The order’s requirements span the tech talent surge to guidance for various types of AI. Announcements from this deadline include guidance on generative AI tools for hiring, a safety and security board focused on AI and a new generative AI guidance for federal purchasers. 

The White House credited federal agencies with the completion of requirements for the deadline, and included announcements for requirements in the executive order that were due at a later date. Additionally, the executive branch reported that “agencies also progressed on other work tasked by the E.O. over longer timeframes.”

Here are five takeaways from the White House’s 180-day announcement:

1. The AI talent surge’s progress report

The AI and Tech Talent Task Force reported a 288% increase in AI job applications via a combination of agency hiring, the U.S. Digital Corps, the U.S. Digital Service and the presidential innovation fellows program. 

Additionally, the task force offered 10 recommendations throughout the federal government for “further increasing AI capacity.”

The task force recommends institutionalizing the U.S. Digital Corps and other technology recruitment programs, enhancing user experience on USAJOBS through the updating of digital service capabilities, exploring a talent exchange engagement with foreign partners that are also looking to invest in AI-related talent and more. 

The report calls on Congress to grant agencies the ability to use flexible hiring authorities for the AI-talent surge, while also offering pay incentives and support for rotational practices. 

Significantly, the task force reported that the Office of Personnel Management has “developed a legislative proposal” that aims to enhance compensation flexibilities. That proposal “has been transmitted to Congress.”

2. New actions from the Department of Energy

The DOE announced several AI-related actions at the deadline that focused on both cybersecurity and environmental concerns, including a new website that exhibits agency-developed AI tools and models. 

The agency’s Office of Critical and Emerging Technologies released a report addressing the potential AI has to “significantly enhance how we manage the [electric] grid” and how climate change’s effect on the environment “will require a substantial increase in the rate of modernization and decarbonization” of the grid. The report offers considerations for how large language models might assist compliance with federal permitting, how AI could enhance resilience and more. 

DOE has also announced a $13 million investment to build AI-powered tools to improve the siting and permitting of clean energy infrastructure for a new VoltAlc initiative. Significantly, the agency announced that it is establishing a working group to make recommendations by June on meeting the energy demands for AI and data center infrastructure. 

Additionally, the agency’s Cybersecurity, Energy Security and Emergency Response (CESER)  unit worked with energy sector partners — with support from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory — to create an interim assessment to identify opportunities and potential risks regarding AI use within the sector.

3. Department of Labor guidance on AI and tech-based hiring systems

The DOL was six months early on meeting its requirement to publish guidance for contractors regarding non-discrimination in talent acquisition that involves AI and other technology-based hiring programs. 

The report points to the use of AI systems as having the potential to continue discrimination and unlawful bias. It requires federal contractors to cooperate with the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) by providing requested information on their AI systems in order to prevent discrimination.

Contractors are not insulated from the risk of violating equal employment opportunity or obligations if they use automated systems, the agency states in the report. OFCCP also noted obligations related to AI with regard to  investigations into compliance evaluations and complaints  to identify if a contractor is abiding by nondiscrimination requirements. 

While OFCCP reported that it does not endorse products or issue compliance certifications, it does encourage federal contractors to be transparent about AI use in the hiring process and with employment decisions, while nd safeguarding private information of all involved parties. 

4. USDA’s framework for state, local, tribal and territorial (SLTT) public administrative use of AI

The U.S. Department of Agriculture issued a framework for SLTTs to use AI to administer the agency’s Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) programs, which include school breakfast, summer food service, emergency food assistance and more. 

The guidance states that FNS will work with SLTTs for risk management, and lays out four categories of risk for AI usage in regard to the service, ranging from low to high.

USDA recommends a “human in the loop” in AI implementation for risk mitigation. The framework recommends that  staffers who provide human oversight for AI-enabled functions “should receive sufficient training” to assess AI models or functions for accurate outputs. 

The agency also outlines how other uses of the technology may be “rights-impacting” or “safety-impacting,” as designated by FNS.

5. A framework for nucleic acid synthesis screening

The Office of Science and Technology Policy, the National Science and Technology Council and the Fast Track Action Committee for Synthetic Nucleic Acid Procurement Screening released a framework to encourage synthetic nucleic acid providers to implement screening mechanisms to prevent the misuse of AI for “engineering dangerous biological materials.” 

This guidance builds on a Department of Health and Human Services strategy document released in October 2023. 

OSTP said in a release that the National Institute of Standards and Technology “will further support implementation of this framework” through engagement with industry entities to “develop technical standards for screening.”

The post Five takeaways from the AI executive order’s 180-day deadline appeared first on FedScoop.

