How To Make Better Procurement Records for Your Lab

In GLP- and GMP-regulated environments, maintaining traceable records for relevant reagents and materials is an important regulatory requirement. But even if you are not working in a regulated environment, maintaining traceable procurement records can make troubleshooting much easier.

When I first started tightening up procurement records at ReviveLab, there was a lot to fix. Reconstructing a single purchase meant jumping between invoices, email threads, supplier pages, downloaded documents, and whatever we could salvage from the packaging.

The problem was that every record update had been created at a different time and for a different reason. Nothing guaranteed that someone coming to it later could retrace the steps.

Fixing it started with a simple question: if the person who made the purchase wasn’t available, could anyone else work out what happened? Here are the six mistakes we made building our procurement system, so you can avoid them.

Mistake 1: Using an Invoice Instead of an Internal ID

Purchasing information is often scattered rather than centralized. You might find a purchase approval buried in an email, delivery tracking gated behind the carrier portal, and the lot number printed on the product packaging itself.

An invoice usually contains enough information to identify a purchase, so it seems like a logical place to centralize these details. However, an invoice cannot tell you:

• Which lot arrived
• Which supporting documents were available at the time
• If the identifiers on the container agreed with the paperwork
• If anything was damaged or missing
• If a supplier sent an updated document afterward

So, in our new system, we made a unique internal ID number the anchor for each procurement event, rather than the invoice. This number was used to connect the transaction to product identifiers, supplier documents, receiving notes, correspondence, and subsequent corrections to one single source of truth.

Mistake 2: Using Product Names as Shorthand for Identity

Something else we became more careful about in our new procurement system was the way materials were identified.

A product name or abbreviation is useful when everybody already knows what they are talking about. But it becomes less useful when multiple orders for the same product exist or when someone reviews the record months later. And while a catalog number can help, it still does not identify the particular lot that arrived.

A survey of clinical chemistry laboratories in Ontario found wide differences in how laboratories handled verification of new reagent and calibrator lots. Of the laboratories responding about reagent lots, 74% verified all tests, 11% some, and 15% none. For calibrator lots, 39% verified all, 4% some, and 57% none![1] While this survey deals with a specific clinical laboratory setting, it is a useful reminder that the lot is a distinct piece of information rather than an optional extension of the product name.

For our new procurement records, we began keeping the supplier, exact product name, catalog or product number, batch or lot, quantity, format, and transaction reference separately. We also noted where an identifier was actually seen.

That might sound unnecessarily detailed, but if a packing document, outer package, and vial label contain slightly different information, we would rather preserve all three observations than cherry-pick one.

Mistake 3: Relying on File Names Alone

Document folders and filenames caused more problems than we expected, and supplier documentation was probably where this became most obvious.

It is very easy to download a file, put it in the appropriate folder, and feel that the documentation has been dealt with. Then you open the folder later and find something like: COA.pdf

At the time of download, everybody may know exactly what “COA.pdf” means. But months later you are probably more interested in asking:

• Who issued this document?
• When was it retrieved?
• Where did it come from?
• Which product does it refer to?
• Does it identify a specific lot?
• Did another version arrive later?

So we began recording those details separately instead of relying on filenames and folders alone. Doing this also forced us to be more precise about the difference between general documentation and documentation linked to a specific batch or lot.

We also started recording what a supplier provided without automatically turning it into a conclusion about reagent authenticity, purity, compliance, or suitability. Because those are separate questions that require further testing and/or evidence.

Mistake 4: Not Logging Everything on Delivery

When a shipment arrives, almost everything you need for your procurement records can be inspected together: the carton, tracking information, seals, labels, inner packaging, physical contents, packing slip, and any documentation included with the order. But a day later, the box may be gone, the materials may have been moved, and the paperwork may be sitting in another folder (or in the bin!)

