NPO & Social Impact · Fleet & Logistics
Two quotes labelled the same service are routinely pricing different services
Included mass, per-kilogram charging, main-centre definitions, delivery promise and surcharge treatment all differ by supplier. Before any price comparison means anything, each tariff has to be translated into comparable terms — which is most of the work and the part usually skipped.
- 3
- tariff structures normalised
- 25%
- more chargeable mass at a 4,000 divisor
- 2.02 pp
- spread in quoted fuel levies
- −32% / +80%
- Saturday surcharge range vs baseline
Proof context: An NPO courier pack holding one incumbent schedule and two alternative structures
The situation
Three tariff structures that only look comparable
The retained pack contained an existing supplier schedule and two materially different alternative rate structures. The task was not to pick the lowest visible line item. It was to reconstruct how the organisation actually ships, translate each supplier's tariff into the same commercial language, and test total cost against service, geography, administration and risk.
Courier tariffs are not comparable by service name. Included mass, per-kilogram charging, main-centre and regional definitions, delivery promise and surcharge treatment all differ by supplier — so two quotes labelled the same thing routinely price different services.
Indexed comparison
Baseline at 100, before any shipment weighting
Scroll table sideways →
| Position | Baseline | Alternative A | Alternative B |
|---|---|---|---|
| National overnight, opening bracket | 100.0 | 134.7 | 112.9 |
| Closest nominal road / economy at 10 kg | 100.0 | 217.0 | 151.2 |
| Local road / economy at 30 kg | 100.0 | n/c | 92.2 |
| Fuel-adjusted local road / economy at 30 kg | 100.0 | n/c | 93.6 |
n/c means not comparable from the retained evidence. The absence is deliberate: forcing unlike services into one number would create false precision. These indices are not a basket model and should not be read as a supplier ranking.
The alternatives are more expensive on most of these lines
On the quoted base-rate positions above, both alternatives sit above the incumbent — in one case at more than twice the baseline. Only the local economy position at 30 kg comes in below it.
That is the honest output of a benchmark rather than a failure of one. An incumbent that is strong on core tariffs may still be weak on exception charging, and the opposite is just as common.
What the evidence demonstrates
Four ways an apparent advantage reverses
- Volumetric divisor. A 4,000 divisor produces 25% more volumetric chargeable mass than a 5,000 divisor for an identical parcel. The denominator changes before any rate is applied.
- Fuel levy. The evidenced fuel positions differed by 2.02 percentage points, and one prepaid schedule stated no separate fuel line at all in the retained rate pages.
- Surcharges. Selected comparable examples ranged materially below and above baseline. Surcharge direction depends on the exception type, so the same supplier can be stronger on core tariff and weaker on special deliveries.
- Commercial risk. The schedules differ on liability cover, special-destination charging, prepaid funding, waybill administration, collection rules, route classification, and the supplier's ability to revisit rates when the shipping profile changes.
What would be needed to state a saving
A realised saving cannot be stated without a weighted shipment profile, an award position and implementation evidence.
Specifically: shipment-level volumes, routes, weights, service selection and invoice history applied to each tariff. The pack supports a benchmarked and modelled procurement position, and stops there.
Why this matters for an NPO
Stewardship as much as tariff
The defensible result is the lowest sustainable total cost for the required distribution outcome — with recipient reach, delivery reliability, data handling, liability, administrative workload and exception charging all controlled.
That makes courier procurement a data-normalisation and operating-model problem rather than a quote comparison. An organisation accountable to funders for how it spends cannot defend a decision taken on headline rates that priced different services.
Supporting documents