Issuu

STATE OF PRACTICE

DYNAMIC TRUCKLOAD CAPACITY PROCUREMENT Dr. Chris Caplice White Paper

August 2026

1. Executive Summary This report presents the preliminary findings from a survey of 50 supply chain and transportation professionals exploring their experiences, preferences, and opinions regarding three methods of dynamically procuring full truckload (TL) freight capacity: Waterfall, Bid Now, and Buy Now. These methods are defined in Table 1, below. Term Waterfall

Bid Now Buy Now

Definition A procurement method in which the shipper sequentially tenders a load through a pre-established, rank-ordered routing guide of contracted carriers, each with a defined acceptance window before the load cascades to the next provider. A dynamic procurement method in which the shipper posts a load for competitive bidding to a select group of transportation providers and the lowest cost submission wins the load. A dynamic procurement method in which the shipper sets a fixed price for a shipment, sends it to a select group of transportation providers, and the first to accept the offer wins the load. Table 1. Definitions of the three dynamic procurement methods.

The survey was administered by the MIT Center for Transportation & Logistics (CTL) between May 8 and June 8, 2026 — a period characterized by historically elevated spot truckload rates, rising tender rejection rates, and tightening carrier capacity across U.S. markets. Taken together, the survey respondents’ companies represent over $1.5 trillion in combined annual revenue and plausibly account for $5–10 billion in annual TL transportation spend. This is a highvalue practitioner sample with substantial real-world procurement experience at high scale. The fact that over 90% of the respondents provided their contact information suggests that this is an important and pressing problem that deserves attention. The survey asked respondents to rate their experience with each method from 1 (Do Not Use at all) to 5 (Extensive Use), see Table 2, below. The overwhelming dominant method of procuring transportation dynamically is the Waterfall, with 95% of all respondents reported having “Quite a Bit” to “Extensive Use” experience using the Waterfall. The next most common method is Bid Now with the Buy Now option in a distant third. A full 40% have never used the Buy Now method. Waterfall

Bid Now

Buy Now

Do Not Use at all

40%

Very little to Moderate use Quite a bit to Extensive use

2% 95%

19% 72%

42% 19%

Table 2. Reported level of experience (1 to 5) with each method. Do Not Use at all = 1, Very Little to Moderate use = 2 or 3, and Quite a bit to Extensive use = 4 or 5.

The open-ended questions asked for strengths and weaknesses for each method along with overall comments. These are summarized in Table 3, below. The Waterfall method is the most widely deployed default method among respondents, valued for predictability and consistency, but widely criticized for producing stale rates in inflationary markets — precisely the environment in which this

survey was conducted. Bid Now, the second most popular method, was praised for price discovery but criticized for cost volatility exposure, risk of service failures from lowest-bid awards, and the emergence of algorithmic or predatory bidding behavior. Finally, Buy Now, the least used method, was cited as "Best for the Shipper," but comes with significant caveats as it depends heavily on the accuracy of the shipper's real-time market intelligence. Dimension Cost Control Speed of Coverage Market Price Accuracy Capacity Reliability Ease of Automation Carrier Relationship Quality

Buy Now Strong Fast (if priced right) Depends on data Uncertain in tight mkt Moderate Weak (first-come)

Performance in Rising Mkt Performance in Falling Mkt Perceived Best for Shippers

Depends Risk of overpay Most cited

Bid Now Weak Moderate Strong Uncertain Moderate Weak (priceonly) Expensive Favorable Conditional

Waterfall Moderate Slow Stale over time Moderate Strong Strong Fails Slow to adjust Situational

Table 3. Summary of strengths and weaknesses of each methodology.

