Incomplete requirements and inconsistent evaluation criteria create downstream problems: change orders, budget overruns, study delays.
VendorVigilance provides the structured, repeatable selection process that makes these problems avoidable.
R&D Sourcing manages vendor selection from requirements through award. The rigour they bring at this stage determines how many problems every other function encounters downstream.
But most selections still run on email attachments and spreadsheets.
Selections end up hard to trace, hard to defend, and hard to hand over.
Study teams know what they need the vendor to do but struggle to translate that into precise, contractable language. The gap between what was intended and what was specified does not surface until the vendor is engaged and the change order requests begin.
Without standardised templates and evaluation frameworks, different study teams use different criteria, different evaluators weight the same factors differently, and the output is difficult to compare across vendors or defend under scrutiny.
A vendor may be selected on commercial and capability grounds, only for QA to flag that qualification will take longer than the study timeline allows. Without visibility into qualification status at the point of evaluation, selection and qualification cannot be planned in parallel.
Bid templates sent by email, responses received as attachments, evaluation scores collated in a spreadsheet, the award decision communicated by email. There's no audit trail, no structured record, and no link to the vendor record that governs the relationship once the selection closes.
A structured, consistent process for every selection type: full-service CRO RFP, SaaS vendor evaluation, direct award for specialist services, or your own custom types. The process structure is defined by the template, the required sections are populated, and every selection follows the same framework regardless of who is running it.
Analysis templates provide standardised evaluation criteria for each vendor category: scoring frameworks, gate checks, evidence checklists, and recommendation structure. Every bidder is assessed on the same basis. The evaluation record is structured and audit-ready by default.
The vendor registry gives Sourcing what the organisation already knows about a vendor before and during evaluation: qualification history, prior performance, open risk items, and existing relationship context. A vendor with a pattern of quality issues visible in the registry informs the evaluation instead of surfacing after the award.
Check whether a shortlisted vendor is qualified, expiring, or unqualified before issuing a brief. Flag qualification requirements to QA at the start of the process rather than discovering the gap after the vendor is contracted and operational.
Every selection is associated with the clinical programme it serves. Requirements, evaluation, and award decisions are all grounded in the specific study context and visible to the teams who will manage the vendor relationship downstream.
Processes, evaluation frameworks, and award documentation are the same for every selection, regardless of who runs it or how many concurrent selections are in flight.
Existing qualification status, performance history, and risk context are visible at the point of evaluation.
The selection record produced in VendorVigilance is the same record that Vendor Alliance Management picks up to manage the relationship. Nothing is lost between selection and ongoing management.
Fewer change orders, fewer budget overruns, and fewer studies delayed because the contracted scope missed what the study team needed.
A one-hour walkthrough of how your vendors, studies and qualifications would look in VendorVigilance.
No commitment required.
