<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Trade leads supplied by: U.S. Department of CommerceU.S. and Foreign Commercial Service&lt;</div>

Trade leads supplied by: U.S. Department of CommerceU.S. and Foreign Commercial Service<

<div>Trade leads supplied by:U.S. Department of CommerceU.S. and Foreign Commercial ServiceRoom HCHB 3804, Washington, D.C. 20230HOW TO USE:Trade leads on this page are listed according to type of lead. Codes preceding each industry/product heading represent classifications according to the Harmonized System of tariff codes published by the Bureau of the Census. An accompanying box outlines section product classifications under the HS codes.FOR FURTHERASSISTANCE:U.S. firms should be aware that the listing here of opportunities to trade in specific commodities and technical data does not necessarily imply approval of their export by the U.S. Department of Commerce.While every effort is made to...

Trade leads supplied by: U.S. Department of CommerceU.S. and Foreign Commercial Service Room HCHB 3804, Washington, D.C. 20230 HOW TO USE: Trade leads on this page are listed according to type of lead. Codes preceding each industry/product heading represent classifications according to the Harmonized System of tariff codes published by the Bureau of the Census. An accompanying box outlines section product classifications under the HS codes. FOR FURTHER ASSISTANCE: U.S. firms should be aware that the listing here of opportunities to trade in specific commodities and technical data does not necessarily imply approval of their export by the U.S. Department of Commerce. While every effort is made to maintain the accuracy of information included in this list, the Department of Commerce cannot assume responsibility for any erroneous data. Additionally, the government and its officers cannot assume responsibility for any transactions with the firms or individuals listed. For more information on trade leads, call (202) 482-6246. For more information on exporting, contact your local District Office of the U.S. Department of Commerce (listed in the Blue Pages of the telephone book), or call (800) USA-TRAD(E) and ask for the phone number of the nearest office. GOVERNMENT TENDERS 84659100 Electric sawing machines 84659300 Electric sanding machines 84600000 Electric grinding machines 85081000 Electric drilling machines Costa Rican Institute of Electricity (ICE) invites local and foreign firms to participate in public tender No. 6310 for acquisition of electric tools for its M&S department as follows: item I: 75 electric carpenter's saws; item II: 75 electric circular saws; item III: 100 electric sanding machines, orbital movement; item VI: 75 electric angular grinding machines, discs of 101,60 millimeters diameter; item VII: 400 electric drills with boring capacity of 9,53 millimeters, 1.5 kgs weight; item VIII: 50 electric drills of 2.1 kgs weight. This tender is funded with Costa Rican Institute of Electricity's own resources and has an estimated value of US$165,930. Participation bond is 1 percent of offer value and performance bond is 5 percent of total award. Tender documents can be obtained at ICE procurement department for a cost of approximately US$2. U.S. companies interested in participating in this tender should contract with a Costa Rican representative. To assist U.S. companies in identifying and contracting a local representative, Commercial Section in San Jose offers its gold key service, a customized appointment schedule program that allows U.S. companies to meet suitable and reliable local firms. This program includes an interpreter as well as a briefing and debriefing. Contact Commercial Section in U.S. Embassy in San Jose at tel. (506) 220-3939 or fax. (506) 231-4783 if you desire gold key service. Obtain tender documents from: Contact: Giovanny Hernandez, Tender Department Manager, Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad (ICE), Apartado 10032-1000, Costado Norte de La Sabana, San Jose, Costa Rica. Tel: 506 220 7326. Fax: 506 296 0426. Refer to: public tender no. 6310. Deadline: 11/14/95 at 10:00 a.m. Please send a copy of your response to: Commercial Section (FCS TOP), American Embassy, San Jose, Unit 2508, APO AA 34020. Refer to: T0002. Costa Rica - Foreign Government Tender 901890000 Disposable sets for cervi- cal/vaginal cytology test Costa Rican Social Security Institute (Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social- CCSS), that is autonomous institution covering 29 hospitals and 300 clinics (approx. 98 percent of existing hospitals and clinics in country), invites local and foreign firms to participate in public tender No. 95-171 for acquisition of 300,000 units of disposable sets for cervical/vaginal cytology tests. This unit must have a glass slide of 7.5-8.0 centimeters, with a transparent area of 6 centimeters. U.S. companies should contract with a Costa Rican representative, who can obtain tender documents at Departamento de Adquisiciones, main building of CCSS, Ave. 2, San Jose, Costa Rica, for approx. US$6. Participation bond is 1 percent of offer value and performance bond is 5 percent of total award. This tender is funded with own CCSS funds and has an est. value of US$103,240. To assist U.S. companies in identifying and contracting a local representative, Commercial Section in San Jose offers its gold key service, a customized appointment schedule program that allows U.S. companies to meet suitable/reliable local firms. This program includes an interpreter as well as briefing/debriefing. Please contact Commercial Section in U.S. Embassy in San Jose, Tel: 506 220 3939, fax 506 231 4783 if you desire gold key service. Obtain tender documents from: Manuel Carballo M., Jefe A.I., Depto. Adquisiciones, mailing address: Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social (CCSS), Apartado 10105, 1000 San Jose, Costa Rica. Street address: Avenida 2, Diagonal al Teatro Nacional, San Jose, Costa Rica. Tel: 506 233 2229, 257 9122. Fax: 506 223 8792. Refer to: public tender No. 95-171. Deadline: 11/27/95 9:30 a.m. Please send a copy of your response to: Commercial Section (FCS TOP), American Embassy, San Jose, Unit 2508, APO AA 34020. Refer to: T0005. Costa Rica - Foreign Government Tender

Maritime

EXPORT OPPORTUNITIES

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Yang Ming said the ships will be the first LNG dual-fuel container vessels in Taiwan to feature specifications allowing them to be converted to ammonia dual-fuel propulsion.</div>

Yang Ming said the ships will be the first LNG dual-fuel container vessels in Taiwan to feature specifications allowing them to be converted to ammonia dual-fuel propulsion.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">Yang Ming Marine Transport has upgraded a newbuild deal with South Korean shipyard Hanwha Ocean for larger capacity 16,000-TEU container ships costing $1.4 billion, Taiwan's second-largest liner has confirmed. Yang Ming directors initially agreed to order seven 15,000-TEU liquefied natural gas-powered dual-fuel vessels from Hanwha Ocean at a meeting on July 17, the first time the carrier agreed to order ships from Hanwha. Subsequent talks between Yang Ming and the shipbuilder led the carrier, ranked 10th-largest in terms of capacity by Alphaliner, to increase the capacity of the ships to 15,880 TEUs while also making them capable of operating on ammonia fuel. Details of the enhancements were outlined by Yang Ming in a statement following the signing of the revised shipbuilding contracts Tuesday. Yang Ming said the ships will be the first LNG dual-fuel container vessels in Taiwan to feature specifications allowing them to be converted to ammonia dual-fuel propulsion. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="e7519da5-d3fa-4798-b072-f2777589a4cf"></dynamic-object></div>“This ensures both high operational efficiency and flexibility in alternative fuel adoption during the decarbonization transition,” the carrier said. The latest contract signing takes Yang Ming’s order backlog to 18 ships, with 13 earmarked to replace smaller 5,500-TEU and 6,500-TEU vessels that have been in service for more than 20 years. The backlog includes six 8,000-TEU vessels being built by Japan’s Imabari Shipbuilding and Nihon Shipyard for delivery between 2028 and 2030, and five 15,500-TEU LNG dual-fuel container ships ordered from HD Hyundai Heavy Industries with deliveries starting early next year. The 15,500-16,000 TEU ships will be deployed on east-west trades, Yang Ming said. Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com.</a></div>

