why-forwarder-quotations-differ

Overview

Even where the same cargo is moving from the same origin to the same destination, quotations obtained from different freight forwarders may differ substantially.

The difference is not simply the result of price competition. Procurement terms from shipping lines and other service providers, cargo volume, LCL consolidation capability, routing, overseas agents, quotation scope, cargo risk, contractual role, and commercial margin may all differ between freight forwarders.

A freight forwarder quotation should therefore not be read merely as a price list. It is a proposal describing what transportation service will be provided, under what conditions, over what transportation period, and in what contractual and operational capacity.

The lowest quotation is not necessarily the most advantageous, and the highest quotation is not necessarily the safest. The essential task is to normalise the quotations to the same comparison basis and then compare total cost, transit time, transportation scope, excluded charges, responsibility, exceptional conditions, and the party responsible for handling a casualty.

Specific Scope of This Article

Item	What This Article Covers	What Other Articles Cover in Detail
Basic structure of quotation differences	Why prices differ even for the same cargo	Specific market rates and tariffs
Procurement terms	Cargo volume, shipping line arrangements, and LCL consolidation capability	Individual shipping line tariffs and service contracts
Route design	Direct services, transshipment, port selection, and inland connections	Specific schedules for individual routes
Overseas agents	Effect of local costs, service scope, and agency networks	Individual overseas agency agreements
Quotation scope	Port to Port, Door to Door, customs clearance, delivery, and related differences	Calculation of individual charge items
Freight forwarder involvement	Relationship between the Standard Five Classifications, quotation scope, and responsibility	Legal liability in an individual case
Risk assessment	Effect of dangerous, high-value, and special cargo on pricing	Specific dangerous-goods regulations and insurance conditions
Quotation comparison	How to compare quotations on equivalent terms	Detailed analysis of individual NVOCC consolidation charges

A Difference in Quotation Is Not Merely a Difference in Price

Even where two quotations both state “Shanghai to Tokyo” or “Yokohama to Los Angeles,” the services actually being quoted may not be identical.

One freight forwarder may quote only Ocean Freight, while another may include export customs clearance, Origin Charges, Ocean Freight, Destination Charges, import customs clearance, and inland delivery.

One may use a direct service while another uses a transshipment service. One may assume shared delivery while another includes a dedicated vehicle.

The first step in quotation comparison should therefore not be ranking the prices. It should be placing each quotation into the same comparison structure and identifying exactly what each company is quoting.

Main Factors That Change a Freight Forwarder's Quotation

Factor	What Differs between Freight Forwarders	Main Price Effect	Non-Price Effect	What to Confirm
Procurement rate	shipping line agreement, Volume Discount, and cargo volume	Changes Ocean Freight	May affect space availability	Validity, shipping line, and service
LCL consolidation capability	Own consolidation or external Consolidator	Changes LCL Freight and CFS-related charges	May affect sailing frequency and cargo control	Direct or transshipment consolidation
Route design	Direct, transshipment, port selection, and inland routing	Changes freight and inland costs	Changes Transit Time and delay exposure	Routing and expected transit
Overseas agent	Own network, long-term agent, or case-by-case external agent	Changes Destination Charges	May affect local response and claims handling	Local charges and service scope
Quotation scope	Port to Port, Door to Door, customs clearance, and delivery	Significantly changes quoted total	Changes which services the cargo owner must arrange separately	Included and Excluded items
Cargo risk	Dangerous, high-value, temperature-controlled, special packing, and other characteristics	May add handling and risk-related charges	May reduce operational or casualty risk	Whether ordinary cargo assumptions were used
Scope of involvement	Intermediation, carriage undertaking, House B/L issuance, Door-to-Door responsibility	Management and contractual functions may affect price	Changes the contractual contact after a casualty	Apply the Standard Five Classifications
Margin and commercial strategy	Case-specific Margin, customer strategy, and recurring business considerations	Different selling prices may result from the same procurement cost	May affect future price stability	Quotation validity

Different Procurement Terms

Freight forwarders purchase services from shipping lines, airlines, Consolidators, CFS operators, trucking companies, and other providers and combine those services for their customers.

The purchasing terms are not identical for every freight forwarder.

A freight forwarder providing substantial recurring cargo volume on a particular route may obtain favourable terms from a shipping line.

