You’re competing for the same sponsors, with the same marquee sites, the same assumptions, and many of the same datasets. When every feasibility story looks the same, it’s hard to give a sponsor a real reason to believe yours. That’s the problem we solve.
Not with a slicker deck or a longer site list. With an answer the sponsor can’t get from the CRO sitting across from you.
We combine real-world patient intelligence, trial competition, and investigator and site data to show not just which sites look promising, but where the actual patient opportunity is — and where your competitors may be overlooking it. So when your team walks into an RFP or bid defense, you’re not presenting another site list. You’re showing the sponsor why your strategy is more likely to work.
The whole industry crowds the same marquee centers, because that’s where the volume and the KOLs are obvious. We find the qualifying patients sitting in less-contested sites nobody has pitched yet — sometimes with more confidence than the crowded ones.
Where everyone goes
The same marquee academic centers, over and over. Contested, expensive, and slow to enroll.
Where the patients are
Overlooked sites with real qualifying patients — and no one else pitching them.
Illustrative. Your competitors are all bidding the same crowded sites. The advantage is the patients they can’t see.
This only works because the data underneath is real — the whole patient journey across every U.S. institution, not the partial snapshot everyone else builds on. So when the sponsor asks how you know these sites will enroll, you have a number, not an estimate. You don’t need to walk them through the math; you need them to believe it, and a real count does that.
It compounds, all the way to the award.
Your feasibility team does not log into anything. You send the protocol, we do the work, and you walk into the room with the evidence. Here is what that looks like on one bid.
You send us the protocol and the inclusion and exclusion criteria. That is the whole handoff.
How many patients actually qualify, counted from the real patient record, and the candidate sites that can reach them. Enough to build a proposal that says something your competitors cannot.
Every proposed site and investigator with qualifying patient counts, a measured track record, contacts and the reasoning behind its rank. One page per site.
When the sponsor asks how you know these sites will enroll, you have a number for each one and the investigator who will do it. That is usually where the conversation changes.
Illustrative timeline. Turnaround depends on the protocol; the handoff does not.
In a recent rare-disease program, running the protocol against the actual patient population nearly tripled the eligible pool — then became a ranked, defensible site list the team could take straight into a bid defense.
How does this fit into our RFP and bid defense process?
It sits alongside it. For an RFP, send us the protocol and you get a fast feasibility read to build the proposal on. For the bid defense, you get the full site-by-site answer: qualifying patient counts, named investigators with a measured track record, and the reasoning behind every rank. Your feasibility team stays in charge of the bid.
Will the sponsor know we worked with you?
That is your call. The deliverable is yours to present in your own name, and the evidence stands on its own in the room. We stay in the background.
We already have a feasibility team and our own data. Why add you?
Because the data most feasibility teams run on is the same data your competitors run on: registries, past trial counts and site questionnaires, all inferred. We count from the real, patient-level record, so the sponsor hears a different answer from you. Many teams use us as a second set of eyes on a list they have already built. Why real beats inferred →
How is this different from the trial databases we subscribe to?
Those tell you who has run trials before and who looks strong on paper. They cannot tell you how many patients at a given site actually qualify under this protocol, because they never see the patient record. We answer that question, and we pair it with the investigator’s real enrollment history, so you get both signals on the same site. How the ranking works →
How fast can you turn around a live bid?
Days. Send the protocol or the RFP and we come back with the counted patients, the sites that can reach them, and the reasoning. No software to install and nothing for your team to learn. Send us your next bid →
Bring us your next bid. We’ll show you the qualifying patients, the investigators who will enroll them, and the overlooked sites your competitors will miss — the evidence you walk in with.