• Vk
  • LinkedIn
  • Youtube
X7 Research
  • News
  • Registration strategy and Сonsulting
    • Budgeting
    • Registration strategy development
    • Study feasibility
    • Vendor selection
    • Data search and analysis
  • Clinical trials
    • Outsourcing CRAs in Russia and the EAEU
    • Development of medical documentation and biostatistics
    • Monitoring
    • Data-management
    • Patient home visits
    • Bioequivalence study
    • Therapeutic equivalence studies
    • Clinical trials of medical devices
  • Registration
    • Audit of the registration dossier
    • Bringing the registration dossier in compliance with the requirements of the EAEU
    • Conversion of registration dossier into XML format
    • PIL readability user testing
    • Translation of the Registration dossier
    • Turnkey registration
  • Post-authorization clinical studies
    • Phase IV studies
    • Non-interventional studies
    • Investigator-initiated studies
    • Post-authorisation safety study
    • Marketing research
  • Pharmacovigilance
    • QPPV in the EAEU
    • Safety monitoring of medical devices
    • Building a pharmacovigilance system
    • Safety in clinical trials
    • Pharmacovigilance audit
    • Pharmacovigilance contact person
  • Therapeutic expertise
    • Clinical trials in Oncology in the EAEU
  • Contact
  • EnglishEnglish
    • РусскийРусский
  • Menu

3 crucial mistakes in contract-making with outsource companies at pharmaceutical market.

17.05.2017/in News /by eugeneqqq

This article was published on April 7th, 2017 at Pharmaceuticalonline.com by Kevin Haehl.

Outsourced development and manufacturing is nothing new, and it is usually advantageous for gaining access to technology, improving timelines, and reducing costs. But there are pitfalls, especially in the selection and agreement phases, that can take that risky venture and make it a near impossibility. Potential partners often take positions during a contract negotiation that at best delay the project, and at worst, scuttle the partnership. Here are three examples of short-term thinking that are common in both the customer and contractor sides of the negotiation that make any partnership an uphill climb.

Putting Too Much Emphasis On Price

The tried-and-true approach for an outsourcing project is to place a request for proposal with multiple qualified partners, compare the price quotes received, and choose the lowest bidder. While pricing is a key factor, too narrow a focus on this one variable is like only considering the waist size when ordering a tailored suit — it is unlikely to give the desired outcome.

There is no doubt that the cost of an outsourced development or clinical supply project can be critical, especially to a startup company with limited funds. Therefore, it only makes sense for the customer to comparison shop by getting multiple quotes. But the cost of delays or failures is high. So is external oversight. Choosing the right partner — and thus increasing the chance of avoiding those costs — is worth a premium of 10 to 20 percent, or even more.

The customer must weigh each contractor’s technical capabilities, project management skills, quality systems, and communications transparency. It takes time during the proposal stage for both parties to evaluate each other, but it is time well spent. A myopic focus on price alone leads to longer-term problems resulting from incompatible cultures and differing expectations.

From the contractor’s perspective, business deals that hinge solely on price make it tempting to low-ball the proposal and leave out necessary work that is not mentioned in the request. This leads to difficult debates regarding change orders and frequent rehashing of what “was in the contract,” rather than a strong collaboration leading to success.

Taking this approach might earn a CDMO one contract, but that contractor is unlikely to see repeat work. No business can afford a reputation as a company that thrives on expensive change orders. It is far better practice to make clear and fair proposals and even occasionally accept lower margins on the expectation that learning curves will increase profit over time. It is easier to keep a customer than to find new ones.

Holding IP Hostage

Another stumbling block that often trips up a smooth negotiation is ownership of intellectual property that arises during the course of the relationship. As a customer paying for development or manufacturing, it is common to assume that any IP that is formed during work done under that contract is the property of the customer. However, this misses a key point. The contractor typically provides a technology platform and underlying know-how, which is why the customer needs it in the first place. If the CDMO broadly surrenders IP on any improvements to its platform, it would soon be out of business.

It is appropriate for a customer to insist that it be granted a license for any technology improvements that arise from the development of its product. In some situations, it is even possible for the customer to be able to use that license with another CDMO to manufacture the product. But unless the contract work was intended to be purely for research with the intent to develop a new technology, it is incorrect to assume that full ownership of arising IP should belong to the customer.

Likewise, the CDMO needs to understand that a customer cannot pay for development work without having the rights to port its product to another supplier for any variety of reasons, such as failure to supply, capacity constraints, or new market entries. The practice of attaching IP to a customer project then holding it hostage will hinder the contractor from securing future business in the industry.

The bottom line is that the agreement needs to lay out clearly what is being paid for, and who owns what as a result. The simplest way to start the discussion is to state that “what I bring to the table is mine, what you bring is yours, and what is created is shared appropriately.” For the latter, a good rule of thumb is that arising IP related exclusively to the product typically stays with the customer, and IP related to the process or technology platform remains with the CDMO.

