Issue

Currently in North America there are two different processes that are used to audit and pay freight rates for road transportation. For both processes the system BluJay is involved. However, for Specialty Polymers the auditing is done by CLX Logistics Quantix in BluJay, while for other business units the auditing is done by CASS.

These vendors mainly cover road transportation, which represents the bulk of Syensqo freight volumes.

This KDD focusses on the future process for auditing freight charges in North America for road transportation. Standardization Standardisation of these processes among all GBU’s are recommended.

Recommendation

This KDD recommends that Global Business Unit Specialty Polymers switch from Quantix to CASS for freight audit and payments services. This change will result in CASS being the single provider used in North America of freight audit and payment services.   

The decision to use CASS within the system landscape is more a business driven decision than a technology driven decision. Feedback from business users is that CASS has far better reporting capabilities compared to Quantix, provides better services, and retains carrier invoices for 7 years.  In light of SyWAY Program's stated objective of standardisation and simplification; the feedback provided on Quantix, seem to be limit support for maintaining Quantix over CASS for freight audit and payment services.

The recommendation would then be to terminate Quantix contract for the freight services and include Specialty Polymers in the contract with CASS.

Background & Context

In North America freight is handled using the system BluJay. This system is integrated with both SAP systems; PF2 and WP2.

Specialty Polymers (PF2) has subcontracted the transportation management operations to CLX LogisticsQuantix. This service provider audits the freight rates in BluJay and pays the carriers for their services. Syensqo pays CLX Quantix one collective bill, including all freight orders over a period of time.

For the other business units in North America, the freight charges are audited and paid by CASS.

Services provided by CASS

1. Invoice Receipt

CASS receives freight invoices from carriers (via EDI, email, or portal upload). These invoices include detailed charges for transportation services.

2. Data Matching

CASS matches each invoice to the shipment-level data from your ERP or TMS. This includes:

• PO or shipment numbers
• Agreed carrier, route, service level
• Agreed rates (contracted or spot)
  
  

3. Audit Process

CASS applies a multi-layer audit process:

• Rate Audit: Compares invoiced charges against the contracted rates (e.g., base rates, accessorials, fuel surcharges).
• Duplicate Check: Flags invoices already processed.
• Compliance Audit: Validates that invoices adhere to internal policies (e.g., required reference fields).
• Tolerance Check: Allows a predefined small variance if needed.
  
  

4. Dispute Handling

If discrepancies arise:

• CASS flags the invoice
• Sends it back to the carrier or holds it for client review
• Only approved or corrected invoices proceed to payment
  
  

5. Payment

CASS aggregates approved invoices and executes payment to carriers on behalf of the client or provides a payment file for the client’s AP system to process. 

6. Reporting & Accruals

CASS provides:

• Visibility into freight spend by mode, BU, lane, etc.
• Accrual reports for unbilled shipments
• Benchmarking and trend analysis
• Compliance/KPI dashboards

CLX Logistics

Services provided by Quantix

1. Invoice Receipt

Syensqo and/or its agents and freight providers forwards freight bills and data files to Quantix.

2. Audit

Quantix reviews designated freight bills for errors; the review will include, but is not limited to extension, addition and rate errors. Quantix will code all processed freight bills and computerize and purge duplicate payments.

Thereby preventing CLX Logistics provides Freight Audit Services and Payment. CLX prevents overcharges, duplicate or delayed payments and incorrect freight accruals.

3. Payment

Quantix functions as a payment agent for Syensqo.

• Syensqo initiates a wire transfer to Quantix covering the amount of carrier invoices to be paid. 
• Quantix processes and pays carrier invoices indicated on wire transfer remittance.
• A freight bill tolerance of a specified percentage of total invoice and or a dollar
  maximum as indicated within the Transportation Management System will be allowed by
  Syensqo for Quantix to pay without additional approvals.

In general, Quantix:

• Combines industry know-how with technology to ensure the freight audit services and payment processes achieve one goal: reducing costs. 
• Timeliness of invoice payments to freight audit functionality that reduces incidences of overpayment,

• Promises to eliminate the frustration and undue expense of payment processing with seamless freight pay management.