Yang Ming Marine Transport has upgraded a newbuild deal with South Korean shipyard Hanwha Ocean for larger capacity 16,000-TEU container ships costing $1.4 billion, Taiwan's second-largest liner has confirmed. Yang Ming directors initially agreed to order seven 15,000-TEU liquefied natural gas-powered dual-fuel vessels from Hanwha Ocean at a meeting on July 17, the first time the carrier agreed to order ships from Hanwha. Subsequent talks between Yang Ming and the shipbuilder led the carrier, ranked 10th-largest in terms of capacity by Alphaliner, to increase the capacity of the ships to 15,880 TEUs while also making them capable of operating on ammonia fuel. Details of the enhancements were outlined by Yang Ming in a statement following the signing of the revised shipbuilding contracts Tuesday. Yang Ming said the ships will be the first LNG dual-fuel container vessels in Taiwan to feature specifications allowing them to be converted to ammonia dual-fuel propulsion. “This ensures both high operational efficiency and flexibility in alternative fuel adoption during the decarbonization transition,” the carrier said. The latest contract signing takes Yang Ming’s order backlog to 18 ships, with 13 earmarked to replace smaller 5,500-TEU and 6,500-TEU vessels that have been in service for more than 20 years. The backlog includes six 8,000-TEU vessels being built by Japan’s Imabari Shipbuilding and Nihon Shipyard for delivery between 2028 and 2030, and five 15,500-TEU LNG dual-fuel container ships ordered from HD Hyundai Heavy Industries with deliveries starting early next year. The 15,500-16,000 TEU ships will be deployed on east-west trades, Yang Ming said. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com.

Container lines

Container Shipping News

Yang Ming signs $1.4 billion upgraded ship order for 16,000-TEU vessels

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Should US attempts to derail the measure be successful, a global approach to putting a price on carbon emissions will be abandoned and replaced with uncoordinated regional and national measures, the experts say.</div>

Should US attempts to derail the measure be successful, a global approach to putting a price on carbon emissions will be abandoned and replaced with uncoordinated regional and national measures, the experts say.

<div class="phx-topic">Failure to adopt the International Maritime Organization’s net-zero emissions framework in October will undermine years of complex negotiations and erase the certainty required by investors and energy suppliers to decarbonize the maritime industry, according to shipping experts gathered in London this week. The warning follows Washington’s increasingly aggressive attempts to derail next month’s adoption of the proposed net-zero framework at a pivotal meeting of the IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) in London from Oct. 14-17. US officials earlier this month <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-steps-up-attempts-to-derail-imos-net-zero-ambitions-6076148">threatened IMO members supporting the framework</a> with tariffs, port duties and even visa restrictions. ”If the measure does not go through, it will be a pure disaster,” Patrick Verhoeven, managing director of the International Association of Ports and Harbors (IAPH), told a conference at London International Shipping Week (LISW). Although he remains “cautiously optimistic,” Verhoeven said if voted down, the fuel standard and economic pricing measures in the framework would have to go back to the drawing board, exacerbating the uncertainty that already hangs over industry decarbonization and significantly delaying the process. “What we will see is probably an increase of more regional measures or those from individual countries. This will result in a complex regulatory patchwork which will be extremely challenging for ship owners and operators to comply with,” he said. Matt Dunlop, strategic partner at the Maersk Mckinney-Moller Center for Zero Carbon Shipping, said the concept of the net-zero framework was crucial for the industry to have any chance of realizing the 2050 ambitions. “We need to get shipowners to continue to invest in LNG and methanol newbuilds while we get the standards ready for ammonia,” Dunlop told delegates at LISW. "At the moment, there's no incentive for us, and the challenge for my customers is to understand ‘what do I need to do to comply?’ It's more of a compliance discussion rather than a decarbonization discussion. “We have a real opportunity next month at MEPC, but if (the net-zero framework) is not adopted...wow,” he added. <h3>Direction of travel has been set </h3>Martin Crawford-Brunt, CEO of specialist consultancy Lookout Marine, said shipping was on a pathway towards carbon neutrality, something that would not change even if the net-zero framework was voted down. ”There’s a lot of speculation in terms of what’s going to happen at MEPC, and a lot of the actors are keeping their cards close to the chest, but regardless of which way it turns out, the imperative to do something will not go away,” he said. Global shipping accounts for around 3% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, and the IMO deal is regarded as crucial in enabling the industry to reach climate neutrality around 2050 by introducing fuel standards and levies on ships that fail to meet strict targets. The framework will require a two-thirds majority from member states to win approval and those voting yes will need to represent at least 50% of the world’s registered tonnage. Flag states Liberia, Panama and the Marshall Islands are home to almost half the world’s gross tonnage. Leading the diplomatic efforts to have the net-zero framework adopted next month in the face of pushback from Washington is IMO Secretary-General Arsenio Dominguez, who struck a positive tone at LISW. “I remain very confident that this will happen next month,” he told the IMO’s headline conference at the week-long London event, noting the lengthy and complex process that has led to this crucial point in shipping’s decarbonization journey. “We evaluated and assessed 20 different scenarios from the proposals that we had on the table before landing on the compromise approach that we have for adoption next month,” Dominguez said. He reassured stakeholders that the framework includes review clauses and additional assessments that would address potential disadvantages to specific sectors. ”Decarbonization has a cost. I’ll keep repeating that. It’s not for free, similar to any IMO regulation,” he said, emphasizing that the process was designed to be as “fit for purpose” as possible. While no universal carbon levy was agreed to at the contentious MEPC meeting in April, if the framework is adopted, shipping’s global carbon emissions will carry progressively increasing charges for the first time starting from 2027. <h3>New generation of carbon-free fuel </h3>The fuel standard and carbon pricing mechanism are regarded as essential to support the development and scale-up of a new generation of carbon-free marine fuels, which remain significantly more expensive than traditional fossil fuels. Dominguez acknowledged industry concerns about the framework and noted that if the proposal is adopted next month, there will still be considerable work involved to develop the guidelines for implementation in 2027. Industry concerns were expressed in dramatic fashion when the US delegation <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-pulls-out-of-imo-climate-talks-threatens-retaliation-for-emissions-fees-5980359">walked out of the MEPC meeting in April</a> in protest over the decarbonization talks. The vote that ended the meeting saw 63 nations voting for the proposal, 16 against and 25 abstentions. The US opposition to the net-zero framework has been gathering some industry support. On Monday, Christopher Wiernicki, the chairman and CEO of Texas-based classification society American Bureau of Shipping (ABS), told a LISW event that shipping and the IMO were on different trajectories. “There is no clear pathway for green fuel availability and scalability and infrastructure support,” Wiernicki said. “LNG and biofuels are mission critical to any success and should not be overlooked, over penalized or discarded in the net-zero regulation,” he added. “Quite frankly, achieving net-zero for shipping by 2050 looks like a wildcard.” Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. Contact Carly Fields at <a href="mailto:carly.fields@spglobal.com">carly.fields@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Failure to adopt the International Maritime Organization’s net-zero emissions framework in October will undermine years of complex negotiations and erase the certainty required by investors and energy suppliers to decarbonize the maritime industry, according to shipping experts gathered in London this week. The warning follows Washington’s increasingly aggressive attempts to derail next month’s adoption of the proposed net-zero framework at a pivotal meeting of the IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) in London from Oct. 14-17. US officials earlier this month threatened IMO members supporting the framework with tariffs, port duties and even visa restrictions. ”If the measure does not go through, it will be a pure disaster,” Patrick Verhoeven, managing director of the International Association of Ports and Harbors (IAPH), told a conference at London International Shipping Week (LISW). Although he remains “cautiously optimistic,” Verhoeven said if voted down, the fuel standard and economic pricing measures in the framework would have to go back to the drawing board, exacerbating the uncertainty that already hangs over industry decarbonization and significantly delaying the process. “What we will see is probably an increase of more regional measures or those from individual countries. This will result in a complex regulatory patchwork which will be extremely challenging for ship owners and operators to comply with,” he said. Matt Dunlop, strategic partner at the Maersk Mckinney-Moller Center for Zero Carbon Shipping, said the concept of the net-zero framework was crucial for the industry to have any chance of realizing the 2050 ambitions. “We need to get shipowners to continue to invest in LNG and methanol newbuilds while we get the standards ready for ammonia,” Dunlop told delegates at LISW. "At the moment, there's no incentive for us, and the challenge for my customers is to understand ‘what do I need to do to comply?’ It's more of a compliance discussion rather than a decarbonization discussion. “We have a real opportunity next month at MEPC, but if (the net-zero framework) is not adopted...wow,” he added. Direction of travel has been set Martin Crawford-Brunt, CEO of specialist consultancy Lookout Marine, said shipping was on a pathway towards carbon neutrality, something that would not change even if the net-zero framework was voted down. ”There’s a lot of speculation in terms of what’s going to happen at MEPC, and a lot of the actors are keeping their cards close to the chest, but regardless of which way it turns out, the imperative to do something will not go away,” he said. Global shipping accounts for around 3% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, and the IMO deal is regarded as crucial in enabling the industry to reach climate neutrality around 2050 by introducing fuel standards and levies on ships that fail to meet strict targets. The framework will require a two-thirds majority from member states to win approval and those voting yes will need to represent at least 50% of the world’s registered tonnage. Flag states Liberia, Panama and the Marshall Islands are home to almost half the world’s gross tonnage. Leading the diplomatic efforts to have the net-zero framework adopted next month in the face of pushback from Washington is IMO Secretary-General Arsenio Dominguez, who struck a positive tone at LISW. “I remain very confident that this will happen next month,” he told the IMO’s headline conference at the week-long London event, noting the lengthy and complex process that has led to this crucial point in shipping’s decarbonization journey. “We evaluated and assessed 20 different scenarios from the proposals that we had on the table before landing on the compromise approach that we have for adoption next month,” Dominguez said. He reassured stakeholders that the framework includes review clauses and additional assessments that would address potential disadvantages to specific sectors. ”Decarbonization has a cost. I’ll keep repeating that. It’s not for free, similar to any IMO regulation,” he said, emphasizing that the process was designed to be as “fit for purpose” as possible. While no universal carbon levy was agreed to at the contentious MEPC meeting in April, if the framework is adopted, shipping’s global carbon emissions will carry progressively increasing charges for the first time starting from 2027. New generation of carbon-free fuel The fuel standard and carbon pricing mechanism are regarded as essential to support the development and scale-up of a new generation of carbon-free marine fuels, which remain significantly more expensive than traditional fossil fuels. Dominguez acknowledged industry concerns about the framework and noted that if the proposal is adopted next month, there will still be considerable work involved to develop the guidelines for implementation in 2027. Industry concerns were expressed in dramatic fashion when the US delegation walked out of the MEPC meeting in April in protest over the decarbonization talks. The vote that ended the meeting saw 63 nations voting for the proposal, 16 against and 25 abstentions. The US opposition to the net-zero framework has been gathering some industry support. On Monday, Christopher Wiernicki, the chairman and CEO of Texas-based classification society American Bureau of Shipping (ABS), told a LISW event that shipping and the IMO were on different trajectories. “There is no clear pathway for green fuel availability and scalability and infrastructure support,” Wiernicki said. “LNG and biofuels are mission critical to any success and should not be overlooked, over penalized or discarded in the net-zero regulation,” he added. “Quite frankly, achieving net-zero for shipping by 2050 looks like a wildcard.” Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com . Contact Carly Fields at carly.fields@spglobal.com .