There are three key takeaways from the survey. The first is that no single method dominates unconditionally or is universally superior. All three methods were viewed as situationally appropriate, with the optimal choice depending on market conditions, lane characteristics, shipper sophistication, and available technology infrastructure. The second is that technology is often the gating factor. Respondents noted that both the Buy Now and Bid Now methods effectively require API connectivity, which systematically excludes a large segment of smaller, asset-based carriers. Finally, budgeting for dynamic procurement is a challenge. The transition toward dynamic procurement methods creates a direct tension with traditional annual budget cycles. Additionally, the freight audit and pay workflow and process can be a major challenge. The primary objective of this short survey is to identify potential areas for future research by the MIT FreightLab with corporate sponsors. The fact that over 90% of the survey respondents replied with their contact information suggests there is strong practitioner interest in further research into dynamic procurement. The MIT FreightLab is a research initiative within the MIT Center for Transportation & Logistics focused on the application of advanced analytics, optimization, and behavioral science to freight transportation markets. FreightLab engages directly with shippers, carriers, brokers, and technology providers to conduct research that is both academically rigorous and operationally actionable. We hold periodic in-person and virtual events with leading practitioners and researchers on relevant topics and conduct research with sponsors to improve the state of science and practice.

Based on this survey, and its limitations as outlined earlier, here are some potential research questions that FreightLab would be interested in pursuing. They are not in any particular order and this is not comprehensive, but they provide a sense of the type of analysis that the MIT FreightLab conducts. 1. Using actual transactional data, how does the efficiency (speed to find capacity) and effectiveness (cost as compared to market benchmark) of each method differ for different situations? 2. Should service history factor into dynamic procurement methods? And if so, how? 3. What the load-level factors influence pricing in each of these procurement methods? 4. Can dynamic procurement be handled with pure machine-to-machine mechanisms (no human in the loop)? If so, what are the pros and cons? 5. What are best practices for dynamic transportation procurement budgeting? 6. What governance structure, key performance indicators, and technologies are required for successful dynamic procurement? Can better governance minimize the need for API technologies? 7. What feedback should be provided to the bidding transportation providers to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the process? 8. How can benchmark indices be incorporated to improve the efficiency of dynamic procurement? 9. How can Machine Learning, Artificial Intelligence, Reinforcement Learning, or other methods be used to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of these methods? 10. How can an AI-driven or automated agent observe current market conditions, lane characteristics, and carrier performance data in real time and dynamically select the appropriate procurement method (or combination of methods) for each individual load? Of course, we cannot conduct research without data and practitioner insights. If you are interested in participating in follow-up research in dynamic procurement (or other areas) or engaging with the MIT FreightLab's freight procurement research program, contact the us at freightlab@mit.edu or visit our site at ctl.mit.edu/research/freightlab.

2. Background The procurement of full truckload (TL) transportation capacity has traditionally used two broad mechanisms: (1) negotiated contract rates for future volume on a lane are established through periodic Request for Proposal (RFP) processes, typically annual, which populate a carrier routing guide; or (2) spot market procurement, where individual loads are tendered on an ad hoc basis at prevailing market rates. In practice, most large shippers use both approaches, with the routing guide serving as the main mechanism for primary and alternate carriers on a lane and the spot market serving as a backstop when the routing guide fails. This is known as the Waterfall method where the shipper offers the load first to the primary carrier, and if that fails, works down the list of alternates whose rate were determined in the RFP, until one of them accepts.

2.1.

Market Context

Over the past several years, the proliferation of freight technology platforms, load boards, and transportation management systems (TMS) with API connectivity has enabled different ways to procure spot rates other than the traditional Waterfall. This survey focuses on three specific manifestations of dynamic or spot procurement: Waterfall, Bid Now, and Buy Now. They were defined in Table 1. The survey was conducted in May and June 2026 when average spot truckload rates were greater than average contract rates for the first time since April 2022. Tender rejection rates had climbed to multi-year highs, and structural supply-side constraints, such as carrier attrition and tightening driver availability, were fundamentally reshaping shipper-carrier dynamics. This market context is essential for interpreting respondent opinions, particularly the volume of negative commentary directed at Waterfall methods and the expressions of concern about Bid Now cost exposure.

2.2.