A smaller freight forwarder may nevertheless have stronger procurement terms on a particular country, port, or cargo segment and may therefore quote more competitively than a much larger competitor.

Company size alone does not determine whether a quotation will be lower. The more relevant question is how strong the freight forwarder's procurement and operating position is for the particular route and cargo.

Different LCL Consolidation Capability

In LCL transportation, consolidation capability may directly affect pricing.

A freight forwarder operating stable consolidation services through its own organisation or group may be able to combine sufficient cargo to use container capacity efficiently.

Another freight forwarder may purchase an LCL service from an external Consolidator and combine that procurement cost with its own arrangement charges.

This does not mean that own consolidation is always cheaper or external consolidation is always more expensive. Sailing frequency, transshipment, Destination CFS costs, minimum charges, cargo volume, and overseas-agent arrangements must also be compared.

Different Route Design

There may be several possible routes between the same origin and destination.

A direct service may offer shorter Transit Time and fewer transshipment operations, reducing certain scheduling and cargo-handling uncertainties. It may, however, be more expensive.

A transshipment service may be cheaper but may be more exposed to connection delays, handling at the Transshipment Port, and schedule changes.

Total cost may also differ depending on whether the freight forwarder uses the nearest port or uses a major port with lower ocean freight and then adds Truck or Rail transportation.

Quotation comparison should therefore consider Total Transit Time, Transshipment, inland transportation, and reliability of the expected arrival date, not Ocean Freight alone.

Different Overseas Agents

International transportation commonly involves cooperation between origin and destination freight forwarders or overseas agents.

Destination Charges may vary significantly depending on the local agent's arrangements with CFS operators, customs brokers, trucking companies, and other service providers.

A freight forwarder using its own overseas office or a long-established Correspondent Agent may be able to manage costs and service scope consistently.

A freight forwarder using a case-by-case agent may nevertheless obtain favourable terms where that agent is particularly strong in the relevant local market.

Agent Fee, Handling Fee, Profit Sharing, and other commercial arrangements may also differ.

For the cargo owner, the important issue is not the internal profit allocation itself but who performs each destination service and which local charges are included in the quotation received at origin.

Different Quotation Scope

Quotation Scope	Services That May Be Included	Services That May Be Separate	How the Price May Appear	Comparison Caution
Port to Port	Ocean carriage from loading port to discharge port	Pickup, customs clearance, D/O, delivery, and others	Often appears lower	Add destination and other excluded costs
Door to Port	Pickup, export-side arrangements, and ocean carriage	Import clearance and destination delivery	Intermediate	Review the destination side
Port to Door	Ocean carriage, import-side arrangements, and delivery	Origin pickup and export customs clearance	Appears higher due to destination services	Review the origin side separately
Door to Door	Integrated arrangements from pickup through final delivery	Exceptional costs, duties, storage, and other exclusions	Often appears higher	More suitable for total-cost comparison

Even where a quotation states “All-In” or “Door to Door,” customs duties, taxes, inspection charges, Storage, Demurrage, Detention, Waiting Charge, Redelivery, and other exceptional charges are not necessarily included without qualification.

Scope of Freight Forwarder Involvement and the Standard Five Classifications

These Standard Five Classifications are not legal classifications established by statute or universally accepted by the industry. They are an analytical framework used in this series to organize the scope of a freight forwarder's contractual and operational involvement.

The Standard Five Classifications may help explain quotation differences, but they should not be used to conclude that one classification must always be cheaper or more expensive than another.

Actual price is also influenced by procurement rates, cargo volume, routing, cargo characteristics, and Margin. The framework is used to identify what the freight forwarder undertakes and which operational, management, and contractual functions are included in the quoted price.

Classification	Typical Quotation Characteristic	Factors That May Affect Price	What the Cargo Owner Should Confirm	Practical Caution
Simple Intermediary	Arranges third-party services and passes through relevant charges	Intermediary fee and third-party actual costs	With whom the contract of carriage is made	A narrower scope may make the headline price appear lower
Cargo Transportation Service Provider	Undertakes a defined transportation service or period	Transport procurement, subcontractor management, and transportation period	From where to where the service is undertaken	Use of subcontractors does not itself determine contractual scope
NVOCC / House B/L Issuer	Issues a House B/L and acts as the contractual contact for sea carriage	Consolidation, B/L management, Destination Agent, and Contracting Carrier functions	Relationship between the House B/L and Master B/L	Do not compare it with a limited intermediary quotation without normalising scope
Door-to-Door Single Contractor	Manages transportation from pickup through final delivery under one contractual arrangement	Pickup, customs clearance, ocean carriage, destination charges, delivery, and subcontractor management	Ordinary conditions and excluded exceptional charges	A higher total may reflect a much broader scope
Agent / Coordinator for Specific Operations	Acts only for specifically instructed activities	Coordination fee and external actual costs	The exact mandate	It does not necessarily undertake the entire transportation

Contracting Carrier and Actual Carrier are concepts describing legal and contractual status and do not replace the Standard Five Classifications above.