Port News

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

Shipping experts warn of ‘disaster’ if IMO’s net-zero framework voted down

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The waterway has the capacity to handle 36 daily transits, but ACP Administrator Ricaurte Vásquez Morales told a media briefing the average is projected to land at only 33 next year.</div>

The waterway has the capacity to handle 36 daily transits, but ACP Administrator Ricaurte Vásquez Morales told a media briefing the average is projected to land at only 33 next year.

<div class="phx-topic">Daily transits of commercial vessels through the Panama Canal will remain below its capacity next year due to the tariff-linked frontloading of US imports this year and the softer demand the duties will cause on the East and Gulf coasts, the Panama Canal Authority (ACP) said Tuesday. The waterway has the capacity to handle 36 daily transits, but ACP Administrator Ricaurte Vásquez Morales told a media briefing the daily average is projected to land at only 33 in 2026, still below levels seen before Panama’s 2023–24 drought. The frontloading of US imports to avoid higher tariffs is “bread for today and hunger for tomorrow,” Morales said, adding that tariffs will raise product costs and dampen demand. The canal saw an average of 32.5 daily transits in August, up from an average of 30.9 in 2024. It last hit its capacity of 36 daily transits on average in 2022. In both 2023 and 2024, low water levels drove the ACP to <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/panama-canal-transits-rise-to-almost-normal-levels-as-expansion-work-begins-5703116">limit daily passages through the canal</a>, including a low of 25 in November 2023. While ACP data shows container ships accounted for about 24% of Panama Canal transits during the first eight months of 2025, Morales said about 45% of the canal’s revenue comes from container vessels. The Panama Canal’s fiscal year 2026 budget, approved in August, forecasts a 400-million-ton reduction in transits compared with the 2025 fiscal year, said Morales. “In this volatility, we need to be very careful [and] not generate bigger expectations other than what we consider reasonable, because the Panama Canal revenue represents between 20% and 25% of overall Panamanian government revenue,” he said. Other significant 2026 budget items include investments in the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/panama-canal-transits-rise-to-almost-normal-levels-as-expansion-work-begins-5703116">Río Indio Lake project</a>, which would address low water concerns through the damming of a Panamanian river. That project, which is expected to cost up to $1.6 billion, will take about four years to complete and is set to begin in 2027. In the meantime, Morales said the canal is better positioned to handle low water levels than it was in the past. “If we have to face [another] El Nino phenomenon, we are prepared,” he said. “The frequency of which this phenomenon occurs is [increasing] and we need to be prepared for that type of condition.” Contact Laura Robb at <a href="mailto:Laura.Robb@spglobal.com">laura.robb@spglobal.com</a>.  </div>