Methodology

The survey was administered using an online survey tool (SurveyMonkey) and was open from 8 May to 8 June 2026. The survey was sent out to transportation executives at large companies and consisted of both structured (multiple choice) and open-ended (free text) questions. While over 90% of the respondents provided their company and contact information, names and organizational affiliations have been removed from this report.

2.3.

Respondent Profile

The overwhelming majority of respondents identified as shippers (buyers of transportation services). One respondent identified as a carrier, providing a valuable — if isolated — provider-side perspective. No respondents explicitly identified as brokers, though some respondents' commentary reflects broker-side experience or awareness. The survey captured an extraordinarily wide range of company sizes, spanning from some of the largest corporations on earth to privately held mid-market shippers. It also represented a broad cross-section of industries that are significant users of full TL transportation services, to include Consumer Packaged Goods (CPG), Food & Beverage, Grocery & Food Retail, General Merchandise & Specialty Retail, Home Improvement / Building Products, Industrial & Automotive Manufacturing, Healthcare & Consumer Products, and Supply Chain Services.

Taken together, the identifiable companies alone in this survey represent well over $1.5 trillion in combined annual revenue. Even using conservative assumptions, this is a sample dominated by very large shippers — not a representative cross-section of the full shipper universe. The median company by revenue in this sample is likely in the $8–20 billion range, which places the typical respondent firmly in the large-enterprise segment of the market. In aggregate, the identifiable companies in this survey plausibly represent $5–10 billion or more in collective annual TL transportation spend, making this a high-value practitioner sample with substantial real-world procurement experience at scale. The survey respondent set is best characterized as skewed heavily toward the sophisticated end of the supply chain maturity spectrum, with meaningful internal variation.

2.4.

Method Experience

The primary question of the survey asked respondents to rate their experience with each method from 1 (Do Not Use at all) to 5 (Extensive Use), see Table 4, below. The overwhelming method of procuring transportation dynamically is the Waterfall, with 95% of all respondents reported having “Quite a Bit” to “Extensive Use” experience using the Waterfall. The next most common method is Bid Now with the Buy Now option a distant third. A full 40% have never used the Buy Now method. BuyNow BidNow Waterfall BuyNow BidNow Waterfall Not at all

40%

Very little use

26%

Moderate use

16%

12%

Quite a bit of use

12%

30%

16%

Extensive use

42%

79%

40%

42%

19%

72%

95%

Table 4 Reported level of experience (1 to 5) with each method.

The next three sections discuss each of the methods in more detail.

3. Review of the Waterfall Method The Waterfall is a mature and widely trusted procurement mechanism that functions well under specific conditions: a stable or declining rate environment, a well-maintained routing guide with genuine carrier depth, and a TMS capable of enforcing routing compliance. Under inflationary conditions — which describe the market context of this survey — its structural weaknesses become acute, and several respondents noted that it has functionally failed them in 2026. The method is perhaps best understood not as a dynamic procurement tool but as a structured default that reduces the need for dynamic intervention when markets cooperate.

3.1.

Stated Strengths

Predictability and cost stability were the most consistently cited strengths of the Waterfall method: • "Predictable, [known] cost model, carrier control, better performance, ability to split volume with many carriers." CPG food manufacturer • "Consistency with pricing and capacity availability/usage for both the shipper and the carrier. Knowing I will have a carrier who anticipates and plans for this freight, at a price we've already agreed upon." Grocery Retailer Lane familiarity and carrier relationship continuity were valued as operational benefits: • "Strength: Potential new capacity due to a rejection of tender with a known and contracted provider." Grocery retailer • "Locked in rates but consistency builds resilience during difficult times." CPG food manufacturer Operational automation and minimal human intervention were cited as process advantages when a TMS is well-configured: • "Systematically driven with not much human action needed." Energy storage manufacturer • "Strengths: Minimal effort, vetted carrier at every 'tier'." Healthcare products manufacturer Routing guide depth as a capacity buffer was appreciated for its role in reducing reliance on the spot market: • "[Waterfall] gives depth to capacity to avoid using the spot market and keep service levels higher." Supply chain services company Resilience through carrier relationship investment was noted as a long-term strategic benefit: • "Both parties have to be focused on the long-term relationship between the parties and ride the ebb and flows to make this work." Grocery retailer

3.2.

