Issue

Currently in North America there are two different processes that are used to audit and pay freight rates. 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. Standardization of these processes among all GBU’s are recommended.

Recommendation

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 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

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

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.

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.
• Freight rates are to be printed on shipment documents, otherwise there is a risk of rejection. E2Open or CASS should determine the planned rates before freight is dispatched, preferably with CzarLite and CarrierConnect integration.

Impacts

Business Rules

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”.
• The E2Open system is owned by CLX and resold to Syensqo.

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 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.

Impact

• GBU Specialty Polymers would be required to transition from CLX to CASS.
• To receive charge updates from 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 carrier.

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. Possibly supported by GBS team.

Evaluation

Mike Skinner (CLX): Regarding the invoice audit service, our current response is that we will take on this service in situations where we are managing the daily transportation operations, and therefore have direct visibility into the Load planning activities. 

Nicholas Bizzarro (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.” 
This is incorrect.  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. 

Key Concerns with CLX:

• CLX is not equipped to effectively manage Ocean, Inbound, and ad hoc freight invoices.
• Freight payment is a secondary service for CLX, not their core expertise.
• There are cost challenges and limited value in continuing with CLX (per AP feedback).
• 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 (all transport modes) → potential similar setup in EMEA/APAC
• Avoid bringing freight payment in-house, as this would reduce data quality and visibility (non-EDI/API)

Resolve data feed issues with CASS to improve accuracy (e.g., mismatches in shipment origin locations).

CAS is far and away the best from a performance and data standpoint.  As Frank said, 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. 

Additionally, SAP does not apply actual Paid logistics costs to an Inbound raw material's SID - it is applied to the PO directly which means we would have no good way to detailed visibility unless we had CASS:

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:

	Option A CLX	Option B CASS	Option C Insourcing
Cost	Higher costs per invoice	Processing costs per invoice are lower than CLX Additional interfaces to be built with additional testing	Additional resources required to process Freight Orders New resources will have to be trained to audit freight charges
Process	Straightforward process with one platform used in NAM for managing transportation / Managing freight is in the control of CLX	Disputes (like additional charges) from the carrier are not handled through E2Open. Only through CASS can they be included in the accruals. Managing freight costs is more complicated, as the CASS system needs to be involved in the initial charge calculation. Otherwise conflicts could arise between updates from E2Open and CASS. Syensqo has more control on the management of transportation.	More flexibility on where to maintain Freight Rates and calculate freight costs.
People	Less Syensqo employees required for managing transportation	Outsourced activities at CLX by Specialty Polymers need to be insourced. Syensqo has more control	Pro Con
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.
Technology	Pro	Con	Con
Risk
Change
Costs

See also

Change log