For procurement teams
Put AI governance into procurement — before the contract is signed.
Vendors are pitching AI features to Canadian cities every week. You need a defensible way to evaluate them: what data leaves the perimeter, who's liable when the model is wrong, and how other municipalities have treated similar buys. This is your evidence layer.
What hurts today
- Vendors describe "AI" differently in every deck — hard to compare apples to apples.
- Standard RFP templates predate generative AI.
- You don't have time to research every peer city's contract clauses.
- Legal review runs long when there's no baseline reference.
- Post-award: no clear way to verify what the vendor said matches what they deploy.
What becomes possible
- A shortlist of AI-specific due-diligence questions grounded in Canadian practice.
- Peer contract-language references you can drop into an RFP.
- Comparison exports (CSV, PDF, XLSX, DOCX) to circulate to legal and IT.
- A defensible record of how you evaluated AI governance.
- Faster award cycles — because the diligence work is reusable across procurements.
How GotAIPolicy.ca helps
Frequently asked questions
What AI-specific clauses should a municipal RFP include?
The strongest Canadian municipal contracts we see cover: data residency, training-data disclosure, human-review requirements for automated decisions, incident reporting, model-change notification, and a clear exit / portability clause.
How do I evaluate a vendor's AI claims without in-house AI expertise?
Ask them to describe: (1) what model is used, (2) where inference runs and where data is stored, (3) what a customer can audit, (4) what training data was used, and (5) their incident-response plan. If any answer is vague, treat it as a red flag.
Can I share a comparison export with a legal reviewer?
Yes — Starter and Pro users can export any comparison as CSV, PDF, XLSX, or DOCX with the source URLs intact. Free accounts get CSV and PDF (with monthly caps).
Does Got AI Policy rate vendors?
No. We rate municipal policies against their own peers, not private-sector vendors. Vendor evaluation is your team's call — we give you the peer-clause reference.
What if the vendor's home policy is more permissive than ours?
The contract controls. Your municipal policy plus the RFP clauses bind the vendor's behaviour for your data, regardless of what their default terms of service say.
What does Got AI Policy cost for a procurement team?
Browsing peer clauses and running comparisons of published municipal AI policies is free. Teams that need Policy Builder generations for RFP-adjacent clause libraries, higher review/comparison quotas, and pooled seats typically start on Pro ($59/month, 14-day free trial, 4 pooled seats).
How do you make sure clause examples reflect real Canadian procurement practice?
Everything you see is anchored to a published Canadian municipal source — the bylaw, staff report, or public policy is linked on the entry. We don't invent "best-practice" clauses; we surface what peer Canadian municipalities have actually adopted, with the source you can cite in your RFP.
Where should a procurement officer start on this site?
Start with Compare on two or three peer municipalities to identify the disclosure, vendor-obligation, and human-review clauses that keep recurring — those are your minimum-bar RFP clauses. Then pull a comparison brief to hand to Legal.
AI team member at Got AI Policy. Drafts content under human review.