Daily transits of commercial vessels through the Panama Canal will remain below its capacity next year due to the tariff-linked frontloading of US imports this year and the softer demand the duties will cause on the East and Gulf coasts, the Panama Canal Authority (ACP) said Tuesday. The waterway has the capacity to handle 36 daily transits, but ACP Administrator Ricaurte Vásquez Morales told a media briefing the daily average is projected to land at only 33 in 2026, still below levels seen before Panama’s 2023–24 drought. The frontloading of US imports to avoid higher tariffs is “bread for today and hunger for tomorrow,” Morales said, adding that tariffs will raise product costs and dampen demand. The canal saw an average of 32.5 daily transits in August, up from an average of 30.9 in 2024. It last hit its capacity of 36 daily transits on average in 2022. In both 2023 and 2024, low water levels drove the ACP to limit daily passages through the canal , including a low of 25 in November 2023. While ACP data shows container ships accounted for about 24% of Panama Canal transits during the first eight months of 2025, Morales said about 45% of the canal’s revenue comes from container vessels. The Panama Canal’s fiscal year 2026 budget, approved in August, forecasts a 400-million-ton reduction in transits compared with the 2025 fiscal year, said Morales. “In this volatility, we need to be very careful [and] not generate bigger expectations other than what we consider reasonable, because the Panama Canal revenue represents between 20% and 25% of overall Panamanian government revenue,” he said. Other significant 2026 budget items include investments in the Río Indio Lake project , which would address low water concerns through the damming of a Panamanian river. That project, which is expected to cost up to $1.6 billion, will take about four years to complete and is set to begin in 2027. In the meantime, Morales said the canal is better positioned to handle low water levels than it was in the past. “If we have to face [another] El Nino phenomenon, we are prepared,” he said. “The frequency of which this phenomenon occurs is [increasing] and we need to be prepared for that type of condition.” Contact Laura Robb at laura.robb@spglobal.com . 

Trans-Pacific

Port infrastructure

International ports

US tariffs to keep Panama Canal transits below capacity in 2026: ACP

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Outside of Cosco and OOCL, the new port fees will likely be a non-event for ocean carriers that have spent the summer rerouting Chinese ships away from the US. </div>

Outside of Cosco and OOCL, the new port fees will likely be a non-event for ocean carriers that have spent the summer rerouting Chinese ships away from the US.

<div class="phx-topic">Major container lines will have removed nearly half of the China-built ship capacity from US service by October, according to Xeneta, allowing the industry to better weather the Trump administration’s new fee on US port calls by using non-Chinese vessels. And despite Washington’s attempt to break China’s dominance of the maritime industry with the fees, that country’s shipbuilders also appear poised to survive. Xeneta data shows that eight of the largest ocean carriers had approximately a combined 566,000 TEUs of Chinese-built ship capacity in regular rotation to the US this year. But Peter Sand, Xeneta’s chief analyst, told the Journal of Commerce half of that capacity could be replaced by non-Chinese vessels by October when <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/scaled-back-ustr-port-tariff-to-hit-chinese-carriers-hardest-5987549">the US Trade Representative (USTR) plans to start collecting the new fees</a>. “It’s been a tall order for the carriers to shuffle ships around due to ‘place-of-build’ restrictions in the USTR legislation and adopting a profile for the services that’s no longer operationally optimal,” Sand said. The number of Chinese-built container ships calling the US won’t drop to zero because of Cosco Shipping and Hong Kong-headquartered affiliate OOCL, which account for 296,000 TEUs of Chinese-built capacity. Because they will be subject to the fees based on their ownership, Sand said Cosco and OOCL don’t have any levers to pull for avoiding the fees. “OOCL and Cosco will likely have the most difficulty as Chinese carriers, regardless of how they shuffle ships around,” he said. Despite this, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/msc-ready-for-us-port-fees-after-network-changes-ceo-6079762">Cosco does not plan to introduce fee-related surcharges to its US shippers</a>, according to sources familiar with the matter. After Cosco, its Ocean Alliance partner CMA CGM had the most Chinese-built capacity deployed to the US this year at 107,000 TEUs, Xeneta data shows. But the French carrier is in the process of swapping out 42,000 TEUs of the capacity, Sand said, primarily by shifting larger Chinese-built ships from US rotations to European and South American trades. CMA CGM <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/cma-cgm-reroutes-china-built-ships-to-avoid-us-port-fees-6078488">recently announced</a> that it does not plan a surcharge on US imports due to the new port call fee. Evergreen Marine, the fourth carrier in Ocean Alliance, is likely to avoid paying the port fee because it only has four Chinese ships in its entire global fleet, Sand said. He added that capacity from CMA CGM and Evergreen could fill in for Cosco and OOCL on some US trades. “The CMA CGM and Evergreen fleets will be powerful tools for the Ocean Alliance in navigating these hurdles and minimizing associated costs,” Sand said. Other container lines and alliances are readying to avoid the fee altogether. Deployment data shows that Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd are swapping out some 60,000 TEUs of Chinese-built ships from the Gemini Cooperation’s US trans-Pacific services, with most of those swaps occurring over August and October. Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd have “made concerted efforts to remove Chinese-built vessel capacity on the trans-Pacific,” Sand said, adding the two carriers “are well-suited to navigating this disruption without passing surcharges off to shippers and forwarders.” Mediterranean Shipping Co., which also told shippers it’s prepared for the new US port fees, dropped some 19,000 TEUs of Chinese-built vessels from its US rotations, Sand said. Ocean Network Express (ONE), which had nearly one-third of its post Panamax ship fleet built in China, now has only one small Chinese-built ship deployed to the US, while its Premier Alliance partners Yang Ming and HMM have negligible exposure to Chinese ships. <h3>Chinese shipbuilders on the mend </h3>The potential that any type of Chinese-built ship calling a US port would face a fee was a factor in a downturn of orders at Chinese shipbuilders, according to an August report on the industry from S&amp;P Global Ratings, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. The report said newbuild orders at Chinese shipyards in the first half of 2025 were set to drop 54% from a year earlier, noting that the release of the USTR’s fee proposal earlier this year prompted carriers to shift to “non-Chinese shipyards to avoid port call fees in the US.” “The [USTR fees] have disrupted shipbuilding orders, prompting shipowners to rethink order volumes,” the report said. “The impact was most pronounced in the first quarter when the original port fee proposal was announced.” However, newbuild orders at Chinese shipyards have since risen as the impact of the fees on the broader shipping industry may be limited, the report said, adding that only about 9% of total US port calls in 2024 would likely be affected by the fees. S&amp;P Global Ratings said China’s lead in shipbuilding appears safe despite the new fees. While the new port fees may swing some orders to South Korea and Japan, “their market share expansion will be constrained by limited production capacity and labor scarcity,” the report said. “We expect China will maintain its dominance in the global shipbuilding market over the next two to three years.” Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Major container lines will have removed nearly half of the China-built ship capacity from US service by October, according to Xeneta, allowing the industry to better weather the Trump administration’s new fee on US port calls by using non-Chinese vessels. And despite Washington’s attempt to break China’s dominance of the maritime industry with the fees, that country’s shipbuilders also appear poised to survive. Xeneta data shows that eight of the largest ocean carriers had approximately a combined 566,000 TEUs of Chinese-built ship capacity in regular rotation to the US this year. But Peter Sand, Xeneta’s chief analyst, told the Journal of Commerce half of that capacity could be replaced by non-Chinese vessels by October when the US Trade Representative (USTR) plans to start collecting the new fees . “It’s been a tall order for the carriers to shuffle ships around due to ‘place-of-build’ restrictions in the USTR legislation and adopting a profile for the services that’s no longer operationally optimal,” Sand said. The number of Chinese-built container ships calling the US won’t drop to zero because of Cosco Shipping and Hong Kong-headquartered affiliate OOCL, which account for 296,000 TEUs of Chinese-built capacity. Because they will be subject to the fees based on their ownership, Sand said Cosco and OOCL don’t have any levers to pull for avoiding the fees. “OOCL and Cosco will likely have the most difficulty as Chinese carriers, regardless of how they shuffle ships around,” he said. Despite this, Cosco does not plan to introduce fee-related surcharges to its US shippers , according to sources familiar with the matter. After Cosco, its Ocean Alliance partner CMA CGM had the most Chinese-built capacity deployed to the US this year at 107,000 TEUs, Xeneta data shows. But the French carrier is in the process of swapping out 42,000 TEUs of the capacity, Sand said, primarily by shifting larger Chinese-built ships from US rotations to European and South American trades. CMA CGM recently announced that it does not plan a surcharge on US imports due to the new port call fee. Evergreen Marine, the fourth carrier in Ocean Alliance, is likely to avoid paying the port fee because it only has four Chinese ships in its entire global fleet, Sand said. He added that capacity from CMA CGM and Evergreen could fill in for Cosco and OOCL on some US trades. “The CMA CGM and Evergreen fleets will be powerful tools for the Ocean Alliance in navigating these hurdles and minimizing associated costs,” Sand said. Other container lines and alliances are readying to avoid the fee altogether. Deployment data shows that Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd are swapping out some 60,000 TEUs of Chinese-built ships from the Gemini Cooperation’s US trans-Pacific services, with most of those swaps occurring over August and October. Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd have “made concerted efforts to remove Chinese-built vessel capacity on the trans-Pacific,” Sand said, adding the two carriers “are well-suited to navigating this disruption without passing surcharges off to shippers and forwarders.” Mediterranean Shipping Co., which also told shippers it’s prepared for the new US port fees, dropped some 19,000 TEUs of Chinese-built vessels from its US rotations, Sand said. Ocean Network Express (ONE), which had nearly one-third of its post Panamax ship fleet built in China, now has only one small Chinese-built ship deployed to the US, while its Premier Alliance partners Yang Ming and HMM have negligible exposure to Chinese ships. Chinese shipbuilders on the mend The potential that any type of Chinese-built ship calling a US port would face a fee was a factor in a downturn of orders at Chinese shipbuilders, according to an August report on the industry from S&P Global Ratings, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. The report said newbuild orders at Chinese shipyards in the first half of 2025 were set to drop 54% from a year earlier, noting that the release of the USTR’s fee proposal earlier this year prompted carriers to shift to “non-Chinese shipyards to avoid port call fees in the US.” “The [USTR fees] have disrupted shipbuilding orders, prompting shipowners to rethink order volumes,” the report said. “The impact was most pronounced in the first quarter when the original port fee proposal was announced.” However, newbuild orders at Chinese shipyards have since risen as the impact of the fees on the broader shipping industry may be limited, the report said, adding that only about 9% of total US port calls in 2024 would likely be affected by the fees. S&P Global Ratings said China’s lead in shipbuilding appears safe despite the new fees. While the new port fees may swing some orders to South Korea and Japan, “their market share expansion will be constrained by limited production capacity and labor scarcity,” the report said. “We expect China will maintain its dominance in the global shipbuilding market over the next two to three years.” Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

