# 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.

<!--
Guidance: How to use this template
- Agree the measures, definitions and data sources with the carrier
  before the first period. A scorecard the carrier has not seen is a
  surprise, not a management tool.
- Score from shipment data (transport management system, proof of
  delivery, claims log, freight audit), not from impressions.
- Review quarterly with the carrier; monthly for new or failing
  carriers.
- Common pitfall: measuring "on time" against the carrier's own
  promised time instead of the time agreed in the booking.
-->

## 1. Scope and definitions

<!-- Guidance: Write each definition so that two people would calculate the same number. -->

| 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

<!-- Guidance: Show the raw counts beside each percentage so that the carrier can reconcile them with its own data. -->

| 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

<!-- Guidance: Track each claim to settlement. Claim notice periods and carrier liability limits depend on the contract and on the transport conventions or national law that apply; check them for each lane. -->

| 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

<!-- Guidance: Record what the carrier explained and what both sides agreed. Link repeated failures to a root cause analysis. -->

| 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.