8.7
Excellent
376 reviews
- Communication
- 8.8
- Timeliness
- 8.9
- Accuracy
- 7.6
- Staff
- 8.8
- Value
- 8.9
Preston Herzog
6.5
- - Regulatory Submission
- - 8 weeks May - July 2024
- - Pharmaceutical Company
Reviewed:
Regulatory submission was incomplete, required additional work.
The initial regulatory submission provided was incomplete, requiring additional work to meet the necessary standards. This resulted in unexpected costs and delays. The team corrected the issues, but it should have been right the first time.
Leah Jerde
8.9
- - Stability Studies
- - 18 months January 2023 - June 2024
- - Pharmaceutical Company
Reviewed:
Accurate and reliable stability studies, clear reporting.
The stability studies were conducted with precision, and the reporting was clear and thorough. The results provided us with the necessary data to proceed with our regulatory submissions confidently.
Wendell Parker
5.8
- - Biostatistical Design
- - 6 weeks February - March 2024
- - Research Institution
Reviewed:
Biostatistical analysis lacked depth, missed key insights.
The biostatistical analysis provided was not as thorough as we had hoped. Some key insights were missed, and we had to engage another provider to get the level of detail we needed. The team seemed overworked and under-resourced.
Dr. Nicholas Schuster
5.7
- - Project Management
- - 12 weeks March - May 2024
- - Biotech Company
Reviewed:
Poor communication and missed deadlines caused frustration.
Communication from the project management team was poor, with frequent missed deadlines. This caused significant frustration on our end, as we had to repeatedly chase them for updates. The project eventually got back on track, but the delays were problematic.
Tasha Rosenbaum
9.3
- - Market Access Strategy
- - 6 weeks January - February 2024
- - Pharmaceutical Company
Reviewed:
Strategic market access analysis, insightful recommendations.
The market access analysis provided strategic insights that were crucial to our launch strategy. The team's recommendations were data-driven and actionable, helping us to make informed decisions.
Mercedes Larson
9.1
- - HTA Submission
- - 8 weeks February - March 2024
- - Biotech Company
Reviewed:
Comprehensive and well-executed HTA submission.
The HTA submission was comprehensive and well-executed. The team managed the complexities of the submission process expertly, ensuring that all necessary data was included and well-presented.
Charlene Brakus
5.4
- - Process Development
- - 14 weeks June - September 2024
- - Biotech Company
Reviewed:
Process development project faced delays, communication issues.
The process development project encountered multiple delays, and communication was inconsistent. We had to extend our project timeline due to the setbacks, and this impacted our overall production schedule. The team was capable but seemed overextended.
Don Purdy
9
- - Biomarker Development
- - 12 weeks October 2023 - January 2024
- - Research Institution
Reviewed:
Efficient and precise biomarker development.
The biomarker development project was managed efficiently, with precise results that met our project objectives. The team's expertise in biomarker research was invaluable, and we were impressed with the quality of the deliverables.
