_(8295505716).jpg){kind=link}
- Published
- Updated
Placing two CRO totals side by side does not explain why their costs differ. Country counts, review rounds, travel and sponsor-retained tasks may vary. A normalisation table exposes these scope differences for sponsor assessment without rewriting the suppliers' quoted prices.
Decision framework
Choose a common study scenario first. Compare each proposal's assumptions against it and avoid treating omitted work as free. Assess technical suitability and quality separately from commercial comparison. A combined score should not hide a critical service gap that prevents practical delivery.
Worked example
For example, one bid assumes ten sites and two review rounds, while another assumes eight sites and one round. The team requests clarification for the common scenario and estimates sponsor internal effort. Part of the apparent price difference becomes a difference in service coverage, changing the basis of the purchasing decision.
Implementation checks
- Display site, country, visit and revision assumptions using common units across the proposals being evaluated.
- Assign an owner and a practical cost assumption to critical activities that a bid excludes.
- Record clarification dates and the final proposal version used in the comparison so the decision can be reconstructed.
Acceptance and boundaries
Accept the table when a decision-maker can distinguish unit-price differences from scope and risk allocation. The exercise does not create cost certainty; sensitivity scenarios can show variable assumptions. Restrict suppliers' confidential commercial information to the authorised evaluation team rather than circulating competing bids indiscriminately.
Frequently asked questions
- Does the lowest normalised total automatically win?
- No. Technical suitability, critical gaps and feasible oversight need separate consideration.
- Can an omitted cost be entered as zero?
- No. Mark unknown costs as uncertainty and explain how that uncertainty affects the decision.