Procurement intake management that finds what you already pay for before anything new
Every request routed the right way, contracts first, and to a PO in under two days.
See one case, screen by screen ↓Procurement intake management gives every employee one place to ask for what they need and sends each request down the right buying route, from the first message to a purchase order. Procurement Intake Management does it as a conversation: six agents ask only what matters, check the catalogue, agreements and licences first, apply the buying policy with every step cited, and track the request to a PO.
How to choose AI solutions for life sciences →
Updated
A drug company buys lab services, software, couriers, medical writers and consumables every day, and there are five ways to buy them: the catalogue, an existing contract or licence, a new supplier, a sourcing event or a statement of work — plus the things that are not purchases at all, like fees to healthcare professionals. The scientist or patient-advocacy manager who needs something does not know which applies, so the request arrives by email, by chat or as an invoice with no PO, and a buyer re-keys it into a requisition.
The cost sits in what nobody checked. A new supplier is added when a master services agreement already covers the scope, or a new survey tool is bought while seats sit unused on the enterprise licence. Work starts before the PO, a requirement is split to stay under a threshold, coded patient samples leave without a data-transfer agreement, or software that will hold personal data is bought without a security review. And every unnecessary new supplier adds weeks of due diligence before the first PO.
Estimated split for a typical request bought under an existing contract, by hand and with the solution.
Six specialist agents ask, match, route, pre-fill and track every request; the procurement operations lead decides the exceptions.
At Northwind Bio, Sam Patel in Patient Advocacy needs a survey tool for the patient advisory panel, and names the one he likes. The same morning, Dr. Maya Chen asks for a lab that is not a supplier. Here is what happens, screen by screen, in the working solution.
Sam opens New request. There is no form: “Hi Sam — what do you need? Say it the way you would to a colleague.” Beside the chat, the route waits to be built — the way to buy in policy order (is it a purchase, the catalogue's 4,310 items, 212 agreements and 38 licences with 1,904 seats unassigned, and only then a new supplier), then the policy steps and who signs.
Who signs: “Set by the delegation of authority, from the value — never the requester.”
Sam writes: “We need a survey tool for our patient advisory panel — about 40 seats, roughly $18,000 a year. We liked Pollen Survey.” The classifier reads a software subscription. No survey software is in the catalogue, but the Fieldnote Research Cloud licence has 312 unassigned seats — it fits if it may hold the panel's data. Pollen Survey is held back under §7.5.
“Pollen Survey, the tool you named — held back: unused licence seats come before a new tool.”
Sam answers two questions with one tap each: the tool will hold names and emails, and he needs it by Nov 1. Fieldnote passed IT security assessment SA-2291 for panel members' personal data, so the route is the company's licence: seats ready tomorrow, no cost to his budget, no PO needed. Three agents confirm it in 2.0 s, and each reason carries a clause chip he can open.
If Sam still wants Pollen Survey, one link — “I still need Pollen Survey” — sends it to procurement as an exception: a security assessment, a privacy review and three quotes, typically 4 to 6 weeks.
Sam sends it. Request REQ-24131 opens with a tracker he can follow: asked, route chosen, seat request sent to the Fieldnote administrator, 40 seats assigned, welcome email to his panel team. Laura Kim, his director, is informed; with no spend there is nothing for her to approve.
Sam also needs to pay speaker fees for 8 dermatologists at the advisory board in November. Intake asks one question — are they paid healthcare professionals? — and routes it out of procurement: fees to healthcare professionals are not purchases (§8.1). The HCP engagement request is filled in with his details, so he does not start again; contracts are drafted by Compliance, with fees set at fair market value.
Priya sees 210 open requests on 5 buying routes, Sam’s among them, and 38 purchase orders issued today. Each station shows how many requests wait there and which are late — on the new-supplier line, 12 sit at security and privacy review, 1 of them late. Below, the exceptions waiting for her decision, and live arrivals with the time each took to route.
“Exceptions wait for the procurement operations lead.”
Maya asked for a lab to validate the sTRX-7 ligand-binding assay on VLT-302 serum samples, attaching Kestrel Bioanalytics' quote for $182,400. Kestrel is not in the supplier master. Larkspur Lab Services validates this assay under MSA-0418, rate card BA-14, at $164,800, and ran sTRX-7 for VLT-201 last year. The agreement was competitively sourced and its Schedule 4 covers the coded samples.
The agents are 88% sure, and Maya named another supplier — so the route waits for Priya instead of confirming itself.
The Larkspur agreement starts Oct 27 at $164,800, as a SOW under MSA-0418, about 2 days to a PO. Adding Kestrel as a new supplier would start about Nov 24 at $182,400, after due diligence and a sole-source justification — 15–25 working days to a PO. Each option cites its clause; she can also ask Maya first.
Priya confirms the Larkspur route. Work order SOW-0418-031 is drafted from rate card BA-14: method transfer in week 2, validation runs in weeks 3–9, a validation report in week 12 that meets ICH M10 criteria, $164,800 fixed. The approval chain follows the delegation of authority — Dr. Henrik Lund, then Grace Whitfield, then Omar Haddad for procurement sign-off above $100,000. Maya's note says Larkspur starts a week before her date, $17,600 below the Kestrel quote.
The pre-filler drafts only: a person posts the requisition, and agreed prices are never changed.
The same requests, seen by four people at Northwind Bio — what buying looked like before, and what it looks like now.
Six specialist agents ask, match, route, pre-fill and track every request; the procurement operations lead decides the exceptions.
Talks with the requester in plain words, reads attached quotes and SOW drafts, and asks only the questions the route depends on — personal or patient data, need-by date, cost centre, named supplier.
