SCOR DS · Fulfill · caselet
Holding the promise when carriers say no: a tender-rejection spike
Tender acceptance on a lane cluster collapses from 84% to 61% in a tightening market. Chasing spot capacity holds the promise at +14% cost; restructuring holds it at +4%.
The situation. A regional distributor ships daily from one DC across a five-lane cluster. The freight market tightens fast; contracted carriers start declining tenders they would have taken a month ago.
The signal. The Logistics agent tracks tender acceptance by lane and flags the cluster when it drops from 84% to 61% over three weeks — with spot-market premiums on the same lanes running +23%. Left alone, the operational default is spot-chasing: promises kept, at whatever the market asks. Systems consulted: TMS (tenders, acceptances, spot quotes), ERP (order volumes, promise dates), and carrier contracts.
The decision. The agent sets the default against a restructure: shift two lanes to the contracted backup carrier at slightly worse transit, consolidate three LTL departures into one daily FTL, and re-time pickups to windows carriers actually accept. Projected outcome holds OTIF above 95% at roughly +4% freight cost per unit, versus about +14% for spot-chasing the same service level as acceptance keeps sliding.
The write-back. Routing-guide changes and re-timed pickup appointments in the TMS; consolidated shipment plans and adjusted promise logic in the ERP.
The outcome.
| Metric | Restructure (chosen) | Spot-chasing |
|---|---|---|
| OTIF | 95%+ held | 95%+ held |
| Freight cost per unit | +4% | +14% (as the slide continues) |
| Tender acceptance (4 wks later) | 79% | 61% and falling |
The takeaway. Restructure the network before you pay the spot market to hide the problem.
Representative scenario; lanes and figures are synthetic. SCOR is ASCM’s framework.