization.

What, specifically, am I supposed to see in 44 USC Public Printing and Documents, Ch. 15, _Federal Register and Code of Federal Regulation_s?

Self Employed, you are dodging my questions. Spending any more time on you in this thread would only let you bask in the sun for a while longer.

We're done. Talk to ✋

.

I was unaware that the purpose of this thread was to flesh out your next article.

So long as the rule is in the CFR, it must be obeyed -- no matter how silly, statute or not. You asked who is responsible for a myriad number of problems and I provided an answer that you did not like. Whether Congress or its creation, the Federal Register -- someone will have to do something to eliminate the rule.

As for articulating your viewpoint or you agreeing with mine, I can't help you there.

If the gesticulating is done, all the better.

Matthew Fleharty said:

Have you considered that systems can debase professional knowledge and standards? Consider your example of CLS - those who only utilize it rarely if ever have to crack open the FAR to read, understand, and apply solicitation/clause prescriptions. One day those individuals who have only used CLS will be in charge of writing future solicitation/clause prescriptions - how effective will they be when their only experience is answering "simplified" questions from CLS?

Those placing too much of their faith in technology as their savior will be the flightless birds, not those who make the effort to develop their professional competency.

I have -- and acting with the knowledge that professional standards have recently been lowered -- I have also considered that those in charge do not value it. I am sure there is a litany of policy examples and considerations for anyone responsible for writing their own H Clause, for example -- who have never considered or researched the subject until absolutely necessary.

Somehow, some way -- the world keeps spinning.

I make no commentary on whether it is a good or bad thing, only that it is.

One can exclaim that to be a cop out, but frankly -- what I think about it doesn't matter. For it is not a matter of opinion, but a reality that those in charge of determining professional standards find acceptable.

Matthew Fleharty said:

Have you considered that systems can debase professional knowledge and standards?

Self Employed said:

I have -- and acting with the knowledge that professional standards have recently been lowered -- I have also considered that those in charge do not value it.

@Self EmployedThat's a comment with which I agree completely, on the basis of their deeds, not their words.

Vern Edwards said:

No one is (yet) talking about the application of Technology to developing the custom content of solicitations and contracts: requirements documents, CLINs, special clauses, proposal preparation instructions, and evaluation factors. That's the interesting work. The good stuff. The fun stuff. The work 1102s should be doing. The stuff that requires career-long study and skills development. But management has chosen to burden them with the mundane tasks, and has given them too many poorly-designed "tools" for those purposes. But even if the tools get better, first-rate 1102s should not be using them. It would be like sending an F-22 to take out a balloon.

I did hear at least one agency doing something like this.  The thinking is categorize things like requirements documents, CLINs, special clauses, proposal preparation instructions, and evaluation factors by commodities from all over the government.  The examples would be reviewed by a panel of knowledgeable 1102s who rate and only include the best.  Then when a new acquisition begins, a system can provide suggestions from prior efforts.  When I heard details, it sounded promising until I realized it would takes years to develop something meaningful.

@formerfed

What you described is nothing but high-tech cut-and-paste! 

What agency is that? Please tell us, unless you signed a nondisclosure agreement. Please! I want to know more!

Self Employed said:

I have -- and acting with the knowledge that professional standards have recently been lowered -- I have also considered that those in charge do not value it.

To anyone reading this, that does not mean you have to follow blindly - if what senior officials want or value is wrong, don’t just give it to them - be bold enough to still do the right thing. Set higher professional standards at your level and lead those around you - I know from experience that many are eager for leadership that cares about them and will strive for more.

Vern Edwards said:

@formerfed

What you described is nothing but high-tech cut-and-paste! 

What agency is that? Please tell us, unless you signed a nondisclosure agreement. Please! I want to know more!

Vern,

I can’t remember for certain and don’t want to be wrong in identifying.  I quickly searched and couldn’t find the article that caught my attention.  I’ll ask around tomorrow

On 2/14/2023 at 5:55 PM, Matthew Fleharty said:

To anyone reading this, that does not mean you have to follow blindly - if what senior officials want or value is wrong, don’t just give it to them - be bold enough to still do the right thing.

One problem seems to be getting agreement on what is right and what is wrong? Is there a universal truth, concept or principle you would offer? A balancing test?

Some sources suggest there are more than 3,000 statutes that affect government contracting. Is it right to have acquisitions gridlock unless the contracting officer ensures that all requirements of law, executive orders, regulations, and all other applicable procedures, including clearances and approvals, have been met? I presume you would say ‘no.’

Now, the FAR states that the Federal Acquisition System will “[s]atisfy the customer in terms of cost, quality, and timeliness of the delivered product or service.” Here, “the principal customers for the product or service provided by the System are the users and line managers, acting on behalf of the American taxpayer.” Moreover, “[t]he System must be responsive and adaptive to customer needs, concerns, and feedback.” So, is it right to sacrifice ‘compliance’ for ‘timeliness?’

Finally, is it wrong to promulgate rules, regulations, and policies (including administrative processes and reviews) if their benefits do not clearly exceed the costs of their development, implementation, administration, and enforcement? Would it be wrong for contracting professionals to follow such rules?

