ebb Logistics

Home / Results

Shipping cost savings case studies

These case studies describe clients by shipping profile to protect confidential carrier agreements. Each result explains the contract term or billing issue behind the savings.

$0.00MLargest single annual reduction
0.0%Of an $11.8M parcel program
0Engagements described in full below
$0For an initial contract review
Why the mechanismEach example explains the issue found and the change made, so you can understand whether a similar review could help your business.

What the negotiations, audits and analytics produced.

The short answer

These examples include minimum charges, fuel calculations, expiring surcharge discounts and terms missing from invoices. They show why we review the full agreement alongside the headline discount.

01Minimum chargeUPS

Minimum charges limiting a Ground discount

National sporting goods distributor. ~$1.4M annual parcel spend.

The contract offered a 65% discount off published Ground rates. We reviewed the invoices to see how much of that discount applied to actual shipments.

More than half of Ground packages were billed at the minimum net charge. On those shipments, increasing the percentage discount would not reduce the charge below the minimum.

The minimum affected the client's most-used weight bands, which made it a priority for negotiation.

We negotiated the minimum charge, fuel and several frequently billed accessorials. The new agreement reduced projected annual parcel expense without changing carriers or shipping practices.

We thought our 65% Ground discount meant there wasn’t much left to negotiate. Their analysis showed that the discount wasn’t actually controlling what we paid on most shipments. They found the real cost drivers, handled the negotiation with the carrier, and ultimately reduced our annual parcel spend by more than $300,000.

National sporting goods distributor
The finding
$0KReduction in projected annual parcel expense
75951101357911monthengagementfloor governsfloor renegotiatedGround cost per package, indexed

Indexed to 100 at month one. The shape of the change, not the client’s figures, which are confidential.

0%+Of total parcel spend
No changeTo carrier or shipping behavior

02Fuel provisionsUPS

Fuel discounts missing from the agreement

Consumer products company. ~$2.1M annual parcel spend.

Fuel lines on the invoices appeared to show discounts exceeding 50%. The client believed these came from negotiated fuel terms.

The apparent reduction mainly came from calculating fuel on already-discounted transportation charges. The agreement did not include a meaningful separate fuel concession.

Fuel was one of the largest remaining costs available for negotiation.

We calculated the current cost, compared several fuel-discount options and made fuel a priority in the negotiation.

For years we believed fuel was already heavily discounted because that was how it appeared on the invoice. It wasn’t until the agreement and billing data were analyzed together that we understood what we were actually paying. That one finding materially changed the economics of the entire renewal.

Consumer products company
The finding
$0KAnnual savings from the revised agreement
901151351357911monthengagementno fuel concessionfuel negotiatedFuel billed, indexed

Indexed to 100 at month one. The shape of the change, not the client’s figures, which are confidential.

$0KAttributable to fuel alone
0%Actual negotiated fuel concession before this

03Expiring termsFedEx

Surcharge discounts expiring before transportation discounts

National business equipment distributor. ~$3.7M annual parcel spend.

The transportation discounts were marked Does Not Expire, but a separate schedule ended the residential, delivery area, fuel and additional handling incentives after 24 months.

When those incentives expired, the transportation discount would remain while the affected surcharge costs rose toward published rates.

Surcharges accounted for almost one-third of total net spend. We calculated the cost of the scheduled expiration using the existing shipment volume.

We identified the issue 22 months before expiration and included those terms in an early renegotiation.

We had no idea we were approaching a major cost increase because our headline discounts weren’t expiring. They found the expiration hidden in the surcharge terms, showed us exactly what it would cost, and went back to the carrier on our behalf. They addressed the issue before the increase ever hit and ultimately secured a significantly better agreement.

National business equipment distributor
The finding
$0KAnnual increase avoided
851151401357911monthengagementterms expirerenegotiated earlySurcharge spend, indexed

Indexed to 100 at month one. The shape of the change, not the client’s figures, which are confidential.

$0K+Projected annual value compared with the existing contract
0 moBefore the scheduled expiration

04Contract complianceFedEx

Contract terms that were never applied

Multi-location industrial supplier. ~$4.5M annual parcel spend.

We checked whether the client's negotiated terms were being applied to invoices.

A 30-day billing audit found hundreds of missing or inconsistent delivery area, residential and handling incentives. Many errors were small per shipment but repeated across thousands of packages.

