On January 5, 2026, KNKX and Cascade PBS reported that a City of Bellingham, Washington, employee had used ChatGPT while writing the requirements for a new utility billing system. The reporters obtained the chat logs and related emails through a public records request.
According to the logs, the employee, the project’s manager, asked ChatGPT for requirements that would favor one vendor, VertexOne. The employee also asked for a requirement that would exclude a competitor, Origin SmartCity, “without explicitly saying so.” ChatGPT helped draft the request for proposals, the requirements matrix, and emails to the purchasing manager and selection committee. At least 16 of the matrix’s 350 requirements matched ChatGPT’s output word for word. The employee also sat on the selection committee.
The bid stayed open for 13 days, the state minimum, and 13 companies applied. The committee scored VertexOne at 275 points and Origin SmartCity at 190. The mayor approved a five-year contract with VertexOne in June 2025, reported at about $2.7 million. VertexOne’s bid was about $1 million higher than Origin SmartCity’s.
The city began fact-finding with an independent investigator in December 2025, after the reporters asked for comment. Mayor Kim Lund said the city would reserve judgment, and that using AI or any other means to get around purchasing policies is not acceptable. No wrongdoing has been found, and the employee has not been named. The city said it expected the investigation to finish in early 2026. As of October 2026, we found no published findings.
The chatbot did what it was asked. The logs are the reason anyone knows.
Why it matters
Steering a bid toward a favored vendor is an old problem. What is new is the record. A prompt states intent in plain language, and in Washington those prompts were public records that reporters could request.
The city’s procurement policy and training stressed fairness and impartiality. The requirements still went out, and the committee still scored the bids. The reporting says the tool never questioned a request to exclude a named competitor. The safeguard has to be policy and review, not the model.
The case also shows an older gap. The person who wrote the requirements also scored the bids.
Questions for your procurement office
- Are prompts and outputs used in procurement treated as public records, and retained as such?
- Must staff disclose when AI helped draft a solicitation, requirements, or scoring criteria?
- Can the person who writes requirements also score the bids?
- Does anyone review requirements for language that fits only one vendor?
- Does your AI policy say what AI may not be used for in purchasing?
Whatever the investigation finds, the prompt is now part of the procurement file. Write policy as if every one will be read.
Sources
- Bellingham staffer asked ChatGPT to “exclude” vendor from city contract (KNKX and Cascade PBS, Jan. 5, 2026)
- Unpacked: Bellingham employee used AI in awarding city contract (Northwest Public Broadcasting, Jan. 8, 2026)
- As WA government officials embrace AI, policies are still catching up (KNKX, Aug. 27, 2025)