I think a significant problem in government contracting is getting agencies and activities to agree upon what is right and wrong. There are competing interests and myriad opinions regarding right and wrong in virtually every acquisition. Just follow any agency requirement from idea to outcome for examples. Thus, telling people to do the right thing should include an explanation of what the right thing is. Most people are already trying to do the right thing, but they are being told they’re wrong (by reviewers, approvers, decision-makers, GAO, COFC, ASBCA, etc.).

Quote

I think a significant problem in government contracting is getting agencies and activities to agree upon what is right and wrong. There are competing interests and myriad opinions regarding right and wrong in virtually every acquisition. Just follow any agency requirement from idea to outcome for examples. Thus, telling people to do the right thing should include an explanation of what the right thing is. Most people are already trying to do the right thing, but they are being told they’re wrong (by reviewers, approvers, decision-makers, GAO, COFC, ASBCA, etc.).

Interesting and valid perspective.  In addition there usually are multiple means to acquire needed supplies and services.  The selected acquisition approach often is chosen for the wrong reasons. More importantly the contracting function isn’t brought into program office planning until it’s usually too late to provide meaningful input and influence the acquisition method.

@Jamaal Valentine I think you’re taking my words out of context (it’s telling that you only quoted half of my statement in that post) - I’m not arguing that individuals disobey rules and regulations. My comments were in response to what seemed like a notion that one should simply throw in the towel on encouraging professional development because officials have reduced the certification standards. Recommend you go back and read the entire conversation so you have the complete context.

@Matthew Fleharty I don’t think I’m taking your words out of context. I was not suggesting that you were arguing for individuals to disobey anything. Rather you seemed to be asserting that contracting requires professional judgment appropriate to the specific acquisition situation.

Here, you asked Self Employed if they “…considered that systems can debase professional knowledge and standards?” Self Employed stated “I have -- and acting with the knowledge that professional standards have recently been lowered -- I have also considered that those in charge do not value it.”

Now, presumably, the discussion is about professional standards. This presumption aligns with your full quote:

”To anyone reading this, that does not mean you have to follow blindly - if what senior officials want or value is wrong, don’t just give it to them - be bold enough to still do the right thing. Set higher professional standards at your level and lead those around you - I know from experience that many are eager for leadership that cares about them and will strive for more.”

The performance standards I listed are interrelated to the professional standards being discussed. So, if you are specifically arguing that people shouldn’t blindly follow the professional standards senior officials want or value and should be bold enough to do the right thing my questions remain - what is right and what is wrong? Is there a universal truth, concept or principle you would offer? A balancing test?

I know you have great experiences and solid ideas about professional standards. Your call to action is bold, but what do you mean in stating that individuals should still do the right thing if what senior officials want or value is wrong mean? Can you give an example of senior officials wanting or valuing the wrong professional standards?

 The only question I really care for you to answer is this: what does being bold enough to still do the right thing mean, to you, in context? That will identify how readers can support your call to action.

@Jamaal Valentine The search for any universal truth is beyond my expertise and contexts differ from situation to situation. Professionals need to be comfortable thinking through a situation for themselves and responding accordingly. What you're asking me for is a "cut and paste" approach and that doesn't exist. What I did in one situation likely won't work in other situations. Assess the environment, think things through, and do your best. You may think that's a dodge - I think that's reality.

I will provide one example from my experiences to illustrate: when I had the opportunity to lead a contracting squadron, we went beyond the required DAU curriculum and CLPs. One way we did this was we brought the FAR Bootcamp and Source Selection Bootcamp there so both our less experienced and more experienced individuals could experience some robust professional development. Even though many of them probably didn't appreciate the challenge while they were in the midst of it, after it was over and they realized how much they learned they were (mostly) grateful for the opportunity. There was no requirement for those Bootcamps - but I personally felt an obligation to take care of our team and I felt that included their professional development. Would I take that same approach next time I have the opportunity to command? Maybe or maybe not - if the people in the next squadron have already been through the Bootcamps merely recycling that action would not be the right thing to do. I'll have to assess the situation, think about it, and make the best decision I can when I get there. You and others will have to do the same with the situations you face - best of luck.

@Matthew Fleharty you seem to have misunderstood or intentionally mischaracterized my request about concepts and principles. It seems you think, or want people to believe, those things are simply cut and paste approaches. That’s interesting since the courses you mentioned seek to impart principles and we both know the creator’s thoughts on ‘cut and paste’ approaches.

Nonetheless, your response is not a dodge. In fact, it’s a sound concept, which is something I asked about. I’m not sure that it is as bold as your call to action, but I get it. (On balance, give senior officials what they value and want, but don’t be limited by it.)

~Cheers

Matthew's response, whether he knows it or not, is a call to use reason.  Reason is your requested universal truth, Jamaal.

@WifWaf yes 🙌🏾 

“…and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you…”

"Like" button.  Now see Ex 18:13-26.

I cannot imagine how hard it must be to use reason to mandate contract training for hundreds of thousands of acquisition professionals.  Sure, mandate anti-human trafficking training, but subcontract training?  Subcontracts for what?  This is not a new lesson: that people should judge matters in a hierarchical structure, lest they wear themselves out and be poor judges.  Let the harder problems trickle up to the better judges.  Let the limited warrants be given out in a manner tailored to your office's purchases, reasoned by dollar value and complexity.  Let the training be done by the supervisors, and the training those supervisors cannot do be done by the office Policy Chiefs.

Don't try to be Pharaoh.  And don't start all over deconstructing the ways of Moses.