Packing, storage, inspection, sorting, cargo handling, customs-related assistance, and other physical or peripheral activities do not constitute an independent sixth classification. The relevant question is the contractual role and scope actually undertaken.

An NVOCC / House B/L Issuer Is Not Necessarily More Expensive than a Simple Intermediary

An NVOCC / House B/L Issuer may operate its own consolidation service or possess strong purchasing power and may therefore offer a lower total quotation even though its contractual involvement is broader.

Conversely, a Door-to-Door Single Contractor may appear more expensive than a company quoting Port to Port because its price includes pickup, customs clearance, overseas agency work, inland delivery, and subcontractor management.

The Standard Five Classifications are therefore not a price ranking. They are a framework for understanding differences in operational and contractual scope that may sit behind the price.

Different Risk Assessment

A freight forwarder may use a different operational design for the same route depending on the nature of the cargo.

Dangerous goods, temperature-controlled cargo, precision machinery, high-value cargo, used machinery, exhibition goods, and liquid cargo may require more extensive review than ordinary cargo.

Dangerous goods, for example, may require confirmation of the dangerous-goods declaration, SDS, UN Number, Class, Packing Group, packing, labels, Segregation, and other requirements.

One freight forwarder may include those requirements in the initial quotation while another may quote only the basic transportation rate and add special handling later.

The cargo owner should therefore determine whether a low quotation reflects procurement efficiency or whether necessary conditions have simply not yet been included.

Quotation Validity and Variable Charges

International freight quotations normally have a validity period.

Ocean Freight, fuel-related surcharges, Peak Season Surcharges, war-risk-related charges, exchange rates, local charges, and other components may change, so the same freight forwarder may quote a different amount at a different time.

Where wording such as “Subject to,” “At Actual,” “As per outlay,” or “Validity” appears, the relevant amount may not be fully fixed.

Quotations should therefore be compared on the basis of the same quotation date, validity period, shipment period, exchange-rate assumptions, and separately charged actual costs.

What to Check Behind an Apparently Cheap Quotation

Why It Appears Cheap	When It May Be Entirely Reasonable	When Caution Is Required	What to Confirm
Low procurement freight	Strong volume purchasing or route specialisation	Extremely short validity	shipping line, period, and space conditions
Ocean Freight only	The purpose is a Port-to-Port comparison	The cargo owner assumes an All-In price	Separate Destination Charges
Transshipment service	Cost is more important than speed	Delivery deadline is strict	Transit Time and Transshipment Port
Destination charges excluded	The Consignee clearly bears them	Destination amounts are unknown	Local agent charges
Shared delivery	No strict delivery time is required	Appointment delivery is mandatory	Delivery conditions
Special handling excluded	The cargo is genuinely ordinary cargo	Dangerous or temperature-controlled cargo	Cargo conditions
Limited intermediary scope	The cargo owner can manage other stages itself	The cargo owner expects a single responsible contractor	Standard Five Classification and contractual scope
Additional costs at actual	Potential actual costs are clearly disclosed	The scope is vague	Actual-cost items, evidence, and fees

Practical Flow for Comparing Freight Forwarder Quotations

1. Provide every freight forwarder with the same cargo description, quantity, weight, volume, packing, dangerous-goods information, Origin, Destination, and requested delivery timing.
2. Identify the Incoterms rule and which party bears each transport-stage cost.
3. Classify each quotation as Port to Port, Door to Port, Port to Door, or Door to Door.
4. Rearrange Ocean Freight, Origin Charges, Destination Charges, customs clearance, inland delivery, and other items into the same comparison categories.
5. Review Included, Excluded, At Actual, Subject to, and similar qualifications.
6. Compare direct or transshipment service, shipping line, Transit Time, and Frequency.
7. For LCL, identify whether the freight forwarder uses its own consolidation or an external Consolidator and identify the Destination CFS.
8. Review the overseas agent and scope of destination operations.
9. Classify the freight forwarder's contractual and operational involvement using the Standard Five Classifications.
10. Where relevant, distinguish the Contracting Carrier from the Actual Carrier.
11. For special, high-value, or dangerous cargo, confirm that all additional requirements are reflected in the quotation.
12. Review quotation validity and variable charges.
13. Select the provider by comparing total cost, Transit Time, service scope, exceptional charges, and contractual claims contact.

