Did you utilize AI to put in writing this tender? What? Simply asking! — Additionally, how will you utilize AI to ship this contract? — Tips on how to Crack a Nut - Secure Tech Hub

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 further 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 a couple 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 the usage of AI by contracting authorities, eg in relation to qualitative choice/exclusion, or analysis/award choices. The AI PPN covers features of . Nevertheless, it isn’t 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 consists of some content material related to the procurement and use of AI when it stresses that ‘Industrial groups ought to be aware of 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 could want to require suppliers to declare this, and supply additional particulars. This can allow industrial groups to contemplate any further due diligence or contractual amendments to handle the impression of AI as a part of the service supply.’ That is an enough and doubtlessly useful warning. Nevertheless, as mentioned under, the PPN suggests a strategy to go about it that’s for my part flawed and doubtlessly very problematic.

AI-generated tenders

The AI PPN is nevertheless principally involved with the usage of 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 larger variety of public contracts. You will need to observe that suppliers’ use of AI isn’t prohibited in the course of the industrial course of however steps ought to be taken to grasp the dangers related to the usage of AI instruments on this context, as can be the case if a bid author has been utilized by the bidder.’ It signifies some potential steps contracting authorities can take, reminiscent of:

• ‘Asking suppliers to reveal their use of AI within the creation of their tender.’

• ‘Enterprise acceptable and proportionate due diligence:

  • If suppliers use AI instruments to create tender responses, further 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 ought to be proportionate to any further particular threat posed by means of AI, and will embody website visits, clarification questions or provider displays.

  • Extra due diligence ought to assist to determine the accuracy, robustness and credibility of suppliers’ tenders via the usage of clarifications or requesting further supporting documentation in the identical manner contracting authorities would strategy 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 prospects and supply groups to deliver larger experience on the implications and advantages of AI, relative to the subject material of the contract.’

In my opinion, there are a couple of problematic features right here. Whereas the AI PPN appears to strive to not single out the usage of generative AI as doubtlessly problematic by equating it to the potential use of (human) bid writers, that is unconvincing. First, as a result of there may be (to my data) no steerage in any way 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 recognized 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 strategy 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 sort out the potential deceit or provision of deceptive data in tenders if contracting authorities should now begin fascinated 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 to verify their content material to an enough stage of due diligence already.

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

AI-based assessments

The AI PPN additionally means that contracting authorities ought to be ‘Planning for a common improve in exercise as suppliers could 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 ‘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 instantly 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 Authorities, that doc doesn’t particularly handle the usage of 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 the usage of 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 instantly.

The broader problem of confidential, labeled or proprietary data

Each in relation to the procurement and use of AI, and the usage of AI for tender era, the AI PPN stresses that it might be mandatory:

• ‘Putting in proportionate controls to make sure bidders don’t use confidential contracting authority data, or data not already within the public area as coaching knowledge for AI programs e.g. utilizing confidential Authorities tender paperwork to coach AI or Massive Language Fashions to create future tender responses.‘; and that

• ‘In sure procurements the place there are nationwide safety issues in relation to make use of of AI by suppliers, there could also be further concerns and threat 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 threat mitigations are carried out.’

These are points that may simply exceed the technical capabilities of most contracting authorities. It is vitally arduous to know what knowledge 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 data, to contracting authorities. Whereas there may be contractual constraints on the usage of data and knowledge generated below a given contract, it’s rather more difficult to evaluate whether or not data and knowledge has been inappropriately used at a distinct 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 below contracts already in place will not be topic to enough knowledge governance frameworks. It will appear {that a} extra muscular strategy to auditing knowledge governance points could also be required, and that this shouldn’t be devolved to the procurement operate.

Tips on how to cope with it? — or the place the PPN goes flawed

The most important weak spot within the AI PPN is in the way it suggests contracting authorities ought to cope with the difficulty of generative AI. In my opinion, it will get it flawed in two alternative ways. First, by asking for an excessive amount of non-scored data 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 data that contracting authorities are below an obligation to attain.

An excessive amount of data

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