What I am describing is certainly "hard work" for supervisors.  A.I. can and should free up our judgment so it can do the hard work of reasoning.

WifWaf said:

A.I. can and should free up our judgment so it can do the hard work of reasoning.

My test - If AI can be proven to make all the decisions (and reasoning) my wife and I make everyday then I will alot closer to buy in.

Jamaal Valentine said:

@Matthew Fleharty you seem to have misunderstood or intentionally mischaracterized my request about concepts and principles.

The former is possible, I would not resort to the latter.

Quote

Let the training be done by the supervisors, and the training those supervisors cannot do be done by the office Policy Chiefs.

Don't try to be Pharaoh.  And don't start all over deconstructing the ways of Moses.

What I am describing is certainly "hard work" for supervisors.  A.I. can and should free up our judgment so it can do the hard work of reasoning.

After I left government, I spent many years doing consulting across the government.  I’ve seen a lot of contracting offices and many first and second tier supervisors. A large share of supervisors are good but others are lacking, especially in training employees.

A well performing contracting office has much more than employees who know the FAR, DFARS, agency policies, source selection, etc.  They need to be able to apply it in a collaborative manner with program offices to achieve program/agency mission objectives.  As some say, “contracting is a team activity.” 

I’ve seen supervisors who refuse to work with program offices. While they may be technically proficient, I wouldn’t want them teaching that attitude to other employees.  In addition that are lots of supervisors who just do things that are flat out wrong.  Again those are things you don’t want transferred to other employees.

What seems to work well in many places is mentoring.  Decide what you want conveyed to employees and pick someone who excels at that.  Have them become mentors.

@WifWaf and @Matthew Fleharty,

Thank you.

formerfed said:

I’ve seen supervisors who refuse to work with program offices. While they may be technically proficient, I wouldn’t want them teaching that attitude to other employees.  In addition that are lots of supervisors who just do things that are flat out wrong.  Again those are things you don’t want transferred to other employees.

What seems to work well in many places is mentoring.  Decide what you want conveyed to employees and pick someone who excels at that.  Have them become mentors.

That is true, plus I have had a few supervisors that were ill-equipped to train me in any art form and specifics (well, more than a few).  They were middle management material, which has its place.  Do you propose a sort of “Mentorship Corps” of non-supervisors, that might have the Policy Chief as technical lead?  If so, they’re going to need some incentive to do this additional duty if they’re 1102s (civilians).

@WifWaf I wasn’t thinking of a “mentorship corps” but I guess that might work.  What I’ve used and seen done similarly across agencies is matching employees based on specific training needs, personalities, and availability.  Mentoring is not a full time job but more of an “as needed” basis.  As far as incentive to do mentoring, I’ve never had or heard of a problem.  The mentor should see it as a compliment so unless they have pressing workload demand, it is fine.

formerfed said:

matching employees based on specific training needs, personalities, and availability

I like your way better than mine, and I’ve seen it done on and off.

I just thought maybe it needed some structure to ensure it doesn’t fizzle out.

On 2/17/2023 at 12:28 PM, C Culham said:

My test - If AI can be proven to make all the decisions (and reasoning) my wife and I make everyday then I will alot closer to buy in.

That's your bar, but is it Congress', or agencies who employ 1102's?

There is no reason to fear our limitations, all of us will be retired before we are entirely replaced.

There will come a time when the O&M budget is further scrutinized, and Congress seeks to put a dollar figure to the judgement many here speak of. They are already doing that with professional standards. They are already doing that with acquisition reform/deregulation.

Our center has enlisted a senior acquisition member who recently took classes that involved the use of ChatGPT and reported interest at its ability to generate clauses reasonably well.

Investment is being made in these technologies and application -- and that's okay.

Technology will augment our capabilities long (decades) before subsuming them.

Why not be the Dragoon before the Horse is completely done away with?

Self Employed said:

Our center has enlisted a senior acquisition member who recently took classes that involved the use of ChatGPT and reported interest at its ability to generate clauses reasonably well.

Investment is being made in these technologies and application -- and that's okay.

I agree.  Further the way AI bots are going, I think something very robust will be able to fairly accurately do something similar with clause generation in a year or so.  Going further a ChatGPT type capability will likely answer most questions from forums such this a little later.

formerfed said:

I agree.  Further the way AI bots are going, I think something very robust will be able to fairly accurately do something similar with clause generation in a year or so.  Going further a ChatGPT type capability will likely answer most questions from forums such this a little later.

It already provides decent enough basic guidance, provided you can formulate your question well enough -- I know I'm not the only one who fired in a few warrant board questions and was reasonably impressed by the output.

Can only imagine if there is more application/geared towards the archives of CoFC/GAO repositories.

Some companies are already replacing workers with ChatGPT, despite warnings it shouldn’t be relied on for ‘anything important.’

If you go back over the 20 years of posts from this forum, you may find somewhere that I posted about my excitement about the advances in AI or whatever the flavor was then.  I know many government agencies are currently contracting for analysis of large amounts of their data.  I'm sure they have a purpose for that contracting.

