This is a summary article from the 2026 March Procurement Month webinar hosted by the Canoe team. All insights and quotes in this article are from the webinar presenters, Stéphanie Dion and Tony De Sciscio.
During the recent Canoe webinar, “Procurement Confessions: The Good, The Bad, and the Did That Really Just Happen?”, presenters Tony De Sciscio (Manager of Supplier Relations) and Stéphanie Dion (Manager of Procurement) examined recurring challenges, common missteps, and practical approaches from their combined decades of public procurement experience. The session covered stakeholder engagement, evaluation scoring, contract negotiations, debriefs, and the risks of “doing things the way we’ve always done them.”
Here are the key insights they shared.
Stakeholder Engagement: Start Early and Be Intentional
Stakeholder engagement is one of the most critical pieces of procurement success, yet it remains inconsistently applied across public sector organizations. Some entities still treat vendor contact as a conflict of interest, a problematic mindset that does disservice to the effectiveness of public procurement.
Public sector procurement professionals need to engage vendors early. This could be through practical, transparent ways such as:
- posting your procurement policies and procedures on your website
- hosting “doing business with” vendor sessions, either live or recorded
- attending or hosting reverse trade shows like the Ontario Public Buyers Association (OPBA) Reverse Vendor Tradeshow
- using RFIs intentionally with tools like MS Forms to capture responses
- using AI for fast, independent market research
An equally problematic flip side of not engaging stakeholders is when internal stakeholders only bring in procurement at the last minute. When subject matter experts (SMEs) show up at procurement’s door with a pre-written RFP and say “just post this,” procurement becomes less a strategic effort and more of a rubber stamp. That scenario can often lead to biased specifications, hidden preferences for incumbent vendors, and zero opportunity for procurement to add value. “Unfortunately, when that happens, it removes all your ability to bring value to the procurement and to the situation. All you can do is rubber stamp it and post it.”
Procurement touches every part of an organization, and understanding who all the stakeholders are (not just the loudest voice) is essential to getting the process right. “There could be multiple subject matter experts. Being able to uncover internally who all the stakeholders are is key.”
Scopes of Work: Clarity Drives Competition
Vague or recycled scopes of work are one of the biggest problems vendors face in public procurement. If your scope says nothing meaningful, vendors will either skip the opportunity or assume you already have a vendor pre-selected. “The vendor needs to know what you need and what their chances are of being successful. If they can’t tell by reading your scope of work, they’re probably going to opt out.”
One recent example highlighted the operational risks of unreviewed past RFP reuse. A supplier bidding on 500 – 600 line items of electrical supplies found toilet paper and hand towels mixed into the middle of the list. The specifications had been recycled without review. Some items no longer existed on the market. “When we reuse and recycle, and it’s been five years, our specs may not be current anymore, and we could be spec-ing ourselves out on the market.”
As procurement professionals, reuse and recycle past solicitations if you want, but verify the content every time. Make sure specifications are current and the market can still meet what you’re asking for. Be intentional about the balance between mandatory and nice-to-have requirements, as overloading an RFP with mandatory items frustrates suppliers and reduces competition.
Right-Size Your Documents and Templates
A story about receiving a 300-page legal contract for a $50,000 renovation got a big reaction from attendees during the webinar. That kind of mismatch between document complexity and project value can drive contractors away. “Save the nuclear contracts for the nuclear waste removal. Keep it as simple as you can, aligned with industry, because you want to attract.” Overly complex contracts and templates applied to low-risk procurements can discourage participation and increase cost without improving outcomes.
For smaller jobs, using industry-accepted mechanisms like CCDC documents with clear exceptions noted helps contractors review faster and respond with more confidence. Contractors know those documents, and the documents can focus on the exceptions rather than parsing hundreds of pages.
At a provincial entity, the procurement team developed 22 templates across different value and risk levels. Low cost, low risk procurements got simple templates. Higher complexity procurements got more detailed ones. This reduced the need for customization in a decentralized model where many non-procurement staff relied on the tools provided. One template for everything will be good at nothing. Category-specific, right-sized templates save time at the front end and reduce problems at the back end. “If you’re trying to use one template to do everything, it’s probably not going to be good at everything. Jack of all trades, master of none.”