North American ports

Chinese tonnage moving out of US container trade ahead of new fees: Xeneta

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">If suppliers, producers and distributors could eliminate some or most transportation moves, including container shipping, they would, writes John McCauley.</div>

If suppliers, producers and distributors could eliminate some or most transportation moves, including container shipping, they would, writes John McCauley.

<div class="phx-topic">Let’s start with a basic premise first taught to me in the 1990s — logistics is waste. As a long-time logistician, this statement and realization was somewhat shocking. Yet, on deeper analysis, the truism is true. All along the supply chain, from raw material to finished product, any unnecessary actions — whether movement or storage or waiting — only add costs that a customer would not pay for if broken down. The Japanese auto industry understood this early on and created supplier hubs to minimize these non-value-added waste steps. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6081112_0.1.jpg"></img></div>Why does this matter in container shipping? Because container shipping, similar to all transport moves of any material or product in a supply chain, is waste. I’m not saying it doesn’t serve a purpose, but it is waste. If suppliers, producers and distributors could eliminate some or most transportation moves, including container shipping, they would. How does this fit with the view that trade is essential and that, by design in most cases, container shipping is also essential and complementary to the needs of others? Again, let’s step back and remind ourselves of the evolution of trade. In its simplest form, trade was the means of transferring goods from places of surplus to places of deficit. Shipping helped that trade and allowed economies to expand. Most of the movement was, therefore, of bulk goods, wheat, corn, rice, coal, metals and so on. Thus grew the bulk shipping business. It thrived for centuries and is still today, and for the foreseeable future, a workhouse of primary goods trade. What has changed is comparative advantage. The greater the comparative advantage (assuming quality similarity) one producer had, the greater the likelihood that this trade flow became dominant. Meanwhile, smaller quantity items moved in bulk, in holds loaded and unloaded on slings. Container shipping consigned those days to history’s dustbin. Larger volumes could move at lower unit cost as post-war economies expanded, and demand/trade grew exponentially. As a result, the new technology of container shipping enabled trade growth with benefits in product security, safety and delivery lead time. The creation of consortia and the overall framework of container ship conferences enabled that latter point. These were meant to ensure reliability of supply to the market and enable price certainty for shippers and buyers. <h3>Container shipping as a ‘facilitator’ of expansion </h3>From the late 90s through the noughts, container trade boomed, which allowed container shipping companies to innovate with new and larger vessel sizes, terminals, cranes and infrastructure, also fueled by the outsourcing and offshoring of much of their production. However, they also served to stimulate demand. As companies looked to lower costs through outsourcing and offshoring, container shipping became a facilitator of this expansion. China joining the World Trade Organization and its dramatic rise in manufacturing quantity and quality meant that any company anywhere had a simple choice — maintain your production in your country of demand and risk competitors offshoring and being more cost competitive, or send some (or all) of your production offshore. Yet supply disruptions and service unreliability from container shipping and the undeniable fear of the economic power of China have started to lead to divestment away from China, with many companies favoring one of three main options: nearshoring (bringing production into a favored nation for assembly/finishing and using free trade agreements to allow low-cost inventory management); inshoring (bringing back of all facets of production to the primary country of demand); or a China-plus-one approach (adding another offshore country as a dual or multiple supply source). So where does that leave us at this point? Trade and container shipping have a strong interdependence. The primary difference is that trade defines demand while container shipping is a hostage to derived demand. In practical terms, this means that container shipping is highly relevant and important for demand signals for its upstream supply markets (terminals, cranes, ships, containers) and those industries look to container shipping for demand signals, many of which require significant long-term investment and capital. But container shipping is nothing without trade. Trade shifts are out of a carrier’s control, and they are stuck if they invest in, for instance, 20,000-TEU-capacity vessels, only to find that trade has declined and those vessels are useless to serve other trades. For their part, shippers need to critically review why they use container shipping, as it has become the least reliable form of transportation mode available. The answer should be that, whenever possible, they must switch away or at least build more robust and resilient supply chains using container shipping. John McCauley, formerly a vice president of transportation and logistics at Cargill, now consults for shippers. Contact him at <a href="mailto:john-mccauley1@outlook.com">john-mccauley1@outlook.com</a>.</div>