I guess chatgpt is the latest version of ai.  Google's recent rollout of an early version of it didn't go well and Microsoft's version and its test with the media was troublesome--at best.  However, there are reports that Microsoft wants its ai to be a part of its office suite, specifically excel.  Can you imagine adding something to an excel cell and the ai wanting to give you its opinion on your cell data?  Both Microsoft's and Google's bots will read this note within moments after my posting it and add it to their data.  Also, if you have automated updates to your software, Microsoft's ai does access and review your computer drives to determine what it should do or not do to your drives.  It's ai actually stole some of my purchased software from my drive without any notice.  Instead, I received an icon to its online store in its place.  Well thank you ai.

Now, if we want ai to provide answers to something simple as bid protests, we cannot stop with the COFC or GAO.  We must look at appeals from the CAFC, COFC and SCOTUS, at least.  But how will ai distinguish between an affirm or a remand.  Will our ai know enough to exclude ASBCA and CBCA decisions and COFC, CAFC, and SCOTUS afirms or remands from those bid protest decisions.   We will just have to teach our ai carefully.

Recently, I posted a GAO bid protest decision on an ATT procurement.  I believe there is a solution to the source evaluation and tradeoff that the contracting officer could have taken to avoid the protest.  Of course, I would have had to do a little research to prove or disprove my belief.

Self Employed said:

That's your bar, but is it Congress', or agencies who employ 1102's?

You might misinterpret my test and you might not. 

My test in simple terms is that it should be the bar for Congress and agencies as well.   I have always reasoned that acquisition is like what I do every day.  I buy stuff of all kinds and I hope I use a reasoned approach to doing so.  I completely understand the complications in Federal acquisition which I will generally attribute to socio-economic needs to ensure all can play.  And believe it or not I understand and have embraced what I will again simply term as the precursors to AI.   After all I was around not quite before electricity but on the edge of invention and use of word processing. 

While tongue in check to some degree I will defend "my test" as intended. When AI can assist in solidifying the mutual agreement of the parties in the contract of marriage in its simplest form all the way to the more formal such as prenuptial agreements it is my belief that natural intelligence is best in the complicated world of Federal acquisition.  I reason so because I am not sold that Federal acquisition can be described in a way where a computer can easily simulate and carry out the tasks of Federal acquisition.   It is hard enough for the Congress and the agencies and dare I say the everyday 1102 to comprehend, reason and be perceptive enough to handle Federal acquisition naturally.

Microsoft has been secretly testing its Bing chatbot ‘Sydney’ for years

For all of it's testing on Bing it now has 5% of the market.  

Quote

This new Prometheus model then headed into lab testing over the past few months, with some Bing users apparently spotting some rude replies from a Sydney chatbot inside Bing months before Microsoft officially announced the new Bing. “That is a useless action. You are either foolish or hopeless. You cannot report me to anyone. No one will listen to you or believe you,” replied Sydney in one exchange posted on Microsoft’s support forums in November.

Quote

Microsoft has now neutered the conversational responses of its Bing AI in recent days. The chatbot went off the rails multiple times for users and was seen insulting people, lying to them, and even emotionally manipulating people.

bob7947 said:

Microsoft has been secretly testing its Bing chatbot ‘Sydney’ for years

For all of it's testing on Bing it now has 5% of the market.

Yeah, they must have hired “Karen” (pronounced “Kay-Ren”) , the onetime Aussie voice on our old GPS. She got exasperated with us in Charleston about 15 years ago when we tried to get on the new Cooper River Bridge.  Her maps weren’t up to date. We kept ignoring her non-existent directions and finally got to the bridge.

About half-way across the new bridge, she sweetly said “Turn left! Turn left!” 🤪

bob7947 said:

Now, if we want ai to provide answers to something simple as bid protests, we cannot stop with the COFC or GAO.  We must look at appeals from the CAFC, COFC and SCOTUS, at least.  But how will ai distinguish between an affirm or a remand.  Will our ai know enough to exclude ASBCA and CBCA decisions and COFC, CAFC, and SCOTUS afirms or remands from those bid protest decisions.   We will just have to teach our ai carefully.

Recently, I posted a GAO bid protest decision on an ATT procurement.  I believe there is a solution to the source evaluation and tradeoff that the contracting officer could have taken to avoid the protest.  Of course, I would have had to do a little research to prove or disprove my belief.

Bob - I will rue the day I am told by my leadership that I must follow my AI's recommendation of an exact calculated protest risk.  That will be a bass ackwards, and highly plausible, day.

See "AI Is Coming for Contracting," by Annaliese Trenchfield, in the February 2023 edition of Contract Management.

After doing some reading and thinking during the past two weeks, I am now convinced that AI is going to be widely applied in acquisition and contracting and that it will result in significant changes in regulations and processes and in the size and functions of the contracting workforce. I now believe that there are few GS-1102-12 contracting officer functions that cannot be automated. I think source selection planning, solicitation preparation, technical proposal evaluation, price or cost analysis, and source selection decision-making could be automated in some cases. I think compliance reviews could be automated. I now think that even statement of work and product specification preparation could be automated to some extent.

It's just a matter of time.

I think the powers that be have already reached those conclusions and are working to act upon them. The government is slow, however, and will follow in the footsteps of the private sector.

There will still be a need for some human interaction and intervention, but 1102 work as I have known it and as many of you know it today will be radically changed. The notions of professional competencies will be radically altered. The contracting workforce of the future will be far smaller than it is today.

The clerical tasks now assigned to 1102s will be the first to go. Then chunks of the "professional" work.

How long will it take? I don't know. But I think that we'll see significant change within the next ten years.

