{"id":107425,"date":"2026-07-15T22:27:08","date_gmt":"2026-07-15T22:27:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/107425\/"},"modified":"2026-07-15T22:27:08","modified_gmt":"2026-07-15T22:27:08","slug":"despite-revisions-gsas-proposed-ai-acquisition-rule-still-falls-short-stakeholders-say","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/107425\/","title":{"rendered":"Despite revisions, GSA\u2019s proposed AI acquisition rule still falls short, stakeholders say"},"content":{"rendered":"

Concerns over artificial intelligence terminology and data privacy persist in the General Services Administration\u2019s proposed AI acquisition regulation rule, stakeholders said at a Tuesday listening session.<\/p>\n

Menaka Kalaskar, head of Palantir\u2019s U.S. government legal and contracting team, said if the GSA proceeds with the rule as written, agencies wanting to use AI and large language models might have to look for non-GSA vehicles.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The clause to set boundaries around how the GSA acquires AI was originally published in January<\/a>, and changes were made to the scope, definitions and context after initial feedback. The current proposed rule<\/a> was posted June 17 and public comment is open<\/a> until Aug. 3.<\/p>\n

\u201cGSA seems to be taking a lot of risk with this initiative, and it\u2019s not obvious why,\u201d Kalaskar said. \u201cIf the major LLM developers will not accept GSA\u2019s terms, then \u2026 government agencies will have to turn to non-GSA vehicles for the most advanced LLM-powered solutions.\u201d<\/p>\n

Kalaskar said the GSA\u2019s contract terms in the rule are \u201cnot consistent with customary commercial practice,\u201d making the AI clause \u201cfundamentally incompatible\u201d with the commercial mandates of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act<\/a>.<\/p>\n

In particular, the rule\u2019s requirement to provide notice of \u201cmaterial changes\u201d within seven or 30 days, depending on the change, is \u201cunworkable\u201d for Software-as-a-Service companies like Palantir.<\/p>\n

\u201cGSA is proposing an AI clause that\u2019s not required by statute or any other rule that, in our view, defies customary commercial practice and that purports to rewrite commercial software license terms,\u201d Kalaskar said. \u201cIf the clause is really needed, then it can be included in the [Federal Acquisition Regulation<\/a>] overhaul rather than GSA going out and trying to force this initiative.\u201d<\/p>\n

Others raised concerns over the clause\u2019s language calling for \u201cunbiased AI principles\u201d arguing that neutrality is subjective and ill-defined, as well as the rule\u2019s ask for the government to own metadata instead of company proprietary property.<\/p>\n

Experts like Jessica Tillipman, associate dean for Government Procurement Law Studies at George Washington University, where the session was held, said that while the GSA is on the right track<\/a> in prohibiting AI vendors from training on government data, there are still loopholes.<\/p>\n

\u201cPeople hear that sentence and assume it protects all of their interactions with an AI system \u2014 it does not,\u201d she said. \u201cA contractor may also learn from an agency\u2019s patterns of use: how the agency works, what are the struggles, what it values, and what it might need next. That is an informational advantage, and to GSA\u2019s credit, the clause reaches that broad concern. But the effectiveness of these protections depends on whether the people applying the clause can tell where the boundaries are.\u201d<\/p>\n

Tillipman said protected data should be defined by answering three questions: Is it tied to government use, does it reveal how the government operates, and can that conclusion be drawn through aggregation or inference, even if no single record reveals it?<\/p>\n

She also said the GSA should define when the later application of a generalized lesson AI vendors learned while working with the government would also be considered a prohibited use of its data.<\/p>\n

Shane Shaneman, an AI strategist for Nvidia, said data handling should be shifted to a system integrator or operator \u2014 not the developer \u2014 to allow for open models to participate.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cThe future of AI isn\u2019t one model; it\u2019s many, especially as the government leverages AI agents for agentic orchestration,\u201d he said. \u201cThat\u2019s how agencies will leverage open models to empower the workforce to save time, save money, and save lives while keeping token costs manageable.\u201d<\/p>\n

Laura Stanton, GSA\u2019s acting Federal Acquisition Service commissioner, said AI is offering the government \u201ctremendous opportunities,\u201d but it\u2019s important to get it right to avoid \u201cunintended consequences.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cAs we integrate AI into the government fabric and the government\u2019s technology, we recognize that that comes with a sense of responsibility, and that\u2019s what we\u2019re really working to define here,\u201d she said. \u201cWe must protect the people\u2019s data, and we must ensure that agencies can adopt AI quickly and with confidence.\u201d<\/p>\n

\t\t\t\t\t\"K.<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\tWritten by K. Sophie Will
\n\t\t\tK. Sophie Will is a reporter at FedScoop. Previously, she was an investigative data reporter at Bloomberg Industry Group. An award-winning journalist and Utah native, she graduated from Boston University and formerly worked with CQ Roll Call, the Utah Investigative Journalism Project, the Deseret News, USA Today, Reuters, HuffPost, WGBH, and more. Reach her on Signal at ksophiewill.66 or by phone at 617-888-0900.\t\t<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Concerns over artificial intelligence terminology and data privacy persist in the General Services Administration\u2019s proposed AI acquisition regulation…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":107426,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[24,25,111,27036,55606,4161,55607,55608,28203,7341,55609,37514,55610,58,361],"class_list":["post-107425","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-ai","tag-ai","tag-artificial-intelligence","tag-artificial-intelligence-ai","tag-far","tag-fasa","tag-federal-acquisition-regulation","tag-federal-acquisition-service-fas","tag-federal-acquisition-streamlining-act","tag-general-services-administration-gsa","tag-government-it-news","tag-government-tech-news","tag-jessica-tillipman","tag-laura-stanton","tag-nvidia","tag-palantir"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/107425","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=107425"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/107425\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/107426"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=107425"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=107425"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=107425"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}