CDMO & CMO
A CDMO runs one set of validated systems for many sponsors. Every client audits it, every client's process lives inside the same LIMS, MES and quality system, and every tech transfer adds recipes, methods and specifications to validated software. GxP Copilot keeps that estate validated as it changes, and our validation leads make each sponsor audit routine.
For a contract development and manufacturing organisation, validation is a shared-estate problem. One LIMS, MES and quality system serve many sponsors, each sponsor audits them, and each tech transfer changes configured recipes, methods and specifications. The work is keeping the validated state current through constant change, proving each client's data is kept apart, and answering every sponsor's quality agreement from one body of evidence.
Identify The Roadblocks Slowing Your Growth
These challenges compound: cycles slow, scaling gets harder, and inspection posture drifts.
Regulations We Cover
Every CDMO engagement is mapped to the regulations your inspectors will use.
manufacturing
- FDA 21 CFR Part 210/211/11
- EU GMP Annex 11 / Annex 15
- ICH Q7 / Q9 / Q10
- FDA quality agreement guidance
- 01Tech transferELNDocument managementA complete, approved transfer package
- 02ManufacturingMESSCADAERPClient recipes under change control
- 03QC testingLIMSCDSResults kept apart by client
- 04Batch releaseeQMSERPRelease per each quality agreement
- 05Sponsor auditseQMSDocument managementEvidence retrievable per client
Services & Products For CDMO & CMO
One Validated Estate, Many Sponsors
A product company validates its systems for its own products. A CDMO validates the same systems for every client that runs through them, and each of those clients will audit them on its own schedule, against its own expectations. The systems do not change between audits; the questions do. One sponsor asks about audit trail review, the next about access control, the next about how a recipe change was assessed.
The quality agreement sets the boundary. FDA's guidance on quality agreements for contract manufacturing is clear that the product owner stays responsible for quality while the contract facility is responsible for the operations it performs, and the agreement should say who does what. In practice the validation of the CDMO's own computerised systems sits with the CDMO, so the evidence has to be organised so that any sponsor can be shown exactly the part that touches its product, without opening up anyone else's.
Tech Transfer Without Breaking the Validated State
Every new programme adds configuration to validated systems: master recipes in the MES, test methods and specifications in the LIMS, new document types in the quality system. Under GAMP 5 most of this is configuration of a Category 4 system rather than new code, which is good news, because configuration can be verified against a defined, risk-based scope instead of re-validating the platform.
The discipline is in change control. Each transfer should arrive with an impact assessment that says what changed, which requirements it touches and how much testing that risk justifies. Done this way, the validated state stays current at the speed the business takes on clients, and the next sponsor audit finds a trail rather than a backlog.
Client Data Segregation and Data Integrity
In a shared estate, data integrity has a dimension a single-product company rarely faces: one client must never see another client's data. Segregation by site, product or client in the LIMS and MES, access roles that follow it, and reports that cannot cross it are requirements in their own right. They should be written into the URS and tested like any other requirement, not assumed from the system's configuration.
The usual ALCOA+ expectations still apply on top: attributable entries, audit trails that are actually reviewed, and records that stay readable for the retention period each quality agreement sets. Where agreements differ, the strictest one usually becomes the house standard, because running different rules per client on the same system is where integrity gaps start.
- 14:32Signed: Approved for releaseQA Manager
- 11:05Changed risk of URS-015Validation lead · Supplier test evidence acceptedMedium → Low
- 10:48Edited expected result, OQ-07Validation lead · Lockout after 5 attempts, per URSv3 → v4
- 09:12Recorded result, OQ-07Tester · Evidence attachedPassed
Making Sponsor Audits Routine
A sponsor audit should be a retrieval exercise, not a project. That means a current traceability matrix for each system, periodic reviews that are on schedule, change records that link to their impact assessments, and supplier evidence for the platforms you rely on. When those exist, answering an auditor is a matter of minutes per question.
GxP Copilot keeps that evidence live as systems change, and our validation leads run audit preparation as a repeatable drill rather than a scramble. The aim is that the twentieth audit of the year costs no more than the first.
Explore More For Regulated Life Sciences
CDMO & CMO validation without the backlog.
Bring one system. A CDMO validation lead shows you the package it produces.
- We reply within one business day
- We run your URS live on the call
- You get a clear plan for your system