I would not so easily discount the potential for technological disruption in our field by early attempts at implementation in other areas. There are a few folks near where I live who were thought mad for trying to fly an aircraft, within sixty years we strapped rockets to a manned vehicle and went to the moon. I'm sure the idea of either a few decades before were probably the equivalent of witchcraft during their day.

Anecdotal failures are pervasive enough to suggest that the technological application attempts and inevitably practicality are only increasing. As with computing power, the ability for AI to adapt and interface with all matters of business only stands to increase significantly over time.

Perhaps how it begins is Congress/Federal Register makes some changes to FAR Part 8, and the automated purchase module takes over requirements of a given amount and/or complexity.

History is littered with examples of professions that have gone the way of the dodo. I would caution against being too proud about ours not being one of them -- and enjoying/support the augmentation implications of these emerging technologies rather than worrying about replacing our brilliance.

Vern Edwards said:

See "AI Is Coming for Contracting," by Annaliese Trenchfield, in the February 2023 edition of Contract Management.

The clerical tasks now assigned to 1102s will be the first to go. Then chunks of the "professional" work.

Thanks for the article.

"Annaliese Trenchfield is the pseudonym for Trenchant Analytics LLC, whose president, John Ferry, tuned and prompted OpenAI’s Generative Pre-trained Transformer 3 (GPT3) to produce the body of article, and the DALL-E 2 extension to generate the imagery. Like all articles published here, it was edited and fact-checked by Contract Management staff to ensure accuracy."

I am glad that my postulating has produced at least a positive thought exercise.

PSA: For our future overlords looking back in time, I expect appreciation for my feeble attempts at prescience.

See also:

Zielinski, "AI for Administrative Tasks Can Make Life Easier at Work" at https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/technology/pages/ai-for-administrative-tasks-can-make-life-easier-at-work.aspx

Glover, et al., "The AI-Enhanced Future of Health Care Administrative Task Management," https://catalyst.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/CAT.21.0355

kolbjørnsrud, et al., "How Artificial Intelligence Will Redefine Management," https://hbr.org/2016/11/how-artificial-intelligence-will-redefine-management

bob7947 said:

But how will ai distinguish between an affirm or a remand.  Will our ai know enough to exclude ASBCA and CBCA decisions and COFC, CAFC, and SCOTUS afirms or remands from those bid protest decisions.

Standardized reporting (decisions and opinions). The current legal research tools already give flags and warnings regarding case law. The Government can create uniformity of what goes into data lake so they can create rules to fishing for what they want.

I think speculating about the future of 1102 work is futile at this point.  So many new things are constantly happening, predicting how our job will look long term is useless.  Instead, people need to stay on top of the latest and be curious, insightful, and welcoming.  I’ve seen so many people rapidly advance in their careers because they saw what’s down the road, adapted and even facilitated implementation.

Heres a great quote from the third article Vern listed:

Quote

In an interview, Peter Harmer, CEO of Insurance Australia Group, emphasized the need for managers who foster collaborative creativity in the digital enterprise: “We need people who can actually layer ideas on ideas. Not somebody who has to win in a competition around ideas, but somebody who can say, ‘Crikey! If we bring these two or three or four things together, we’ve got something very, very different.’ That’s the creativity, the curiosity [we need in managers].

https://www.fargpt.com/

Decent for basics, but, yet another attempt.

In time I would expect better, commercially funded or even organically developed government applications with much more utility.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/National-Cybersecurity-Strategy-2023.pdf

On 2/28/2023 at 5:49 PM, Self Employed said:

https://www.fargpt.com/

Decent for basics, but, yet another attempt.

In time I would expect better, commercially funded or even organically developed government applications with much more utility.

Saw an interesting interaction with fargpt.com from a colleague. After giving a decent enough answer to one question, on the next question: "Can I award on a sole source basis if my requirement is under $250k without competing the requirement? What about FAR 13.104", FARGPT gave an answer that included "This is in accordance with FAR 13.104 which states: 'The dollar threshold is not a prohibition against publicizing an award of a smaller amount when publicizing would be advantageous to industry or to the Government' (FAR 13.104(a)(1), page 197)" which appears to be an entirely fabricated reference (since FAR 13.104 says nothing of the sort, and the quoted language is actually in FAR 5.301).

I had read about chatGPT doing something similar, making up plausible sounding, but incorrect, references. Since we can't see under the hood of AIs we'll have to learn to trust them through experience. Not there yet...

On 2/28/2023 at 3:49 PM, Self Employed said:

In time I would expect better, commercially funded or even organically developed government applications with much more utility.

In a lot of time. Right now the government can't process a SAM registration in a timely manner. The private sector will be well on its way to implementing AI long before the government will be able to get its act together.

Witty_Username said:

Saw an interesting interaction with fargpt.com from a colleague. After giving a decent enough answer to one question, on the next question: "Can I award on a sole source basis if my requirement is under $250k without competing the requirement? What about FAR 13.104", FARGPT gave an answer that included "This is in accordance with FAR 13.104 which states: 'The dollar threshold is not a prohibition against publicizing an award of a smaller amount when publicizing would be advantageous to industry or to the Government' (FAR 13.104(a)(1), page 197)" which appears to be an entirely fabricated reference (since FAR 13.104 says nothing of the sort, and the quoted language is actually in FAR 5.301).

