Vendor Selection Bias In Clinical Trials: Why 'Structured' Decisions Still Go Wrong

By Kelly Smith

Vendor selection in clinical trials is often treated as a structured, objective process — complete with scoring matrices, RFPs, and cross-functional reviews. Yet, despite these safeguards, bias frequently shapes decisions in ways that undermine trial success. This bias rarely appears as overt favoritism; instead, it emerges through subtle influences like prior experiences, internal dynamics, and unspoken assumptions.* Individual stakeholders may cling to early budget expectations or favor familiar vendors, while functional teams prioritize their own objectives — speed, cost control, or risk management — without acknowledging trade-offs. Once a perceived front-runner emerges, group consensus can silence dissent, creating alignment that looks solid on paper but falters in practice.

The consequences are real: misaligned resource commitments, frequent change orders, and fragmented accountability that erodes ownership of the decision. Reducing bias requires more than good intentions — it demands structural safeguards such as predefined weighted criteria, transparent documentation of rationale, and explicit discussion of dissenting views. Sponsors that embrace these practices, often supported by independent frameworks or technology-enabled platforms, foster shared ownership and defensible decisions. When vendor selection begins with clarity and accountability, trials are better positioned for operational success.

Explore practical strategies to minimize bias and strengthen vendor partnerships — read the full article now.