Generating and Evaluating Sustainable Procurement Criteria for the Swiss Public Sector using In-Context Prompting with Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.22513v1
• Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2026 19:21:35 GMT
• Title: Generating and Evaluating Sustainable Procurement Criteria for the Swiss Public Sector using In-Context Prompting with Large Language Models
• Abstract summary: Public procurement refers to the process by which public sector institutions acquire goods and services.<n>Swiss law requires the integration of ecological, social, and economic sustainability requirements into tender evaluations.<n> translating high-level sustainability regulations into concrete, verifiable, and sector-specific procurement criteria remains a labor-intensive and error-prone manual task.
• Score: 5.793605269631446
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Public procurement refers to the process by which public sector institutions, such as governments, municipalities, and publicly funded bodies, acquire goods and services. Swiss law requires the integration of ecological, social, and economic sustainability requirements into tender evaluations in the format of criteria that have to be fulfilled by a bidder. However, translating high-level sustainability regulations into concrete, verifiable, and sector-specific procurement criteria (such as selection criteria, award criteria, and technical specifications) remains a labor-intensive and error-prone manual task, requiring substantial domain expertise in several groups of goods and services and considerable manual effort. This paper presents a configurable, LLM-assisted pipeline that is presented as a software supporting the systematic generation and evaluation of sustainability-oriented procurement criteria catalogs for Switzerland. The system integrates in-context prompting, interchangeable LLM backends, and automated output validation to enable auditable criteria generation across different procurement sectors. As a proof of concept, we instantiate the pipeline using official sustainability guidelines published by the Swiss government and the European Commission, which are ingested as structured reference documents. We evaluate the system through a combination of automated quality checks, including an LLM-based evaluation component, and expert comparison against a manually curated gold standard. Our results demonstrate that the proposed pipeline can substantially reduce manual drafting effort while producing criteria catalogs that are consistent with official guidelines. We further discuss system limitations, failure modes, and design trade-offs observed during deployment, highlighting key considerations for integrating generative AI into public sector software workflows.

Related papers

• AspisAI: A Canonical, Machine-Interpretable Governance Framework for Automated Multi-Standard Compliance Monitoring [0.0]
  This paper presents emphAspisAI, a bounded, standard-agnostic governance framework that translates selected requirements into a canonical, machine-interpretable control model.<n>Within a bounded scope of 26 representative requirements, the framework is evaluated in a controlled simulation against five governance-oriented criteria.<n>Results include full requirement encoding, 88.5,% mapping coverage, complete traceability, and correct detection of all introduced gaps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-09T22:37:12Z)
• Grounded Normative Rule Generation with Structured Search [47.28595196084396]
  We formalize the problem as Grounded Normative Rule Synthesis (GNRS)<n>We introduce GNRS-Search, a framework that utilizes Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) sampling to optimize a discrete, five-slot And-Or Graph (AOG)<n>We evaluate our approach on GNRS-Bench, a benchmark spanning 116 controlled goals across eight scene families, and RealCharterBench, which evaluates transfer to 53 real-derived policy tasks with hidden source clauses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-23T05:43:42Z)
• AlphaEval: Evaluating Agents in Production [32.52315519888507]
  We present AlphaEval, a production-grounded benchmark of 94 tasks sourced from seven companies deploying AI agents in their core business.<n>Unlike model-centric benchmarks, AlphaEval evaluates complete agent products as commercial systems, capturing performance variations invisible to model-level evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-14T00:43:20Z)
• Agent Benchmarks Fail Public Sector Requirements [4.1796836971711055]
  It remains unclear what criteria benchmarks must meet to ensure they adequately reflect public-sector requirements.<n>We first define such criteria based on a first-principles survey of public administration literature.<n>We analyse more than 1,300 benchmark papers for these criteria using an expert-validated LLM-assisted pipeline.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-28T13:51:30Z)
• Standards for trustworthy AI in the European Union: technical rationale, structural challenges, and an implementation path [0.0]