Let’s start with a basic premise first taught to me in the 1990s — logistics is waste. As a long-time logistician, this statement and realization was somewhat shocking. Yet, on deeper analysis, the truism is true. All along the supply chain, from raw material to finished product, any unnecessary actions — whether movement or storage or waiting — only add costs that a customer would not pay for if broken down. The Japanese auto industry understood this early on and created supplier hubs to minimize these non-value-added waste steps. Why does this matter in container shipping? Because container shipping, similar to all transport moves of any material or product in a supply chain, is waste. I’m not saying it doesn’t serve a purpose, but it is waste. If suppliers, producers and distributors could eliminate some or most transportation moves, including container shipping, they would. How does this fit with the view that trade is essential and that, by design in most cases, container shipping is also essential and complementary to the needs of others? Again, let’s step back and remind ourselves of the evolution of trade. In its simplest form, trade was the means of transferring goods from places of surplus to places of deficit. Shipping helped that trade and allowed economies to expand. Most of the movement was, therefore, of bulk goods, wheat, corn, rice, coal, metals and so on. Thus grew the bulk shipping business. It thrived for centuries and is still today, and for the foreseeable future, a workhouse of primary goods trade. What has changed is comparative advantage. The greater the comparative advantage (assuming quality similarity) one producer had, the greater the likelihood that this trade flow became dominant. Meanwhile, smaller quantity items moved in bulk, in holds loaded and unloaded on slings. Container shipping consigned those days to history’s dustbin. Larger volumes could move at lower unit cost as post-war economies expanded, and demand/trade grew exponentially. As a result, the new technology of container shipping enabled trade growth with benefits in product security, safety and delivery lead time. The creation of consortia and the overall framework of container ship conferences enabled that latter point. These were meant to ensure reliability of supply to the market and enable price certainty for shippers and buyers. Container shipping as a ‘facilitator’ of expansion From the late 90s through the noughts, container trade boomed, which allowed container shipping companies to innovate with new and larger vessel sizes, terminals, cranes and infrastructure, also fueled by the outsourcing and offshoring of much of their production. However, they also served to stimulate demand. As companies looked to lower costs through outsourcing and offshoring, container shipping became a facilitator of this expansion. China joining the World Trade Organization and its dramatic rise in manufacturing quantity and quality meant that any company anywhere had a simple choice — maintain your production in your country of demand and risk competitors offshoring and being more cost competitive, or send some (or all) of your production offshore. Yet supply disruptions and service unreliability from container shipping and the undeniable fear of the economic power of China have started to lead to divestment away from China, with many companies favoring one of three main options: nearshoring (bringing production into a favored nation for assembly/finishing and using free trade agreements to allow low-cost inventory management); inshoring (bringing back of all facets of production to the primary country of demand); or a China-plus-one approach (adding another offshore country as a dual or multiple supply source). So where does that leave us at this point? Trade and container shipping have a strong interdependence. The primary difference is that trade defines demand while container shipping is a hostage to derived demand. In practical terms, this means that container shipping is highly relevant and important for demand signals for its upstream supply markets (terminals, cranes, ships, containers) and those industries look to container shipping for demand signals, many of which require significant long-term investment and capital. But container shipping is nothing without trade. Trade shifts are out of a carrier’s control, and they are stuck if they invest in, for instance, 20,000-TEU-capacity vessels, only to find that trade has declined and those vessels are useless to serve other trades. For their part, shippers need to critically review why they use container shipping, as it has become the least reliable form of transportation mode available. The answer should be that, whenever possible, they must switch away or at least build more robust and resilient supply chains using container shipping. John McCauley, formerly a vice president of transportation and logistics at Cargill, now consults for shippers. Contact him at john-mccauley1@outlook.com .

Supply chain

Moving beyond the ‘waste’ inherent in ‘essential’ container shipping

Use code GTW695 at checkout and save $800 on first year of an annual Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

Arm your team with the most trusted information portal for the international container shipping industry.

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

Use code ESSW30 at checkout to save 30% on a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription! 

Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to S/SP - Wide Box

END OF SUMMER SALE EXTENDED

Use code ESSW595 at checkout to save $900 on first year of a Gold subscription and 20% on a TPM26 registration!

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Wide Box

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

Use code ESSGW995 at checkout to save $500 on first year of a Gold subscription and 20% on a TPM26 registration!

Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to Gold - Wide Box

In today’s competitive logistical landscape, efficiency is an absolute necessity for smooth operations. Yet, in the barge sector, many operators still rely on fragmented systems, delayed updates, and manual tracking methods that slow decision-making and increase operational risk. OpenTug’s new eBook, How Enhanced Visibility Transforms Barge Operations, reveals how unified, real-time data can become your competitive advantage leading to improved voyage management and more actionable insights. Drawing on industry best practices and real-world examples, it explores how operational transparency empowers teams to: ●	Reduce delays with accurate ETAs and proactive scheduling decisions ●	Improve asset utilization by identifying underused equipment and optimizing cargos ●	Strengthen safety and compliance through consistent, accessible documentation and reporting ●	Boost customer satisfaction with transparent status updates and faster response time You’ll learn how visibility can connect every part of your operation into a single, actionable view. The ability to see and act on real-time information transforms the way you plan, execute, and deliver. From managing a small regional fleet to running a large, national operation, this eBook will help you understand the measurable benefits of enhanced visibility and how technology like BargeOS is transforming the way barge logistics is managed. Get your copy today and see how clear insights lead to stronger performance, smarter decisions, and more profitable operations. <a href="https://9315820.fs1.hubspotusercontent-na1.net/hubfs/9315820/eBook/Nav-theFuture-AJW-08.19.25.pdf" rel="noreferrer" class="joc_admin__link">Click here</a><span class="joc_admin__inline-image joc_admin__inline-image-aspect-ratio-16_9 joc_admin__inline-image-position-left joc_admin__inline-image-size-small" data-figure-size="small" data-figure-position="left" data-figure-aspect-ratio="16:9"><img src="/content-assets/1756152344211_Opentug%20logo.png" alt="" class="joc_admin__inline-image-inherit">

