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 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. Standardisation of these processes among all GBU’s are recommended.

Recommendation

The decision to use CASS within the system landscape is more a business driven decision than a technology driven decision. Even though the system landscape with CASS included is more complicated than without CASS, based on the business feedback it would not be wise to terminate the services by CASS. As there are clear business benefits to have freight charges audited and paid by CASS, the recommendation is to maintain the services of CASS.

As part of standardisation of processes and the feedback provided on CLX, there doesn't seem to be much support to maintain the CLX freight services. The recommendation would then be to terminate CLX 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 Logistics. This service provider audits the freight rates in BluJay and pays the carriers for their services. Syensqo pays CLX 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 ERP. 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
  
  

Services provided by CLX Logistics

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

CLX functions as a payment agent for Syensqo. Syensqo wire tranfers to CLX covering the amount of carrier invoices to be paid. CLX will process and pay carrier invoices. Approval of payment in case of freight bill difference is controlled tolerance of a specified percentage or dollar maximum, compared to allowed amount as indicated within the transportation management system.

CLX Logistics 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, CLX promises to eliminate the frustration and undue expense of payment processing with seamless freight pay management.

Replacement of BluJay with E2Open TMS4S

BluJay will be replaced by end of Q1 2026. The system that will take over the functions from BluJay is E2Open TMS4S.

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 to-be design with integration with SAP S/4 HANA.

Comparison of CASS with CLX

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

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

Freight Order are to be integrated to E2Open and CLX 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 to CLX.
• A recent policy change within CLX suggests CLX 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.
• CLX does not do invoice auditing only. In this option is there no invoice audit solution possible for ocean and air freight invoices.

Option B: Integration with E2Open including CASS

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

In this configuration 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 to CASS.
• Both E2Open and CASS can send updates on the charges. SAP need to be able to manage.

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 CLX) to internal resources. This could possibly be supported by GBS team.

Evaluation

For the evaluation of the three solutions, lets take into account some of the feedback captured:

• Global Logistics Manager: "CLX 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."
  
  
• IT Manager: "If our rates are provided to CLX then the audit is part of the process.  It is real matchpay.  The downside of CLX 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."
  
  
• NAM Logistics Manager: "CLX 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 CLX and would need to be processed by AP, where we lose visibility of any detail. CLX admittedly does freight payment as an add on to their TMS system and is not built (like CASS) from a freight payment foundation." 
  
  
• "There are cost challenges and limited value in continuing with CLX. CLX can only process freight invoices tied to their TMS, limiting coverage for many shipment types."

Advantages of CASS:

• Handles all shipment types, including imports, rail, vendor-to-Syensqo, and non-TMS shipments (currently no the case)
• Provides superior data visibility and detailed analytics compared to internal systems or CLX.
• Recognized as a leading freight payment provider in North America (many fortune 500 Companies work with them).
• 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).
  

Recommendations:

• Discontinue CLX 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)

	Option A Use CLX 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 CLX 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 New resources will have to be trained to 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 CLX 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	Outsourced activities at CLX by Specialty Polymers need to be insourced.	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 CLX.	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	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 CLX 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.

See also

https://wiki.syensqo.com/display/public/ER/KDD048+-+Way+Forward+with+BluJay

Change log