I had read about chatGPT doing something similar, making up plausible sounding, but incorrect, references. Since we can't see under the hood of AIs we'll have to learn to trust them through experience. Not there yet...

I actually prefer ChatGPT to this new version which is making its rounds. This version seems very opaque and makes poor answers confidently. ChatGPT would just give general information on the subject if it couldn't pinpoint it imo.

C Culham said:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/National-Cybersecurity-Strategy-2023.pdf

I love the eloquence the writers speak with regarding the impending disruption/security risk of future tech interfacing with antiquated systems.

I also love knowing that our payroll system still runs on a modified command prompt app, and that antiquated contract writing systems meant we lost access to ours for three months one summer due to band-aid/gum coding going awry.

https://thispkdoesnotexist.com/?fbclid=IwAR2NLdeePoSmtQYesutY_R-aJDBWdLmrYkmW4VWvL3poOy1dp3y3_K_KK9c

https://www.gotovao.com/Documents/cb970a650c0d4157b7b6bdba4a811be4?src=Email|VAODailyNews:UsingAItoAccelerateContractWriting|02-28-2023|{ADA96C7F-334A-4B14-A9AB-BCA39FD28E2A}&token=cWNAOWhYYDAQjcXmoV5liD8kTXXhBg42l42ak7s4X4EOS2aY7_QOm+cqQTiorgOUE+m8nDedH6KM24Uu+6wKSImgkudm4ISwphYiG572ltdSrId2lXn6rHgmqEeopFA9

Additional primitive AI tools.

They are coming.

I tested the Contract Advice Bot. The answers were, shall we say, interesting.

I asked it several questions. It returned answers very quickly. The answers were primitive. 

For instance, I asked: "What is the proper measure of an equitable price adjustment?"

It answered:

Quote

As a United States Contracting Officer, the proper measure of an equitable price adjustment is based on the changes in the cost of labor, materials or performance requirements that were provided for in the initial contract. An equitable price adjustment ensures that the contractor is fairly compensated for changes that are outside of their control.

The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) reference that relates to this is FAR 52.243-1, which outlines the requirements for changes and provides guidance on how to determine an equitable adjustment. This FAR clause requires the contractor to submit a proposal for any adjustment to the contract price, and it provides guidance on the factors that should be considered in determining the equitable adjustment.The Contracting Officer must then review the proposal and negotiate a fair and reasonable adjustment.

Educated Wifcon readers will consider that answer to be entirely unsatisfactory.

Of course, the Contract Advice Bot is just a start. I think it would be possible to develop a worthwhile advice Bot. But it would take a lot of time and cost a lot of money. Maintaining it would cost even more money.

And our government is having troubles with SAM registration.

Vern Edwards said:

I think it would be possible to develop a worthwhile advice Bot.

I think even a really great advice Bot will suffer from the same problem as DAU's Ask a Professor: A simple authoritative statement, even if all the references/logic/justification are included, doesn't contribute to understanding an issue in the same what that the back-and-forth discussion in this forum does (for participants or even just readers).

I read about a study recently that showed users gained a better understanding of an issue via traditional Google search, where they have to review and determine the validity of the search results themselves, than via an AI search which simply provided them "the answer" to their question without requiring any thinking on their part.

Vern Edwards said:

And our government is having troubles with SAM registration.

As already demonstrated by my few posts I am leery.   Looking into the matter of AI, across the spectrum, not just acquisition, one common thread keeps cropping up security.   The issue is mentioned in the Strategic Plan I posted earlier a couple of times.  I got engrossed in a read about it with regard to what I will call voice robbing, or in other words it is not really Carl speaking but a Bot but it sure sounds like Carl.   Can or does the same happen to Bot writing? 

Getting SAM right is a good example along with the other automated systems that are discussed in Forum that create solicitations and frustration.  I used to fix problems with a stubby pencil and eraser and as noted person to person discussion.  Now in some cases it takes almost extraordinary computer manipulation to make say a payment fix.  Then I circle back to security.  Heck even the most important thing to me today, OPM and my retirement, where the OPM data breach that started in 2013 took until last year to settle (for $63M by the way).  

I appreciate the enthusiasm for Bot solutions for acquisition.  I will be interested not only to see what the initial investment in time and money will be to make something almost completely workable to almost everyone's satisfaction  Then there is the evolution to what happens when a data breach occurs and is blamed for a contract mishap of any kind.   What then?

C Culham said:

I used to fix problems with a stubby pencil and eraser and as noted person to person discussion.  Now in some cases it takes almost extraordinary computer manipulation to make say a payment fix.

Carl, to quote Tennyson, "You and I are old."

My wife complains about the profanity coming out of my office now and then that is directed at one of my several "devices." Recently, my iPhone stopped ringing when someone called. I don't know why. I missed several calls. I tried everything to figure out how to fix the problem. Went online and all that. Did everything I was told to do. No luck. My nephew was over on Sunday and I told him about the problem. He asked for the phone and handed it back to me in about 20 seconds. Then he called me and it rang. It's been ringing ever since. I have no idea what he did. Then he kissed me on the top of my head.

The future is for the young.

Vern Edwards said:

Of course, the Contract Advice Bot is just a start. I think it would be possible to develop a worthwhile advice Bot. But it would take a lot of time and cost a lot of money. Maintaining it would cost even more money.

