.png)
Freight tenders rarely fail because of a lack of effort. More often, they underperform because key decisions are made without a clear market-led structure, particularly when pressure builds.
I regularly work with shippers who are both experienced and data-driven. They run structured RFPs, benchmark against the market, and negotiate with discipline. The process appears robust.
Yet months after awards are made, performance drifts. Rates sit above market. Executive scrutiny increases. Procurement is asked to explain outcomes that initially seemed competitive.
When this happens, the root cause is rarely visibility. It is usually preparation, positioning, and how effectively insight was translated into negotiation leverage.
Entering the tender without a market-led strategy
Many organisations still run tenders according to legacy calendars rather than current market dynamics. Internal assumptions are carried forward from previous cycles, and supplier narratives shape expectations before the first bid is submitted.
Live market benchmarks are sometimes introduced only once bids are received, rather than used to anchor negotiations from the outset. By then, supplier positioning is already established and leverage has narrowed.
Stronger preparation starts earlier. High-performing teams define corridor-level expectations before launching R1. They distinguish between structurally tight trades and softer, overcapacity markets. They set target ranges aligned to percentile positioning and volatility exposure.
Treating all corridors the same weakens negotiation anchoring from day one. A one-size-fits-all strategy rarely reflects how differently markets behave.
In uncertain environments, discipline becomes even more important. Recent discussions with enterprise shippers highlighted how carriers may amplify geopolitical risk to create urgency and defend pricing. Headlines move quickly. Capacity fundamentals often move more slowly. Teams that anchor decisions in demand signals, blank sailings, and utilisation data are better positioned to separate signal from noise.
Failing to create real competitive tension
Competitive tension does not happen automatically. It must be designed into the process.
Long-standing supplier relationships can gradually reduce pricing pressure, particularly when incumbents face limited risk of volume reallocation. When too few suppliers are invited per corridor, or when non-incumbents are not positioned as credible alternatives, bids tend to become defensive rather than aggressive.
Loyalty without leverage rarely delivers sustained market alignment.
Clear decision thresholds, credible alternatives, and visible willingness to rebalance allocations change negotiation behaviour. Suppliers respond when they see that awards are tied to transparent benchmarks and corridor-level positioning rather than historic share.
Over-engineering the process
There is also a misconception that more rounds automatically produce better outcomes.
In practice, excessive complexity can weaken engagement. Multiple iterative rounds, unclear scope definitions, and prolonged timelines often lead to supplier fatigue. As fatigue sets in, bid quality declines and negotiations become more guarded.
Several shippers describe Round 1 as largely strategic positioning rather than realistic pricing, with meaningful movement occurring later. That movement only translates into results when round-by-round improvement is measured systematically and targets are refined with discipline.
Well-structured tenders do not rely on process length to create leverage but instead they rely on clarity early, competitive tension, and focused negotiation.
Chasing rate without assessing service risk
Freight decisions are rarely about price alone, yet rate comparisons still dominate many tender reviews.
Service reliability, transit time stability, blank sailings, and network design are sometimes treated as secondary considerations. This creates a narrow definition of competitiveness and increases exposure to downstream costs.
Several shippers recently noted that ocean freight may represent a small percentage of overall product value, while lost sales, stockouts, and emergency air freight are far more material. In some backhaul trades, rates have fallen so low that predictability has become the true differentiator.
There is also an important distinction between vessel on-time performance and cargo arriving as planned. Network reshuffles and transshipment dynamics can affect outcomes even when headline KPIs appear stable.
Combining rate benchmarking with reliable service intelligence and corridor-level performance insight allows trade-offs to be quantified rather than assumed. Award decisions become more defensible when service risk is evaluated alongside price.
Letting value erode between nomination and go-live
Markets continue to evolve after contracts are signed. Implementation timelines, however, often stretch for months.
When there is a significant delay between nomination and activation, contracted rates can fall out of alignment with prevailing conditions. In volatile markets, this gap quietly erodes negotiated gains.
Protecting value requires execution discipline. Implementation timelines should be embedded in the tender plan. A final validation against live market benchmarks should take place before go-live. Where volatility risk is elevated, adjustment mechanisms can reduce exposure.
Treating tenders as static in dynamic markets
Many contracts are structured around assumptions of stability, with fixed rates and annual cycles. Markets rarely behave that way.
During the 2025 tender season, across a broad sample of shippers applying structured round-by-round analysis improved performance by 18 percentage points from first bid to final nomination, landing on average 23 percent below the long-term market benchmark. Average spend reductions reached 25 percent from Round 1 to award decisions.
These outcomes were achieved by refining targets as the market evolved, challenging above-market bids consistently, and analysing supplier behaviour across rounds rather than relying on initial positioning.
In softer markets, time itself can become leverage. Allowing negotiations to mature, rather than rushing to close, can increase pressure on carriers managing excess capacity. That strategy only works when internal alignment and market positioning are clear.
From access to confidence
Most enterprise shippers already have access to strong market intelligence. The gap is rarely data availability. It is capacity, structure, and interpretation at the moments when stakes are highest.
High-value tenders sit under executive and finance scrutiny. Procurement must justify savings, supplier selection, and risk exposure in a way that withstands challenge. Leadership needs clarity not only on outcomes, but on the assumptions behind them.
In volatile conditions, planning around a defensible range rather than a single fixed estimate often supports stronger internal decision-making. Markets can shift quickly. Structured scenario thinking maintains credibility when they do.
Access to data is foundational. Turning that intelligence into confident, defensible decisions is where performance begins to separate.
A practical next step
If you are planning a tender this year, or have recently completed one, I invite you to request a complimentary analysis and executive readout.
I will review your corridor positioning against the market, identify areas of negotiation leverage or exposure, and provide an independent perspective on how your outcomes align with current conditions.
The objective is straightforward: to ensure your tender strategy is as strong as the effort invested in running it.