Cases Commonly Problematic in Practice

Case	Apparent Difference	Actual Cause	What to Confirm	Response
Direct versus transshipment service	Transshipment is cheaper	Different Route and Transit Time	Transshipment Port, days, and Frequency	Compare together with delivery requirements
Port to Port versus Door to Door	Port to Port is cheaper	Different transportation scope	Included and Excluded items	Normalise to the same scope
LCL price difference	Large difference for the same CBM	Consolidation capability, minimum charge, and Destination Charges	Consolidator, CFS, and local charges	Convert to total LCL cost
Dangerous-goods quotation	One company appears much more expensive	Dangerous-goods procedures are included	DG Charge, documents, and Segregation	Do not compare with an ordinary-cargo quotation
Overseas-agent costs	Large Destination Charge difference	Different agent and local procurement conditions	Local breakdown and service scope	Compare destination total
Different Standard Five Classification	Single-contractor quotation appears higher	Different contractual and operational involvement	House B/L and Door-to-Door scope	Normalise responsibility and service scope
Many actual-cost-extra items	Initial headline price is low	Uncertain charges are excluded	At Actual items	Estimate the likely total
Different quotation dates	The same provider gives different prices	Freight, exchange-rate, and surcharge movements	Validity and applicable period	Obtain quotations for the same period

Application Scenario 1: JPY 220,000 Difference between Direct and Transshipment Services

The following are hypothetical examples for practical comparison.

Machinery parts with an Invoice value of JPY 28 million are exported from Yokohama to Los Angeles in one 20ft FCL container.

Freight Forwarder A quotes a direct service with an expected Transit Time of 12 days at JPY 780,000 including Ocean Freight and the principal surcharges.

Freight Forwarder B quotes a service transshipping at Busan with an expected Transit Time of 20 days at JPY 560,000.

The cargo owner asks A to reduce its price because it is JPY 220,000 more expensive for “the same Yokohama to Los Angeles shipment.”

A explains that its quotation is for a Direct Service and that B is quoting a different Route and Transit Time.

If the cargo is ordinary inventory with substantial scheduling flexibility, B may be commercially reasonable. If the cargo is required for a production line shortly after arrival, the JPY 220,000 difference must be compared with the eight-day difference in expected Transit Time and the additional Transshipment Risk.

Application Scenario 2: The Total Cost Reverses after Destination Charges Are Added

Machinery parts with an Invoice value of JPY 6.5 million and a volume of 2.5 CBM are imported from Shanghai to Tokyo as LCL cargo.

Freight Forwarder A quotes Ocean Freight of JPY 28,000 and states at the bottom of the quotation: “Destination Charges and delivery at actual.”

Freight Forwarder B quotes JPY 32,000 Ocean Freight, JPY 13,000 D/O Fee, JPY 18,000 CFS-related charges, JPY 18,000 import customs-clearance charge, and JPY 42,000 inland delivery, for a quoted total of JPY 105,000.

The cargo owner sees A's JPY 28,000 figure and concludes that A is JPY 77,000 cheaper.

After arrival, A invoices a further JPY 92,000 for D/O, CFS, customs clearance, and delivery, producing a final total of JPY 120,000.

The cargo owner argues that it believed the shipment would cost JPY 28,000. A responds that the quotation expressly stated that destination costs were charged separately.

The central problem is not necessarily that A was expensive or improper. The problem is that the cargo owner compared Ocean Freight with B's broader Total Cost.

Application Scenario 3: JPY 27,000 Difference Caused by LCL Consolidation Capability

Automotive parts with an Invoice value of JPY 4.8 million and a volume of 1.8 CBM are imported from Busan to Nagoya.

Freight Forwarder A quotes JPY 76,000 in total, while Freight Forwarder B quotes JPY 103,000.

