Sample deliverable · Distributor Search
Five candidates. One recommendation.
Turkey. A compact diagnostic device. Five screened distributors, assessed against the same checklist, with one candidate recommended. Company names are withheld and every figure is illustrative.
Related offer: $7,500 · Distributor Search & Qualification
Anonymized example · Illustrative only
The assignment
The questions this report answered.
- 01
Which distributors in this market actually move devices like ours?
- 02
Who has real access to the hospitals that would buy it?
- 03
What would block adoption in the first year?
Method
How the shortlist was built.
Desk intelligence
Import records, tender results, company registries and published hospital procurement data are collected and cross-checked.
Field validation
The shortlist is pressure-tested by field agents: who stocks this category, who pays on time, who answers the phone?
Principal sign-off
Every candidate is assessed against the same checklist. The principal reviews and signs before anything is recommended.
- 5
- Candidates screened (illustrative)
- 6
- Vetting checks per candidate
- 1
- Candidates recommended
Figures are illustrative. In a real engagement the numbers come from your market and your product.
The shortlist
Every candidate, same checklist.
| Candidate | Portfolio fit | Hospital access | Regulatory readiness | Field check | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company A | Diagnostics portfolio, POCT line present. | Active in Istanbul and Ankara private hospital groups (illustrative: 40+ hospitals). | UTS-registered importer; service team in place. | Stocks two competing devices; engineers on staff. | Pass |
| Company B | Broad portfolio, no POCT today. | Public tender presence, thin private reach. | UTS-registered; would need a service hire. | Strong in imaging; diagnostics is a new line. | Conditional |
| Company C | Consumables-heavy; device experience limited. | Wide retail pharmacy reach, few hospitals. | UTS-registered; no field engineers. | Known brand locally, but payment terms are rigid. | Conditional |
| Company D | Diagnostics portfolio on paper only. | Claims access it could not demonstrate. | UTS registration pending renewal. | Two late payments flagged by two independent sources. | Fail |
| Company E | No medical device history. | None demonstrated. | No UTS registration; 9+ month path (illustrative). | New entrant; no installed base to verify. | Fail |
Anonymized example · Illustrative only
Vetting
The checklist behind every verdict.
UTS/TITCK registration verified against the public register.
PassAt least one field engineer on staff with device-class experience.
PassTwo independent references confirm payment behavior.
PassDemonstrated — not claimed — hospital access in the target segment.
FailNo exclusivity conflict with a direct competitor.
PassService coverage outside the capital confirmed by field visit.
Conditional
Risk notes
What could go wrong, stated plainly.
Tender dynamics
SGK reimbursement status shapes public-hospital uptake, and public tenders favor the lowest compliant bid. A premium device competes on service contracts and reimbursement positioning, not unit price. Structure the offer accordingly.
Single-point service
Two candidates route service through a single engineer. Attrition there means your installed base goes dark — contract a backup SLA.
Consumable dependency
Reagent supply runs through a separate importer in this market. Confirm the reagent chain before signing any device agreement.
Recommended next step
Company A — with conditions.
Open structured discussions with Company A. Make the agreement conditional on a field-confirmed service SLA outside the capital and a reagent-supply letter from the separate importer. Keep Company B as the backup — revisit if the service condition fails.
This is an illustrative recommendation. Real recommendations name real companies and cite real sources.
Your market next
Get a report like this.
Bring a market, a product, and a decision you need to make. The structure above is what lands in your inbox.