Sets the category, value band and whether it is a purchase at all — goods, software, services, or a payment to a person, such as a fee to a healthcare professional, that belongs elsewhere.
Searches, in order, the catalogue, agreements and rate cards, enterprise licences with unused seats and the supplier master — including near-name duplicates.
Applies the buying policy and the delegation of authority: purchase or not, channel order, thresholds and competition, split purchases, after-the-fact, services and SOW, contingent worker, privacy and security — and builds the approval chain.
Drafts what comes next: a work order under an agreement, supplier set-up, a sourcing event, a privacy or security review, a sole-source justification and the note to the requester.
Keeps the requester's tracker live, nudges late approvers and reviewers with the request and its reasons attached, and records each step.
Decides each exception. The agents propose; a named person decides.
The procurement operations lead can ask in plain words — or say what to change. Answers come from the buying policy, the delegation of authority, the agreements and every request at intake.
Why is REQ-24117 going to the Larkspur agreement?
Maya asked for Kestrel Bioanalytics, but the Larkspur agreement covers the same work: rate card item BA-14 validates a ligand-binding assay with up to three analytes for $164,800, and Larkspur ran sTRX-7 for VLT-201 last year. The agreement was competed, so no new sourcing event is needed, and its Schedule 4 covers the coded samples. The agents are 88% sure because Maya named another supplier — so it waits for you.
Which requests are late?
Two requests are past their clock, both waiting on a reviewer: REQ-24118 at security and privacy review, and REQ-24103 at legal review. Jonas Weber has the security review and Dana Okafor the legal review.
Show possible split purchases this month
One pair. Sam Patel asked for part 2 of the patient video series from Lumen Story Studio ($54,000) five days after part 1 ($54,000). Together they are $108,000, above the $100,000 line, and the policy adds requests to the same supplier within 30 days. Sam said it is the same series split across two quarters, so the recommendation is one sourcing event.
Add a rule: software under $5,000 with no company data skips the security review
Done. Software under $5,000 that stores no Northwind or personal data goes straight to approval; everything else still follows §7.5. Over the last 90 days this would have applied to 47 requests. The rule is recorded in the audit trail and reaches the agents after Jonas Weber approves it.
13 screens from the working solution, on its sample data. Pick one to see it large.
Routing rules come from your buying policy and delegation of authority. Changes are recorded on the audit trail; thresholds change only through a new policy version.
| Setting | Default | Choose from |
|---|---|---|
| One quote below | $10,000 | $5,000 · $10,000 · $15,000 · $25,000 — proposed as a new policy version for CFO approval |
| Sourcing event above | $100,000 | $50,000 · $100,000 · $150,000 · $250,000 — proposed as a new policy version for CFO approval |
| Confirm a route automatically | 90% confidence | 85% · 90% · 95% confidence, when no exception applies |
| Add together requests to the same supplier | Within 30 days | Within 30 · 60 · 90 days, across the same cost centre |
| Existing contracts and licences before new suppliers | On | Part of the buying policy (§2.1) — cannot be turned off here |
| Routing exceptions decided by | Priya Raman | Priya Raman · Omar Haddad |
| Sole-source justifications approved by | Omar Haddad | Omar Haddad · Priya Raman |
| Nudge approvers after | 1 working day | 4 hours · 1 working day · 2 working days |
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 data · “target” = the design goal, measured in the live solution · “estimated” = our estimate · “typical” = published figures (procurement-intake case study, top-five drug maker, 2024 — 55–60% less manual effort per request). People, companies, products and agreements named on this page are fictional — characters and sample data in the working solution.
Procurement intake management gives every employee one place to ask for what they need and sends each request down the right buying route, from the first message to a purchase order. Procurement Intake Management does it as a conversation: six agents ask only what matters, check the catalogue, agreements and licences first, apply the buying policy with every step cited, and track the request to a PO.
The contract and licence matcher searches in policy order — the catalogue, agreements and rate cards, enterprise licences with unused seats, then the supplier master — and cites the record for every match. A supplier the requester names is held back when an agreement or a licence already covers the need, and the requester can still ask for it as an exception.
Yes. Requests from the same cost centre to the same supplier within the split-purchase window — 30 days by default — are added together before thresholds are applied. Supplier invoices without a PO come in as after-the-fact requests for the procurement operations lead and the cost-centre owner to ratify.
The intake guide asks whether personal data or coded patient samples are involved, and the policy router applies the privacy, data-transfer and software-security rules — an agreement's approved data-transfer schedule counts. Fees to healthcare professionals, grants and sponsorships are not purchases: they are handed to the HCP engagement or grants process with the details filled in.
Yes. A route confirms itself only above the confidence line and when no exception applies; everything else waits for the procurement operations lead. Approvals follow the delegation of authority, the requester never approves their own request, and the agents draft forms while a person posts the requisition.
Yes. The one-quote limit, sourcing-event line, auto-confirm confidence, split-purchase window, approver nudges and who decides each kind of exception are settings. Threshold changes are proposed as a new policy version for approval, and every change is on the audit trail.
On the intake page, from company chat, by email to the procurement mailbox, or as a supplier invoice that arrives without a PO. Each becomes a structured request with its route and a live tracker the requester can follow.
The Agentic Solution Engine builds and deploys it from your requirements and documents — your buying policy, delegation of authority, agreements, catalogue and a sample of past requests — and it goes live once every quality gate has passed. We will walk you through it on your own requests first.
Every CRO bid compared like for like, each number traced to its page.
1-min demoSupplier Invoice AuditOvercharges 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 demoWe'll run Procurement Intake Management on your own buying policy and a sample of your past requests.