Meeting — December 5, 2024

The GSA Acquisition Policy Federal Advisory Full Committee meeting convened for a virtual public meeting at 11:00 AM EST on December 5, 2024, with Troy Cribb, Chair, and Luke Bassis, Co-Chair, presiding.

In accordance with FACA, as amended, 5 U.S.C. Ch. 10, the meeting was open to the public from 11:00 A.M. to 1:00 P.M. EST

Committee Members Present:

Absent: Jared Johnson

GSA Staff Present:

Absent: David Cochennic

Chair Opening Remarks

Troy Cribb the Chair for the GSA Acquisition Policy Federal Advisory Full Committee  thanked all returning members for their contributions under the first charter, where sustainability issues were addressed. She also welcomed all new members and expressed excitement about working with them during the second charter, which focuses on advising GSA on policy development and strategies relating to emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence.

Troy reminded the committee of the critical role that GSA plays when it comes to the policy of procurement vehicles, hands-on assistance in agencies, and development of new digital services.

Luke Basis, the newly selected Co-Chair for the GSA Acquisition Policy Federal Advisory Full Committee, introduced himself and expressed his excitement about working at the intersection of procurement and technology, as well as tackling a new set of priorities for GSA. He also provided a brief overview of the meeting agenda.

Call to Order

Stephanie Hardison, the Designated Federal Officer, welcomed the new committee members and reminded attendees of housekeeping rules. Attendees were informed of an opportunity to provide comments and statements at the end of the meeting, and the public was also encouraged to submit comments by emailing gapfac@gsa.gov. Roll call was conducted to confirm attendance, and a quorum was confirmed.

Leadership Welcome Remarks

Troy Cribb began by thanking the GSA Administrator, Robin Carnahan for her stewardship for the last four years as well as introducing. Robin Carnahan, GSA Administrator started off by recommending GSA to continue driving innovation and efficiency especially in federal acquisition. This can help harness technology to deliver better for the people we serve. She likened the government to a service delivery business, and individuals expect good service along with technology that works but it is mainly about how you deliver for people.

She recommended the committee to assess how to build public trust in the government’s ability to deliver solutions. She mentioned that the goal should be to keep up with change in regards to new generative AI tools and technologies and do it in a way that reflects valuing the security, accessibility and responsibility as every single tool is being rolled out.

She also recommended staying ahead of the latest deployments and advances when it comes to AI, data analytics, or other cloud computing and cybersecurity. This will allow the government to have a procurement process that is ready to keep up with the pace of change.

Robin also recommended using the procurement process to drive innovation and make things work better.  Having the GAP FAC committee and expertise is so important in order to engage in world conversations about how to keep up with speed of change and do that in ways that reflect the values of the workforce. She also encouraged the committee to view how the Biden administration and GSA put together acquisition resource guides for generative AI. The goal is to help buyers become informed on long-term implications before signing contracts.

Robin emphasized the need to consider how the government as an enterprise can work together and optimize sharing infrastructure, tools, and learn new technology. She then recommended setting up systems and processes that can help agencies and share what they are learning and doing. She stated that she would like to see vendors innovate in a way that reflects accessibility, privacy, responsibility and interoperability. She finally recommended working hand-in-hand on what reasonable policy guardrails look like and how to set people up to meet the speed of change. Robin concluded by expressing her excitement on working with the committee.

Jeff Koses, GSA Senior Procurement Executive highlighted the need for consistent terminology and meaningful collaboration between government, industry, and stakeholders. He recommended equipping the acquisition workforce to safely and securely integrate generative AI into government processes and emphasized the importance of clear terms and conditions as enablers to innovation. He concluded by expressing his gratitude toward the committee and how he looks forward to working with everyone.

FACA Briefing

Troy Cribb opened this section and introduced Jeremy Anderson, Legal Counsel with over 20 years of experience as an attorney in the federal government. Jeremy started off by explaining what the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) is and its intended purpose. He mentioned that the goal of FACA is to balance those interests and set up a framework for GSA or other agencies to get advice from outside parties while still keeping key attributes of fairness, accountability and transparency.

Jeremy emphasized that FACA is made up of these three things:

1. Group of individuals;  federal members and nonfederal members
2. Consensus advice on the outcome of an idea or opinion
3. Agency control of the group through appointment of members

Jeremy recommended the committee follow rules that FACA imposes to make sure things are done with fairness, accountability, transparency. He also suggested that the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) guide everyone to make sure that all members meet requirements that fit the committee’s expectations. He also mentioned for the DFO to help members get informed appropriately and move forward in a way that complies with the requirements Congress has put on federal advisory committees.

Jeremy emphasized that committees are expected to engage and participate in meetings. The chairperson along with the DFO should create a culture of collaboration by encouraging engagement participation from all advisory committee and subcommittee members and any members with opinions as applicable. There should not be committee/subcommittee decision-making that occurs in between public meetings, either by meeting or email.   Always include the DFO on all emails and only speak outside of GAP FAC about topics discussed in public meetings. Information that is not public should not be brought up and as a general rule of thumb, discuss only information that is available on the GAP FAC website.

