A comparison of healthcare supply partners is useful only when it compares the same requirement. Establish the product scope, territory and quantity basis before evaluating the responses you receive.
Set common comparison fields
| Area | Evidence to compare |
|---|---|
| Business identity | The legal entity and proposed role |
| Product scope | The exact presentations covered by the response |
| Information quality | Traceable specifications and resolved discrepancies |
| Commercial basis | Defined units, conditions and the scope of any proposal |
| Follow-up | Clear answers and responsibility for open questions |
A missing answer should remain missing in the comparison. Do not infer a favourable capability from a broad website statement or an attractive pack image.
Weight criteria for your actual decision
If your team uses scores, document what each score means and why the criterion matters. Keep mandatory requirements separate from preferences. A high total should not obscure an unresolved point that prevents the proposed transaction from proceeding.
Review differences in scope
Two responses may refer to different strengths, saleable packs or market assumptions. Resolve those differences before comparing the commercial terms. A comparison built on mismatched units can create a misleading conclusion even when every copied number is correct.
Record a conditional decision where needed
Write down why a partner is being considered and the evidence still required. Review the decision when the product or proposed terms change.
For a Dr. ICO discussion, use the business partners page and provide a focused product shortlist. A consistent request helps you evaluate the response against the same criteria used for your broader sourcing review.
