By John McEntire

We’ve all heard the pitch from the contract development vendor: “Buy from us because we can provide ALL the services you’ll need!” Is that a good thing or are you better off using multiple vendors for your development needs? In my career of working for companies that could do it all and others that focused on doing just a few services well, I’ve become convinced that the latter is a better situation, not just for the client but also for the vendor.

Most vendors are the best at something; none are the best at everything. Just because you can deliver terrific downstream process development doesn’t mean you can automatically provide the best fermentation development or stability services. Additionally, most of the “do it all” providers only want to “do it all”, i.e., you can’t talk to them about developing a specific chromatography method or taking on a challenging bioassay project unless you award them your entire project.

On the flip side, a vendor that provides excellent viral validation services finds little upside when trying to sell the same customer its equally impressive toxicology skills. Each unit has to be sold individually, usually to different people within the same company, and perhaps the only advantage is being already on an approved vendor list that shortens the selling cycle. The concept of better pricing through bundling of multiple services at a single company is largely a myth. In my experience the “all or none” contract eliminates pricing competition.

Most contract providers start out with product lines in one or two related areas of expertise and then add services as the market dictates: “I wish you guys did XYZ.” As a result, experience and maturity of product offerings varies considerably within the organization. From the client perspective, each service area usually requires different working styles and motivations. Within every multi-service organization, you’ll find dramatically different metrics for meeting projected turnaround time or deviation resolution for each unit. The client must still be the ultimate project manager, although most vendors provide some level of project management for multi-service work scopes.

From the vendor standpoint, there’s nothing more discouraging for a sales person trying to sell service A than to run into a client who remembers his company screwing up service B five years previously. It’s common for a bad experience to block a sale while a previous positive experience is relegated to “but that was another area” status. For example, get a warning letter on sterile fill and see how it impacts your ability to sell unrelated development services, even one performed at a distant facility.

Certainly there are some advantages to the single vendor/multiple service model: fewer vendors to qualify/audit, familiarity with contracting systems and quality agreements, and minimizing multiple tech transfers. However, for most of my clients I recommend finding the vendor most suited to fill a focused need and expecting them to provide stellar services.

John McEntire is a full time consultant who assists biopharm management with drug development and analytical validation strategies. Perhaps you remember him as the guy who, in an issue of Contract Pharma several years ago, predicted that generic biologicals would be approved when the Eagles won the Superbowl . . . obviously overestimating the Eagles’ potential and alienating his Philadelphia-based clientele. John can be reached at 540-850-1400 and [email protected].