NVB Playgrounds Opportunity Review
Initial logistics opportunity dashboard
Initial logistics opportunity review
This review tested whether the available shipment data is strong enough to support deeper sourcing. The work was executed in two stages: first, the data was enriched to improve destination visibility and lane usability; second, representative freight was soft-tested against the market to gauge carrier appetite and directional savings potential.
01
What we did
The data was first made more decision-ready through enrichment and destination normalization. Once the dataset could support a credible review, selected freight was soft-tested against the market to estimate directional savings and identify where a deeper sourcing effort is most warranted.
Stage 01
The original dataset was cleaned, destination visibility was improved, and lane usability was raised so the review could move beyond raw invoice exports and into a more decision-ready structure.
Destination facilities identified for the drayage review
Address research added where the original data lacked clarity
TQL and Worldwide records retained as the core Less Than Truckload source
Stage 02
Representative freight was soft-tested against the market to gauge carrier interest, directional pricing, and which portions of the data are most promising for a deeper sourcing cycle.
Observed drayage and Less Than Truckload savings quantified separately
Annualized scenarios kept distinct from observed findings
Data gaps translated into a clear next-step request for a deeper working session
02
Scope and data reality
The site intentionally separates the underlying source population from the observed savings subset so the customer can see what is factual, what is sampled, and what is directional.
| Workstream | Shipment count | Date coverage | What it tells us |
|---|---|---|---|
| Drayage comparable model | 164 | 2025-08-01 to 2026-01-14 | Comparable activity is broad enough to support a directional market test and a clearly labeled annualized scenario. |
| Underlying Less Than Truckload source data | 113 | 2025-11-05 to 2026-04-07 | This is the combined TQL and Worldwide population used for enrichment and carrier analytics review. |
| Carrier analytics savings subset | 97 | Derived from the same 2025-11-05 to 2026-04-07 source period | The savings sample is real and observed, but it remains a subset of the broader 113-shipment source population. |
03
Opportunity dashboard
The dashboard keeps drayage and Less Than Truckload distinct so the stronger support for drayage annualization remains visible. Toggle between views to see how historical spend, modeled market spend, and savings shift across the two scenarios.
Spend comparison
Scenario detail
Observed figures reflect the shipment samples directly reviewed in the opportunity analysis and should be read as the most defensible current savings signals.
Truckload
Not Collected
Historical spend
Not Collected
Modeled market spend
Not Collected
Drayage
$139,592
Historical spend
$249,122
Modeled market spend
$109,530
LTL
$9,509
Historical spend
$67,432
Modeled market spend
$57,923
| Mode | Basis | Historical spend | Modeled market spend | Savings | Savings % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LTL after CSP | Projected Market Analysis After CSP | $67,432 | $51,181 | $16,251 | 24.1% |
| Truckload | Additional savings area | Not Collected | Not Collected | Not Collected | Not Collected |
| Drayage | Observed comparable sample | $249,122 | $109,530 | $139,592 | 56.0% |
| LTL | Current market analysis | $67,432 | $57,923 | $9,509 | 14.1% |
Assumed Less Than Truckload RFP range
For planning purposes, the Less Than Truckload freight should also be evaluated as a broader RFP opportunity with an assumed additional 5 percent to 15 percent savings range on top of the current 14.1 percent market result once lanes are packaged, contracted, and negotiated against the market.
Unaccounted freight spend
A meaningful portion of freight spend can sit outside simple linehaul comparisons. Unaccounted freight dollars are often made up of vendor margin, fuel, and accessorial charges, so the objective is to identify where all freight dollars are actually being spent before final sourcing decisions are made.
Decision objective
The end goal is not just to quote lanes. It is to surface the full spend stack, build the RFP correctly, take it to market, and negotiate a final operating solution with stronger cost control and clearer visibility.
International data collection
International data is currently being collected and will be presented as it becomes available so the review can be expanded without overstating what has been analyzed today.
04
Key findings
The current state supports a stronger KPI structure so cost, service, exceptions, and carrier compliance can be measured consistently instead of being reviewed through fragmented shipment snapshots.
The operating model can be improved by giving internal stakeholders clearer shipment status, lane activity, and exception visibility so transportation performance is easier to monitor across the organization.
A tighter reconciliation process would help align shipment activity, invoices, and billed charges so the team can validate spend faster and identify billing gaps with greater confidence.
Recurring fuel, appointment, liftgate, limited access, and other accessorial exposure should be isolated and managed more deliberately so unnecessary margin erosion can be reduced.
Execution can become materially stronger through clearer routing discipline, defined ownership, tighter SOP alignment, and a more accountable day to day operating rhythm after implementation.
05
Next steps roadmap
The next phase should move in sequence: complete the missing shipment support, build the full RFP on matched billing data, finalize the commercial framework, and then move directly into implementation with visibility tools and operating controls in place.
Step 1
Collect a full 90 day sample of BOLs for all shipments from February, March, and April and gather matching invoices so every shipment can be tied back to actual billed freight spend.
Task updates
Each saved update is time stamped automatically when submitted.
Step 2
Conduct the full RFP using the matched shipment and invoice data so the sourcing cycle produces actual realized cost savings rather than directional savings only.
Task updates
Each saved update is time stamped automatically when submitted.
Step 3
Update the service level agreements and letter of authority so the operating model, accountabilities, and execution authority are aligned before implementation begins.
Task updates
Each saved update is time stamped automatically when submitted.
Step 4
Begin implementation of TMS, carrier rate integration, routing guide design, KPI setup, and dashboard setup so the awarded solution becomes operational and measurable from day one.
Task updates
Each saved update is time stamped automatically when submitted.
06
Proposed Liwmi solution
Proposed Liwmi solution
NVB Playgrounds appears to have a credible logistics optimization opportunity, but the larger objective is broader than immediate savings. The next phase should identify where all freight dollars are being spent, isolate vendor margin, fuel, and accessorial exposure, build a lane-ready RFP, and negotiate a final solution that improves procurement discipline, systems visibility, and day-to-day execution.
Build a lane-level RFP that separates linehaul, vendor margin exposure, and recurring accessorial patterns before market release.
Take the opportunity to market, evaluate contracted-rate options, and negotiate a final carrier solution aligned to NVB's service requirements.
Stand up TMS optimization and dashboard visibility so routing, cost, exception tracking, and KPI reporting improve after implementation.
Provide Liwmi human capital allocation and ongoing logistics management so the program is actively managed instead of simply repriced once.
Create a clearer spend map that identifies where freight dollars are leaking into margin layers, fuel, and accessorials.
Strengthen post-award execution through operational dashboards, TMS optimization, and hands-on Liwmi support for procurement, implementation, and carrier performance.
Customer acknowledgment
This acknowledgment confirms that the customer has reviewed the proposed solution, is willing to support the effort required to complete the review and implementation planning process, and is an officer of the company or otherwise authorized to respond on behalf of NVB Playgrounds. It does not represent a signed contract, a guarantee of doing business, a guarantee of savings, or a commitment of freight.
Enable the acknowledgment checkbox to activate the response controls.
Terms and conditions
Acknowledging this proposal confirms review of the solution, support for the effort required to complete sourcing and implementation planning, and that the person responding is an officer of the company or otherwise authorized to respond on behalf of NVB Playgrounds. It does not create a signed contract, guarantee business, guarantee savings, or commit freight.
Payment terms
Standard payment terms are 15 days from invoice unless revised in the final signed agreement.
Commercial note
Savings shown on this page do not include Liwmi margin. Liwmi margin will be determined through final review after full data analysis is completed.