Stated Weaknesses

Waterfall weaknesses received the richest and most detailed commentary of the three methods. This reflects both the method's prevalence (it is the default for most respondents) and its vulnerability in the inflationary market conditions of early-to-mid 2026. Maintaining stale rates in a changing market environment was by far the most frequently mentioned weakness: • "Rates in the waterfall can become stale over time." Consumer products manufacturer

• • •

"In a rising rate environment, rates on file from previous RFP become stale and are not aligned with market, and tenders are declined. Loads end up on the spot market." Industrial equipment manufacturer "In a tight market, this is a waste of time unless it's a lane with multiple carriers on it." Dairy products shipper "In times of a rapidly inflationary market, it can waste a lot of time to wind up going to the spot market anyway." CPG food manufacturer

Slow execution, especially through multi-step rejection cycles, was identified as a service risk: • "From a shipper's perspective, it could take a long time to secure a truck if it makes it past the primary and secondary carriers." Anonymous respondent • "The weakness is if you push too much freight to a higher cost carrier in the routing guide, you can see more spend." Supply chain services company Carrier gaming of routing guide position was identified as a structural behavioral risk unique to Waterfall: • "Asset-based carriers with dropped trailers can price to be 12th to 15th in line, knowing that freight will drop to them. [This] takes a few months/bid cycles to learn the shipper's behavior." Food manufacturer Routing guide maintenance burden was flagged as an ongoing operational challenge: • "Unless customized at the lane level, which can be manually tedious to continually update." Supply chain services company • "Maintaining a 2–3 deep routing guide is hard!" Anonymous shipper Overpayment in a falling rate environment was noted as a mirror-image problem to the stale-rate issue in a rising market: • "It’s weakness is it misses out on the dynamic flows of the market… If the market shifts in the shipper's favor, they may be overpaying for freight." Grocery retailer Carrier engagement degradation beyond the primary position was raised as a structural concern: secondary and tertiary carriers often feel disincentivized and may not maintain active coverage capacity: • "Carriers don't always care too much when they are outside the 1 position, so freight often falls out of the routing guide if 1 rejects." Nutritional products manufacturer TMS discipline and organizational capability requirements were cited as prerequisites that not all shippers can reliably meet: • "Not sustainable for immature sourcing/procurement models. If a shipper can't control routing guides it might incur a lot of leakage. [Requires] strong controls and discipline, plus TMS knowledge." Industrial automation manufacturer "Fake rates" from brokers and low-quality participants jamming the waterfall were cited as a carrier-side grievance: • "Fake rates from brokers and small carriers jam up the flow. Plus carriers don't want to be called only in the peak months when brokers can no longer find cheap [capacity]." Truckload carrier

4. Review of the Bid Now Method Bid Now delivers genuine price discovery and competitive rate alignment when in a balanced or shipper-favorable market. However, it transfers pricing power to carriers and brokers in a tight market, has inherent service risk if awarded purely on price, and faces growing challenges from algorithmic pricing. Its strategic value is highest when used selectively or as a complement to other methods, not as a standalone default.

4.1.

Stated Strengths

Price discovery and competitive market-rate alignment were the most widely endorsed strengths of Bid Now: • "Quickly achieve the lowest cost capacity option." CPG food manufacturer • "More competitive rates and ability to benchmark against the market, plus promotes carrier engagement." Industrial automation manufacturer Carrier competition was broadly valued as producing rates that genuinely reflect current market conditions rather than rates negotiated in a prior period: • "Creates competition." Specialty retailer • "Strength: Quicker process; no need to know the market price; competition among carriers." CPG food manufacturer Market-side intelligence for the shipper was identified as a by-product where the collection of bids generates real-time pricing data that can be used for benchmarking and budgeting: • "Better gauge of current market conditions and prices for analysis." Retailer Carrier selection flexibility was cited as a structural advantage when a broad carrier pool is engaged: • "The strength is that this happens in a bid environment, so everyone has the same opportunity." Consumer and industrial goods manufacturer

4.2.