That is why we now prefer to record as much information as we can while the shipment is in front of whoever receives it. Usually that means noting the date and time of delivery, the recipient, the condition of the package, relevant seals, product and catalog identifiers, lot or batch, quantity, any obvious damage or discrepancies, the documents included, and where the material was initially sent afterward.

WHO laboratory quality-management guidance takes a similarly practical approach to inventory records. Its handbook calls for information such as the date supplies or reagents were received, lot numbers, the person receiving the materials, expiration date, quantity received, and the shelf or other destination where they were stored.[2]

Why This is Important

Some very ordinary discrepancies spotted during delivery receipt have resulted in real product recalls. In one FDA recall involving a yeast identification system, the two reagent bottles were supplied with the Reagent A and Reagent B labels reversed.[3] Health Canada has also published a recall involving a reagent whose registration button showed a November 2020 expiration date while the box labels showed the correct November 2019 date![4]

We are not suggesting that these kinds of errors happen routinely. But if a label says one thing and another record says something else, omitting this information can make or break your troubleshooting later. That’s why it’s important to also keep a detailed lab book. If you want some help recording your experiments, check out our article, “10 Tips For Organizing Your Lab Book”. 

Mistake 5: Not Keeping Track of Corrections

The final mistake we made in our old procurement system was that corrections were recorded in a new record rather than updating the original. When information was entered incorrectly, the easiest solution was to replace the old information with a new record. While that solved the immediate problem, it also removed the explanation for why the record was changed in the first place.

In our new system, we found it more useful to leave enough detail in the records so that another person had the full context of what correction was made and why. As a result, our records now answer the following questions:

• What did the original record say?
• What triggered the question?
• Was the supplier contacted?
• What came back?
• When was the change made?

The same logic applies to any files associated with your purchase. If a revised document arrives, keeping some record of the earlier version and the reason for the replacement is usually more useful.

Mistake 6: Not Asking “Could Someone Not Involved in This Purchase Make Sense of it Later?“

If I were setting up our procurement process again today, I would start by deciding what someone might reasonably need to reconstruct later, and then make sure those necessary details have a central location.

The irony is that the value of a procurement record is hardest to see when you create it!

On the day a shipment arrives, everyone remembers what was ordered, the supplier page is still open, and the relevant emails are easy to find. But six months later, when you need to locate a lot number, a document source, a receiving note, or an explanation for a correction, it suddenly stops looking like unnecessary admin work.

Download a FREE Checklist for You To Keep Track of Orders

Now you’ve got the know-how to keep track of your lab purchases so that troubleshooting is easier and more effective; download our Research-Material Procurement Checklist to help build a habit.

When we were developing our procurement workflow, we kept finding ourselves asking whether someone not involved in a purchase would be able to make sense of it later. That thinking eventually shaped our Research-Material Procurement Checklist to build this habit.

You don’t need fancy software to do this. This approach could be implemented in a spreadsheet, a database, a LIMS, or a paper system. What matters most is deciding what information you will need later, after the emails, packaging, and immediate memory of the purchase are gone.

Still not decided which reagent to buy or what evidence you need? Check out these five checks you can run to scope out any reagent before you purchase. And if you want more practical tips on how to keep track of lab orders, check out this article next.

References

1. Rutledge AC, Johnston A, Booth RA, et al. Lot verification practices in Ontario clinical chemistry laboratories: results of a patterns-of-practice survey. Practical Laboratory Medicine. 2022;32:e00300. DOI: 10.1016/j.plabm.2022.e00300.
2. World Health Organization. Laboratory Quality Management System: Handbook. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2011. ISBN 9789241548274. See Chapter 4 (Purchasing and inventory), section 4-6 “Receipt and storage of supplies,” pp. 57–58.
3. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Class 2 Device Recall: remel RapID Yeast Plus System. Recall No. Z-0530-2014; Recall Event ID 65477.
4. Health Canada. Protease 3 (2020-01-23). Medical Device Recall, Identification No. RA-72263. Posted February 7, 2020.