E2Open TMS4S services hosted by Quantix

E2Open does not directly provide access to the TMS4S platform. The access is provided through a partner of E2Open. Quantix has such a partnership with E2Open and is also the partner for Syensqo to host the TMS4S solution. In each of the considered options, the TMS4S platform will be used.

There can be the expectation that there is a certain synergy between a provider that host the platform and audits the freight invoices within the same platform. Quantix has not been able show evidence that this synergy resulted to a business benefit.

Important integration note: Replacement of BluJay with E2Open TMS4S

BluJay will is end-of-life and must be replaced by end of Q1 2026. The system that will take over the functions from BluJay is E2Open TMS4S .(see KDD048)

E2Open will initially integrate with the SAP PF2 and WP2 systems. The integration with these systems and the processes will be largely the same as per current landscape.

The scope of this KDD is a recommendation on the future to-be design with integration with SAP S/4 HANA.

Side-by-side comparison of CASS and Quantix

Assumptions

• As North American transportation industry utilizes CzarLite and CarrierConnect to determine LTL base rates, it is assumed that both E2Open and CASS can connect to these platforms for freight rate determination.
• Decision on migrating BluJay to E2Open TMS4S has been taken and is final.With the integration of E2Open TMS4S to the legacy SAP systems, the processes will stay roughly the same.

Constraints

• Keeping both CLX Quantix and CASS as business process break the objectives of standardization of processes. For that reason this option is not considered.

Impacts

• Agreement on correct identifier is required. When carriers send invoices from transportation orders received through E2Open, there needs to be one clear common identifying reference number, otherwise there is a risk of rejection. 

Options considered

Option A: Integration with E2Open without CASS, serviced by CLX LogisticsQuantix

The services with CASS are to be terminated and all freight processing and auditing will be done by CLXQuantix.

Freight Order are to be integrated to E2Open and CLX Quantix will take care of calculation of freight rates in E2Open and will interface this back to the SAP Freight Order. Additional charges are to be managed and updated in E2Open and will trigger an update to the SAP Freight Order.

Impact

• All GBUs (except SpP) would be required to transition from Cass CASS to CLXQuantix.
• A recent policy change within CLX Quantix suggests CLX Quantix will only take on freight invoice auditing activities if they “are managing the daily transportation operations, and therefore have direct visibility into the Load planning activities”..
• Insourcing of parcel payments.
• Quantix does not do invoice auditing only. In this option is there no invoice audit solution possible for ocean and air freight invoicesThe E2Open system is owned by CLX and resold to Syensqo.

Option B: Integration with E2Open including CASS

In this option the services with CLX Quantix are to be terminated and all freight auditing will be done by CASS.

In this configuration it needs to be considered where the Freight Agreements reside and freight rates are calculated.
Freight Orders could be integrated to CASS for charge calculation. CASS will return the planned charges. This update could be transferred to E2Open for information purposes. Additional or assessorial charges are then to be received through CASS, preventing updates on charges through both platforms.Details on this design to be worked out during detail design, and will be addressed during vendor engagement sessions.freight rates can reside in both E2Open TMS4S or in CASS. When freight costs are calculated or raised in E2Open they are interfaced to SAP TM. These charges will be updated to CASS as freight accrual. CASS will validate invoices against the accrual.
When no accrual is available on the freight order in CASS, then CASS applies a contract. If no contract is available then the invoice will be rejected.  

Impact

• GBU Specialty Polymers would be required to transition from CLX Quantix to CASS.
• To receive charge updates from both Both E2Open and CASS complicated. For this reason disputes and assessorial charges are to be received through CASS. These are then only recognised once CASS has received the update from the carriercan send updates on the charges. SAP need to be able to manage.
• 30 Carriers currently serviced by Quantix, but most of these will likely be on CASS as well, because most carriers in US get paid via CASS.

Option C: Integration with E2Open without CASS, with internalization

The services with CASS are to be terminated and all freight processing and auditing will be done by Syensqo.

Syensqo will no longer rely on a third party to manage the freight processes. The auditing will be done by either the transportation planners, or serviced by a GBS team. The system landscape will be the same as option A.

Impact

• Internal resources to be hired, trained and managed

• . These resources are required to transition from using a 3rd party (CASS or Quantix) to internal resources. This could possibly be supported by GBS team.

