The Vendor Selection Blunder: An Expensive Oversight In Clinical Trials

By Kalyan Obalampalli

Eighteen years in this industry have taught me that vendor selection is never “just another step” in a clinical trial — it’s a pivotal decision that can shape everything from timelines and costs to team morale and even the future of a program. I learned this lesson the hard way during one particular study, when we were racing to meet First Patient In (FPI) and urgently needed to choose a central lab.

On the surface, our process looked sound: we gathered multiple bids, asked the right questions, and held formal bid defense meetings. But the reality was far messier. The proposals were impossible to compare — apples to oranges. Our Q&A lived in a maze of emails, slide decks, and spreadsheets. The meetings felt rushed and reactive. After sifting through three projects, five vendors, and fifteen proposals, we finally made our choice.

On paper, it seemed data-driven and defensible. In practice, it wasn’t. Buried in the details, we overlooked one crucial fact: the vendor had no direct experience in one of our key geographies. They had implied capability through a partner lab, but not their own. We didn’t catch it — there simply wasn’t time to dig that deep.

That oversight cost us dearly and served as a lasting reminder that in clinical research, vendor selection isn’t an administrative task — it’s a strategic decision that demands rigor, context, and the courage to slow down when it matters most.