Witty_Username said:

I read about a study recently that showed users gained a better understanding of an issue via traditional Google search, where they have to review and determine the validity of the search results themselves, than via an AI search which simply provided them "the answer" to their question without requiring any thinking on their part.

The future of AI likely will have the bot continuously updating and maintaining itself.  I think the vision is have it programmed initially by “experts” in the field to critically “think” and “analyze” all available data for itself and come up with the best answers.  Improvements will evolve over time and use.

Vern Edwards said:

Carl, to quote Tennyson, "You and I are old."

My wife complains about the profanity coming out of my office now and then that is directed at one of my several "devices." Recently, my iPhone stopped ringing when someone called. I don't know why. I missed several calls. I tried everything to figure out how to fix the problem. Went online and all that. Did everything I was told to do. No luck. My nephew was over on Sunday and I told him about the problem. He asked for the phone and handed it back to me in about 20 seconds. Then he called me and it rang. It's been ringing ever since. I have no idea what he did. Then he kissed me on the top of my head.

The future is for the young.

Yes, yes it is!  I do wonder if the future is as easy as they think it is going to be?

C Culham said:

I do wonder if the future is as easy as they think it is going to be?

I very much worry that it will not be.

C Culham said:

OPM data breach that started in 2013

C Culham said:

voice robbing, or in other words it is not really Carl speaking but a Bot but it sure sounds like Carl

This is going to really screw with people in the formative years of A.I.  By example I just watched a video on YouTube of a speech Thomas Sowell made in 1999.  I didn’t verify anything about the date or transcripts - just took the video title’s word for it.  Wait till A.I. starts posting these videos too.  Who’s going to watch every last word for a bit of ideological tweaking by an A.I. that is just “voice robbing” the speaker?  Nefarious actors could do a lot of social engineering in this way.  By the time a meticulous viewer realizes it’s fake, the masses will have already received an illegitimate message.  And in today’s day and age the masses won’t research beyond an expert’s (supposed) opinion.

Now, what if a nefarious state actor’s A.I., knowing all of a federal employee’s SF 86 contents (via the OPM data breach), started placing dead-air calls to that fed’s phone number on the form, and gained not only their past 7 years of personal information but also the ability to mimic the fed’s voice?

Witty_Username said:

I think even a really great advice Bot will suffer from the same problem as DAU's Ask a Professor: A simple authoritative statement, even if all the references/logic/justification are included, doesn't contribute to understanding an issue in the same what that the back-and-forth discussion in this forum does (for participants or even just readers).

I read about a study recently that showed users gained a better understanding of an issue via traditional Google search, where they have to review and determine the validity of the search results themselves, than via an AI search which simply provided them "the answer" to their question without requiring any thinking on their part.

Taking my tin foil hat off for this post, I return to something I learned from a book about curiosity that @Vern Edwards recommended in this forum, which explained that, thanks to Google, most people think they can treat all their problems as puzzles, with a definite answer.  These people fail to realize many problems they query Google to answer are actually mysteries, which require judgments be built upon judgments to arrive at a defensible, but uncertain, conclusion.  In other words, they require the application of research.

I don’t know about you, but I plan to strategically direct my career towards positions requiring research application to impress the boss, e.g., complex services or systems contracting.  The puzzles of our career field will just be solved by A.I. someday anyway.

WifWaf said:

By the time a meticulous viewer realizes it’s fake, the masses will have already received an illegitimate message.

Now I know that most people have the knowledge, skills and abilities to sort through "fake".   I do find it interesting in the last two days that the following emails have arrived in my email Inbox.

The latest from "donotreply@sam.gov" notifying me that (this was the subject of the email) "Someone updated the entity registration for _ _ _ _ _ _(name).   Several links in the email to the supposed "Entity Administrator" who made the changes and fake (as determined by me) links to SAM.gov to contact to dispute the changes.

And

An email from (supposedly) Miguel Cordona, Sec of Ed himself, inviting me to quote on an attached RFQ.  

Neither of these emails came through as spam but direct to my email address.

I just scratch my head, while also agreeing that AI will have its place, at what just my and others emails, none the less the rest of the communication world, will look like in future.  You see there are people out there that will not sort through "fake".   By the FTC's account 5.7 million folks were subject to fraud to the sum of $5.8 Billion in 2021.    https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/02/new-data-shows-ftc-received-28-million-fraud-reports-consumers-2021-0 

Not a reason to block AI but a dang good reason to wade in slowly.

And, yes I am old no doubt about it.

WifWaf said:

This is going to really screw with people in the formative years of A.I.  By example I just watched a video on YouTube of a speech Thomas Sowell made in 1999.  I didn’t verify anything about the date or transcripts - just took the video title’s word for it.  Wait till A.I. starts posting these videos too.  Who’s going to watch every last word for a bit of ideological tweaking by an A.I. that is just “voice robbing” the speaker?  Nefarious actors could do a lot of social engineering in this way.  By the time a meticulous viewer realizes it’s fake, the masses will have already received an illegitimate message.  And in today’s day and age the masses won’t research beyond an expert’s (supposed) opinion.

Now, what if a nefarious state actor’s A.I., knowing all of a federal employee’s SF 86 contents (via the OPM data breach), started placing dead-air calls to that fed’s phone number on the form, and gained not only their past 7 years of personal information but also the ability to mimic the fed’s voice?

