The first part of this blog focused on the operational, service and equipment issues that constitute a strong shipper-carrier freight agreement. This blog will address the financial and business issues that need to carefully captured in detail.

6. Rates and Service Charges

Motor carrier agreements or contracts are documents signed between shippers and carriers that set out the parameters and processes under which two or more companies work together to provide freight transportation services. These documents, often prepared by lawyers (with input from freight management professionals), set out a range of service expectations and freight rates that define the relationship between the parties. While freight agreements have come into widespread use, the question is if and when these documents are necessary?

One could argue that if two or more parties are operating in good faith, do they need a legal document to circumscribe the nature of their relationship? If shippers and carriers are supposed to work together as partners in an open and trusting manner, does a formal, written agreement get in the way of a business partnership arrangement? Does it inhibit open and honest communication?

Do motor carrier agreements create a rigid framework that reduces flexibility? Are they detrimental to the sometime unpredictable and fluid nature of freight transportation? Does a formal agreement make it more difficult for a shipper to obtain additional equipment or after hour’s service? Do they place carriers with a limited set of equipment into a straight-jacket? Does the fear of punishment or service failure force a carrier to provide equipment and service to one client (that has a contract) at the expense of another client (that doesn’t have one)?

In a recent Stifel report, it was noted that the “mother” of all capacity shortages is expected to hit the United States in 2017 as a series of government regulations reduce the supply of fleet equipment by five to fifteen percent. Despite the efforts of carriers to raise pay, upgrade facilities and improve the lifestyle of drivers, annual turnover stubbornly remains at close to one hundred percent in many fleets. On the rail side, a huge upswing in the movement of energy products by this mode has had a deleterious effect on intermodal capacity and service. Wise shippers realize that trying to secure carriers on the spot market is a risky endeavor since this leaves them open to capacity shortages and rate volatility.

What can your company do to protect itself if there are capacity shortfalls?

Is your company ready for even tighter freight capacity? Will the integrity of your company’s supply chain be maintained in this ever-changing environment? What can your company do to protect itself if there are capacity shortfalls?

1. Bring your top performing carriers under contract

An important first step is to view your major carriers as business partners. As such, it makes good sense to negotiate formal multi-year contracts with capacity commitments and service guarantees. As you engage in these types of discussions, find out how your business fits within the parameters of their operation. Does your freight move on their primary traffic lanes? Do they have head haul or back haul in the reverse direction? Are you a valued customer?

At the 2013 Summit, Jacquie Meyers, President of Meyers Transportation Services, made shipper-carrier collaboration a “hot topic” with an impassioned plea to both sides to take a more enlightened approach to working together. Her argument was that this is the best way to reduce freight costs. Since this plea resonated so well with the attendees, Jackie was invited to come back and participate in a panel discussion on this topic with another carrier and two prominent shippers.

This year Jacquie was joined by Elias Demangos, President & CEO, Fortigo Transportation Management Group, Anna Petrova, Associate Director, Supply Chain, Ferrero Canada Ltd., and Susan Promane, Director, Supply Chain, Whirlpool Canada. To lead off the track, Jacquie was asked to provide a definition of a successful shipper-carrier partnership. She expressed the view that true shipper-carrier collaboration is the opposite of a poorly-run freight RFQ that goes to 105 transport companies with the lowest price carriers being awarded the freight. Jacquie stated that a true shipper-carrier partnership is based on honest communication, trust, commitment and investment. A 2, 3 or 5 year commitment allows her company to invest in equipment and develop special customer service solutions. While there is room for “good” RFQ’s, working together will achieve greater efficiencies and cost savings.

The two shippers on the panel presented their views on what it takes to make this happen. Anna Petrova suggested that they key is “alignment on strategy. The carriers we hire are an extension of our brand.” Since retail customers can “fire us” or “punish us” for poor performance (e.g. poor case fill rate, poor on-time service), the shipper and carrier must perform in these areas. On-time service is a carrier KPI and it is up to her carriers to provide the service.

Susan Promane reinforced this point by highlighting the importance of “execution.” She stated that very few carriers operate as true partners. Susan mentioned that she shares her annual goals with her carriers and monitors their performance on a monthly and annual basis. While she agrees with the concept of a multi-year commitment, to her that means 2 years since the world changes too much in that time frame to lock in for a longer period.

Anna suggested that there is value in “formalizing SLAs” (service level agreements) so as to clarify expectations with respect to trailer drops, dedicated CSRs, service reports etc. Providing a carrier partner, particularly a new partner, with this information helps build trust and creates accountability. When a carrier meets their service expectations, they aren’t just talking the talk; they are “walking the talk.” Susan also emphasized the importance of tracking safety, EDI compliance and billing accuracy.

Over the past few weeks, there are a couple of items that have come to my attention that inspired me to write this blog. First, I had the pleasure of sitting in on the annual Masters of Logistics webcast, sponsored by Logistics Management. This is the 23rd year that these high quality researchers have surveyed a large sample of shippers and carriers to get a “read” on the current state of the industry. As always, the study produced a number of interesting findings. The one that caught my eye is the disconnect between shippers and carriers. The researchers labelled it a “tug of war.”

The results highlight that shippers and carriers, at this point in time, have conflicting business objectives. On one side we find freight carries looking to recover from the economic downturn and offset the rising costs of driver wages, higher fleet costs and regulatory changes. With capacity tight and drivers in short supply, trucking companies are seeking to maximize profitability.

At the other end, shippers are trying to reduce their costs while managing increasing demand uncertainty from all customer levels. “In fact, many shippers are asking for cost reductions at the same time that they’re asking for improvements in service,” says Karl Manrodt, one of the lead researchers. How do you reconcile these opposing views?

Some companies are coming up with white papers to educate the shipping public on the challenges that carriers are facing. Within the past few weeks I received two good ones, “Industry Challenges” from JB Hunt and “Truckload Capacity in 2014, What’s Causing the Capacity Crunch and What Can Shippers Do About It?” from DAT Solutions. These are useful, well written documents. They do help create an understanding of the issues being faced by shippers and carriers. They also contain some helpful tips on how to obtain additional capacity and secure competitive rates. Unfortunately, written documents have limited value.

The key to bridging the gap between shippers and carriers is face to face communication. As I think back over the years, the current “tug of war” brings back memories of 1999. Some of you may remember the concerns over Y2K and the worries that the year 2000 would bring a meltdown in computer systems throughout the world. As President of a large freight broker at the time, I remember the conversations I had with our top 10 carrier partners. While addressing the Y2K issue, we had an opportunity to discuss various aspects of our business relationship. This was very productive and is clearly what is required now.