HHS · no agency ID · record R0621

Acquisition support: assisting reviews and co-drafting technical evaluation documents

Department of Health and Human Services · HHS/ACF

Overview

Development stage: DeployedSource: c) Deployed – The use case is being actively authorized or utilized to support the functions or mission of an agency.
High-impact designation: Not high-impactSource: c) Not high-impact
Impact justification: Not reported
Start date: 2025-07 (month precision)Source: Jul-25
Withheld from public reporting: NoSource: a) No

Mission

Topic area: Procurement and Financial Management
Operational functions: Summarization Derived by keyword rules; see methodology

Problem the AI is intended to solve

How can ACF teams more efficiently review contract proposals and summarize technical evaluation discussions? In response to Requests for Information and Requests for Proposals, ACF teams receive responses from interested vendors. In the review process, ACF staff need to provide summarized comments for each response on potential suitability for delivering the work. These summaries are based on individual and group review against pre-established criteria. When there is a high volume of vendor responses, review teams have many summaries to write.

Expected benefits

Increased efficiency in drafting technical evaluation documents, so that more time is spent on review and analysis and less time is spent on "blank screen syndrome"

System outputs

Draft language for technical evaluation documents, based on user-provided context, direction, analysis, and examples. For example, the user may provide a statement on why they assess a proposal to be unsuitable based on the evaluation criteria, and then leverage the AI tool to draft language to pull and format specific examples with page citations from the proposal. AI is only used to draft language and make it easier to find relevant passages in proposal materials. AI is not used to make final determinations. The technical evaluators review and revise as needed all AI-drafted language, verifying accuracy of any cited excerpts.

Technology

AI classification: Generative AISource: Generative AI: AI that generates new or synthetic content (e.g., images, videos, audio, text, code).
System name(s): ACF Credal, Ask Sage (decommissioned), Microsoft Copilot Chat
Custom-developed code: No
Public source code: Not reported

Sourcing

How it was built: Contract and in-houseSource: c) Developed with both contracting and in-house resources
Vendor (as reported): Credal, Ask Sage, Microsoft
Vendors (standardized): MicrosoftCredalAsk Sage

A vendor is the supplier named by the agency. It does not identify the underlying model or AI technology.

Data and privacy

Involves PII: No
Privacy Impact Assessment: www.hhs.gov ↗
Authorization to Operate: Yes
Demographic features: k) None of the above
Training and evaluation data: RAG implementation using commercially-available LLMs and received capability statements
Federal Data Catalog: Not reported

Governance

0 of 8 minimum-practice questions answered. A blank answer means the agency reported nothing; it does not mean the practice is absent.

Pre-deployment testingNo answer reported

AI impact assessmentNo answer reported

Independent reviewNo answer reported

Ongoing monitoringNo answer reported

Operator trainingNo answer reported

Fail-safeNo answer reported

Appeal processNo answer reported

User and public consultationNo answer reported

Potential impacts and how they were identified

Not reported