CRO bid comparison, like for like: every bid re-priced to the study you asked for, each number traced to its page
Every CRO bid re-priced to the study you asked for and compared like for like, each number traced to its page.
See one case, screen by screen ↓Every CRO prices its own version of your study. One assumes on-site visits every 12 weeks with 30% SDV when the monitoring plan asks for every 8 weeks and 100% SDV of critical data. The same bid prices 30 months instead of 34, and 1.0 query per patient visit instead of 2.4. Another adds a 6% handling fee on pass-throughs in a footnote on page 44. On the totals page, the bid with the lightest assumptions looks lowest.
Making four bids comparable means reading hundreds of pages and four differently built workbooks, mapping each CRO’s own line names to one task list, re-pricing units to the RFP basis and checking each line against past awards — by hand, in a spreadsheet, while the bid-defence date holds still. What is missed at award comes back later as a change order.
Estimated split for a typical full-service CRO selection of about 45 days by hand, and with the solution.
Six specialist agents read, map, re-price, benchmark and question every bid, then draft the award memo; the outsourcing lead decides and signs.
NXL-301 is a Phase 3 atopic dermatitis study of Nexrakimab: 620 patients, 140 sites, 16 countries, 34 months. Four full-service CROs have bid, and the bid defence is in seven days. Here is what happens next, screen by screen, in the working solution.
Priya opens the bid room: 5 open sourcing events, 8 proposals in play, 13 assumption gaps still open, the NXL-301 bid defence on Oct 14. As submitted, the four bids stack up against a benchmark of $55.33M — Bluefen at $45.95M, Altamira $53.33M, Harborline $57.81M, Quillon $60.29M.
“As submitted, Bluefen looks lowest at $45.95M. Each CRO priced its own assumptions — switch to like-for-like to compare the study we asked for.”
Re-priced to the RFP assumptions, Altamira is lowest at $54.92M. Bluefen climbs to $57.90M, third of four; Harborline comes down to $57.19M, Quillon to $59.84M. Each bar keeps a dotted line where it stood as submitted.
“Bluefen rises $11.95M — 9 assumption gaps, each cited to its page.”
The proposal reader went through 410 pages and four workbooks: 865 budget lines and 162 stated assumptions, each with its page or row. The task mapper put 838 lines on the 15 standard tasks; Priya confirmed the 27 it was unsure of. The assumption checker found 17 gaps against the RFP assumptions sheet v2 and monitoring plan v1.2, and the benchmark analyst scaled 23 past awards to this study.
Below 85% confidence, a person confirms the line — the task mapper’s own limit.
Priya clicks Bluefen’s site management and monitoring. Its line “CRA Services” maps to the standard task at 98%. As submitted: $10.90M for 1,313 visits at $8,301. Like-for-like: $17.20M for 1,967 visits at $8,744, Bluefen’s own rate card for full critical-data SDV — 20% over the $14.30M benchmark. Page 37 of the proposal sits beside it, the passage highlighted, with the monitoring plan’s visit frequency under it.
Bluefen, p. 37: “On-site monitoring visits are planned once every twelve (12) weeks per active site, with source data verification of 30% of CRF pages.”
Seventeen gaps in one list. Bluefen has nine worth +$11.95M — monitoring (+$6.30M), a 30-month study (+$0.78M), 1.0 query per patient visit (+$1.15M), 12 countries and 105 sites, 0.05 SAEs per patient, narratives excluded, ethics fees left “at cost”. Altamira has two: a 6% handling fee on pass-throughs in a footnote (+$1.05M) and translations left to the sponsor. Quillon’s 4.5% escalation from April 2027 is outside the 3% cap.
Exposure outside the total is flagged, not added: Quillon’s escalation is about $0.62M over the study, kept out of the like-for-like total and asked as a question.
Eleven questions, drafted per CRO, each citing the proposal page and the RFP line. To Bluefen: “Please re-price monitoring and CRA travel to the monitoring plan v1.2: on-site every 8 weeks while enrolling and 100% SDV of critical data — about 1,970 on-site visits.” Priya edits any question, then sends a CRO its set in one message.
A person sends every question, in a neutral tone — no competitor information is shared.
Altamira replies to question A1: it waives the handling fee for NXL-301, pass-throughs at cost, footnote 3 withdrawn. Priya applies the answer to the grid. Altamira’s like-for-like total drops from $54.92M to $53.87M, and the answer stays cited to Altamira’s response letter.
Technical approach 40%, price like-for-like 30%, quality and oversight 20%, project team 10%. Five panel members — study lead, clinical operations, clinical QA, R&D finance and outsourcing — entered their scores. Altamira leads at 90.4 of 100. Altamira and Harborline go to the Oct 14 bid defence, with a brief drafted for the panel.
On submitted totals Bluefen would take the full price score; like-for-like it scores 4.74 of 5.
Six sections from the scorecard, the grid and the gaps: the recommendation — Altamira Trials at $53.87M like-for-like — how the bids were compared, the like-for-like price table, the assumption gaps, quality and oversight, and the conditions. Translations priced against the $540K estimate, escalation capped at 3% a year, and the named project and CRA leads confirmed at bid defence. Eight citations checked.
Priya signs the recommendation with her password and the meaning of the signature, “I recommend this award”. Above $10M the award goes to Omar Haddad, head of clinical sourcing, who approves it subject to the Oct 14 bid defence. A work order request is drafted in the contract system, released once the panel confirms the named team, and the memo and grid are filed to the TMF under vendor selection.