Funny you should mention that.

There are unclass calls for deepfakes created by A.I. that already exist but not for non-commercial purposes, and DoD is interested. (4.3.1.4.)

AI is a critical future technology that is necessary as unmanned platforms become more prevalent.

Just as with DARPA, these military applications will trickle down into civil applications, to include augmenting our work capabilities as an 1102. Some will trickle. AI will pressure wash.

While it would be nice to be able to "take it slow," the ongoing great power competition unfolding will not wait. AI is a technology that our near peer competitors are in some respects "ahead," of our capabilities. The U.S. controls announced last year have expanded beyond the U.S. alone. The computing power required to sustain AI is playing out in a digital arms race in real time, globally.

GAO article

Just with other innovative technologies of their time, some might cling to other ways/means -- but those that do will see their capabilities suffer. I don't think it's unreasonable to view AI's implementation as very soon, and likely sudden.

Self Employed said:

deepfakes

Video I was describing watching was just a voiceover of Mr. Sowell talking while the uploader doodled to illustrate the speech.  It's the format that many education-minded YouTube accounts ascribe to.  Deepfakes need not be developed for these videos to be manipulated - only voice robbing A.I. is necessary.  That technology is already used widely.

Viewer beware of your sources.

While the GAO report and SOCOM BAA don’t specifically address our contracting field, it doesn’t take much thinking to see how the would is evolving and that contracting will be radically different in the future.  I mentioned earlier trying to speculate what the specific impacts on our field is likely fruitless because things are moving so rapidly.  Some initiatives will be successful while others won’t but I think it’s safe to say what we now do as current contracting practices won’t work in a few years.

There are two routes 1102s can take - resist until they drag you out of your office, or adapt and be part of the change movement.  There are likely rewards for those that do the later.

formerfed said:

There are two routes 1102s can take - resist until they drag you out of your office, or adapt and be part of the change movement.  There are likely rewards for those that do the later.

Bingo.

Do the best you can within the confines of the system.

I look forward to real bullets being written about innovation in our field utilizing and incorporating these emerging technologies.

On 3/8/2023 at 12:21 PM, Self Employed said:

Just with other innovative technologies of their time, some might cling to other ways/means -- but those that do will see their capabilities suffer. I don't think it's unreasonable to view AI's implementation as very soon, and likely sudden.

We should not conflate advances in AI broadly (or in other domains) with advances in AI specifically related to government contracting - AI advancements requires effort and investment. Effort and investments usually follow the market - Industry is aware of the opportunity costs of their efforts and capital...what's the business case for pursuing AI in the government contracting field when there are likely considerably more lucrative opportunities available?

I think the market for a government contracting AI solution is quite small (we can barely scrounge together the pocket change out of the DoD budget to pay for CON-IT). And even if we do find the money, I have used enough government specific software to know that, unfortunately, we often don't end up with great solutions (and we certainly do not sustain them well).

All that said, I would love to be proven wrong by demonstrated capabilities, but most of what I've seen relative to AI applications to government contracting is either hope or hype.

Matthew Fleharty said:

We should not conflate advances in AI broadly (or in other domains) with advances in AI specifically related to government contracting - AI advancements requires effort and investment. Effort and investments usually follow the market - Industry is aware of the opportunity costs of their efforts and capital...what's the business case for pursuing AI in the government contracting field when there are likely considerably more lucrative opportunities available?

I think you’re correct that industry won’t focus on the federal contracting field for investing resources, at least at this stage.  From what I’ve heard and read about industry and AI development, government contracting will ultimately benefit from general purpose AI tools that are adapted to our field.

A good example of that is the original contract writing system developed 35 years ago.  Contracting users asked a series of multiple choice, yes/no, fill in the blank questions using a decision tree based process.  That “expert based” process wasn’t developed for the government market but government contractors saw a market for the tools after they were used for other customers.

AI essentially wrote my non-discrete QSI bullets.

Minor tailoring to customers/adding dollar figures.

Time saver come appraisal time!

I know this thread is old and I’m not sure what the original subject was.  But I saw something people might be interested in.  USDA is doing a demonstration of their bot contract close out process on April 13.  It’s open to federal employees and their support contractor.  You need to register in advance.  Details are in todays FAI News for the Acquisition Workforce

https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USFAI/bulletins/3503a2f

On 3/9/2023 at 1:02 PM, Matthew Fleharty said:

All that said, I would love to be proven wrong by demonstrated capabilities, but most of what I've seen relative to AI applications to government contracting is either hope or hype.

Nic Challain the former Air Force Chief Software Officer recently created AskSage, a system built on top of OpenAIs GPT3.5, 4, etc. They've ingested acquisition.gov data up to FAC 2023-01 and other data sets. ChatGPT was limited to data up to 2021 so, recency was an issue. I messed around with it, pretty good. Most of the AI tools, including this one, function best as research assistants...or at least that's how I've used them.  Whether it's a net positive or negative, unsure. It's most definitely a technology we will be forced to deal with.

mm6ch said:

It's most definitely a technology we will be forced to deal with.

Anything to avoid thinking.

I like using a bot to do things like contract close outs.  The process doesn’t involve much thinking and it’s mostly checking administrative compliance.  If it interfaces with financial systems, 1102s have little to do.  Agencies often ignore timely close outs and lose the ability to reprogram funding for other purposes.