The Enhanced Cybersecurity for SNAP Act, introduced by Sens. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., John Fetterman, D-Pa., Bill Cassidy, R-La., and Reps. Andy Kim, D-N.J., and Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., would require the USDA to update security protections of SNAP cards, switching from easily clonable magnetic stripes to secure chips, among other measures. 

“There’s no excuse for this two-tier system, where families in need are stuck with outdated, easily hackable technology while folks with credit and ATM cards are better protected,” Wyden said in a news release. “Inaction is not good enough for families, not when it can be the difference between a family in need having food for dinner or going hungry.”

Said Cassidy: “SNAP is supposed to help the person who is food insecure. It is not supposed to help crooks who steal these benefits. This fights the crooks while preserving the benefits for those most in need.” 

The bill requires the USDA to update regulations on SNAP cards, implementing anti-fraud, cloning-resistant technology and also staying current with mobile payments tech. 

Within two years of the adoption of USDA’s new regulations, states will issue the new chip-enabled cards, and within four years, no SNAP cards with magnetic stripes can be issued. Within five years, magnetic stripe cards will be substituted entirely by states with chip-only cards.

Additionally, USDA will be charged with overseeing a grant program that offers funds for chip-reading payment machines to small grocers in food deserts, as well as to farmers markets and farm-to-consumer programs.

Fetterman, who chairs the Senate Agriculture Subcommittee on Nutrition and previously introduced the Fairness for Victims of SNAP Skimming Act, said Congress “must do everything we can” to protect SNAP.

“It’s despicable that thieves are targeting vulnerable hungry families with cyber-crime scams,” he said in the release. “We can’t let families go hungry because of bad faith actors.” 

The post Bicameral bill seeks cyber upgrades for USDA’s SNAP food benefit cards appeared first on FedScoop.

In announcing its digital service fellows program, USDA DS noted that it is seeking “diverse,  talented senior technologists and strategists” from “different walks of life” to further Agriculture’s “wide-ranging missions.”

“The fellows program will allow us to act as firefighters and assign our best people to the hottest problems within USDA,” Gary Washington, the agency’s chief information officer, said in a statement. “It will give us the opportunity to have subject matter experts on hand without waiting for the hiring or contracting process, which means we can start right away in solving the challenge and continuing to provide outstanding customer service to those we serve.” 

The fellows program, which is set to launch this month, will follow a “tour-of-service model,” with selected participants on a two-year minimum employment track. The positions will be full-time, with the potential option to serve a maximum of four years, and will be located either remotely or in Washington, D.C.

Fellows chosen for the digital service delivery and procurement strategy roles will report into the OCIO Digital Service team, while customer experience strategy fellows will be brought into the Officer of Customer Experience. 

Interested parties can apply via USAJobs.gov or through the USDA DS website. 

The post USDA launches fellows program for customer experience, digital service delivery jobs appeared first on FedScoop.

While many of these actions are still preliminary, growing focus on the technology signals that federal officials expect to not only govern but eventually use generative AI. 

A majority of the civilian federal agencies that fall under the Chief Financial Officers Act have either created guidance, implemented a policy, or temporarily blocked the technology, according to a FedScoop analysis based on public records requests and inquiries to officials. The approaches vary, highlighting that different sectors of the federal government face unique risks — and unique opportunities — when it comes to generative AI. 

As of now, several agencies, including the Social Security Administration, the Department of Energy, and Veterans Affairs, have taken steps to block the technology on their systems. Some, including NASA, have or are working on establishing secure testing environments to evaluate generative AI systems. The Agriculture Department has even set up a board to review potential generative AI use cases within the agency. 

Some agencies, including the U.S. Agency for International Development, have discouraged employees from inputting private information into generative AI systems. Meanwhile, several agencies, including Energy and the Department of Homeland Security, are working on generative AI projects. 

The Departments of Commerce, Housing and Urban Development, Transportation, and Treasury did not respond to requests for comment, so their approach to the technology remains unclear. Other agencies, including the Small Business Administration, referenced their work on AI but did not specifically address FedScoop’s questions about guidance, while the Office of Personnel Management said it was still working on guidance. The Department of Labor didn’t respond to FedScoop’s questions about generative AI. FedScoop obtained details about the policies of Agriculture, USAID, and Interior through public records requests. 

The Biden administration’s recent executive order on artificial intelligence discourages agencies from outright banning the technology. Instead, agencies are encouraged to limit access to the tools as necessary and create guidelines for various use cases. Federal agencies are also supposed to focus on developing “appropriate terms of service with vendors,” protecting data, and “deploying other measures to prevent misuse of Federal Government information in generative AI.”