  This white paper examines the technical foundations of European AI standardization under the AI Act.<n>It explains how harmonized standards enable the presumption of conformity mechanism, describes the CEN/CENELEC standardization process, and analyzes why AI poses unique challenges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-21T11:58:47Z)
• Safe and Certifiable AI Systems: Concepts, Challenges, and Lessons Learned [45.44933002008943]
  This white paper presents the T"UV AUSTRIA Trusted AI framework.<n>It is an end-to-end audit catalog and methodology for assessing and certifying machine learning systems.<n>Building on three pillars - Secure Software Development, Functional Requirements, and Ethics & Data Privacy - it translates the high-level obligations of the EU AI Act into specific, testable criteria.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-08T17:52:08Z)
• Expert Preference-based Evaluation of Automated Related Work Generation [54.29459509574242]
  We propose GREP, a multi-turn evaluation framework that integrates classical related work evaluation criteria with expert-specific preferences.<n>For better accessibility, we design two variants of GREP: a more precise variant with proprietary LLMs as evaluators, and a cheaper alternative with open-weight LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-11T13:08:07Z)
• Multi-Modal Requirements Data-based Acceptance Criteria Generation using LLMs [17.373348983049176]
  We propose RAGcceptance M2RE, a novel approach to generate acceptance criteria from multi-modal requirements data.<n>We show that our approach effectively reduces manual effort, captures nuanced stakeholder intent, and provides valuable criteria.<n>This research underscores the potential of multi-modal RAG techniques in streamlining software validation processes and improving development efficiency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-09T08:35:40Z)
• Watermarking Without Standards Is Not AI Governance [46.71493672772134]
  We argue that current implementations risk serving as symbolic compliance rather than delivering effective oversight.<n>We propose a three-layer framework encompassing technical standards, audit infrastructure, and enforcement mechanisms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-27T18:10:04Z)
• RIRAG: Regulatory Information Retrieval and Answer Generation [51.998738311700095]
  We introduce a task of generating question-passages pairs, where questions are automatically created and paired with relevant regulatory passages.<n>We create the ObliQA dataset, containing 27,869 questions derived from the collection of Abu Dhabi Global Markets (ADGM) financial regulation documents.<n>We design a baseline Regulatory Information Retrieval and Answer Generation (RIRAG) system and evaluate it with RePASs, a novel evaluation metric.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-09T14:44:19Z)
• HD-Eval: Aligning Large Language Model Evaluators Through Hierarchical Criteria Decomposition [92.17397504834825]
  HD-Eval is a framework that iteratively aligns large language models evaluators with human preference. HD-Eval inherits the essence from the evaluation mindset of human experts and enhances the alignment of LLM-based evaluators. Extensive experiments on three evaluation domains demonstrate the superiority of HD-Eval in further aligning state-of-the-art evaluators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-24T08:01:32Z)
• Identification of Regulatory Requirements Relevant to Business Processes: A Comparative Study on Generative AI, Embedding-based Ranking, Crowd and Expert-driven Methods [10.899912290518648]
  This work examines how legal and domain experts can be assisted in the assessment of relevant requirements. We compare an embedding-based NLP ranking method, a generative AI method using GPT-4, and a crowdsourced method with the purely manual method of creating labels by experts. A gold standard is created for both BPMN2.0 processes and matched to real-world requirements from multiple regulatory documents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-02T12:08:31Z)
• NLP-based Decision Support System for Examination of Eligibility Criteria from Securities Prospectuses at the German Central Bank [0.0]
  The German Central Bank receives hundreds of scanned prospectuses in PDF format, which must be manually processed to decide upon their eligibility. We found that this tedious and time-consuming process can be (semi-automated) by employing modern NLP model architectures. The proposed Decision Support System provides decisions of document-level eligibility criteria accompanied by human-understandable explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-09T11:00:58Z)
• Towards a multi-stakeholder value-based assessment framework for algorithmic systems [76.79703106646967]
  We develop a value-based assessment framework that visualizes closeness and tensions between values. We give guidelines on how to operationalize them, while opening up the evaluation and deliberation process to a wide range of stakeholders.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-09T19:28:32Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.