Overview
The comparison should show the commercial package each response actually provides. It should also separate quoted freight from internal allocation of that freight between customers.
Key takeaways
- Use a parcel-and-call reference before comparing headline amounts.
- Distinguish total voyage freight from customer-level cost allocation.
- Show optional deliveries and their decision deadlines explicitly.
- Keep review and availability conditions beside the price ranking.
Build a common parcel-and-call reference
List the product parcels, quantities, units, intended receivers, and proposed delivery order. Identify which allocations are firm and which depend on sales decisions. This becomes the basis against which every offer is read.
The reference should explain the customer's timing requirements through defined milestones. An owner response assuming flexibility at a later call may differ from one based on a constrained sequence, even if both mention the same ports.
If the seller's cargo allocation is still developing, label the affected parcel rather than make the whole shipment appear firm. Ask owners to identify the assumptions behind their response so the team can compare equivalent branches.
Keep the enquiry version with each quote. A later sales change can alter the employment materially, so older responses need reconfirmation before they are ranked against offers for the current sequence.
Preserve the quote expression and scope
Record the original unit, currency, quantity basis, and covered calls. A lump sum, a unit-based response, or a reference expression each needs its commercial boundary stated clearly.
Worldscale uses a nominal reference framework for tanker freight expressions. See its official explanation.
Where a reference framework applies, obtain the relevant basis through the authorised source. Where a lump sum applies, establish which parcel and sequence it covers. Do not assume that a fixed total includes unlimited substitutions among receivers.
Any normalization should remain traceable. Keep the original response beside the comparison value, and label internal currency or quantity assumptions so they cannot be mistaken for agreed payment terms.
Separate voyage freight from customer allocation
A distributor may need to allocate transport expense among several product customers. That is an internal commercial exercise unless the relevant agreements specify otherwise. It should not alter the record of what the owner actually quoted.
State the allocation method and its purpose if it is used in the decision. Allocating by quantity, call-specific scope, or another approved basis can answer different management questions. Do not present one method as universally correct without the relevant commercial authority.
The freight comparison should first establish the total package on a consistent basis. Customer-level analysis can then explain how the distributor evaluates the sales programme, with its assumptions visible.
This separation prevents a low allocated unit figure for one customer from being interpreted as a saving in the total owner-quoted amount. A ratio or internal split cannot replace the actual voyage comparison.
Use a delivery-sequence comparison worksheet
The worksheet below focuses on the scope differences that can be hidden by a single total freight column in an MR products programme.
| Comparison field | Evidence needed | Decision consequence |
|---|---|---|
| Product parcels | Current descriptions and quantity basis | Ensures owners price the same cargo |
| Firm calls | Actual receivers and intended order | Defines the base employment |
| Optional call | Trigger, deadline, and pricing treatment | Shows whether the sales option is usable |
| Sequence flexibility | Permitted or proposed changes | Tests fit with customer timing |
| Original freight | Exact response and covered scope | Preserves commercial evidence |
| Additional expense | Express inclusion or clarification | Avoids hidden assumptions |
| Internal allocation | Separate approved analytical method | Supports customer economics without rewriting freight |
| Subjects and review | Current owner and acceptance conditions | Identifies practical execution uncertainty |
A blank entry should remain a clarification item, not an assumed inclusion. If an optional delivery is central to the sales plan, obtain its treatment before declaring an offer preferable.
The recommendation may identify different choices for different confirmed sequences. That is more useful than forcing one ranking before the cargo desk has decided whether the optional customer will participate.
Examine the effect of removing or adding a customer
A changed sales allocation can affect total quantity, call sequence, or both. Ask the owner for the relevant response to the revised employment rather than assuming that removing a customer produces a proportional freight change.
Check the current text of the proposed agreement and any option provisions through the contracting team. The internal sales model does not determine what the owner is obliged to accept or how an adjustment should be calculated.
Also ask the remaining receivers whether their timing requirements are affected. A reduced sequence may appear simpler, but the commercial programme still needs current confirmation rather than a map-based inference.
Update internal cost allocation only after the retained freight scope is understood. Otherwise the distributor may spread an obsolete voyage figure across a new customer set and produce misleading margins.
Fictional case: one quote includes the optional customer
A fictional distributor seeks an MR tanker for several product deliveries, with one customer still deciding its purchase. One owner quotes the full sequence, while another responds only for the firm customers.
The initial sheet ranks the narrower response lower and then allocates both totals across all customers, including the unconfirmed one. This makes the comparison inconsistent at both voyage and customer levels.
The chartering coordinator creates separate firm-only and full-sequence views. Owners clarify option treatment, and the sales desk identifies when the customer will decide. Internal allocation is then shown as a separate analysis for each actual branch.
Management can now choose the package that fits the sales timetable. It no longer treats omitted scope or an unconfirmed customer denominator as an economic advantage.
Write an approval note that survives a sales revision
State the preferred response, reference sequence, remaining conditions, and reason for selection. Identify the customer or quantity decision that would require the comparison to be reopened.
Keep acceptance and vessel availability visible. A low indication with unresolved product or terminal review may not provide the same practical fallback as another response. The approver should understand that difference without searching through attachments.
Retain owner clarifications and route proposed wording to the contracting team. The spreadsheet should explain the decision, while the actual agreed terms remain the authoritative commercial record.
At handover, provide the final parcel map and the treatment of any remaining option. Operations should not discover that a customer call was excluded from the chosen freight basis only after the sales team attempts to nominate it.
Review the comparison after execution
Compare the final programme with the reference used for selection. Identify whether later differences arose from sales changes, unclear quote scope, or an unsupported internal allocation assumption.
If optional customers repeatedly create confusion, improve the initial enquiry and branch comparison. If internal cost splits are mistaken for owner pricing, label them more clearly in management reports.
The aim is a comparison that supports both chartering and sales decisions while preserving the boundary between the owner's commercial package and the distributor's own economics.
Common mistakes
Comparing a full sequence with a firm-only quote can make the narrower package appear artificially attractive. Another mistake is allocating voyage expense across customers who are not yet part of the confirmed programme.
Avoid assuming that removing one receiver reduces freight proportionally. Obtain the relevant owner response and contractual review.
Do not let internal allocation methods overwrite the original quoted amount or scope. Both views can be useful when their different purposes remain clear.
Where Zeaclub fits
Zeaclub offers digitalised procedures across the voyage workflow.
Zeaclub provides 24/7 operating systems and worldwide coverage.
Explore Zeaclub
Educational information only; not legal, financial or trading advice. Contract wording and applicable rules control. Verify current requirements and obtain qualified advice before acting.
Frequently asked questions
Should MR quotes be compared by total freight or per-customer cost?
First compare the same total employment on a consistent basis. Customer-level allocation can follow as a separate internal analysis with its method and assumptions identified.
How should an optional receiver appear in the worksheet?
Show the parcel, call, decision deadline, and owner's commercial treatment. Compare a firm-only branch and an optional branch where needed rather than blending them into one unclear total.
Does removing a call automatically reduce the quoted amount?
No particular adjustment should be assumed. The actual agreement, scope, and owner response determine the commercial treatment, which should be reviewed on the current basis.
When should the recommendation be refreshed?
Refresh it when the parcel map, customer sequence, quantity, offer validity, or material review condition changes. Reconfirm affected responses before relying on the earlier ranking.