A operates a regular Busan-Nagoya consolidation service and offers a Direct Consolidation twice each week.

B does not operate its own consolidation on that route and purchases the LCL service from an external Korean Consolidator.

The cargo owner asks B whether the JPY 27,000 difference means that B is taking an excessive Margin.

B explains that its procurement terms include the external Consolidator's Origin Charges and Destination CFS costs and therefore differ structurally from A's costs.

The case demonstrates that pricing can depend not on the overall size of the freight forwarder but on the Consolidation Network it operates for the particular LCL route.

Application Scenario 4: Dangerous-Goods Information Reverses the Initial Price Comparison

Chemical products with an Invoice value of JPY 12 million, classified as Class 3 dangerous goods and packed on four Pallets, are to be imported from Shanghai to Kobe.

Freight Forwarder A initially quotes JPY 240,000 as an ordinary-cargo rate because it has not received the SDS or dangerous-goods information.

Freight Forwarder B reviews the SDS, UN Number, Class, and Packing Group and quotes JPY 360,000 including dangerous-goods CFS work, DG Documentation, Segregation, and related requirements.

The cargo owner initially concludes that A is JPY 120,000 cheaper.

After the SDS is later submitted to A, A identifies additional dangerous-goods charges of JPY 160,000, increasing its final quotation to JPY 400,000.

The cargo owner argues that the dangerous-goods costs should have been quoted from the beginning. A responds that the original quotation request contained no dangerous-goods information.

Unless every provider receives the same cargo information, the quotations are not based on comparable conditions.

Application Scenario 5: Different Scope under the Standard Five Classifications

Industrial machinery with an Invoice value of JPY 45 million is to be transported from a factory in Nagoya to the buyer's warehouse in Hamburg.

Freight Forwarder A acts as a Simple Intermediary and quotes JPY 490,000 principally for coordination of the shipping line Booking and Port-to-Port transportation. Export customs clearance, destination import clearance, and inland delivery from Hamburg are arranged separately.

Freight Forwarder B acts as a Door-to-Door Single Contractor and quotes JPY 780,000 including pickup at the Nagoya factory, export customs-clearance arrangements, ocean transportation, destination import-clearance arrangements, and delivery to the buyer's warehouse.

The cargo owner asks B to reduce its price because it is JPY 290,000 more expensive than A.

B explains that A's JPY 490,000 quotation covers a more limited Port-to-Port and intermediary scope, while B's JPY 780,000 quotation covers a materially wider transportation service.

When JPY 45,000 for export customs clearance, JPY 96,000 in destination charges, JPY 55,000 in destination customs-clearance-related costs, and JPY 120,000 inland delivery from Hamburg are added to A's quotation, the comparable total becomes JPY 806,000.

This scenario demonstrates that the Standard Five Classifications do not determine which quotation is cheaper; they help identify whether the quotations cover comparable operational and contractual scopes.

Common Misconceptions

Misconception	Actual Practice	Practical Caution
The cheapest freight forwarder must have the strongest purchasing power	The quotation may simply cover a narrower scope	Review Included and Excluded items
A large freight forwarder must always be cheaper	A smaller specialist may have stronger terms on a particular route	Compare by route
The same ports mean the same transportation service	Direct, transshipment, and inland connections may differ	Review Route and Transit Time
Lower Ocean Freight means lower total cost	Origin, destination, and delivery costs may reverse the result	Convert to Total Cost
Door to Door means every possible cost is unconditionally included	Storage, inspection, duties, and other exceptional costs may be separate	Review exclusions
An NVOCC is always more expensive than a Simple Intermediary	Own consolidation and purchasing terms may produce a lower total	Do not use the Five Classifications as a price ranking
A cheap dangerous-goods quotation must reflect strong sales effort	Dangerous-goods requirements may not yet have been included	Provide identical cargo information to all bidders
Issuing a House B/L automatically means Door-to-Door responsibility	The actual contractual transportation period must be identified	Review the House B/L and quotation scope
A higher quotation guarantees better claims handling	Price alone does not establish service quality	Review claims contact and agency arrangements
A quoted amount remains fixed throughout the entire validity period	Actual-cost, exchange-rate, or Subject to conditions may still apply	Review Validity and variable conditions