Agency policies on generative AI differ

The post How risky is ChatGPT? Depends which federal agency you ask appeared first on FedScoop.

With an annual spend of more than $100 billion on IT products, the federal government is falling short on the consistent tracking of its software licenses, leading to missed opportunities for cost reductions, the GAO found. And though there are federal initiatives in place to “better position agencies to maximize cost savings when purchasing software licenses,” the GAO noted that “selected agencies have not fully determined over- or under-purchasing of their five most widely used software licenses.”

The GAO’s study looked at software licenses purchased by the 24 Chief Financial Officers Act agencies, finding that 10 vendors made up the majority of the most widely used licenses. For fiscal year 2021, Microsoft held by far the largest share of vendors organized by the highest amounts paid (31.3%), followed by Adobe (10.43%) and Salesforce (8.7%).

While the GAO was able to identify and analyze vendors based on government spend, it was “unclear which products under those licenses are most widely used because of agencies’ inconsistent and incomplete data,” the report noted. “For example, multiple software products may be bundled into a single license with a vendor, and agencies may not have usage data for each product individually.”

“Without better data, agencies also don’t know whether they have the right number of licenses for their needs,” the report continued.

For their recommendations, the GAO focused on nine agencies based on the size of their IT budgets and then zeroed in on the five most widely used licenses within those agencies. The selected agencies were the Departments of Agriculture, Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, State and Veterans Affairs, as well as the Office of Personnel Management, Social Security Administration and USAID.

The recommendations centered most on better and more consistent inventory tracking to ensure that agencies didn’t double-dip on software license purchases and were in a better position to take advantage of cost-saving opportunities. There should be more concerted efforts to compare prices, the GAO stated.

HUD did not say whether it agreed or disagreed with the GAO’s recommendations, while the other eight agencies said in responses that they did.

Congress in 2023 attempted to rein in duplicative software across the government with the Strengthening Agency Management and Oversight of Software Assets Act, which aimed to consolidate federal software purchasing and give agencies greater ability to push back on restrictive software licensing. However, after passing the House in July, the bill never moved in the Senate.

The post Software license purchases need better agency tracking, GAO says appeared first on FedScoop.

In October, seven months after that risk determination was made, department leaders distributed interim guidance that extended that prohibition more broadly to employee and contractor use of third-party generative AI tools in their official capacities and on government equipment. The agency also established a board that’s creating a process to review proposed uses of the technology going forward, according to documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request and the department’s response to FedScoop.

Information about USDA’s approach comes as agencies across the federal government are grappling with creating policies for generative AI tools within their agencies and coming to different conclusions about how to handle the nascent and rapidly growing technology. 

The Department of Homeland Security, for example, recently made public its conditional approval of generative AI tools for use in the department, including ChatGPT, Bing Chat, Claude 2 and DALL-E2. Meanwhile, NASA leaders told employees in May that the tools weren’t cleared for widespread use with “sensitive NASA data,” though they permitted use on personal accounts “following acceptable use policies.”

An Agriculture Department spokesperson told FedScoop in an emailed statement that the agency’s interim guidance, along with the White House’s AI executive order, “will help ensure that USDA, like other agencies across the federal government, is using this emerging, important technology safely, securely, and responsibly, while also delivering better results for the people who rely on its programs and services.”

According to the March 16 risk determination obtained by FedScoop, the department found that “ChatGPT displays multiple concerning indicators and vulnerabilities that will pose a risk if used in the USDA enterprise network infrastructure” and ultimately labeled that risk as “high.”

Specifically, the risk determination referenced a vulnerability documented in the National Vulnerability Database involving a WordPress plugin that appears to use ChatGPT. The determination said the vulnerability “describes a missing authorization check that allows users the ability to access data or perform actions that should be prohibited.” It also pointed to “insufficient safeguards.”

“While OpenAI alleges having safeguards in place to mitigate these risks, use cases demonstrate that malicious users can get around those safeguards by posing questions or requests differently to obtain the same results,” the risk determination said. “Use of ChatGPT poses a risk of security breaches or incidents associated with data entered [into] the tool by users, to include controlled unclassified information (CUI), proprietary government data, regulated Food and Agriculture (FA) sector data, and personal confidential data.”

In response to a FedScoop inquiry about the USDA’s determination, a spokesperson for OpenAI said the company was not affiliated with the WordPress plugin it cited. The spokesperson also pointed to DHS’s recent assessment that conditionally approved generative tools and noted the launch of ChatGPT Enterprise, which has additional security and privacy controls.