Suppliers hedge risk when contracts don’t match the industry or the size of the project. That risk gets priced into the bid. Right-sizing documents reduces those hidden costs.
Evaluation Criteria: Keep It Simple and Meaningful
The webinar made a strong case for a 100-point scoring scale with no criterion worth fewer than 10 points. When criteria get too granular, vendors invest their effort where the highest points are and give you cookie-cutter marketing material for the rest. Evaluators end up splitting hairs between scores that don’t meaningfully differentiate suppliers.
A common problem: RFPs where all criteria are weighted equally, five criteria at 20 points each. If everything is equally important, how do vendors know what matters most? “How do you see the good suppliers and differentiate them?” On scoring scales, 1-to-5 was recommended over 1-to-10. A 1-to-10 scale forces evaluators into false precision. “Is it a six or a seven? Is it an eight or a nine? The evaluators are going to be happy they don’t have to make so many splitting hair decisions.”
For Canoe’s recent ERP implementation RFP, the questions were fully customized. Vendors were asked for risk identification and mitigation plans and had to respond to scenarios, based on a methodology for best value, performance-based procurement. Getting input from all stakeholders on evaluation criteria is essential, especially for IT projects where different departments have different priorities. Alternative evaluation methods like demos, software walkthroughs, and interviews can also round out the assessment and help make the cream rise.
The webinar also highlighted Paul Emanuelli’s enhanced consensus scoring process. Traditional consensus scoring can intimidate junior staff sitting in a room with senior management. Emanueli’s approach focuses on identifying score deltas and having conversations about where evaluators found or missed information. One real story illustrated the risk of skipping this step: during a debrief, a supplier pointed out that key information had been included in their submission, but the evaluation team missed it entirely. “My face just went white because we clearly missed it.”
Timing and Timelines: Think Before You Post
Stop posting solicitations at 4:59 PM on a Friday, right before the SME leaves for a two-week vacation, was called out as a real and recurring problem. Consistently posting solicitations immediately before weekends, holidays, or staff absences can reduce supplier participation. Such bad timing sends a message that you might already have someone lined up.
Posting right before or during the holiday shutdown is problematic since many vendors close between Christmas and New Year’s. Spring break means key people on both sides are away. Fiscal year end (March 31 for many) buries everyone in year-end closeout. And leftover budget scrambles in December, rushing to close by December 23 with delivery by December 31, are a recipe for failure.
“If you close something on December 29th, seriously, how many responses are you going to have?”
If you’re going to close an RFP, make sure your evaluation team is available to start reviewing right away. Don’t close it and let submissions sit untouched for weeks while suppliers call asking for updates. If there’s more time you can give suppliers, give it to them rather than having submissions collect dust.
References: Are They Worth the Trouble?
The webinar made a case for moving away from references as a scored evaluation criterion. Some vendors and entities can’t provide references due to legal or policy restrictions. Bad references are rare, so you end up with a false positive. Chasing references also adds delay to the evaluation process. Vendors have said they hesitate to participate because of potential legal repercussions. Government agencies are often unwilling or unable to serve as references, creating a catch-22 for public sector suppliers. Additionally, verifying references for vendors who scored too low to ever win mathematically wastes time you don’t have.
“You might be awarding to the smoothest liar, not the best supplier.” It is more practical to reserve the right to check references for the top-ranked proponent only. If you need to, you check.
One attendee shared an alternative worth considering: using references not for scoring, but to identify what additional monitoring might be needed during contract performance with the top ranked proponent.
Negotiation: Be Clear About What’s on the Table
The word “negotiated” was removed from Canoe’s RFP titles. It’s not the title that makes an RFP negotiable. It’s the negotiation provisions within the document. “If you go to a buffet, you assume you can eat everything. But then when you get there and they say, actually, that’s extra, or that’s not available today, that’s not right.” When negotiation boundaries are unclear, suppliers make assumptions that later undermine trust, efficiency, and award timelines. Be specific about what is and what is not negotiable. One recent Canoe RFP included the line: “Please note Article 7 is non-negotiable.”
