Carrier Scorecard Template
Carrier performance: definitions and weights, scoring bands, on-time, damage, cost index, invoice accuracy, weighted score, claims log, rating and actions
사용법: Use it to score a carrier or forwarder each quarter on service, damage, cost and invoicing. Fill the definitions and scoring bands with the carrier first, then results from shipment data. The main pitfall is measuring on-time against the carrier's promise instead of the agreed booking window.
미리보기
Carrier Scorecard: [Carrier name], [Period]
A periodic scorecard for a transport carrier or freight forwarder: on-time performance, damage, claims, cost and invoice accuracy, with weighted scoring, a review summary and agreed actions. It follows common logistics practice. Replace every
[bracketed]value and every row marked Example. Figures in the examples are invented and are not benchmarks.
1. Scope and definitions
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Carrier | [Carrier name, contract reference] |
| Lanes and services | [Regional road, full truckload and part load] |
| Period | [YYYY-Qn] |
| Data sources | [TMS shipment data, proof of delivery, claims log, freight invoices] |
| Currency | [USD] |
| Prepared by | [@transport-manager] |
| Measure | Definition | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| On-time delivery | Shipments delivered within the agreed window, divided by shipments delivered | 40% |
| Damage rate | Shipments with damage or loss reported within [7] days of delivery, divided by shipments | 25% |
| Cost index | Average cost per shipment divided by the target cost of [290], times 100 | 20% |
| Invoice accuracy | Invoices paid without correction, divided by invoices | 15% |
Scoring bands (Example):
| Score | On-time | Damage rate | Cost index | Invoice accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | 97% or more | 0.5% or less | 95 or less | 99% or more |
| 4 | 95% to 96.9% | above 0.5% to 1.0% | above 95 to 100 | 97% to 98.9% |
| 3 | 92% to 94.9% | above 1.0% to 1.5% | above 100 to 105 | 95% to 96.9% |
| 2 | 88% to 91.9% | above 1.5% to 2.0% | above 105 to 110 | 90% to 94.9% |
| 1 | below 88% | above 2.0% | above 110 | below 90% |
2. Results for the period
| Measure | Carrier A (Example) | Score | Carrier B (Example) | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shipments | 420 | 310 | ||
| Delivered on time | 395 (94.0%) | 3 | 270 (87.1%) | 1 |
| Shipments with damage or loss | 3 (0.71%) | 4 | 6 (1.94%) | 2 |
| Freight spend | 126,000 | 86,800 | ||
| Cost per shipment and index | 300.00 (103.4) | 3 | 280.00 (96.6) | 4 |
| Invoices without correction | 410 of 420 (97.6%) | 4 | 288 of 310 (92.9%) | 2 |
| Weighted score (out of 5) | 3.40 | 2.00 |
Weighted score for Carrier A: 0.40 x 3 + 0.25 x 4 + 0.20 x 3 + 0.15 x 4 = 3.40. For Carrier B: 0.40 x 1 + 0.25 x 2 + 0.20 x 4 + 0.15 x 2 = 2.00.
3. Claims
| Claim ID | Shipment | Date reported | Type | Value claimed | Status | Settled amount |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CLM-001 (Example) | [Shipment ref] | YYYY-MM-DD | Damage | 850.00 | Settled | 850.00 |
| CLM-002 (Example) | [Shipment ref] | YYYY-MM-DD | Shortage | 1,300.00 | Open |
Both claims in the example are for Carrier A; its third damaged shipment was repacked on site and no claim was made. Claims value as a share of freight spend for Carrier A: 2,150 / 126,000 = 1.7%.
4. Review and actions
| Rating | Weighted score | Consequence (Example) |
|---|---|---|
| Preferred | 4.0 or more | Offered more volume at the next tender |
| Approved | 3.0 to 3.9 | Normal allocation |
| Improvement plan | 2.0 to 2.9 | Written plan, monthly review |
| Exit | Below 2.0, or two periods in improvement | Volume moved at contract end |
| ID | Action | Owner | Due | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ACT-001 (Example) | Carrier B to present cause analysis for late deliveries on the northern lane | [Carrier account manager] | YYYY-MM-DD | Open |
| ACT-002 (Example) | Share appointment booking data with Carrier B weekly | [@transport-manager] | YYYY-MM-DD | Open |
Related templates: logistics/warehouse-sop, logistics/sales-operations-plan,
business/vendor-evaluation-scorecard, business/root-cause-analysis.
Standard and licence note
Based on common logistics practice for carrier performance management; no standard prescribes these measures or bands. All wording, bands and figures are original and invented for illustration. Check carrier liability and claim rules in your contracts and the law that applies. This is a management format, not legal advice.
Template licence: MIT.
관련 템플릿
Dangerous Goods Shipment Checklist Template (IATA DGR, IMDG)
Rule books by mode, classification, UN classes, packaging, marking and labelling, declaration, training and security, carrier hand-over
물류·공급망Inventory Count and Reconciliation Template
Count plan and cut-off, ABC tolerances, book vs count variance (net and absolute), investigation, approved adjustments, hand-off to month-end close
물류·공급망Sales and Operations Plan Template (S&OP Monthly Cycle)
S&OP cycle, time fences, demand review with accuracy and bias, supply review, inventory projection, financial reconciliation, scenarios, decisions, KPIs