“We appreciate the U.S. government’s dedication to using AI safely and effectively to improve services for the public. We would be happy to discuss the safe use of our products to support the USDA’s work,” the spokesperson said. 

Under USDA’s interim guidance, which was distributed internally Oct. 16, the Generative AI Review Board includes representation from USDA’s chief data officer and the chief technology officer, in addition to representatives for cybersecurity, the general counsel’s office, and two mission areas. 

Since President Joe Biden’s executive order, the department’s CDO and responsible AI official, Chris Alvares, has been elevated to serve as its chief AI officer, and he also serves on the board in that capacity, the spokesperson said. That comes as agencies are starting to name CAIOs in light of a new position created under Biden’s order and subsequent White House guidance.

The board will meet monthly, the document said, and implement a process for reviewing proposed generative AI projects within 90 days, which would be roughly mid-January. It also stipulated that “any use cases currently in development or in use at the time of this memo should be paused until reviewed by the” Generative AI Review Board, and noted specifically that using AI language translation services is prohibited.

Submitting personal identifiable or non-public information to public generative AI tools is “a prohibited release of protected information” that employees must report, the document said. The spokesperson said there haven’t been any known instances where USDA personal identifiable information has been submitted to a generative AI tool, and “USDA has not received any reports of inappropriate GenAI output.”

Rebecca Heilweil contributed to this article.

This story was updated to correct the spelling of Chris Alvares’s name.

The post USDA determined ChatGPT’s risk was ‘high,’ set up board to review generative AI use, documents show appeared first on FedScoop.

“Whenever we’re thinking about technology, we’re putting people in the middle,” GSA Deputy Administrator Katy Kale said during a panel discussion about transformative technology at the Google Public Sector Forum, presented by Scoop News Group, in Washington.

Big goals, Kale said, have to be balanced “with the responsibility that we have, especially as public servants, to make sure that the technology that we’re building works for everyone, and it’s reaching them every place that they are.”

One example Kale highlighted of GSA’s work in that vein is the beta test of Notify.gov, a text messaging service in which federal, state and tribal entities can communicate with the people they serve. 

“How are our citizens connecting with everybody that they know every day of their lives? With their phones,” Kale said, adding that the government should be the same way.

Kale also pointed to efforts to create one secure place for people to sign in and connect to agencies they need through Login.gov, which it operates, and an ongoing beta with the U.S. Department of Agriculture to connect people with SNAP benefits they’ve earned.

GSA and USDA didn’t respond to a request for comment on further details of the SNAP benefit beta.

The post GSA official highlights Notify.gov, SNAP benefit betas as people-centered advancements appeared first on FedScoop.

“There is no basis in the Court’s order or federal law for such relief,” the Justice Department, which represents SBA and the Department of Agriculture, said of the requested injunction for the administrative and technical support industry.

The DOJ also called other remedies requested by Ultima to appoint a monitor to SBA’s certification of 8(a) participants and enjoin SBA’s ongoing efforts to comply with the court’s order “drastic” and “extraordinary.”

The Friday memo filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee is a response to Ultima Services Corp.’s request for relief beyond an injunction that prevents the SBA from using a “rebuttable presumption” of social disadvantage in the 8(a) program aimed at broadening the pool of federal government contractors.

The rebuttable presumption made it easier for businesses owned by people belonging to certain racial and ethnic groups to qualify for the social disadvantage requirement of the program. But in July, the court ruled that the presumption violated Ultima’s right to equal protection. The decision cited the Supreme Court’s decision striking down the use of race in college admissions, which came less than a month before.

Earlier this month, Ultima requested that the court go further. Among its requests, it asked the court to bar the use of the 8(a) program in the industry it’s a part of: The administrative and technical support industry. It defined that as spanning three North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes for industries.

“This would bar not just Defendants—but every federal agency— from using the 8(a) program in three of the largest industries used by the program,” the DOJ said in its Friday filing. “It also would prevent 8(a) participants who never even benefitted from the presumption—and those that did but have since established social disadvantage without it—from fully participating in a lawful federal contracting program.”

In addition to its requested industry-specific injunction, Ultima also asked the court to prevent SBA from exercising contract options or making similar modifications to contracts with 8(a) businesses that relied on the rebuttable presumption and “providing a shortened or less rigorous review of narratives of social disadvantage” than the agency did before the court’s order.

But the DOJ said Friday that “Defendants have fully complied with the Court’s order.”

Following the injunction, the SBA started requiring so-called “narratives” of social disadvantage for businesses that previously qualified under the presumption. Those narratives, which require business owners to detail bias and discrimination they’ve faced, must be approved for a business to receive new contract awards.