As a final recap, Jeremy stated that as a member of the public, distinction is important because information should not be shared outside the committee structure.  For example, if working on deliverables, members should not share the graph with the organizations for input or opinion and committee staff should not be sharing products within GSA for input.

Key Topic(s) Brief

Troy Cribb opened this section and introduced Tim Whalen, as the OGP Technical Advisor to the Senior Procurement Executive of GSA, Jeff Koses. Tim Whalen started off by explaining that stating that the GSA Artificial Intelligence and Emerging Technology (GAET) steering committee comprises 35 members across GSA components and its role is to foster communication and collaboration on these issues. Another role of GAET is to support GAP FAC and identify for the committee challenges GSA is facing. 

Tim mentioned that since AI and emerging technology are rapidly changing, it is important for policy and guidance to stay up-to-date. When it comes to AI and new technology and changing laws and emerging threats, Tim said the goal is to reduce risk while not creating a new burden on industry and should not inhibit competition. The goal is to make sure the United States is able to innovate and be competitive in the AI environment.  GAET has worked to develop priorities to bring to GAP FAC.

Tim brought up four broad questions developed by GAET::

1. Q1: How do we best prepare GSA’s workforce to acquire AI, providing them the breadth of knowledge, tools, and guidance to do so efficiently, fairly, safely, and securely?
2. Q2: How can GSA develop usable contract terms and conditions standards that promote competition and continued innovation while ensuring safe, secure, and trustworthy AI acquisitions?
3. Q3: How can GSA best pursue acquisition strategies that safeguard government data rights, ensure AI processed data continues to be protected, and promote data awareness to achieve strategic goals?
4. Q4: How can GSA best establish and maintain definitions, standards, and governance frameworks needed by the workforce to support AI acquisitions?

Tim made the following comments on GSA’s goals for these four questions::

- We want to make sure that the GSA workforce safely and securely acquires AI.

- We want to incorporate AI into the processes of training usable guidance and understanding AI deliverables to make sure it is done fairly and equitably.

- We want to make sure that terms and conditions are realistic and the requirements and scope do not provide undue burden on businesses but maintains and promotes competition.

- We want to develop contract terms and conditions that promote competition, continue innovation and ensure a safe and secure trustworthy acquisition process. We also want  to make sure data and systems are tied to business goals and that government data is protected and the overall security and privacy is maintained.

Key Topic(s) Discussion

Chris Mullins, GSA Staff, further elaborated on two of the four questions. With respect to the acquisition workforce, she noted that GSA’s IT offerings to the rest of the government are broad but that GSA’s own use of technology is prevalent across GSA, for example, in the Public Building Service. GSA would be interested in hearing from GAP FAC on what training can be offered to the entire acquisition workforce, and to what extent training should be focused on a particular category or sector. With regards to terms and conditions, GSA is interested in knowing how terms and conditions could be standardized, and whether some sectors are so different a sector-specific approach would need to be used. She also cautioned that GSA wants to avoid providing so much detail that we would hamper creativity, innovation and competition. GSA also does not want to limit vendors it gets solicitations from.

Zach Whitman, GSA’s Chief AI Officer, followed up by saying he thinks the four questions resonate with both the government and the private sector and how we can be better partners especially when sharing and using emerging technologies. He emphasized the importance of communicating clearly and having a clear definition of what contract is wanted and what data is being received. He also stressed the importance of having data readiness to leverage technologies and assess risks and tolerance of the systems being procured. It is critical for the government to know what is being bought, the implications of purchases, how the terms and conditions are leveraged, and to enable the workforce to be as effective as possible. Zach recommended having a collaborative ongoing engagement where there can be further growth and maturity across the federal government.

GAP FAC members then offered observations on GSA’s proposed four areas.

Antonio Doss, GAP FAC committee member, recommended evaluating and considering ways to leverage AI to improve the process from a small business perspective or any potential supplier perspective for that matter. Antonio also mentioned the importance of demystifying and making the process more timely and helping businesses understand what real opportunities are without spending as much cost and effort. He also noted that businesses are starting to use AI in their own proposal development, and this will be something for the acquisition workforce to manage and consider.

Richard Beutel, GAP FAC committee member, agreed with this recommendation and added that the committee should be looking at AI to improve the acquisition of tradecraft and streamline and expedite the system.

Ravit Dotan, GAP FAC committee member, agreed with Antionio Doss on the current recommendation of not inhibiting vendor innovation. Ravit emphasized the importance of terms and conditions, which can be a driving force for all four areas identified by GSA. Ravit also emphasized not putting difficult burdens on small businesses, but working to understand how vendor engagement fits in the current procurement process and get the prospective vendors.

