Georgia’s 56-Page AI Playbook Guides Local Government Procurement

Georgia’s new Local Government AI Playbook gives cities and counties a practical starting point for evaluating and adopting artificial intelligence. The 56-page guide addresses policy development, project review, employee training, safeguards for public information, and the role of human oversight. It is designed to be useful even for smaller jurisdictions with limited technology staff or no dedicated AI office. The publication follows requests from local officials seeking guidance on how to use AI without exposing residents’ information or committing to tools before understanding their risks and value.

The initiative began at a Google-hosted roundtable in Atlanta earlier in 2026. State Rep. Dar’Shun Kendrick, a member of the Georgia Technology Authority (GTA) Oversight Committee, heard local governments ask for help navigating AI and asked GTA to adapt state-agency guidance into a resource for cities and counties. The playbook’s central procurement message is to start with a defined public-service problem—not a vendor product. It encourages officials to assess whether AI is appropriate at all, or whether a simpler change, such as improving a form, updating a website, or revising an existing process, could address the need.

For procurement and program teams, this approach can improve requirements development and reduce the risk of purchasing technology without a clear use case. The playbook provides an eight-step project process that begins by defining the problem and considering alternatives, with vendor evaluation following that initial assessment. Its risk tiers, vendor-review guidance, adaptable templates, and 90-day implementation framework can help local governments organize pilot planning and determine when proposals warrant additional review. These tools may create demand for AI governance, security, staff training, and pilot-support services, but the guide does not announce a solicitation, contract value, procurement deadline, or funded acquisition.

The guide also frames adoption as a matter of public accountability, not simply technology deployment. State Chief Information Officer Shawnzia Thomas wrote: “AI should support public employees, not replace the judgment, accountability, and community knowledge that effective government requires.” This principle has direct implications for future requirements: agencies should clarify where employees retain decision authority, how systems handle public information, and what review processes apply to higher-risk uses. Vendors and service providers pursuing local-government work should be prepared to explain how their offerings support those controls and fit a defined service need, while recognizing that each jurisdiction will make its own procurement decisions.

• Georgia Technology Authority published a 56-page Local Government AI Playbook for cities and counties.
• The guide provides a practical 90-day implementation framework, risk tiers, vendor-review guidance, and adaptable templates.
• Its eight-step project process begins with defining the problem and considering alternatives before selecting an AI solution.
• Local governments are advised to assess whether AI is necessary or whether process changes, better forms, or website updates could solve the problem.
• Procurement teams can use the risk and vendor guidance to structure evaluations and determine when proposals require additional review or human oversight.
• The playbook is intended to support jurisdictions with limited IT staffing as well as those with more established technology functions.
• The effort followed local officials’ request for guidance at a Google-hosted roundtable in Atlanta earlier in 2026; Dar’Shun Kendrick asked GTA to adapt state guidance for local use.
• State CIO Shawnzia Thomas emphasized that AI should support public employees rather than replace human judgment, accountability, and community knowledge.
• The publication may point to demand for AI governance, security, training, and pilot-support services, but identifies no specific solicitation, contract value, funding, or deadline.
• Potential suppliers should expect local buyers to prioritize a clear use case, protection of public information, appropriate risk controls, and meaningful human oversight.