“Out of an abundance of caution, SBA has treated the Court’s order as requiring more than eliminating the presumption at the application stage,” DOJ said, noting the agency doesn’t typically review a business’s social disadvantage after they’ve applied for the program.

The SBA also temporarily halted new applications to the program while it was working to comply with the order. According to the new filing, it reopened that portal on Friday.

The DOJ further said that Ultima’s suggestion that businesses that previously relied on the presumption won’t be held to the same standard for social disadvantage as other applicants is “without merit.”

“Since the Court’s order, all social disadvantage determinations have been made using the standard previously used for applicants who were not members of the designated groups entitled to rely on the presumption,” the DOJ said.

An attorney for Ultima didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

The post U.S. urges judge to deny Ultima’s request for an industry-specific SBA 8(a) injunction appeared first on FedScoop.

That request was part of the additional relief Ultima Services Corp. asked the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee to provide in a Friday motion. The court’s previous decision enjoined the use of a “rebuttable presumption” that certain business owners qualifying for the SBA’s 8(a) federal contracting program faced social disadvantage because of their race or ethnicity. 

Ultima argued the court should grant the additional industry-specific relief “because Ultima is still suffering from the lingering effects of defendants’ discrimination.”

It also cited the Supreme Court’s ruling striking down the use of race in college admissions, arguing preventative measures are warranted to ensure the defendants, which include SBA, aren’t establishing the type of application essay program the court ruled unlawful for universities. 

The motion is the latest in a case that threw the keystone SBA contracting program into uncertainty. The lawsuit began in 2020 when Ultima, a small business government contractor, filed a complaint alleging that the program’s rebuttable presumption was racially discriminatory. Ultima’s owner, Celeste Bennett, is a white woman and wasn’t eligible for the presumption. In court documents, Ultima claimed it lost out on opportunities for USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service to businesses in the program.

As a result of the court’s July injunction, the SBA temporarily paused new 8(a) applications and began requiring businesses in the program that relied on the rebuttable presumption to prove social disadvantage in a narrative detailing past discrimination before they can accept new contract awards.

In the new motion, Ultima said it “disagrees with Defendants’ interpretation of the existing injunction.”

In addition to seeking an injunction of the program’s use in its industry, Ultima also asked the court to prevent SBA from exercising contract options or making similar modifications to contracts with 8(a) businesses who relied on the rebuttable presumption, and “providing a shortened or less rigorous review of narratives of social disadvantage” than the agency did before the court’s injunction. 

Ultima further asked the court to appoint someone to review the SBA’s certification for 8(a) participants who previously relied on the rebuttable presumption or make public the narratives those businesses now must submit for certification that explain their social disadvantage. 

Until the requests for additional relief are resolved, Ultima requested the court to temporarily enjoin the defendants from taking actions on 8(a) contracts with businesses that relied on the rebuttable presumption, regardless of whether the SBA approved their new narrative.

The U.S. Department of Justice, which represents the government defendants (SBA and USDA), declined to comment. Michael Rosman, general counsel for the Center for Individual Rights who represents Ultima, didn’t respond to a request for comment.

The post Ultima Services asks court to bar SBA’s 8(a) program in the administrative, technical support industry appeared first on FedScoop.

In a wide-ranging audit of the U.S. Department of Agriculture division, the National Academy of Public Administration found a host of major concerns including unintegrated IT systems, lack of staff technical knowledge and the continued use of a COBOL-based mainframe system.

The National Finance Center provides human resources and payroll services to over 170 federal employers across all three branches of the government. NAPA’s audit warned that failure to modernize NFC’s IT systems and address further system issues poses an existential threat.

“NFC’s IT systems, including its mainframe, are in need of modernization. NFC’s antiquated IT systems and inefficient manual processes have degraded customer service, impeded efficiency, demoralized the workforce; increased the potential for errors, and created a rising risk of a service impairment, disruption, or possible cyber event,” NAPA authors wrote in the report.

The report added: “NFC’s future is at risk without prompt action. Should NFC fail, the consequences would be felt immediately by the hundreds of thousands of federal employees working for organizations like the Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice, and NFC’s other approximately 170 clients.”

NFC was established 50 years ago, initially to serve the needs of agencies and organizations within USDA. The agency has never missed a payroll despite facing significant challenges outside of its control, including significant damage to its New Orleans headquarters during Hurricane Katrina, the COVID-19 pandemic and multiple other government shutdowns.

The post Legacy IT systems jeopardizing future of USDA’s National Finance Center, report says appeared first on FedScoop.