James Keagle, GAP FAC committee member, recommended to approach AI in the context of a specific use and ensure training of the acquisition  workforce would be hands-on. James recommended balancing innovation against regulations and standards to avoid constraining innovation.

Cari Miller, GAP FAC committee member, recommended regarding topic area 1: (How do we best prepare GSA’s workforce to acquire AI, providing them the breadth of knowledge, tools, and guidance to do so efficiently, fairly, safely, and securely?) looking at  two separate issues of (1); training and understanding how to buy AI and (2) how to use AI in the processes. Cari suggested prioritizing getting a consensus on definitions and data readiness.

Dorothea “Chon” Abraham, GAP FAC committee member, recommended looking at how current data governance around data other than AI might be used so that we leverage existing data governance practices. This will help reduce risks in using AI effectively.

Adrianna Tan, GAP FAC committee member, noted the importance of considering the needs of technology practitioners in implementing.  She recommended considering AI as other technologies are considered – finding the right technology at the right time using AI for what it is intended for at the right time. Adrianna also recommended giving agency to staff to share views, especially for uses that would touch the public.

Margaret Graves, GAP FAC committee member, commented on the importance of data readiness and noted that inability to share data across boundaries impacts missions. She recommended being able to understand how data models operate and how technology uses the data.  She emphasized the need to prioritize overall data strategy as critical to understanding how to protect data, understand boundaries and not introduce bias.

Gordon Bitko, GAP FAC committee member, agreed with the importance of data readiness and noted that legal and statutory requirements add complexity to building the right data models. He asked GSA for clarification on whether GAP FAC should look only at GSA’s own acquisitions or also GSA’s role across the government.  Jeff Koses, GSA Senior Procurement Executive, explained that while recommendations should be tailored towards GSA, the committee should also recognize that over $113 billion in federal acquisition is impacted by GSA and that GSA plays a governmentwide role through, for example, the FAR Council and the Federal Acquisition Institute. GAP FAC’s recommendations, therefore, can reflect GSA’s mission and cascading impact across the landscape of federal acquisition.

Dean Alderucci, GAP FAC committee member, agreed with James Keagle on favoring innovation. He noted that  when it comes to terms and conditions used in the AI process, some terms could make use of AI difficult and others could make it easier to understand goals.

Ravit Dotan, GAP FAC committee member, recommended considering the possibility of working the four topic areas in ways that complement and enhance one another.

Committee Structure Discussion

Troy Cribb opened this section and mentioned the process of brainstorming with the current structure and welcomed flexibility to adjust the structure. Troy recommended getting deeper dives on some issues we seem to be gravitating as being most important. Troy explained that under GAP FAC’s first charter, the committee had three subcommittees: Policy & Practice, Industry Partnerships and Acquisition Workforce, but the committee has flexibility moving forward to change its subcommittee structure.

Luke Bassis stated the background of how those subcommittees were formed and how the subcommittees met approximately monthly with 10 to 15 members with some overlap between them. Luke previously chaired the Policy and Practice subcommittee where topics such as single-use plastics, PFAS, environmental health risk and framework were addressed. He also mentioned that the subcommittee further split into less formal test groups which allowed the setting to be more agile. During those meetings deeper dives were held and the attendees would come up with a hypothesis or ideas that would be discussed at the subcommittee meeting and then get input from the rest of the committee before it was rolled up into the full committee meetings and reports.

Farad Ali, GAP FAC committee member added that the subcommittees had form and function to make sure there was inclusion. Farad, who previously chaired the Industry Partnerships subcommittee, included responsible sourcing as well as inclusive sourcing as topics covered and noted that the group was big on understanding how the process works. This helped to improve and make sure there were more inclusive sourcing and sustainable ideas.

Nicole Darnall, GAP FAC committee member and previous chair of the Acquisition Workforce subcommittee mentioned that this subcommittee was the smallest. It tackled all of the issues together based on the interest of the individuals involved, as well as tackling the mission and vision for the subcommittee as the focus.

Stepahnie Haridson, the Deputy Designated Federal Officer, opened the floor for recommendations for structuring the new subcommittee groups. GAP FAC members agreed to establish a structure of three subcommittees and that the committee would hold future discussions on how to address the four areas identified by GSA within three subcommittees. 

Public Comments

No public comments were submitted.

Closing Remarks

Troy Cribb the Chair for the Committee concluded the meeting by thanking everyone from GSA who attended, spoke and helped guide the meeting to a success. Troy also appreciated the feedback on the committee structure and that additional preparatory work during the administrative meeting held on January 9th, 2025 would further help inform subcommittee topics.

Adjournment

Stephanie Hardison adjourned the meeting.

I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the foregoing minutes are accurate and complete.

Digitally signed by Troy Cribb 2/12/2025

Troy Cribb

Chairperson

GSA Acquisition Policy Federal Advisory Committee

Digitally signed by Luke Bassis 2/12/2025

Luke Bassis    

Co-Chairperson

GSA Acquisition Policy Federal Advisory Committee