Did you utilize AI to write down this tender? What? Simply asking! — Additionally, how will you utilize AI to ship this contract? — The right way to Crack a Nut – Defend Cyber

Extra usually, the AI PPN is sure to be controversial and has already spurred insightful dialogue on LinkedIn. I’d suggest the posts by Kieran McGaughey and Ian Makgill. I provide some extra ideas right here and look ahead to persevering with the dialog.

In my opinion, one of many potential points arising from the AI PPN is that it goals to cowl fairly just a few 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 problem of shopping for AI-based options or providers. Second, there may be the problem of tenderers utilizing (generative) AI to write down or design their tenders. Third, there may be the problem of the usage of AI by contracting authorities, eg in relation to qualitative choice/exclusion, or analysis/award selections. The AI PPN covers features of . Nonetheless, it’s not clear to me that these might 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 Tips for AI procurement, the AI PPN consists of some content material related to the procurement and use of AI when it stresses that ‘Business groups ought to pay attention to present steering when buying AI providers, nevertheless they need to additionally remember that AI and Machine Studying is turning into more and more prevalent within the supply of “non-AI” providers. The place AI is probably going for use within the supply of a service, business groups might want to require suppliers to declare this, and supply additional particulars. This may allow business 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 satisfactory and doubtlessly useful warning. Nonetheless, as mentioned under, the PPN suggests a technique to go about it that’s for my part fallacious and doubtlessly very problematic.

AI-generated tenders

The AI PPN is nevertheless principally involved with the usage of AI for tender technology. 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 is just not prohibited throughout the business course of however steps needs to be taken to grasp the dangers related to the usage of 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, comparable 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 threat posed by means of AI, and will embrace web site visits, clarification questions or provider displays.

  • Further due diligence ought to assist to determine the accuracy, robustness and credibility of suppliers’ tenders by the usage of 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 inner prospects and supply groups to deliver better experience on the implications and advantages of AI, relative to the subject material of the contract.’

In my opinion, there are just a few problematic features right here. Whereas the AI PPN appears to attempt to not single out the usage of generative AI as doubtlessly problematic by equating it to the doable use of (human) bid writers, that is unconvincing. First, as a result of there may be (to my information) no steering by any means 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 technology chain). Second, as a result of the method taken within the AI PP appears to level at potential issues with the usage of (exterior, third-party) bid writers, whereas it doesn’t appear to object to the usage of (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 up to now to deal with the potential deceit or provision of deceptive info in tenders if contracting authorities should now begin fascinated about find out how to get expert-based evaluation of tenders, or develop fact-checking mechanisms to make sure bids are truthful. You’ll have thought that whatever the origin of a young, contracting authorities ought to have the ability to examine their content material to an satisfactory stage of due diligence already.

In any case, the largest concern with the AI PPN is the way it suggests contracting authorities ought to cope with this concern, as mentioned under.

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 might be for contracting authorities to ‘struggle fireplace with fireplace’ and in addition deploy generative AI (eg to make summaries, to scan for errors, and so forth). Apparently, although, the AI PPN doesn’t immediately confer with the potential use of (generative) AI by contracting authorities.

Whereas it features a reference in Annex A to the Generative AI framework for HM Governmentthat doc doesn’t particularly deal with the usage of generative AI to handle procurement processes (and what it says about shopping for generative AI is redundant given the opposite steering within the Annex). In my opinion, the generative AI framework pushes strongly in opposition to the usage of AI in procurement when it identifies a collection of use instances to keep away from (web page 18) that embrace 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 immediately.

The broader concern of confidential, categorized or proprietary info

Each in relation to the procurement and use of AI, and the usage of AI for tender technology, the AI PPN stresses that it could be needed:

• ‘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 information for AI methods 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 threat mitigations which are required. In such situations, business groups ought to have interaction with their Data Assurance and Safety colleagues, earlier than launching the procurement, to make sure proportionate threat mitigations are applied.’

These are points that may simply exceed the technical capabilities of most contracting authorities. It is rather laborious to know what information has been used to coach a mannequin and financial operators utilizing ‘off-the-shelf’ generative AI options will hardly be ready to evaluate themselves, or present any significant info, to contracting authorities. Whereas there might be contractual constraints on the usage of info and information generated underneath a given contract, it’s far more difficult to evaluate whether or not info and information has been inappropriately used at a unique hyperlink of more and more complicated digital provide chains. And, in any case, this isn’t solely a difficulty for future contracts. Knowledge and data generated underneath contracts already in place might not be topic to satisfactory information governance frameworks. It will appear {that a} extra muscular method to auditing information governance points could also be required, and that this shouldn’t be devolved to the procurement perform.

The right way to cope with it? — or the place the PPN goes fallacious

The largest weak spot within the AI PPN is in the way it suggests contracting authorities ought to cope with the problem of generative AI. In my opinion, it will get it fallacious 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 rules. Second, by asking for too little non-scored info that contracting authorities are underneath an obligation to attain.

An excessive amount of info

The AI PPN consists of two potential (various) disclosure questions in relation to the usage of generative AI in tender writing (see under Q1 and Q2).