CRO bid analysis that compares every bid like for like, each number traced to its page
Every CRO bid compared like for like, each number traced to its page.
See one case, screen by screen ↓CRO bid analysis is the work of taking several CRO proposals apart and comparing them on the same study, so the sponsor knows which bid is really cheapest and why. CRO Bid Analysis does it with six agents that read every proposal and workbook, put each bid in its own column against the protocol and re-price any lighter assumption at the CRO's own rates, for the outsourcing lead to decide and sign.
How to choose AI solutions for life sciences →
Updated
A Phase 3 RFP goes out with an assumptions sheet and a monitoring plan, and four CROs send back proposals of 74 to 128 pages with budget workbooks. Each one prices its own version of the study: fewer countries and sites, a shorter timeline, on-site visits every 12 weeks instead of every 8, lighter SDV, fewer queries and screen failures, narratives excluded, ethics fees left "at cost", a handling fee in a footnote, a different currency. The outsourcing lead rebuilds every bid in a spreadsheet — the bid grid — before anyone can say which one is really cheapest.
That rebuild takes one to three weeks, and what it misses comes back later. A bid priced on a lighter study than the protocol returns as change orders once the work starts, and a weighted scorecard fed with submitted totals hands the full price score to the CRO that priced the smallest study. ICH E6(R3) section 3.6 asks the sponsor to assess a provider's suitability before selecting it, so the selection record should show the comparison was like for like.
Estimated split for comparing four full-service bids, by hand and with the solution.
Six agents read, map, check, benchmark and question every bid and draft the award memo; the outsourcing lead decides and signs.
Northwind Bio has put NXL-301 out to tender — nexrakimab, Phase 3 in atopic dermatitis: 620 patients, 140 sites in 16 countries, 34 months. Four full-service bids arrived on Sep 29–30, and the bid defence is Oct 14. Here is what happens next, screen by screen, in the working solution.
Priya opens the four bids in columns, with what the protocol asks as the reference column on the left. As submitted, Bluefen Research is cheapest at $45.95M, 17% under the $55.33M benchmark from 23 past awards. Harborline Clinical is at $57.81M, Altamira Trials at $53.33M and Quillon Clinical at $60.29M, priced in euro.
“As submitted, Bluefen is cheapest at $45.95M — $7.38M below Altamira. Each CRO priced its own assumptions; check them against the protocol before anyone is shortlisted.”
Priya clicks “Check assumptions against the protocol”. The checker reads the RFP assumptions sheet v2 and the monitoring plan v1.2 — 12 assumptions to test — then goes bid by bid. As each bid finishes, its column lights up: matching assumptions get a tick, each difference is marked with its effect on the total.
“Bluefen Research — 9 differences · +$11.95M to the total · 105 sites, 30 months, visits every 12 weeks at 30% SDV.”
Every bid is now priced to the same study. Altamira is lowest like for like at $54.92M. Bluefen rises $11.95M to $57.90M and drops to 3rd of 4. Harborline comes down to $57.19M and Quillon to $59.84M. The side panel lists why Bluefen moved, difference by difference.
“Priced to the protocol, Altamira Trials is lowest at $54.92M. Bluefen assumed 105 sites, a 30-month study and visits every 12 weeks — like for like it is $57.90M, 3rd of 4.”
Bluefen priced on-site monitoring every 12 weeks at 30% SDV, 1,313 visits. The monitoring plan asks for every 8 weeks with 100% SDV of critical data, about 1,970 visits. The panel shows both, the effect of +$6.97M with travel, the highlighted passage on page 37 of Bluefen's proposal and the monitoring plan it is measured against.
“The assumption checker re-prices the line with the CRO's own unit rate. Nothing is estimated that is not in a document.”
Protocol basis lists each assumption with its source — Sheet “Study assumptions” row 5 for the footprint, Monitoring plan p. 6 for visit frequency, Sheet “Commercial terms” row 4 for pass-throughs at cost — and the bids that priced it differently. None of the four matched all 12; Altamira came closest, with 2 differences.