A past practice that worked well was providing a table with the contract in the RFP, listing which clauses were negotiable and which were not, and asking suppliers to name the clause and propose adjustments as part of their submission. Often suppliers wouldn’t engage at that stage, preferring to negotiate only if awarded. That silence became leverage: “You didn’t raise it during submission, so it’s off the table now.”
At a provincial government, a contract was so one-sided that every vendor wanted to negotiate each time. Having a contract with a balanced risk allocation for low-risk contracts significantly reduced the negotiation burden.
Negotiation isn’t always about money. Training, lead times, delivery schedules, and other non-monetary value can all be part of the discussion. But you must be upfront. “Whatever you say you’re going to do, you still have to do.”
Debriefs: Required, Valuable, and Often Neglected
Under the Canadian Free Trade Agreement (CFTA), if a vendor requests a debrief on a procurement that triggers trade agreement obligations, you must provide one. Debriefs are a mandatory requirement under applicable trade agreements. Debriefs are also the first step in the conflict resolution process under the New West Partnership Trade Agreement.
When done well, debriefs can defuse conflicts and provide feedback that improves your own process. “Most of the time, the vendor just wants an avenue to speak to someone.” Between 300 and 400 debriefs over a career have reinforced that lesson.
The NIGP Global Best Practice on Debriefs is available free on the NIGP website and provides a solid structure for conducting effective debriefs. A webinar on debriefs is also scheduled for the NIGP Alberta chapter event on May 20, 2026.
Don’t Ghost Your Vendors
If you’re in evaluation and a vendor emails asking for an update, respond! Your response might be as simple as saying “we’re still evaluating. It does not need to be complicated. It could be copy paste 50 times, doesn’t matter.” What’s important is that you respond.
Ignoring vendors leads to loss of trust, fewer bidders next time, complaints, and anxiety for businesses whose livelihood may depend on that contract. “There’s nothing worse.” It’s the same as going through a job interview and never hearing back. Common professional courtesy goes a long way.
The “Fairness Shield”: Posting Doesn’t Make It Fair
During the webinar, a common assumption that was challenged was that posting a solicitation publicly automatically makes it fair. It does not. If the spec is branded so only one vendor can win, putting it on a public platform doesn’t change its unfair nature. A solicitation structured to favour a single supplier undermines fairness and exposes the organization to compliance and reputational risk.
If you want a specific branded product, use a group purchasing contract. If you want to explore the market, write an open spec. Don’t hide a sole-source behind a public posting and call it fair.
Some entities have policies that require three quotes even when using a group purchasing contract. That’s a policy constraint, not a fairness one. But going to market with a branded spec and calling it competitive is something else entirely.
From Tactical to Strategic: Use Your Judgment
The webinar posed two questions to attendees. First: how many have faced a formal bid challenge? Very few hands went up (three or four out of over 200 attendees, and one presenter has never had one in 25 years). Second: how many have missed a year-end deadline and failed to meet operational needs? Many more hands.
The real risk for most procurement teams is not a bid protest. It’s failing to deliver what your organization needs on time. “Procurement is a risk management exercise. Sometimes you’re in a bad situation no matter which way you look at it. You have to find the best way to address a bad situation and make it the least worst-case scenario.”
The point is – use your judgment. Move from tactical to strategic. If you want innovation, write a problem statement and a goal statement and leave the solution open. Try something new.
Bid Bonds: Proceed With Caution
During the webinar, attendees were asked how many have ever pulled a bid bond? Essentially no one had. Pulling a bid bond typically puts a small business out of business because they can no longer get bonded. “That’s bad public policy.”
The math tells the story. On a $100,000 job with a $10,000 bid bond, if the second-place bid was $98,000, you’re fighting over $2,000 while the insurance company fights you back.
