Extra typically, the AI PPN is certain to be controversial and has already spurred insightful dialogue on LinkedIn. I’d advocate the posts by Kieran McGaughey and Ian Makgill. I provide some extra ideas right here and stay up for persevering with the dialog.
In my opinion, one of many potential points arising from the AI PPN is that it goals to cowl fairly a number of totally different features of AI in procurement, in addition to neglecting others. Barely simplifying, there are three broad areas of AI-procurement interplay. First, there may be the difficulty of shopping for AI-based options or companies. Second, there may be the difficulty of tenderers utilizing (generative) AI to put in writing or design their tenders. Third, there may be the difficulty of using AI by contracting authorities, eg in relation to qualitative choice/exclusion, or analysis/award selections. The AI PPN covers features of . Nevertheless, it’s not clear to me that these may be handled collectively, as they pose considerably totally different coverage points. I’ll attempt to disentangle them right here.
Shopping for and utilizing AI
Though it primarily cross-refers to the Pointers for AI procurement, the AI PPN contains some content material related to the procurement and use of AI when it stresses that ‘Business groups ought to pay attention to present steerage when buying AI companies, nevertheless they need to additionally bear in mind that AI and Machine Studying is changing into more and more prevalent within the supply of “non-AI” companies. The place AI is probably going for use within the supply of a service, industrial groups might want to require suppliers to declare this, and supply additional particulars. This may allow industrial groups to contemplate any extra due diligence or contractual amendments to handle the influence of AI as a part of the service supply.’ That is an ample and doubtlessly useful warning. Nevertheless, as mentioned beneath, the PPN suggests a technique to go about it that’s for my part unsuitable and doubtlessly very problematic.
AI-generated tenders
The AI PPN is nevertheless largely involved with using AI for tender era. It recognises that there ‘are potential advantages to suppliers utilizing AI to develop their bids, enabling them to bid for a better variety of public contracts. It is very important notice that suppliers’ use of AI isn’t prohibited throughout the industrial course of however steps needs to be taken to grasp the dangers related to using AI instruments on this context, as could be the case if a bid author has been utilized by the bidder.’ It signifies some potential steps contracting authorities can take, similar to:
‘Asking suppliers to reveal their use of AI within the creation of their tender.’
‘Enterprise applicable and proportionate due diligence:
If suppliers use AI instruments to create tender responses, extra due diligence could also be required to make sure suppliers have the suitable capability and functionality to fulfil the necessities of the contract. Such due diligence needs to be proportionate to any extra particular danger posed by means of AI, and will embody website visits, clarification questions or provider displays.
Extra due diligence ought to assist to ascertain the accuracy, robustness and credibility of suppliers’ tenders via using clarifications or requesting extra supporting documentation in the identical approach contracting authorities would method any uncertainty or ambiguity in tenders.’
‘Probably permitting extra time within the procurement to permit for due diligence and a rise in volumes of responses.’
‘Nearer alignment with inside clients and supply groups to convey better experience on the implications and advantages of AI, relative to the subject material of the contract.’
In my opinion, there are a number of problematic features right here. Whereas the AI PPN appears to strive to not single out using generative AI as doubtlessly problematic by equating it to the attainable use of (human) bid writers, that is unconvincing. First, as a result of there may be (to my information) no steerage in any respect on an evaluation of whether or not bid writers have been used, and since the AI PPN itself doesn’t require disclosure of the engagement of bid writers (o places any thought on the truth that third-party bid writers ma have used AI with out this being identified to the hiring tenderer, which might then require an extension of the disclosure of AI use additional down the tender era chain). Second, as a result of the method taken within the AI PP appears to level at potential issues with using (exterior, third-party) bid writers, whereas it doesn’t appear to object to using (in-house) bid writers, doubtlessly by a lot bigger financial operators, which appears to presumptively not generate points. Third, and most significantly, as a result of it exhibits that maybe not sufficient has been performed thus far to sort out the potential deceit or provision of deceptive info in tenders if contracting authorities should now begin interested by the best way to get expert-based evaluation of tenders, or develop fact-checking mechanisms to make sure bids are truthful. You’d have thought that whatever the origin of a young, contracting authorities ought to be capable of verify their content material to an ample stage of due diligence already.
In any case, the most important subject with the AI PPN is the way it suggests contracting authorities ought to take care of this subject, as mentioned beneath.
AI-based assessments
The AI PPN additionally means that contracting authorities needs to be ‘Planning for a basic enhance in exercise as suppliers might use AI to streamline or automate their processes and enhance their bid writing functionality and capability resulting in a rise in clarification questions and tender responses.’ One of many potentialities may very well be for contracting authorities to ‘combat hearth with hearth’ and in addition deploy generative AI (eg to make summaries, to scan for errors, and many others). Apparently, although, the AI PPN doesn’t straight seek advice from the potential use of (generative) AI by contracting authorities.
Whereas it features a reference in Annex A to the Generative AI framework for HM Authorities, that doc doesn’t particularly handle using generative AI to handle procurement processes (and what it says about shopping for generative AI is redundant given the opposite steerage within the Annex). In my opinion, the generative AI framework pushes strongly towards using AI in procurement when it identifies a collection of use circumstances to keep away from (web page 18) that embody contexts the place high-accuracy and high-explainability are required. If that is the federal government’s (justified) view, then the AI PPN has been a missed alternative to say this extra clearly and straight.
The broader subject of confidential, labeled or proprietary info
Each in relation to the procurement and use of AI, and using AI for tender era, the AI PPN stresses that it might be essential:
‘Putting in proportionate controls to make sure bidders don’t use confidential contracting authority info, or info not already within the public area as coaching knowledge for AI programs e.g. utilizing confidential Authorities tender paperwork to coach AI or Giant Language Fashions to create future tender responses.‘; and that
‘In sure procurements the place there are nationwide safety considerations in relation to make use of of AI by suppliers, there could also be extra concerns and danger mitigations which might be required. In such cases, industrial groups ought to have interaction with their Info Assurance and Safety colleagues, earlier than launching the procurement, to make sure proportionate danger mitigations are applied.’
These are points that may simply exceed the technical capabilities of most contracting authorities. It is rather onerous to know what knowledge has been used to coach a mannequin and financial operators utilizing ‘off-the-shelf’ generative AI options will hardly be able to evaluate themselves, or present any significant info, to contracting authorities. Whereas there may be contractual constraints on using info and knowledge generated below a given contract, it’s rather more difficult to evaluate whether or not info and knowledge has been inappropriately used at a unique hyperlink of more and more advanced digital provide chains. And, in any case, this isn’t solely a problem for future contracts. Knowledge and knowledge generated below contracts already in place is probably not topic to ample knowledge governance frameworks. It could appear {that a} extra muscular method to auditing knowledge governance points could also be required, and that this shouldn’t be devolved to the procurement operate.
The way to take care of it? — or the place the PPN goes unsuitable
The most important weak spot within the AI PPN is in the way it suggests contracting authorities ought to take care of the difficulty of generative AI. In my opinion, it will get it unsuitable in two alternative ways. First, by asking for an excessive amount of non-scored info the place contracting authorities are unlikely to have the ability to act on it with out breaching procurement and good administration ideas. Second, by asking for too little non-scored info that contracting authorities are below an obligation to attain.
An excessive amount of info
The AI PPN contains two potential (different) disclosure questions in relation to using generative AI in tender writing (see beneath Q1 and Q2).