The bid grid maps every CRO's own line names to 15 standard tasks and sets each against the benchmark scaled from past awards. Bluefen's site management and monitoring is $17.20M like for like, against a $14.30M benchmark. Click any number and the source opens: the proposal page or workbook row behind it.
Every gap carries the CRO, what the RFP asks, its like-for-like effect and a severity. Bluefen's 12-weekly monitoring is high at +$6.30M; Altamira's 6% handling fee on pass-throughs, in footnote 3 on page 44, is high at +$1.05M. Quillon's 4.5% escalation from April 2027 is kept out of the total as a $0.62M exposure.
Eleven questions are drafted, each citing the proposal page and the RFP line. Bluefen's five ask it to re-price monitoring to the plan, confirm months 31–34, and price 140 sites. Priya edits any of them and sends them CRO by CRO. Altamira answered A1 on Oct 7: the handling fee is waived and footnote 3 withdrawn.
A person sends every question, and no competitor's price is ever shared with a CRO.
Technical approach 40%, price like for like 30%, quality and oversight 20%, project team 10%. Altamira scores 90.4 of 100, Harborline 87.0, Quillon 85.5 and Bluefen 77.0. Altamira and Harborline are shortlisted for the bid defence on Oct 14.
“On submitted totals Bluefen ($45.95M) would take the full price score — like-for-like it scores 4.74.”
The award memo writer drafts six sections — recommendation, how the bids were compared, like-for-like price, assumption gaps, quality and oversight, conditions — with 8 citations checked. Priya signs with the meaning “I recommend this award”. Above $10M it goes to Omar Haddad, head of clinical sourcing, for approval under delegation of authority, subject to the bid defence.
“Electronic signature — name, date, time and meaning are recorded in the audit trail.”
The same four bids, seen by the five people who carry a selection — what it looked like before, and what it looks like now.
Six agents read, map, check, benchmark and question every bid and draft the award memo; the outsourcing lead decides and signs.
Reads each CRO proposal and budget workbook — any structure, any currency — and extracts every priced line and stated assumption with its page or row, footnotes and exclusion lists included.
Maps each CRO's own line names to 15 standard tasks, using the RFP scope matrix to resolve who does what.
Sets each bid's visits, duration, volumes, footprint, pass-through treatment and escalation against the RFP assumptions sheet and monitoring plan, and re-prices with the CRO's own unit rate. Records the gap, the arithmetic and both citations.
Scales past awards to the study per site-month and patient, and shades lines outside the outlier band.
Drafts one clear question per gap, citing the proposal page and the RFP line, for the outsourcing lead to edit and send.
Drafts the award recommendation from the scorecard, the like-for-like grid and the gaps, every statement cited, and looks up the approval route.
Decides and signs; sourcing head approves. The agents propose; a named person decides.
Ask about any bid, line or assumption in plain words — or tell it what to change. Every answer points to its page.
Why is Bluefen cheapest as submitted?
Because it priced a smaller study. Visits every 12 weeks at 30% SDV instead of every 8 weeks with 100% of critical data (+$6.30M), 1.0 query per visit instead of 2.4 (+$1.15M), 30 months instead of 34 (+$0.78M), 12 countries and 105 sites instead of 16 and 140 (+$0.74M), a 10% screen-failure rate instead of 30% (+$0.71M) — plus ethics fees, narratives, travel and medical monitoring. Like for like, Bluefen is $57.90M.
Which bid is lowest like-for-like?
Altamira Trials at $54.92M, 1% under the $55.33M benchmark. Every figure re-prices each bid to the RFP assumptions sheet.
Flag any pass-through handling fee as a rule
Added to your rules: “Flag any pass-through handling fee or markup as a high gap”. It runs on every open event — today it flags one: Altamira's 6% fee in footnote 3 on page 44. The change is versioned and on the audit trail.
Draft the bid-defence questions for Harborline
For Harborline Clinical, Oct 14 at 14:00: what does the extra $1.06M for visits every 6 weeks buy that the 8-weekly plan does not; confirm grants at $20,000 per patient rather than the 2025 figure; name the project lead and CRA lead and their dermatology studies since 2023; show the enrolment plan for 620 patients across 16 countries; and say which activities would be subcontracted (ICH E6(R3) 3.6.9).