Stated Weaknesses

Cost uncertainty and upside exposure in rising or inflationary markets was the single most frequently mentioned weakness, and is particularly salient given the market conditions at the time of survey administration: • "You are at the mercy of the market, which currently is showing inflationary [conditions]." Supply chain services company • "Bid Now: You are at the whim of the market for good or for bad." CPG food manufacturer Service failure risk from lowest-bid awards was raised repeatedly, with respondents noting that the carrier or broker willing to bid lowest may not have genuine coverage capability: • "[Bid Now] puts lots of pressure in the direction of lower rates. I would expect that to come with much more frequent service failures or no-shows if, as an example, a broker lowballed it then could not find coverage." CPG food manufacturer • "Could get rates back from a broker who is unable to find a carrier for that rate." Anonymous shipper

•

"Service can suffer and often carrier accepts and then later declines after getting a better rate elsewhere." Anonymous respondent

Emerging algorithmic and predatory bidding behaviors were flagged as a growing systemic concern, particularly as freight technology platforms mature: • "There is some predatory pricing behavior starting to take hold and some providers testing what they think they can get away with in the short term." Industrial equipment manufacturer • "[Weakness:] Lowest bid wins regardless of how much it may be above market. Could result in significantly overpaying, especially when rates are being autogenerated by pricing algorithms or bots." CPG food manufacturer Carrier participation sustainability was raised as a concern about long-term market health. If carriers are awarded loads infrequently due to low hit rates, they may disengage from the platform: • "If [the] low 'hit rate' by carrier/broker, do they stop participating? With Bid Now, does the shipper always truly take the low rate?" Confectionery manufacturer Carrier network breadth limitations were noted by shippers who maintain a deliberately narrow approved-carrier pool for compliance and operational reasons: • "Many shippers intentionally limit the number of carriers in their systems for compliance and operational reasons, which can reduce competition during the bidding process." Heavy equipment manufacturer Volume and labor intensity were cited as practical constraints, particularly for shippers running high loads: • "Post-calculations can be data-intensive if you are receiving a high number of bids and need to cross-reference with other metrics." Mass merchandise retailer Too many brokers pulling from the same underlying carrier pool was noted as a form of market saturation that creates the appearance of competition without delivering genuine price diversity: • "You can get too many brokers participating, pulling from the same load boards and same carriers, resulting in too many live loads that may constrain the distribution centers." Consumer products manufacturer One particularly substantive response challenged the assumption that the lowest bid should automatically win in a Bid Now environment, and articulated a principled approach to bid selection: • "When bottom fishing in a bid, on-time performance and available capacity are usually the first things we see [suffer]. Even on smaller bids to cover dropped loads, I take something above the lowest bid to ensure some sort of cushion for reliable service… our selections are made in the top 10%, but not the low." Food processing company

5. Review of the Buy Now Method Buy Now holds genuine theoretical appeal for shippers with strong real-time market data capabilities and consistent, well-understood lane volumes. However, it is a precision instrument and requires accurate pricing inputs, carries symmetric risks of over- and under-pricing, and faces a fundamental behavioral risk as carriers learn to anticipate and circumvent the shipper's pricing logic. At least one respondent with over a year of direct operational experience concluded its practical coverage rate was disappointing.

5.1.