Evaluation

Other pain points / issues to consider:

• Validating whether invoices meet contractual agreements are not automated, and requires manual work by GBS’s Procurement Service Line. Lack of a robust (automated) approach suggests potential value leakage.
• Fuel surcharge management (based on contractual agreements) was raised as another pain point during SyWAY detailed design workshops.
• In general, a significant reason for the current process's inefficiency is Syensqo’s failure to encompass the entire source-to-pay process, with different systems used for different steps in the process. Several attempts to overhaul this over the last decade (to have one single global multi-modal TMS) have been postponed. Competitors such as Arkema have overhauled its environment gaining a competitive advantage over Syensqo.

Draft comparison table:

For the evaluation we:

1. Compared the attributes of each solution (see side-by-side comparison table above), 
2. Accessed the advantages and disadvantages of each option (see table below). 
3. Interviewed multiple Syensqo stakeholders. 

The resulting recommendations:

• Discontinue Quantix for freight payment as soon as feasible.
• Centralize all NAM Syensqo freight payments through CASS
• Avoid bringing freight payment in-house, as this would reduce data quality and visibility (non-EDI/API) 

A number of key advantages of CASS (over Quantix), where highlighted during this process:

• CASS handles all shipment types, including imports, rail, vendor-to-Syensqo, and non-TMS shipments (currently no the case)
• CASS provides superior data visibility and detailed analytics compared to internal systems or Quantix.
• CASS is recognized as a leading freight payment provider in North America (many fortune 500 Companies work with them).
• CASS supports a move toward an accrual-based process instead of contract-based, improving financial accuracy.
• CASS offers a clear cost advantage over internal processing, as handling 50–60k now EDI/API invoices manually would require GBS staffing to scale up by 2–3 times (rough estimation).

Advantages and Disadvantages of each of the Options: 

	Option A Use Quantix as single provider	Option B Use CASS as single provider	Option C Insourcing, without 3rd party provider
Cost	Higher costs per invoice	Processing costs per invoice are lower than Quantix Cost saving measures are already connected to CASS data (Novecare customer charge back generates $600k annually utilizing CASS dataset) Additional interfaces to be built with additional testing CASS holds money for an average of 4 days (float)	Eliminates external vendor costs Additional resources required to process Freight Orders

Topic

Option A: 

Cass+CLX

Option B: 

Cass-only

Option C: 

CLX-only

Option D: 

Insource

Cost: 

– Having 2 systems with similar functionality within Syensqo might not be ideal.

+ 

+

– Insourcing would require hiring resources; while also paying for a fit for purpose software solution.

Knowledge / Change

+ Keeping both Cass and CLX would result in the least amount of change for the business.

– Moving to a single solution will require training; impacting SpP.

–– Moving to a single solution will require training; impacting all GBUs, except SpP..–

New resources will have to be trained to

insource freight invoice auditing and transport mgmt activities.

Integration effort

– Integrating 2 solutions for the same process steps into SAP might not be ideal.

+ 

+

Depends on which software solution is chosen.

Features:

A feature assessment would be helpful to provide a more  mature view. 

– There are existing scenarios that CASS is unable to handle correctly.

+ CLX has a technology relationship with Syensqo’s recommended TMS from E2open ⇒ suggesting potential synergies.

Depends on which software solution is chosen.

Complications:

+ CASS is not just being used for transportation invoices, but also procurement invoices in some cases

+ CASS is not just being used for transportation invoices, but also procurement invoices in some cases

– Moving away from CASS would require resolving how procurement invoices will be handled in the future.

Depends on which software solution is chosen.