13 screens from the working solution, on its sample data. Pick one to see it large.
How bids are made comparable, scored and approved are settings — every change versioned and on the audit trail.
| Setting | Default | Choose from |
|---|---|---|
| Re-price every bid to the RFP assumptions sheet | Always on | Visits, durations, volumes and footprint use the RFP basis |
| Count pass-through handling fees and markups | On | On · Off — footnoted fees are added to the like-for-like total |
| Use the sponsor's investigator-grant estimate | On | On · Off — replaces each CRO's own grant figure |
| Fill excluded pass-throughs with the RFP estimate | On | On · Off — a cost left “at cost” or excluded still counts |
| Convert currency at the RFP-date rate | 1 EUR = 1.09 USD for NXL-301 (Aug 26) | On · Off |
| Benchmark set | 23 full-service awards · 2023–2026 | 23 full-service awards · 2023–2026 · Dermatology awards only · 7 · All CRO awards · 41 |
| Inflation and outlier band | 3% a year · ±15% | Step up or down |
| Scoring weights | Technical 40% · Price 30% · Quality 20% · Team 10% | Step each weight up or down; the scorecard updates as you change them |
Every figure is labelled: a target the solution is built to, an estimate, a typical published result, or a proven one.
“demo” = seen in the working solution, on its sample study and bids · “target” = the design goal, measured in the live solution · “estimated” = our estimate · “typical” = the by-hand range given in practitioner guides on CRO selection (Applied Clinical Trials on CRO selection and management; IntuitionLabs on RFPs and CRO vendor selection). ICH E6(R3), section 3.6, on the sponsor's selection and oversight of service providers. People, companies, studies and products named on this page are fictional — characters and sample data in the working solution.
CRO bid analysis is the work of taking several CRO proposals apart and comparing them on the same study, so the sponsor knows which bid is really cheapest and why. CRO Bid Analysis does it with six agents that read every proposal and workbook, put each bid in its own column against the protocol and re-price any lighter assumption at the CRO's own rates, for the outsourcing lead to decide and sign.
The assumption checker sets each bid's assumptions — countries and sites, study length, monitoring frequency and SDV, queries, screen failures, medical monitor, narratives, pass-throughs, handling fees, eCOA, escalation and currency — against the RFP assumptions sheet and monitoring plan. Where a bid assumed less, it re-prices the line with that CRO's own unit rate and records the arithmetic with both citations.
Yes. The proposal reader always reads footnotes and exclusion lists. On the sample study it found a 6% handling fee on pass-throughs in footnote 3 on page 44 of one proposal, and translations excluded on page 41, and counted both in the like-for-like total.
The benchmark analyst scales your past awarded budgets to the study, per site-month and patient, with an inflation rate you set, and shades any line outside the outlier band, ±15% by default. A benchmark explains a price; it never sets one.
Yes. It reads proposal PDFs and budget workbooks of any structure and in any currency, and converts at the RFP-date rate — 1 EUR = 1.09 USD for the sample study — when that rule is on.
Yes. The agents draft; they never send or sign. The outsourcing lead edits and sends every clarification question and signs the award recommendation with the meaning of the signature, and above $10M the head of clinical sourcing approves under the delegation of authority.
It keeps the evidence a sponsor needs to show why a provider was selected: the like-for-like grid, the gaps, the questions and answers, the scorecard and the signed memo, filed to the TMF as vendor-selection evidence. Whether that record meets your obligations is for your quality team to judge.
The Agentic Solution Engine builds and deploys it from your requirements and documents — your RFP templates, scoring weights, delegation of authority and a set of past awarded budgets — and it goes live once every quality gate has passed. We will walk you through it on one of your own past selections first.
Overcharges caught against contract, rate card and PO before payment.
1-min demoContract Obligation ManagementNo missed renewal or rebate, each term linked to its source page.
1-min demoProcurement Intake ManagementEvery request routed the right way, contracts first, and to a PO in under two days.
1-min demoWe'll run CRO Bid Analysis on the proposals from one of your own past selections.