RFI or RFQ? How Vague Inquiries and One-Off Deals Undermine Comparator Sourcing

In comparator sourcing for clinical trials, clarity and timing are everything. Yet sponsors and contract research organizations (CROs) often contact vendors months in advance with inquiries that are difficult to interpret:

Is this a genuine procurement process, or simply early-stage market research?

Understanding whether a request is a Request for Information (RFI) or a Request for Quotation (RFQ) is not a trivial distinction. It directly impacts vendor readiness, the reliability of supply, and the sponsor’s ability to secure comparators at the right time, with the right documentation, and at an achievable price.

How Early Is Too Early? What the Data Suggests

Comparator procurement planning typically begins between three to nine months before the expected first patient dosing, depending on the clinical trial phase, the molecule involved, and the target geography.

According to market intelligence platforms such as GlobalData and recent procurement timelines disclosed in publicly registered clinical trials, sponsor engagement can start as early as protocol design or as late as a few weeks before enrollment. Both approaches carry risks.

Engaging too late often leads to urgent sourcing efforts, limited options, and study delays. Engaging too early, without realistic purchasing scenarios, can waste vendor resources and damage supply chain trust.

A Common Pitfall: Treating Procurement as a One-Time Transaction

A frequent industry pattern is to treat comparator sourcing as a one-off transactional event:

  • A sponsor sends out a request
  • Multiple vendors respond with quotations
  • One vendor is selected
  • The purchase is executed
  • The transaction is considered complete

What is rarely discussed during the initial procurement is the possibility of future resupply—even when the initial delivery volume could potentially cover the entire phase.

In reality, many trials experience unexpected needs such as additional cohorts, delayed recruitment, or amended protocols. These changes may lead to new demand long after the initial shipment has been fulfilled. However, if future resupply has not been discussed or planned during the initial transaction, vendors may not be positioned to help. Stock may no longer be available, prices may have changed, or documentation may have expired.

The Vendor Perspective: Risk and Erosion of Trust

From the vendor’s side, each sourcing request sets off a chain of internal actions. These include activating procurement channels across multiple EU countries, securing batch-level availability, assessing documentation readiness, and sometimes even reserving stock temporarily to meet the sponsor’s timeline.

When a sponsor provides vague or incomplete information—such as unspecified quantities, approximate dosage forms, or no clear timeline—and the request later turns out to be early-stage market research rather than active procurement, it can lead to loss of credibility down the supply chain.

If warehouse stock was held in anticipation of a sale that never materializes, it impacts our reputation with upstream suppliers. Over time, this causes the supply chain to become resistant or desensitized. Genuine requests may be met with skepticism. Historical pricing or availability may be used as a placeholder rather than being reconfirmed. This, in turn, creates a risk for sponsors who are actually ready to proceed but whose projects are perceived as tentative.

Unrealistic Pricing Expectations Based on Public Data

Another recurring issue involves sponsors or CROs consulting international pricing databases to define their internal budget expectations. While price transparency is an important tool, it cannot serve as a standalone benchmark for procurement strategy.

Small European countries often show the lowest average public prices for certain medicines. However:

  • These countries typically have small populations and therefore low available stock
  • Export restrictions are often in place due to past shortages or legislative controls
  • Documentation may not align with trial site requirements (e.g., absence of Certificates of Analysis)

Therefore, using such countries as reference points creates unrealistic expectations that may not match real-world sourcing possibilities.

Price alone does not determine procurement feasibility. True feasibility includes:

  • Valid and sufficient quantity available for export
  • Required documentation (CoA, CoO, TSE/BSE, GMP status)
  • Stability of supply chain relationships
  • Acceptable expiry windows
  • Import/export legal compliance

The Solution: Clear Communication and Collaborative Planning

The best way to avoid sourcing breakdowns, delays, and disappointment is clear and proactive communication.

Sponsors do not need to reveal confidential protocol information or strategic details. However, sharing key inputs transforms vague inquiries into actionable requests. These inputs include:

  • Molecule name and exact dosage form and strength
  • Intended quantity or range
  • Country or region of intended use
  • Required documentation (minimum requirements vs. optional)
  • Targeted delivery window
  • Payment conditions
  • Expected decision timeline or purchase scenario

This level of transparency allows sourcing partners to verify current availability, document readiness, and pricing with full traceability. It also enables vendors to combine demand forecasts across multiple projects and build stronger, more resilient supply plans.

Conclusion: Trust Is Built Through Clarity

Comparator sourcing is not just about pricing and delivery—it is about risk mitigation, timeline alignment, and long-term collaboration.

If sponsors communicate clearly and realistically from the beginning, vendors can respond with accuracy, transparency, and speed. If requests remain vague or speculative, it increases the likelihood of miscommunication, lost opportunities, and study risk.

At AvanSource, we specialize in the sourcing of high-value, high-stakes comparators. We commit only when we know we can deliver—and we support our clients with realistic insights into what is possible.

If you are planning a comparator-based study and wish to make informed decisions with full supply chain visibility, we encourage you to speak with our team.