August 22, 2025
Subscribe and listen to the Fed Gov Today Podcast anytime on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or at FedGovToday.com.
Joe Jordan, former Administrator of Federal Procurement Policy and now President and CEO of Octoparo, is clear-eyed about the government’s new agreements on artificial intelligence. Speaking with Francis Rose on the Fed Gov Today Podcast, he praises the intent behind the “OneGov” push but warns agencies not to get distracted by flashy numbers or temporary discounts.
Jordan begins by questioning the much-publicized “$1 AI deals” announced by the General Services Administration (GSA). He explains that the figure is essentially symbolic—government agencies cannot accept something for free, so a token price has to be attached. More importantly, he stresses that these low entry rates are teaser offers. They do not reflect long-term costs, nor do they include the services, integrations, or platforms agencies will need for meaningful deployments.
Still, Jordan sees potential. He describes these agreements as a possible first step toward smarter, more unified federal engagement with AI providers. Rather than every agency negotiating separately, GSA’s central role could help secure better terms and broader access. But he is cautious. “This is wrapped up in a land grab,” Jordan says, pointing out that GSA risks prioritizing mandates and volume over competition, innovation, and real service improvements.
A key concern, he notes, is lock-in. If agencies rush into these agreements, they may find themselves stuck in a year’s time, facing rising costs or trapped in platforms that are difficult to leave. He likens it to a risky mortgage—what seems like a deal upfront can become painful later. The lesson, he says, comes from past government tech adoption, such as when Amazon Web Services entered the market. Agencies enjoyed low-cost cloud services but later discovered prohibitively high exit fees. That led to policy changes, but only after years of frustration.
Jordan urges agencies to avoid repeating those mistakes. Instead of minimizing risk, he argues they should focus on maximizing potential benefit by taking smart, bite-sized risks. Pilot projects, realistic commitments, and clear outcomes are essential. Just as important is sharing lessons across agencies—whether publicly or in government-only settings—so that each organization does not reinvent the wheel.
Transparency, he insists, is the best “stick” government leaders have. When results are clear, it quickly shows whether an agency succeeded or failed. Failures, if they come from smart risks, should be celebrated as valuable learning. Failures that stem from doing the “same thing in the old ways with new technology” are the ones to avoid.
Jordan also worries about small businesses. He notes that GSA has historically struggled to support them and warns that broad “OneGov” efforts risk favoring large, entrenched players over smaller, innovative firms. That could stifle competition and reduce opportunities for fresh ideas in federal AI adoption.
Looking ahead, Jordan wants to see more detail on what products these agreements cover, the terms of use, and how agencies plan to deploy them. He supports centralized funding mechanisms, like the Technology Modernization Fund, to encourage agencies to experiment responsibly. Ultimately, he believes thoughtful, transparent steps can make these agreements a foundation for real progress—if government avoids the traps of lock-in, stagnation, and one-size-fits-all solutions.
Please fill out the requested information below