Skip to content
Enter your organization’s name — this will fill in the document with your institution’s title.Select the type of algorithm that is being procured — different algorithms have different abilities for explainability, transparency, and privacy.Provide a contact email address and a website for hosting this policy — this will fill in contact details within the document.Risk-scoring Algorithms (Population risk profiling and resource allocation)
Computer Vision Tools (diagnostic/screener functionality)Natural Language Processing Tools (chatbots/clinical note comprehension/automated medical coding)Administration Automation tools (HR, workflow-enhancing automation)
Who will own the oversight of the procurement contract?What metrics will effectively measure the performance of this AI tool? Does this metric connect to the desired outcomes within the impacted patient population?What is an acceptable threshold for considering retiring the tool or requiring changes?
the rights of individuals or communities,the health or well-being of individuals or communities,the economic interests of individuals, entities, or communities,the ongoing sustainability of an ecosystem.
Procurement Language Generator
Templating tool to help standardize and assist with procurement language for AI technology.
How to Use the Tool
This tool generates templates for procurement language clauses that incorporate best practices for technical transparency, bias prevention, dataset quality, and intellectual property protections. These clauses can provide the starting point for further customization according to your specific acquisition needs. The goal is to provide contract rider clauses for procurement officers that can be plugged into Requests For Proposal documents.
The process is simple and requires just 3 steps.
That’s it! The document will be generated and available for copy-paste or download via HTML or Markdown file.
Different types of algorithms may require slightly different accountability techniques, monitoring metrics, and transparency potential. This tool generates different algorithm contracts according to the use case:
Implemented:
In-progress:
Limitations of the Tool
The contract language produced by this tool will likely require additional customization to suit your specific use case. This may consist of crucial questions to answer such as:
How to Contribute
To contribute templates and sample procurement language, feel free to e-mail healthytechbias@gmail.com with suggested contributions to add to the template library.
For making code contributions, this tool’s source code is open-source. We welcome pull requests to add additional functionality to the app!
Risk Assessment Supplementary Materials
The table below provides a grading-scale for risk assessment of algorithms, spanning from Grade I-IV. Each grade corresponds to the second table, which provides guidance on useful protocols and guardrails depending on the graded risk level.
Risk Assessment Levels
Level
I
II
III
IV
Description
The decision will likely have little to no impact on:
the rights of individuals or communities,
the health or well-being of individuals or communities,
the economic interests of individuals, entities, or communities,
the ongoing sustainability of an ecosystem.
Level I decisions will often lead to impacts that are reversible and brief.
The decision will likely have moderate impacts on:
the rights of individuals or communities,
the health or well-being of individuals or communities,
the economic interests of individuals, entities, or communities,
the ongoing sustainability of an ecosystem.
Level II decisions will often lead to impacts that are likely reversible and short-term.
The decision will likely have high impacts on:
the rights of individuals or communities,
the health or well-being of individuals or communities,
the economic interests of individuals, entities, or communities,
the ongoing sustainability of an ecosystem.
Level III decisions will often lead to impacts that can be difficult to reverse, and are ongoing.
The decision will likely have very high impacts on:
Level IV decisions will often lead to impacts that are irreversible, and are perpetual.
There are no rows in this table
Risk Assessment Requirements
Requirement
Level I
Level II
Level III
Level IV
Peer Review
None
At least one of:
Qualified expert from a federal, provincial, territorial or municipal government institution
Qualified members of faculty of a post-secondary institution
Qualified researchers from a relevant non- governmental organization
Contracted third-party vendor with a related specialization
Publishing specifications of the Automated Decision System in a peer-reviewed journal
A data and automation advisory board specified by Treasury Board Secretariat
At least one of:
Qualified expert from a federal, provincial, territorial or municipal government institution
Qualified members of faculty of a post-secondary institution
Qualified researchers from a relevant non- governmental organization
Contracted third-party vendor with a related specialization
Publishing specifications of the Automated Decision System in a peer-reviewed journal
A data and automation advisory board specified by Treasury Board Secretariat
At least two of:
Qualified experts from the National Research Council of Canada, Statistics Canada, or the Communications Security Establishment
Qualified members of faculty of a post-secondary institution
Qualified researchers from a relevant non- governmental organization
Contracted third-party vendor with a related specialization
A data and automation advisory board specified by Treasury Board Secretariat
OR:
Publishing specifications of the Automated Decision System in a peer-reviewed journal
Notice
None
Plain language notice through all service delivery channels in use (Internet, in person, mail or telephone). In addition, publish documentation on relevant websites about the automated decision system, in plain language, describing:
How the components work;
How it supports the administrative decision;
Results of any reviews or audits; and
A description of the training data, or a link to the anonymized training data if this data is publicly available.
Plain language notice through all service delivery channels in use (Internet, in person, mail or telephone). In addition, publish documentation on relevant websites about the automated decision system, in plain language, describing:
How the components work;
How it supports the administrative decision;
Results of any reviews or audits; and
A description of the training data, or a link to the anonymized training data if this data is publicly available.
Plain language notice through all service delivery channels in use (Internet, in person, mail or telephone). In addition, publish documentation on relevant websites about the automated decision system, in plain language, describing:
How the components work;
How it supports the administrative decision;
Results of any reviews or audits; and
A description of the training data, or a link to the anonymized training data if this data is publicly available.
Human-in-the-loop for decisions
Decisions may be rendered without direct human involvement.
Decisions may be rendered without direct human involvement.
Decisions cannot be made without having specific human intervention points during the decision-making process; and the final decision must be made by a human
Decisions cannot be made without having specific human intervention points during the decision-making process; and the final decision must be made by a human
Explanation Requirement
In addition to any applicable legal requirement, ensuring that a meaningful explanation is provided for common decision results. This can include providing the explanation via a Frequently Asked Questions section on a website.
In addition to any applicable legal requirement, ensuring that a meaningful explanation is provided with any decision that resulted in the denial of a benefit, a service, or other regulatory action.
In addition to any applicable legal requirement, ensuring that a meaningful explanation is provided with any decision that resulted in the denial of a benefit, a service, or other regulatory action.
In addition to any applicable legal requirement, ensuring that a meaningful explanation is provided with any decision that resulted in the denial of a benefit, a service, or other regulatory action.
Training
None
Documentation on the design and functionality of the system
Documentation on the design and functionality of the system.
Training courses must be completed.
Documentation on the design and functionality of the system.
Re-occurring training courses.
A means to verify that training has been completed.
Contingency Planning
None
None
Ensure that contingency plans and/or backup systems are available should the Automated Decision System be unavailable.
Ensure that contingency plans and/or backup systems are available should the Automated Decision System be unavailable.
Approval for the System to Operate
None
Deputy Head
Treasury Board
There are no rows in this table
Want to print your doc?
This is not the way.
This is not the way.
Try clicking the ··· in the right corner or using a keyboard shortcut (
CtrlP
) instead.