Opentug11.png

Transform Barge Operations with Total Visibility

At SSA Marine Mexico, we firmly believe that business development must go hand in hand with social and environmental well-being. Our vision is not solely focused on operating efficiently, but also on creating a meaningful and positive impact in the communities where we are present. Since 1995, we have reaffirmed this commitment through tangible actions that reflect our core values of responsibility, solidarity, and sustainability. <span class="joc_admin__inline-image joc_admin__inline-image-aspect-ratio-3_2 joc_admin__inline-image-position-left joc_admin__inline-image-size-medium" data-figure-size="medium" data-figure-position="left" data-figure-aspect-ratio="3:2"><img src="/content-assets/1752584535914_Photo%201.jpg" alt="" class="joc_admin__inline-image-inherit"> A Year of Major Achievements Over the past year, we allocated more than $107,000 USD to the implementation of 60 social and environmental projects, positively impacting over 7,800 people across various regions of Mexico. Each initiative was designed with a holistic approach, addressing key areas that contribute to long-term community development. Education: Laying the Foundation for the Future Education is one of the most powerful tools to promote social mobility and equitable development. At SSA Marine Mexico, we support academic initiatives that inspire and empower the next generation of leaders. One of our most impactful partnerships was with the University of Colima, where we sponsored the “Reto Camp” program. This initiative encourages university students to develop innovative solutions in the fields of sustainability, logistics, and port operations, offering them mentorship, tools, and real-world challenges to solve. In addition, we donated microscopes, school supplies, and educational materials to institutions in underserved communities, helping to improve the learning environment and provide students with the resources they need to succeed. Health and Sports: Promoting Wellness We believe that healthy communities are strong communities. We have supported several local sporting events and provided direct assistance to talented athletes, enabling them to pursue their passions and represent their regions with pride. Beyond sports, we also strengthened our collaboration with critical emergency response organizations such as the Mexican Red Cross and Civil Protection. Our contributions helped enhance their readiness and capabilities in times of crisis, ensuring better outcomes for those affected by emergencies. Supporting Vulnerable Groups: Reaching Those Who Need It Most A core part of our social responsibility efforts is directed toward supporting vulnerable populations. We have contributed to a range of initiatives focused on children, migrants, and at-risk families. These efforts included donations to orphanages and shelters, as well as support for the National Institute of Migration and grassroots organizations dedicated to protecting and empowering people facing adversity. By standing with those in need, we reinforce our commitment to inclusion and social justice, values that are central to our identity as a responsible company. <span class="joc_admin__inline-image joc_admin__inline-image-aspect-ratio-3_2 joc_admin__inline-image-position-left joc_admin__inline-image-size-medium" data-figure-size="medium" data-figure-position="left" data-figure-aspect-ratio="3:2"><img src="/content-assets/1752584944645_Photo%202.png" alt="" class="joc_admin__inline-image-inherit">Culture: Strengthening Community Identity Cultural identity is a key element in building resilient and united communities. At SSA Marine Mexico, we actively participate in the organization and sponsorship of cultural events that celebrate local traditions and foster civic pride. Working alongside port authorities and municipal governments, we helped bring music, art, and heritage to the forefront, creating spaces for community engagement and intercultural dialogue. Environment: Investing in the Planet Our commitment to sustainability goes beyond operations—it’s a philosophy that drives every decision we make. We have partnered with environmental institutions to carry out reforestation campaigns, beach cleanups, and conservation efforts. In collaboration with the Institute for the Environment, we supported initiatives aimed at decarbonization, biodiversity protection, and environmental education. By involving our employees and local volunteers in these actions, we also foster a culture of environmental stewardship throughout our organization and our surrounding communities. Innovation for a Sustainable Future Sustainability is not just about doing good—it’s also about doing things better. In 2024, we invested $22 million USD in the acquisition of 11 state-of-the-art E-RTG cranes. These electric rubber-tired gantry cranes represent a significant technological advancement in port equipment. Seven of them are already operating on clean electric energy, resulting in a reduction of nearly 4,000 tons of CO₂ emissions and improving operational efficiency by 7%. The remaining four cranes are fully compatible with future electrification, underscoring our long-term strategy to modernize our operations in an environmentally responsible way. This investment is part of a broader innovation roadmap that includes digitalization, automation, and cleaner energy sources—all designed to ensure that our ports continue to grow without compromising the health of our planet. Building a Better Tomorrow, Together At SSA Marine Mexico, we understand that sustainability is a shared and ongoing responsibility. True impact requires collaboration across sectors, long-term vision, and unwavering commitment. That is why we continue to work hand-in-hand with local authorities, non-profit organizations, universities, and our own employees to create solutions that are both scalable and sustainable. Our journey is far from over. In the years ahead, we will continue to deepen our community engagement, explore cleaner technologies, and strengthen the social fabric of the regions where we operate. Each initiative, no matter the size, is a step toward building a future where business success goes hand-in-hand with human and environmental prosperity. We are proud of what we have achieved in 2024, but we are even more excited about what lies ahead. SSA Marine Mexico — Moving the World, Caring for People and Planet. LINK: <a href="https://www.ssamarine.mx/" rel="noreferrer" class="joc_admin__link">https://www.ssamarine.mx/</a>

Photo 2.png

SSA Marine Mexico: True Commitment to Sustainability

The world of LTL is slow to embrace change. Business anachronisms permeate current supply chain processes. These vestiges of the way things used to work define the LTL freight transportation procurement process of many modern shippers.David Knuth, logistics specialist at IEWC, a global supplier of cable and wire based in Wisconsin, is happy to have modernized the RFP process, automating the entire LTL bidding procedure with Bid$ense, SMC³’s automated truckload and LTL freight transportation sourcing solution. But when prompted, he can still recall what once was.In his previous job, a large part of his duties were consumed by creating an intermodal bid package for carriers. In a spreadsheet, Knuth detailed the company’s volumes lane by lane, taking care to delete any errant keystrokes or misleading data. He would then email out the information to each carrier, taking time to respond to detailed technical questions about the spreadsheet data. Finally, he had to compile all the results, create an algorithm that would compare the carriers on each lane, and award the business.“It was a huge undertaking. It took about four months to do,” Knuth said of the old process. “It was almost a full-time job for that part of the year, every year.”In his new job at IEWC, he sat down with Bid$ense on day one and was amazed at the capabilities. Knuth had never before used a bid tool. SMC³’s latest versions of Bid$ense automate the process even further, taking truckload and LTL RFPs entirely online. The tool draws on RFP best-practices protocols to streamline the bidding communication process, enabling bidding carriers to respond accurately and promptly to shipper requests. The solution also does all the distribution work automatically, electronically submitting shipper bid data to carriers based on their actual service capabilities and performance records. Carriers are alerted with timely prompts for RFP deliverables, so shippers aren’t waiting by the phone for responses.Another benefit of automating the process is the data-cleansing assistance. When Knuth sent spreadsheets to carriers, data errors might cloud the bidding process; he might have to resend data or simply accept a price that did not truly reflect the costs of doing business. Data cleansing is incredibly beneficial, he said.The spreadsheet technique also made bidding analysis an onerous task. Since Bid$ense automates and streamlines the entire RFP process, intensive examination is now simple. SMC³ knows that each bid has more than one best outcome. With uniform responses from each carrier, shippers can quickly rank results and create an unlimited quantity of what-if scenarios to make the optimal procurement decision.Jesse Burnett of Central Garden &amp; Pet experiences many of the same benefits. Founded in 1980, Central Garden &amp; Pet has spent the last three decades growing from a small garden supply company to a provider of a range of products from dog chews and bird seed to soil supplements and natural insecticides. For much of its life, the company shipped these disparate goods via LTL and truckload carriers to retailers throughout the country, relying on each business unit to negotiate directly with their freight transportation providers. This arrangement worked fairly well for a small company, but as Central Garden &amp; Pet expanded, leadership decided to consolidate decision making.Burnett helped centralize the transportation decision making in 2015 with SMC³’s Bid$ense. Before Bid$ense, every business unit operated independently as far as negotiating with carriers.“There were a lot of different things just floating around,” he said. “We didn’t have master agreements in place; no national pricing at all. The pricing from carriers was just all over the place, depending on where you were.”The transformations he saw with Bid$ense were immediate. Burnett has been using the tool about every other year since its implementation at the company. Central Garden and Pet’s $19.6 million 2019 LTL bid saved the company just more than 9 percent when compared to its historical average. For Burnett, though, bid automation extends far beyond savings.“We knew that we weren’t getting the best pricing offer from our carriers just because nothing was centralized,” he continued. “We knew that if we combined everything from all these business units and paired it with one corporate offering, then it would drive some cost benefit with it.”When the company initially decided to centralize bid procurement, executives researched a number of different methodologies and technologies. In the end, though, Burnett found that Bid$ense was both widespread and well known, and that his carrier partners already knew how to use the application. Burnett also highlighted the data-cleansing process as a major benefit, saying the rigorous process ensures that carriers always return the best price.“It definitely has helped drive savings,” he said. “Any time you go out there and you drive that competitiveness with the carriers and they know they’re in a bid environment, it seems to sharpen their pencils.”Transportation procurement is an integral part of the modern supply chain. With Bid$ense, shippers can develop a strategic implementation plan that saves them time and money, but also helps them create strong relationships with their carrier partners. These carriers appreciate the solution’s data-cleansing process; when carriers receive a complete shipment history and future volume forecast, they don’t have to guess on pricing. Carriers that receive more data from shippers get a complete picture of that shipper’s freight, allowing them to accurately plan instead of simply preparing for the worst-case scenario. Clean data presented through an automated system can lead to both bigger shipment savings and a lasting partnership between carrier and customer.Whether customers are looking to streamline over-the-road transportation bidding by automating the RFP process or create an entirely new, centralized sourcing process, Bid$ense has the analytical horsepower to get the job done.SMC³ 2020 Customer Case Study

