Subscribe to our free, weekly email newsletter!


Transportation Best Practices/Trends: 3 rules to change 3PL contracts

By Peter Moore, Partner at Supply Chain Visions
September 01, 2012

At a recent industry workshop on third-party logistics provider (3PL) contracting, there were about a hundred participants split evenly between buyers and suppliers of services. 

The desired outcomes of the buyers of services included learning how to increase transparency to costs and further drive efficiencies across their supply chain organization. On the flip side, the 3PL participants wanted to know how to engage the C-level shipper executives and put themselves in a better position to add value to their customers and be viewed as less of a commodity.

Within weeks of that meeting we were asked to review a current multi-year contract between an industry-leading manufacturer and the 3PL in their largest market.  This was a chance to apply the combined ideas of “vested outsourcing”—a hybrid contracting model with mutual profit improvement built in—and what we learned in the workshop to improve this critical relationship where the shipper was asking if it was time to put the deal back out to bid after only three years. 

Like many shippers, they were frustrated with the lack of innovation and risk-taking on the part of their 3PL. Previous studies lead by Georgia Tech have identified that after an initial contract period a major gap in expected capabilities—particularly in technology and visibility—often emerges in a majority of 3PL contracts. 

When the “honeymoon” ends there seems to be just a transaction-based relationship, even though the intent was to drive innovation and expand capabilities. Far from getting to talk to the C-level execs, the 3PL often finds that they are marginalized even from their counterparts in the buyer’s supply chain organization and frustrations run high for everyone involved.

We looked at a number of deal reviews and have read dozens of contracts.  Workshops and interviews with buyers and providers bear out a few things. First, 3PL contracts should not be based upon expanding traditional warehousing and/or transportation contracts.

Second, 3PL services are in a unique position to be transparent and to clearly articulate quantitatively the value they add through innovation. Third, shippers and 3PLs need a new contract structure that is a hybrid of performance-based contracts and business partnership agreements. 

The result of this new approach for the buyer of 3PL services is to reduce anxiety about the performance/price ratio. Transparency, incentives, and metrics tied to business outcomes will encourage innovation while ensuring high levels of daily performance. This fresh way of thinking also provides opportunities for the 3PL to move “up market” through demonstration
of value to the customer’s executives.

On this second point, I can remember getting a call as a 3PL founder from the CEO and CFO of my largest customer. They wanted to invite my key team members to lunch in their executive dining room to thank us for delivering the highest return on investment of any initiatives at the company that year. The message here for 3PLs is clear: Do it right and you don’t have to worry about the C-level sales calls—they will call you. 

About the Author

Peter Moore
Partner at Supply Chain Visions

Peter Moore is a partner at Supply Chain Visions, Member of the Program Faculty at the University of Tennessee Center for Executive Education and Adjunct professor at The University of South Carolina Beaufort.  Peter can be reached at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)


Subscribe to Logistics Management magazine

Subscribe today. It's FREE!
Get timely insider information that you can use to better manage your
entire logistics operation.
Start your FREE subscription today!

Recent Entries

The Department of Transportation’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) reported this week that U.S. trade with its North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) partners Canada and Mexico increased 8.2 percent from September 2013 to September 2014 at $102.2 billion.

NS said that the D&H lines it plans to acquire connect with the NS network at Sunbury, Pa. and Binghamton, N.Y. and give NS single-line routes from Chicago and the southeast U.S. to Albany, N.Y., which is in close proximity to NS’ Mechanicville, N.Y.-based intermodal terminal.

This follows a 1.6 cent decrease last week, which was preceded by a 5.4 gain the week before and stands as the first increase going back to the week of June 23, when the weekly average headed up 3.7 cents to $3.919 per gallon.

BNSF said that its 2015 capital expenditures will be allocated towards various areas of its business, including maintenance and expansion of the railroad to meet the expected demand for freight rail service, with 2015 representing the third straight year BNSF has invested a record annual capital expenditures investment.

While the ongoing labor negotiations between the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) and the Pacific Maritime Association (PMA) ostensibly going from bad to worse, following the ILWU’s announcement late last week that it was halting negotiations from November 20 through November 30, a Congressional group last week penned a letter to PMA and ILWU leadership expressing concern over the state of the negotiations.

Comments

Post a comment
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.


© Copyright 2013 Peerless Media LLC, a division of EH Publishing, Inc • 111 Speen Street, Ste 200, Framingham, MA 01701 USA