Decision Checklist

Situation	Party to Consult	Item to Confirm	Action if a Problem Is Identified
Before requesting quotations	Internal sales and logistics teams	Cargo, quantity, weight, volume, Incoterms, and timing	Standardise the conditions before requesting quotations
Receiving a quotation	Freight forwarder	Port to Port or Door to Door scope	Clarify transportation scope
Comparing Ocean Freight	Freight forwarder	shipping line, Route, and Validity	Normalise to the same service
Comparing LCL quotations	NVOCC or freight forwarder	Consolidator, CFS, minimum charge, and local costs	Compare Total LCL Cost
Reviewing Destination Charges	Freight forwarder or overseas agent	D/O, CFS, customs clearance, and delivery	Add destination costs to the comparison
Comparing direct and transshipment services	Freight forwarder	Transit Time, Transshipment Port, and Frequency	Compare schedule exposure together with price
Special cargo quotation	Freight forwarder	Dangerous, high-value, temperature-controlled, or other conditions	Obtain a revised quotation including the special requirements
Reviewing scope of involvement	Freight forwarder	Standard Five Classification, House B/L, and Door-to-Door scope	Normalise quotations to an equivalent operational scope
Reviewing responsibility	Freight forwarder	Contracting Carrier, Actual Carrier, and contractual transportation period	Identify the contractual claims contact
Actual-cost items	Freight forwarder	Items marked At Actual or Subject to	Obtain an estimate or calculation basis
Final selection	Relevant internal departments	Total cost, transit, scope, risk, and claims contact	Do not approve solely on headline price
High-value or complex shipment	Freight forwarder and maritime lawyer	Quotation terms, contract of carriage, and responsibility	Clarify the legal and operational terms before contracting

How to Structure the Decision Process

Assume that three quotations are received: JPY 700,000 from A, JPY 900,000 from B, and JPY 1.1 million from C.

The first step should not be to designate A as the cheapest provider. The transportation scope of all three quotations must first be normalised.

If A is Port to Port, B is Port to Door, and C is Door to Door, directly comparing JPY 700,000, JPY 900,000, and JPY 1.1 million is not meaningful.

Next, compare Route, Transit Time, shipping line, LCL Consolidation, Destination Agent, special-cargo treatment, and separately charged actual costs.

Then use the Standard Five Classifications to determine whether each provider is acting as a Simple Intermediary, Cargo Transportation Service Provider, NVOCC / House B/L Issuer, Door-to-Door Single Contractor, or Agent / Coordinator for Specific Operations.

Finally, convert each quotation to the same Door-to-Door or Port-to-Port basis and add reasonably foreseeable excluded charges.

This sequence reduces the risk of selecting an apparently inexpensive quotation that ultimately produces the highest total cost.

When to Consult a Maritime Lawyer

• The operational scope stated in the quotation does not correspond with the responsibility stated in the House B/L or other contract of carriage
• There is a material dispute over whether the freight forwarder acted as a Simple Intermediary or Contracting Carrier
• The transportation period or liability under a Door-to-Door quotation is disputed
• Following a casualty, the incorporation of exclusions, limitation provisions, or Standard Trading Conditions stated in the quotation becomes disputed
• The cargo owner claims damages because the actual transportation conditions materially differed from the quotation
• Actual-cost-extra or additional charges develop into a substantial contractual dispute
• The responsibility of the Japanese freight forwarder for acts of an overseas agent or Actual Carrier is disputed
• For high-value or dangerous cargo, there is a dispute over whether the freight forwarder carried out the risk checks reasonably required by the agreed service
• A serious casualty arises under a contract containing foreign governing law or foreign jurisdiction

Summary

Freight forwarder quotations differ for reasons far broader than simple price competition.

Procurement terms from shipping lines and other providers, Volume Discount, LCL consolidation capability, Route, Transit Time, overseas agents, quotation scope, cargo risk, actual-cost provisions, Margin, and the freight forwarder's contractual and operational involvement combine to produce the final quotation.

The Standard Five Classifications used in this series are not intended to rank quotations by price. They are used to identify how far each freight forwarder is contractually and operationally involved so that quotations covering different scopes are not compared as though they were identical.

Accordingly, freight forwarder quotations should be compared by Total Cost normalised to the same scope, Transit Time, transportation period, Included and Excluded items, exceptional costs, scope of involvement, and the contractual contact responsible when a casualty occurs, rather than by headline price alone.