You will find a range of articles related to this in the International Journal of Logistics Research & Applications (www.tandfonline.com/toc/cjol20/current). Though some of the papers are dated, many of the examples remain valid.
You may find this article useful www.nl.dsv.com/en-gb/expert-insights/logistic-contract-management-pitfalls.
The following quote reflects the message we typically hear from the industry:
"Going forward, the industry as a whole needs to change the way contracts are perceived. Instead of the blood sport it has become, we need to move toward collaborative, results-oriented negotiations. Contracts need to be about creating value between partners rather than extracting value from one partner. They need to be based on outcomes and desired results and shared risks―and both parties need to share risk in a way that is proportional to the commercial benefit of the agreement. If we can get to a more collaborative environment, we will have healthier, more long-term contracts that breed innovation and create long-term value. That will improve the industry as a whole.'
COVID-19 clearly proved highly disruptive to the logistics sector and often resulted in new levels of communication and flexibility in buyer/supplier relationships - and sometimes even between suppliers. We have yet to see whether any of these more collaborative practices survive, but this seems to be a sector where the buyer could set a different tone, perhaps orchestrating increased focus on outcomes and developing a more 'integrated ecosystem' approach to its sourcing and contracting model.
The Brexit scenario, coupled with COVID-19 are indeed leading to extended negotiating periods.
Given that Brexit will not be finalised for some time, the only practical way to deal with this would be to include provisions for a process to agree changes to customs duties / tariffs / excises etc. in your contracts.
You are right that Cloud contracting is still in an emergent state. For anyone who is either offering or considering buying such services, you will find IACCM's research report on 'as-a-Service' contracting is helpful; it includes a set of principles to support negotiation or assessment of the more contentious / complicated terms. See www.iaccm.com/resources/
Hi Emilee - that's an awesome outcome. Can I ask if you've got positive feedback from suppliers as well as internal stakeholders ? Also, given that you've achieved this, what's your next challenge - making the RFP process easier for them,, reverse auctions for your tangible products ?
Luke - I would suggest looking at the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), specifically Part 2.101, as the "Commercial Item" definition there may help you with your commercial item justification. I would suggest using the website Acquisition.gov. Also FAR 15-403 (c) may help some as well. Best of luck!!
We have moved some of our Procurement & Construction projects from progress based payment to milestone based payments. The major reason was to motivate contractors to expedite milestone achievement, and get paid faster. However, we found that most of the time delay had come from owner, consultant, designer or suppliers (not under contractor). In those cases, contractor resisted to get paid nothing, for not their mistake. We had to amend few contracts to move back to progress payments, or we had to breakdown milestones into smaller units. For few projects, it went smooth and milestone payment were successful. So you may have to see what you can offer and what are your limitations, before introducing this change. A survey feedback from your routine contractors can also be helpful in decision making.