A New Zealand importer operating a regular Australia-New Zealand freight programme approached HSCM Solutions following ongoing frustration with its freight provider: recurring cargo damage, slow claims resolution, concerns about freight competitiveness, and poor communication. With another shipment due shortly, management wanted an independent assessment of the market and a practical recommendation that could be implemented quickly.
The objective was straightforward:
- Identify suitable alternative providers
- Benchmark current freight costs against the market
- Reduce operational issues and improve communication
- Minimise disruption to the upcoming shipment
While cost was a consideration, the primary concern was service performance. Management wanted confidence that any new provider would not simply offer lower pricing, but would deliver a more reliable service experience.
Scope of Review
At first glance, this looked like a straightforward provider-replacement exercise. Discussions with multiple forwarders revealed a more complex picture: while provider performance varied significantly, some of the damage exposure was linked to the realities of LCL consolidation and pallet handling practice rather than any single provider alone.
HSCM Solutions ran a rapid, structured benchmark across a broad panel of forwarders active on the lane, covering LCL and FCL pricing, service and responsiveness, and the operational factors contributing to the recurring damage.
| Freight mode | LCL, palletised general cargo |
| Frequency | Every 4-6 weeks |
| Providers benchmarked | Seven quality forwarders, independently approached |
| Turnaround | Rates, comparison, and recommendation delivered within one week |
What the Review Found
Two things became clear almost immediately.
First, on price: the incumbent's rates were running 20-25% above the best comparable offers in market for the same lane and specification. The benchmark confirmed that a meaningful commercial improvement opportunity existed.
Second, and more important: discussions with multiple forwarders confirmed that damage risk was influenced by factors across the supply chain, not solely by freight provider performance. Changing provider without addressing those factors would only reset the clock on the same problem.
The selected provider was chosen on a combined basis: price, communication, responsiveness and handling discipline — not on rate alone. A cheaper provider with the same damage exposure would have been a false economy.
The review was conducted independently. HSCM Solutions has no commercial relationship with any freight provider and receives no commissions or referral fees. Recommendations were based solely on commercial fit, service capability and the client's operational requirements. The client was therefore able to make a decision based on market evidence rather than provider sales claims.
The Outcome
The client onboarded the recommended provider within the week, with the origin packaging and pallet changes in place for the first shipment under the new setup.
The first shipment arrived ahead of schedule and undamaged.
"Cost was significantly less than our previous rates. Basically it paid for your fee."
The client subsequently reported that shipments continued to perform strongly, including deliveries arriving ahead of ETA.
The review also identified future optimisation opportunities, including a potential transition to FCL as shipment volumes increase. While not required immediately, this provides a pathway to further reduce handling risk and improve freight efficiency over time.
Why This Matters
Many freight reviews begin with the assumption that changing provider will solve the problem.
This engagement demonstrated that the strongest outcomes often come from combining market benchmarking, provider selection and operational improvements. The result was not simply a cheaper freight provider. It was a freight solution better aligned with the client's operational requirements, communication expectations and future growth.
What Strong Operators Do Differently
Businesses that get good outcomes from a provider change under pressure tend to do three things well:
- They treat the incumbent's rate as a data point to test, not a baseline to accept.
- They ask what's driving the problem operationally, not just who else can quote the lane.
- They address origin-side controls (packaging, pallet configuration) at the same time as changing provider — not afterwards, as an afterthought.
The review reinforced that provider selection and operational controls need to be considered together. Addressing only one side of the equation rarely delivers the best long-term outcome.