Guidance for Working with External Data Vendors – Getting from LPLV to Database Lock Faster

There are a lot of roadblocks on the way to a successful database lock. Getting there efficiently means managing a massive amount of incoming data, aligning timelines across multiple stakeholders, and responding quickly to issues before they become delays. When external data vendors are involved, that challenge multiplies. 

With the number of external data sources routinely used on the rise, vendor-related bottlenecks risk quietly derailing timelines and creating unexpected downstream issues. At MMS we’ve developed a proactive, practical approach to managing vendor data that consistently gets our clients from Last Patient Last Visit (LPLV) to database lock faster with less stress and fewer surprises. 

Here’s what we’ve learned, and how sponsors can better prepare their trials to avoid the most common pitfalls. 

Where Vendor Delays Happen—and Why

One of the most common data-related risks comes down to this: vendors often operate in silos. Even when communication seems clear, vendors may have their own internal systems and processes for tracking issues or cleaning data, processes that may not be visible to the sponsor or CRO. 

It’s important to collaborate closely with external data vendors to fully understand their internal processes and any dependencies; this can guard against lock delays due to avoidable surprises. For example, imagine if at a late stage in the study, it was discovered that a vendor had a separate internal query management system no one else knows about. That kind of misalignment would create a flurry of late-breaking issues and force teams into reactive mode just when precision and calm are most needed.

Other common delay drivers include: 

• Infrequent or late data transfers, especially when test data and production data don’t match up
• Sloppy sample handling at sites, such as the misuse of unscheduled kits, which creates headaches for lab vendors
• Slow query response times, as vendors prioritize test output over data reconciliation
• Poor coordination between central and analytical labs, where discrepancies may be fixed in one system but not the other

These aren’t rare problems. In fact, they’re common, especially in complex studies with multiple lab vendors, patient-reported outcomes, or large volumes of questionnaire data. 

Early Planning Is the Best Medicine 

Most of these challenges can be mitigated or avoided entirely through better planning. That starts with getting your data transfer agreements (DTAs) and data transfer specifications (DTS) in place early. A common mistake is waiting until the study is underway to finalize these. Ideally, a draft DTS should be ready before the first subject is in. 

Equally important: involve data management and statistical programming teams as soon as vendor data and the setup of the lab manuals are discussed. These teams offer critical input on how data should be formatted, cleaned, and interpreted, especially in the context of blinded or unblinded data. Aligning on these details early prevents missteps that could compromise analysis down the line. 

In studies where multiple vendors are involved, staggering your data transfer schedules (rather than receiving all data at once) can prevent bottlenecks and ease the burden on internal resources. With data volume growing across all trials, you want to be able to act on fresh data without drowning in backlogged issues. 

Proactive Vendor Management Makes the Difference 

At MMS, we don’t wait for data issues to escalate. We meet regularly with vendors, review open issues collaboratively, and ensure the right people are at the table. In particularly complex studies, we may meet as often as twice a week leading up to database lock. 

These aren’t passive check-ins. Our meetings are discovery driven. We review discrepancies in real time and confirm the next steps before the meeting ends. This keeps issues from lingering and helps all involved stay accountable. 

We also keep sponsors engaged and informed, especially when dealing with issues that have the potential to become irresolvable if not proactively managed. Waiting until lock to explain why data is missing or why a discrepancy was never addressed leads to frustration and ambiguity. Instead, we document sponsor sign-off on any issues and their resolution during regular meetings, ensuring transparency and shared ownership.

Frequent Reconciliation, Clear Escalation Paths 

One of the simplest and most effective ways to stay ahead of vendor-related delays is frequent reconciliation. At minimum, this should happen monthly. As lock approaches, that cadence should increase. Just as important: when issues recur, escalate them. Escalation doesn’t mean assigning blame, rather it means getting the right people to pay attention at the right time. 

To do this effectively, make sure: 

• You have a clear point of contact at each vendor
• Issues are logged with sufficient detail (screenshots, lab IDs, references)
• The vendor acknowledges issues within 24 hours, even if resolution will take longer
• Everyone understands the expected turnaround time for common data scenarios

These best practices ensure that when something does go wrong, there’s no confusion about who owns the fix or how quickly it needs to happen. 

The Value of a Unified Partner 

Finally, it’s worth saying: managing external data is hard enough without layering in additional handoffs. That’s why having biostatistics, data management, and statistical programming all under one roof makes such a difference. 

For example, at MMS, our internal communication is fast and responsive. If a discrepancy arises, we can troubleshoot across teams, and across time zones, without delay.  

For complex, data-heavy studies, this end-to-end integration means: 

• Fewer headaches due to miscommunication
• Faster resolution of issues across teams
• Aligned priorities from first transfer to final lock

With growing study complexity and increasingly compressed timelines, that kind of operational cohesion isn’t just convenient, it’s essential. 

Smooth Lock Isn’t Luck – It’s Preparation

There’s no shortcut to a clean, timely database lock. But there is a smarter path, and it starts with how you manage your external data vendors. 

From early DTS planning and proactive issue resolution to frequent reconciliations and transparent escalation, every step you take to clarify expectations and increase communication will pay dividends at lock. 

At MMS, we help sponsors navigate that path with the tools, talent, and processes to ensure external data doesn’t become an internal headache. Because when it comes to trial delivery, it’s not just about getting to the finish line, it’s about getting there with confidence.

This article was written by Santie Britz, Senior Data Team Lead, Biometrics.

To discover more about how we support sponsors with end-to-end biometrics solutions – even for the most complex trials get in touch via info@mmsholdings.com.

To explore data focused in more detail, download our eBook Solving for Complexity: Practical Across the Clinical Data Lifecycle – Download now!