“Electronic signature — name, date, time and meaning are recorded in the audit trail.”
The same sourcing event, seen by the four people who carry it — what it looked like before, and what it looks like now.
Six specialist agents read, map, re-price, benchmark and question every bid, then draft the award memo; the outsourcing lead decides and signs.
Reads each CRO proposal and budget workbook — any structure, any currency — and extracts every budget line and stated assumption with its page or row.
Maps each CRO’s own line names to the 15 standard tasks, using the RFP scope matrix to settle who does what.
Compares each bid’s visits, duration, volumes, footprint, pass-through treatment and escalation with the RFP, and re-prices units to the RFP basis — the like-for-like view.
Scales past awards to the study, per site-month and per patient, and flags lines outside the outlier band.
Drafts one clear question per gap, citing the proposal page and the RFP line.
Drafts the award recommendation from the scorecard, grid and gaps — every statement cited.
Decides and signs; sourcing head approves. The agents propose; a named person decides.
The outsourcing team can ask about any line, gap or date in plain words — or tell it what to change. Every answer cites its page.
Why is Bluefen cheapest as submitted?
Because it priced a smaller study. Its $45.95M rests on visits every 12 weeks with 30% SDV (+$6.30M), 1.0 query per visit (+$1.15M), a 30-month study (+$0.78M), 12 countries and 105 sites (+$0.74M) and 0.05 SAEs per patient (+$0.71M) — plus ethics fees, narratives, travel and medical monitoring. Like-for-like Bluefen is $57.90M.
Any hidden pass-through costs?
Three, all now in the like-for-like totals: Altamira’s 6% handling fee in footnote 3 on page 44 (+$1.05M until question A1 is applied); Altamira’s translations left to the sponsor on page 41 (+$0.54M at the RFP estimate); and Bluefen’s ethics and regulatory fees, “at cost, not estimated” on page 66 (+$0.64M).
How was the euro bid handled?
Quillon priced in euro. Every euro line is converted at the RFP-date rate, 1 EUR = 1.09 USD (Aug 26), so exchange moves after the RFP don’t change the ranking. Quillon also escalates rates 4.5% a year from April 2027 — about $0.62M of exposure above the 3% cap, kept out of the total and asked in question Q1.
Flag any pass-through handling fee as a rule
Added to your like-for-like 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.
13 screens from the working solution, on its sample data. Pick one to see it large.
How bids are made comparable, scored and approved — every rule a setting, 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 |
| Use the sponsor’s investigator-grant estimate | On | On · Off |
| Fill excluded pass-throughs with the RFP estimate | On | On · Off |
| Convert currency at the RFP-date rate | 1 EUR = 1.09 USD (Aug 26) | On · Off |
| Benchmark set | 23 full-service awards · 2023–2026 | Dermatology awards only · 7 · All CRO awards · 41 |
| Inflation on older awards · outlier band | 3% a year · ±15% | 0–6% in 1% steps · ±5–30% in 5% steps |
| Scoring weights | Technical 40 · Price 30 · Quality 20 · Team 10 | Steps of 5%, adding up to 100% |
| Award approval above $10M | Omar Haddad | Omar Haddad · Dr. Maya Chen |
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 sourcing data · “target” = the design goal, measured in the live solution · “estimated” = our estimate · ICH E6(R3) 3.6 is cited as context for the sponsor’s duty in selecting service providers. People, companies and products named on this page are fictional — characters and sample data in the working solution.
It puts competing CRO proposals for the same study side by side so the sponsor can see which offers the best value for the work it asked for. The CRO Proposal Comparator reads every budget line and assumption, maps them to 15 standard tasks and re-prices each bid to your RFP assumptions, so the grid compares like for like.
The assumption checker compares each bid’s visits, duration, volumes, footprint, pass-through treatment and escalation with the RFP assumptions sheet, then re-prices the units with the CRO’s own unit rate. Each gap shows the arithmetic and cites both the proposal page and the RFP line.
Yes. Footnotes and exclusion lists are always read. In the working solution it finds a 6% handling fee on pass-throughs in a footnote on page 44, translations left to the sponsor, and ethics fees left “at cost” — each priced into the like-for-like total under your rules.
From your own past awards, scaled to the study per site-month and per patient, with an inflation rate for older awards. Lines outside the outlier band are shaded. Benchmarks explain a price; they never set one.
Yes. Proposals arrive as PDFs and budget workbooks in any structure. Euro bids are converted at the RFP-date rate, so exchange moves after the RFP do not change the ranking.
Yes. The agents propose; people decide. A person confirms low-confidence mappings, sends every clarification question and applies every answer. The outsourcing lead signs the award memo, and awards above $10M are approved under your delegation of authority.
Yes. The scorecard shortlists the leading bids, and a bid-defence brief is drafted with the open questions for each CRO — what extra visits buy, grants to re-price, the named project and CRA leads, subcontracting.
The Agentic Solution Engine builds and deploys it from your requirements and documents — your RFP templates, standard task list, past awards and approval rules — and it goes live once every quality gate has passed. We will walk you through it on one of your own past sourcing events first.
Every invoice line checked against its contract, rate card and PO, and overcharges held before the money leaves.
1-min filmContract RegisterEvery supplier contract, acquired ones included, becomes one register of terms and deadlines, each value linked to its page.
1-min filmProcurement Front DoorAnyone asks in plain words, and every request takes the right way to buy and reaches a purchase order in under two days.
1-min filmWe’ll run the CRO Proposal Comparator on the proposals from one of your past sourcing events.