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046.jpg

Shippers save money, time with automated transportation bidding tools

If there’s one immutable truth in the world of logistics, it’s this: LTL is an inherently complex form of transportation. Tariffs, rates, DIM weights, transit times — it’s enough to confuse even seasoned logistics professionals. The solution to this knowledge gap has historically been on-the-job training or university supply chain education, but for a variety of reasons there is now a pressing need for third-party, remote LTL training that prepares logistics workers for transportation success. Global Scope Can Overlook Local Intricacies In the past, professionals looking to move into a supply chain career learned about the basics of supply chain from universities. However, many of these college supply chain programs are now global in scope, focusing on worldwide supply chain management instead of the intricacies of specialized domestic transportation. And even these programs, which used to be widespread, are becoming less common. LTL is not an industry of broad-brush strokes; supply chain professionals really need a pointillistic understanding of the logistics of LTL in order to excel in the industry. Accelerating Need for Dedicated LTL Education This lack of specified training put the onus on employers to prepare new hires with the LTL knowledge needed to do their jobs. Dedicated LTL study is a necessity, not a luxury. At the same time, changes in LTL and the broader supply chain world are accelerating. The reliance on e-commerce has ballooned since the start of the pandemic, and last-mile LTL shipments and related e-commerce strains on the supply chain won’t diminish once social distancing abates. That genie isn’t going back into the bottle. So supply chain employers need logistics workers that are fully versed in all aspects of the industry, ready to solve unique shipping and delivery problems based on their extensive supply chain knowledge But why care about LTL? It’s been reported that some shippers in today’s world are no longer concerned with what mode is used to ship their goods. A Multimodal Approach Ensures On-Time Delivery This mode agnosticism means supply chain stakeholders have to be well versed in all modes of transportation. As unforeseen weather events and other disruptions, such as protests, become more common, savvy logistics employees will need to be armed with familiarity of all modes, not just the most popular, to ensure that freight is delivered on time, without damage, and in the most financially expedient way possible. Offerings like SMC³’s LTL online education courses cover a wide range of topics from LTL basics and operations to more advanced concepts like pricing analytics and transportation law. The company also has plans to continually refresh content, adding new expert presenters and taking the feedback of students to make the courses even better as time goes on. Learn more about&nbsp;<a href="https://logisticstrainingcenter.com/smc3-courses/" rel="noreferrer" class="joc_admin__link">SMC³’s LTL Online Education program</a>&nbsp;and view the 2021 hybrid schedule, featuring live industry experts,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.smc3.com/onlinelearning2021/" rel="noreferrer" class="joc_admin__link">here.</a>

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046 (1).jpg

Filling the Supply Chain Education Gap with LTL Education Courses

START A FREE TRIAL: Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Offer Box

Free Trial

END OF SUMMER SALE EXTENDED: Use code ESSW30 to save 30% on first year of a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription!


Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to S/SP - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

GET INTO A GROUP SUBSCRIPTION: Arm your team with unlimited Journal of Commerce content

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

UPGRADE TO GOLD AND SAVE: Use code GTW695 at checkout and save $800 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription

END OF SUMMER SALE EXTENDED: Use code ESSW595 at checkout to save $900 on first year of a Gold subscription and 20% on TPM26! 

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

END OF SUMMER SALE EXTENDED: Use code ESSW995 to save $500 on an annual Gold subscription and 20% on a TPM26 registration!

Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

A must-attend conference for shippers & logistics providers moving goods inland

Inland Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Inland25

Monthly publication providing an editorial deep dive into global supply chain news

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

A premium access index of savings using domestic intermodal vs. OTR 

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Savings Index

An in-depth analysis of transport trends in the multipurpose and heavy-lift fleet segment

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

An extensive dashboard of charts organized by trade lane, mode, and topic

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

The Journal of Commerce is the industry’s source for maritime news and analysis about ocean container shipping, logistics, supply chains, global shipping ports, shipping technology solutions and end-to-end connectivity. Coverage tracks the movement of containerized cargo — from origin to destination — handled by marine terminals in the US and abroad, depots, container ports, container lines, drayage, consignees and shippers, forwarders, non-vessel operating common carriers (NVOs) and off-dock warehousing providers, as well as pricing, capacity, volume and reliability on the trans-Pacific, Asia–Europe, North America–Caribbean, Central and South American and intra-Asia trades.

Discover comprehensive trucking news and trends with Journal of Commerce - from trucking LTL to regulation and trucking supply and demand.

Breakbulk News shipping | Journal of Commerce

Breakbulk News

Container shipping news and analysis of ocean container shipping, logistics, supply chains, technology and end-to-end connectivity.

Container Shipping News | Journal of Commerce

Stay informed on port news worldwide with Journal of Commerce. From decarbonization to labor updates, get insights on global developments.

Port News | Journal of Commerce

News and analysis of ocean containerized cargo movement, logistics, supply chains, technology, and end-to-end connectivity. Maritime news and analysis of containerized ocean cargo movement, breakbulk and roll-on and roll-off shipping from origin to destination.

Latest News

More News & Analysis

Yang Ming signs $1.4 billion upgraded ship order for 16,000-TEU vessels

Shipping experts warn of ‘disaster’ if IMO’s net-zero framework voted down

US tariffs to keep Panama Canal transits below capacity in 2026: ACP