---
title: "Review an AI-drafted proposal for accuracy and confidentiality"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/practice/government-procurement-and-tendering/review-an-ai-drafted-tender-response-for-accuracy-and-confidentiality/united-states"
type: "task_jurisdiction_version"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "A50-B7-3-US"
practice_area: "Government Procurement & Tendering"
tier: "yellow"
lawyer_review: "required"
jurisdictions: ["US"]
last_reviewed: "2026-10-22"
---

# Review an AI-drafted proposal for accuracy and confidentiality

> List each factual sentence in the draft proposal and the page of the source pack the lawyer supplied that supports it, or mark the sentence as unsupported. Flag any sentence that quotes another offeror's material.…

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/practice/government-procurement-and-tendering/review-an-ai-drafted-tender-response-for-accuracy-and-confidentiality/united-states  
Last reviewed: 2026-10-22

Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt

## Key facts

| Fact | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Practice area | [Government Procurement & Tendering](https://ailawframework.com/practice/government-procurement-and-tendering.md) |
| Human involvement | Yellow: Lawyer and AI draft together |
| How AI is used | List each factual sentence in the draft proposal and the page of the source pack the lawyer supplied that supports it, or mark the sentence as unsupported. Flag any sentence that quotes another offeror's material. Do not rewrite the proposal and do not say it may be submitted. |
| What the lawyer must review | FAR 3.104-3(a) and (b) prohibit, other than as provided by law, knowing disclosure or obtaining of contractor bid or proposal information or source selection information before the award of the Federal agency procurement contract to which the information relates. FAR 15.306(e) provides that government personnel involved in the acquisition shall not reveal an offeror's technical solution, or an offeror's price without that offeror's permission, subject to the exceptions stated in that paragraph. ABA Formal Opinion 512 (29 July 2024) requires the lawyer to check a generative tool's output before it is relied on. The lawyer decides what, if anything, is sent. |
| Written for | United States |
| Applies to | [Review an AI-drafted tender response for accuracy and confidentiality](https://ailawframework.com/practice/government-procurement-and-tendering/review-an-ai-drafted-tender-response-for-accuracy-and-confidentiality.md) |

## Checking plan

- What the AI does: List each factual sentence in the draft proposal and the page of the source pack the lawyer supplied that supports it, or mark the sentence as unsupported. Flag any sentence that quotes another offeror's material. Do not rewrite the proposal and do not say it may be submitted.
- Basis: Checked against the linked sources on 22 October 2026. Confirm the current instrument before reliance.

## Notes

- An unsupported sentence stays unsupported. The tool does not fill it from outside the source pack.
- Do not load the proposal into a public tool.

## Sources

- [FAR 3.104-3, Statutory and related prohibitions, restrictions, and requirements](https://www.acquisition.gov/far/3.104-3) (checked 2026-10-22)
- [FAR 15.306, Exchanges with offerors after receipt of proposals](https://www.acquisition.gov/far/15.306) (checked 2026-10-22)
- [ABA Formal Opinion 512, Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools (29 July 2024)](https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/ethics-opinions/aba-formal-opinion-512.pdf) (checked 2026-10-22)

*Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*