ria, and to adhere to the principle of transparency. Again, these concerns should be manageable in the instruc- tions to bidders with a carefully crafted selection process that identi- fies who will be involved in the selec- tion, and the criteria for determining the best value. The expectation is that different project delivery proposals will be considered objectively using pre-set criteria, which should assist to mitigate the risk of requiring a stan- dardized evaluation process. For a procurement involving differ- ing proponent methodologies or spe- cific propriety products, or a situation where the owner does not know what specific solutions are available in the marketplace to best meet its needs, a rigid traditional tendering process may not provide the flexibility for innova- tion when compared to a competitive dialogue process. However, as with any new procurement method, appro- priate legal diligence is required to en- sure a successful process. This should not be a deterrent. While there will no doubt be a period of trial and error with the competitive dialogue process before sufficient learned lessons evolve, these lessons will refine the process for the Canadian marketplace. It can be anticipated that the develop- ment of competitive dialogue in Canada can result in an additional ef- fective procurement tool. Richard Yehia is an associate lawyer with Borden Ladner Gervais (BLG) in Toronto, email RYehia@blg.com. www.threadsoflife.ca The Canadian Design and Construction Report — November 2015 – 11