Option A

CLX

Option B

Option C

Option D

Criterion 1

Pro

Con

Pro

Pro

Pro

Con

Pro

Con

Criterion 2

Pro

Con

Con

Pro

Pro

Con

Con

Criterion 3ProConConPro

audit freight charges Reports to be built to support the business process. Potential cost bleed as GBU users often approve without analysing and understanding the specifics.
Process	Straightforward process with one platform used in NAM for managing transportation. Linked to Syensqo's TMS system directly (where contracts are held and accruals generated) / Managing freight is in the control of Quantix Funding of carriers is more problematic vs CASS Insourcing parcel payments	Syensqo has more control on the management of transportation. Freight Payment core (largest in the world) Ability to go worldwide Carrier visibility and access (upload of invoices, reasons for rejects, etc.) Includes parcel invoices. Multiple systems where Freight Charges can be raised - CASS, E2Open and SAP. Additional steps to accurately maintain Syensqo contracts and terms	Straightforward process with one platform used in NAM for managing transportation Syensqo has more control on the management of transportation
People	Less Syensqo employees required for managing transportation		More resources required to manage freight and audit invoices. Shortage of experts / high turnover. Knowledge level of how freight rating works is insufficient.
Change	Business units Technology Solutions, Composite Materials and Novecare have to adapt to the use of Quantix.	Business unit Specialty Polymers has to adapt to the use of CASS.	All business units need to adapt to the situation where they freight auditing is done by Syensqo.
Features	Quantix offers other functions, like managed transportation. Managed transportation solution include activities like transportation planning, subcontracting and regulatory compliance. Quantix is trying to persuade Syensqo to include more services on the contract other than just the freight invoice audit.  Payments not submitted are identified only after supplier contact No portal access so lack of visibility on backlog Many statements received, but documents paid by Quantix are often not recognised.	Efficient handling of freight audit and payment process Excellent communication and relationship with the vendor Access to portal with backlog vision, 100% visibility of actual invoice Detailed reporting with visibility to freight costs Can have individual tolerances by every extra cost type.	Visibility of actual invoices No good visibility on data. Would take a huge customisation process.
Risk			Syensqo take on the responsibility to audit the freight invoices. When Syensqo is not able to manage this properly at go-live of SyWay then this could disrupt all financial processes.

Anecdotal stakeholders feedback:

Syensqo stakeholders provided the following anecdotal feedback during multiple interactions. The feedback suggest clear preference for CASS over Quantix as single provider. However they also caution that care must be taken in how these the system interfaces are designed to avoid having multiple master data instances, and get the best results.  

• "Quantix is not first and foremost a freight payment company. We've been having these kinds of issues for years. It should be be part of the To-Be recommendation to excise them from the process and move to CASS or some alternate equivalent."  [Global Logistics Manager]
• "Quantix is extremely limited in what they can pay right now. Basically, if something is not generating a unique SID (Shipment Identification number), the invoice could not be paid in Quantix and would need to be processed by AP, where we lose visibility of any detail. Quantix admittedly does freight payment as an add on to their TMS system and is not built (like CASS) from a freight payment foundation."  [NAM Logistics Manager]
• "There are cost challenges and limited value in continuing with Quantix. Quantix can only process freight invoices tied to their TMS, limiting coverage for many shipment types."
• "If our rates are provided to Quantix then the audit is part of the process.  It is real match-pay.  The downside of Quantix is they do not provide visibility to invoices and the history of how they were processed.  The downside to CASS is we ask them to audit which requires rate maintenance in SAP the TMS and CASS. The optimal solution is real match-pay.  We make sure the TMS and SAP are loaded with the proper rates, accruals are entered in a timely manner and are used to validate the carriers invoice." [IT Manager] 

Transition timing:

This is not yet decided and falls outside this KDDs scope.   The optimal timing for the Quantix → CASS transition in Global Business Unit Specialty Polymers has been discussed briefly, noting:

• The TMS solution replacement deadline of Q1 2026, must be respected to ensure business continuity.
• If the Quantix → CASS transition can be done quickly, efficiently, and without negatively impacting the TMS replacement, it could be beneficial to do the Quantix → CASS transition before or during the TMS replacement.  
• If the Quantix → CASS transition would put the TMS replacement project at risk, then the Quantix → CASS transition should not be attempted before or during the TMS replacement project. In this scenario the Quantix → CASS transition need to happen shortly after the TMS transition or as part of the SyWAY program's deployment schedule.

Further engagement with the TMS vendor is planned to understand the TMS replacement process. Insights gathers through this exercise will further inform the decision regarding the ideal timing for a Quantix → CASS transition.

See also

KDD048 - Way Forward with BluJay

Change log