Completion Date
Summer 5-17-2025
Document Type
Thesis
Degree Name
Master of Science (MS)
Program or Discipline Name
Project Management
First Advisor
Dr. Sarah Dyson
Second Advisor
Dr. Thomas Wise
Abstract
This research investigates the institutional constraints shaping the adoption of AI-assisted proposal evaluation in federal ICT procurement, using U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) as a case study. Although AI tools are increasingly used by contractors to generate proposals, their integration into government evaluation processes remain limited. Using institutional theory as an analytical framework, this study examines how regulative rules, normative expectations, and cognitive assumptions jointly reinforce a risk-averse procurement culture that inhibits automation. Through a mixed-methods approach—comprising policy analysis, procurement data from FPDS and USAspending.gov, and an elite interview with a CBP contracting officer—the research identifies key barriers to AI adoption. Regulative constraints such as FAR or HSAM mandated procedural defensibility foster institutional rigidity. Normative constraints such as preferences for manual processes and legacy contract types discourage experimentation. Cognitive constraints reveal a limited organizational readiness for AI and skepticism toward AI-generated outputs. While recent judicial rulings and strategic plans signal openings for reform, institutional inertia persists. The study concludes that targeted pilot programs, evidence-based business cases, and internal capability-building are some steps that could align AI potential with federal procurement realities.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Recommended Citation
Bin Amjad, F. (2025). Institutional Constraints and the AI Automation Gap: A Case Study of Proposal Evaluation in Federal ICT Procurement at U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.harrisburgu.edu/dandt/58
Included in
Administrative Law Commons, Management Information Systems Commons, Other Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons, Public Administration Commons, Science and Technology Law Commons, Science and Technology Policy Commons