Insisting Upon Exclusivity

Exclusivity is a point of contention that can kill an outsourcing arrangement. The customer usually wants assurances that the contractor will not manufacture its product for others, while maintaining the right to contract with multiple vendors for supply. The CDMO prefers to have 100 percent of the business, while also desiring the right to sell the same or similar products to other clients. These opposing positions must be resolved for the partnership to succeed.

In the case of a new chemical entity that is technically challenging or small volume, exclusivity often makes sense for both parties, at least while the product is patent-protected. It can be too costly to develop the product twice, and with appropriate risk mitigation, a second source is not required.

One of the drivers for outsourcing is to reduce costs and investment by using a CDMO’s capabilities and capital resources. If the customer prohibits the CDMO from selling competing products or even the same product once the product is generic, it is essentially converting the CDMO into a captive resource. This is counterproductive, as it ultimately leads to higher costs and encourages the competition to create additional sources of the product.

Neither is exclusivity always the best arrangement for the contractor. The customer may express a need for a backup supply strategy or simply some leverage over pricing. As the product grows in volume and revenue, allowing a second source is not only prudent, it can be critical to avoiding substantial liability for the contractor if problems arise. If the contractor is good at its business, it should not fear competing with other contractors.

Exclusivity requirements can be complex and difficult to negotiate. It is usually best to be exclusive (with regard to the specific product) for both parties early in the life cycle, but as the product becomes generic or a commodity, the case for exclusivity declines.

To sum up – mutually beneficial partnership can be reached only in case of being honest during building a contract for both parties. Each detail of a contract should be clarified and distinguished to minimize outcoming risks.

 

Source: https://www.pharmaceuticalonline.com/doc/do-you-make-these-mistakes-in-your-cdmo-contract-negotiations-0001

Share this entry
  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on WhatsApp
  • Share on Pinterest
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Share on Vk
  • Share on Reddit
  • Share by Mail

YOU MAY ALSO BE INTERESTED IN

Publications
Readability User Testing of Package Information Leaflets (PIL) in EAEU
Read More
Publications
Remote clinical trial monitoring
Read More
Publications
Post-authorization studies of drug safety in Russia
Read More

RUBRICS

Registration strategy and Сonsulting

Clinical trials

Registration

Post-authorization clinical studies

Pharmacovigilance

LATEST PUBLICATIONS

  • Corrections to clinical trial documents due to COVID-19. Russian experience.
  • WHAT IS BIOEQUIVALENCE
  • THE VOLUME OF RUSSIAN PHARMACEUTICAL MARKET 2016-2019

Tags

bioequivalenceClinical trials in the CISfeasibilitymonitoringRadiopharmaceuticals

CONTACT

1 + 5 = ?

This contact form is deactivated because you refused to accept Google reCaptcha service which is necessary to validate any messages sent by the form.

PRIVACY

Use of this site constitutes your consent to our Privacy Policy.


SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

X7 Research’s primary responsibility is to help our clients in bringing medicines & products to the market efficiently and safely.

The Best CRO for Clinical Trials | Full-service Global CRO — X7 Research

The Best CRO in Pharma | Clinical Research Organisation — X7 Research

The Best Contract Research Organisation (CRO) | Trusted CRO — X7 Research

The Best Clinical Research Organisation (CRO): Full Service CRO | X7 Research

The Best CRO in Research | Trusted CRO for Your Trail — X7 Research

The Best Clinical Trial Company | Global Full-service CRO - X7 Research

The Best Pharma CROs: Clinical Trials for Drugs | X7 Research

The Best CROs Company: Clinical Trials with Global CRO — X7 Research

The Best Pre-clinical CRO: Safety Assessment With X7 Research

The Best Clinical Development | Trusted CRO for Your Product: X7 Research

The Best Biostatistical Consulting: Statistical Services | X7 Research

The Best Pharmacovigilance Consulting Services | CRO — X7 Research

Feasibility in Clinical Trials: What is a Feasibility in Clinical Trials?

Clinical Study Trials: What are Clinical Study Trials?

Category
Strategy and consulting
Clinical trials
Registration
Post-authorization clinical studies
Pharmacovigilance

Registration strategy and Сonsulting
Registration strategy development
Budgeting
Study feasibility
Vendor selection
Data search and analysis

Clinical trials
Development of medical documentation and biostatistics
Monitoring
Data management
Patient home visits
Bioequivalence study
Therapeutic equivalence studies

Registration
Audit of the registration dossier
Dossier eaeu
Conversion of registration dossier into xml format
Pil readability user testing
Turnkey registration

Post-authorization clinical studies
Phase iv studies
Non interventional studies
Investigator initiated studies
Post authorisation safety study
Marketing research

Pharmacovigilance
Building a pharmacovigilance system
Safety in clinical trials
Pharmacovigilance audit
Pharmacovigilance contact person

Blog
Contacts

© Copyright 2010-2023 - X7 Research. All rights reserved.
The NPP’s pharmacopoeia will be included in the WHO list Clinical trials results will be published
Scroll to top