The review also found charges caused by incorrect account settings and shipment data. We identified these separately from carrier billing errors.

The client recovered eligible historical charges, corrected the account issues and added automated monitoring to catch future errors.

We had negotiated aggressively and assumed the invoices reflected the agreement. They didn’t. What impressed us wasn’t just finding the errors, it was separating carrier billing problems from issues originating in our own systems and showing us exactly what needed to be fixed.

Multi-location industrial supplier
The finding
$0KEstimated annual cost of identified errors
0551101357911monthengagementunauditedaudited and correctedWeekly leakage, indexed

Indexed to 100 at month one. The shape of the change, not the client’s figures, which are confidential.

0 daysOf billing data to find it
Two causesCarrier billing errors, separated from our own systems

05Renewal reviewUPS

Improving a carrier renewal proposal

National action-sports distributor. ~$1.8M annual parcel spend.

The carrier proposed an agreement with estimated annual savings of roughly $240,000. We reviewed which individual terms improved and which increased costs.

We applied the proposal to twelve months of shipments and compared services, weights, surcharges and minimums with the current agreement. Most terms improved, but several important lanes did not.

A high-volume Ground provision increased cost, and the minimum charge structure was largely unchanged. These terms offered room for further negotiation.

We kept the favorable terms, negotiated the weaker provisions and requested additional concessions not included in the original offer.

The carrier came to us with what looked like a strong savings proposal, and we probably would have accepted it as-is. Their analysis showed exactly where the proposal improved our pricing and where it quietly made certain terms worse. They handled the negotiation with the carrier, preserved the favorable provisions, corrected the weak ones, and secured another six figures in annual savings beyond the original offer.

National action-sports distributor
The finding
$0KAnnual savings in the final agreement
75901051357911monthengagementcarrier proposalfinal agreementAnnual cost under agreement, indexed

Indexed to 100 at month one. The shape of the change, not the client’s figures, which are confidential.

$0K+Above the carrier’s own initial offer
0 moOf shipments repriced against the proposal

06Enterprise renegotiationUPS and FedEx

Additional savings on an $11.8M parcel program

Large omnichannel retailer. ~$11.8M annual parcel spend.

The retailer already had transportation discounts above 70% in several service categories. We reviewed how those discounts affected the shipments it was sending.

The shipment profile had changed. Minimum charges limited some discounts, residential and delivery area costs had grown, more packages were billed by dimensional weight, and fuel terms needed review.

We applied existing agreements, competing carrier terms and proposed changes to more than a year of shipment data. The negotiation focused on the provisions with the largest effect on net cost.

The new agreements kept the existing carrier network and service levels.

We went into the process expecting incremental savings because our discounts already looked very strong. The shipment-level analysis showed that the percentages we had always focused on were no longer the terms driving our spend. The final result exceeded $1 million annually without changing our operation. It fundamentally changed how we evaluate carrier contracts.

Large omnichannel retailer
The finding
$0.00MReduction in projected annual parcel spend
851051201357911monthengagementexisting agreementsrenegotiatedEffective cost per package, indexed

Indexed to 100 at month one. The shape of the change, not the client’s figures, which are confidential.

0.0%Of total parcel spend
0%+Discounts it already had before we started
The patternsThese recurring issues are part of our contract and invoice reviews.

Common contract and billing issues.

MID-MARKET RETAIL / 2 CARRIERS

A discount missing from the service being used

The shipper moved most of its volume to a service that was not added to the amended discount schedule. Eleven months of shipments were billed at published rates.

INDUSTRIAL DISTRIBUTION / SINGLE CARRIER

A discount tier that did not recover with volume

Volume fell below a tier threshold during a slow season. The discount dropped and did not return when volume recovered because the agreement did not require it.

HEALTHCARE / MULTI-SITE

Surcharges overlooked during renewals

Renewal discussions focused on ground commercial discounts while additional handling and delivery area charges became a larger part of the bill.

Contract negotiationParcel auditContract managementShipping analytics

Request a review of your agreement.

Send your agreement for a free written review of potential savings.

Get a free contract evaluationSee a sample audit firstEmail info@ebblogic.com

Or call 888-356-4421

Free, and no obligation. A written evaluation back inside 48 hours. No fee unless we find documented savings. How we handle your documents

  • Your current agreement, any carrier
  • One recent invoice, if you have one
  • A written evaluation back inside 48 hours