Corporate & Business · Fleet & Logistics
The freight rate gets attention at every renewal. The charges beside it do not.
Core tariffs were stable and competitive, so no reduction was forced on them. A recurring documentation fee and a fuel surcharge — individually trivial, applied to more than 11,000 waybills — turned out to hold the category's available value.
- 3.7%
- weighted direct cost reduction
- 100%
- recurring documentation fee removed
- 17% → 15%
- fuel surcharge rate
- 96%
- contracted on-time delivery floor
Proof context: A group of seven related operating entities using one courier provider
The situation
A long-standing provider, and no group framework
A group of related operating entities had used the same courier provider for years. Core freight rates had remained stable and were, on testing, competitive. What had never been formalised across the group was everything around them: ancillary charges, service standards, rebate mechanics and management controls.
That shaped the whole engagement. There was no case for attacking the freight tariff, so the work went to the parts of the bill and the contract that had never been examined.
No reduction was forced on the freight rates
Core freight tariffs were retained and no saving is claimed against them. Pushing a headline reduction onto a competitive rate would either have failed or been recovered elsewhere — through surcharges, service levels or the next annual increase.
The 3.7% therefore comes entirely from ancillary charges, which is a smaller number than a freight attack would have produced on paper and a more durable one in practice.
Results
Where the saving came from
Scroll table sideways →
| Commercial lever | Change | Share of the saving | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Recurring documentation fee | Removed in full | 55.2% | Concluded |
| Fuel surcharge | 17% to 15% | 44.8% | Concluded |
| Core freight rates | No forced reduction | 0% | Retained |
| Annual-spend rebate | Tiered 1–3% bands | Not aggregated | Conditional |
The defined courier cost base moved from an index of 100.0 to 96.3 — a 3.7% weighted direct saving. The surcharge reduction from 17% to 15% is an 11.8% reduction in the surcharge rate itself.
Why the rebate is not in the figure
A tiered annual-spend rebate was negotiated into the agreement. It is excluded from the 3.7% because its value depends on qualifying spend and on payment conditions being met.
It is a real contractual benefit and a conditional one. Adding it to a direct saving would mean publishing a number the group might not earn.
What KuTh did
Separate the bill, then build the framework
- Reconstructed spend across seven entities. Into three components — base freight, recurring documentation fees and fuel surcharge — so an ancillary improvement could never be presented as a reduction in the transport tariff.
- Tested the commercial logic before negotiating. Which established that the freight rates were competitive and that the opportunity sat elsewhere.
- Built a group-level agreement. Introducing service, pricing-review, additional-cost and rebate controls across entities that had previously contracted individually or not at all.
- Contracted the service standard. A 96% minimum on-time delivery floor, with improved digital tracking, proof of delivery and management visibility built into the operating model.
Why the controls matter
An ancillary charge is where a stable rate goes to be undone
Documentation fees and fuel surcharges attach to every consignment and are rarely questioned, because each one is individually trivial and the freight rate beside it looks like the real number.
Across seven entities and a full year, the recurring documentation fee alone accounted for more than half the value available in this category. Removing it required no concession on service and no change of provider — only that someone separate it out and ask what it was for.
Supporting documents