In Ontario, the Construction Lien Act now requires bonds for projects over $500,000. Where it’s law, you comply. But where you have discretion, especially for smaller jobs where you want to attract local or smaller contractors who may not be bondable, think carefully about whether requiring bonds helps or hurts your process.
Get Involved in Your Procurement Community
The session closed with a call to join professional associations. OPBA, NIGP Alberta Chapter, and NIGP national are similar organizations offer peer networks, best practices, and training that can help practitioners at every level.
The templates from Paul Emanuelli at The Procurement Office were noted as a valuable resource used by many entities across Canada.
The National Cooperative Procurement Partners (NCPP) is also working on a Canadian version of a procurement cost calculator that quantifies the actual cost of running a solicitation. Practitioners who want to participate can track time spent on each step and contribute to the research.
Discussions from the webinar highlighted a key truth: most procurement risk does not stem from malicious intent or rule-breaking, but from misalignment, timing, and disproportionate controls. Applying judgment, right-sizing process, and engaging earlier are practical steps that improve outcomes without compromising fairness or compliance.
Q&A from the Webinar
What is the best practice for announcing award? After evaluation or after contract signing?
It depends on the situation. The safe default is to wait until after the contract is signed, in case something goes wrong. But there’s value in giving unsuccessful vendors an earlier heads-up so they can free up resources. Again, judgment is key here, on a project management RFP with 40 responses, the announcement was delayed until after award because of the expected volume of debrief requests.
How do we know when to use an RFI, RFP, RFQ, or RFT?
An RFI is a market research tool. Use it only when you can’t find the information on your own. Use an RFP when you want to evaluate technical criteria in addition to price. An RFQ (quote) is typically non-binding (non contract A paradigm). An RFT (tender) is typically binding (Contract A paradigm). Use quotes and tenders when price is the main consideration for award.
Do you have to take the lowest bid?
It depends on what your solicitation document says and your evaluation methodology. If it says award to the lowest price, that’s what you do. If it’s an RFP with weighted technical and price criteria, award goes to the highest combined score. You can only do what your document says.
Is there a difference between a best value proposal and having to take the lowest bid?
Yes. A best value proposal results from an RFP and combines technical and pricing criterial and scoring. The lowest bid comes from a tender or quote and pricing is the only criteria for award. You can’t have both in the same process.
If you’re evaluating an RFP based on weighted criteria, are you obligated to award to the highest score?
Yes. That’s what your solicitation says you’ll do. Some entities reserve the right to choose based on criteria “deemed valid” by their team, this language equals to using undisclosed criteria is a direct path to a bid complaint as it is contrary to trade agreements.
How would you advise a program to do market research without improperly engaging vendors?
Start by figuring out what you actually don’t know. There’s a lot of information available online, and AI can do significant market research with the right prompts. If something still can’t be found, ask very specific questions about that gap in information only. It’s rare that you can’t find what you need through your own research.
Can you elaborate on using judgment for bid and performance bonds?
For smaller jobs, some contractors are not bondable. Requiring bonds in those cases rules them out. If it’s required by law (like Ontario for jobs over $500,000), you comply. Otherwise, weigh the cost. Pulling a bid bond typically puts a business out of business. Performance bonds require the same right-sizing approach.
Do you like wording that says “we retain the right to choose based on criteria deemed valid by our purchasing team”?
No. That wording implies hidden criteria and is a direct lane to a bid complaint. It is not a language anyone would want to defend in front of a judge. This language equals to using undisclosed criteria it is contrary to trade agreements.
How does a small new supplier get a small contract?
Invite them. Reach out to them ahead of time to give them a heads up something is coming by using a notice of planned procurement.
What if you believe a bidder can’t do the job for their bid amount but they say they can?
Verify and validate. Have a conversation with them before award, ask for supporting documentation on how they prepared pricing. They may have made a mistake and want to walk away.
Can you provide a template for a simple RFP?
Canoe uses the RFP template from Paul Emanuelli at The Procurement Office which has a copyright and therefore cannot be used by others. Many entities across Canada have chosen to use his templates. Canoe’s RFPs are posted on our website.