Stated Strengths

Speed and operational simplicity were the most cited advantages. Because the price is pre-set and the first accepting carrier wins, there is minimal post-tender processing time, reducing the administrative burden on freight operations teams: • "Cost mitigation is easier on the upfront side here. No post-processing means faster movement of the load after acceptance." Retailer • "Immediate capacity is a strength." Grocery/retail procurement professional Shipper cost control was viewed as a primary appeal. Because the shipper sets the price, they retain authority over what they are willing to pay, which, in theory, prevents runaway spot costs: • "Strength: Control cost within budget." Industrial manufacturer Price transparency and predictability were cited as organizational benefits. When backed by strong market data tools, Buy Now can provide the organization with a defensible, data-driven rate: • "[Market benchmark tools] are a great baseline to use to establish Buy Now rates." Home improvement retailer Elimination of negotiation was appreciated by some respondents, particularly those seeking a "take it or leave it" approach in a market where back-and-forth negotiation can waste time: • "Take it or leave it approach. Eliminates negotiation." Anonymous respondent

5.2.

Stated Weaknesses

The weaknesses cited for Buy Now were substantially more numerous and detailed than the strengths, suggesting that while the method has intuitive appeal, real-world implementation faces meaningful challenges. Overpayment risk when the price is set too high was a recurring concern: • "Shipper may overpay if they don't know what the shipment should cost." Anonymous shipper • "Shipper may end up overpaying if they set the price too high." CPG food manufacturer Coverage failure when the price is set too low was equally common: • "Not sure what would happen if no provider is interested in the shipper posted Buy Now price? Seems like that step could just waste time." Dairy products shipper • "If your Buy Now price is not aligned with the market, there are risks of overpaying or no interest at the current rate." Supply chain services company

Requirement for strong real-time market intelligence was identified as a structural dependency that many shippers cannot reliably fulfill: • "In the Buy Now method, the shipper needs to have a strong understanding of market rate, which can be challenging if [the lane is] infrequent or new/non-existent, [or it is a] rising/dropping rate environment." Industrial equipment manufacturer • "[Buy Now] relies heavily on quality historical data. First person to respond may not be the best option." Dairy products manufacturer Carrier gaming of the pricing methodology was raised as a longer-term behavioral risk, perhaps the most operationally significant weakness identified: • "As carriers catch on to the cadence/methodology of calculating the Buy Now price, they will still wait until they know they are able to cover the load. In our system, a fairly small percentage of overall spot loads are covered via the Buy Now price. It may work for other shippers, but I am not completely convinced of the value after seeing it in action for approximately 12 months." Supply chain services company No counter-offer mechanism was identified as a design limitation that may preclude mutually agreeable outcomes: • "[Buy Now] leaves no opportunity for the carrier to counter if they have an acceptable rate to the shipper." Consumer products manufacturer Organizational credibility and internal buy-in were cited as a practical barrier to adoption: • “[Weakness:] Confidence and buy-in from the organization that we are getting the best possible rate.” CPG food manufacturer New carrier quality risk was flagged as a service concern when Buy Now routes a load to an unfamiliar provider: • "This helps control costs for the shipper; however… the quality of the carrier may not be as good. May require extra vetting of carriers and setups if [the winning carrier is] new." Toy manufacturer

6. Key Takeaways The overwhelming method being used in practice today to procure spot capacity is the Waterfall – leveraging the backup carriers in the routing guide. However, there are three other key takeaways from the survey: lack of a single best approach, technology as a gating factor, and budgeting challenges with dynamic procurement.

6.1.

There is no single, universal best method

Perhaps the clearest finding across all open-ended responses is that no single method dominates unconditionally or is universally superior. All three methods were viewed as situationally appropriate, with the optimal choice depending on market conditions, lane characteristics, shipper sophistication, and available technology infrastructure. Multiple respondents made this point explicitly: • "Each of these methods has a place in the market. Depending on the overall market, the shipper, their budgets and goals will determine the correct strategy." Toy manufacturer • "I would argue that having one method across the board is never ideal. Not all lanes are equal." Anonymous respondent • "[The optimal method depends on:] infrequent or new/non-existent lanes, rising/dropping rate environments, [and] the experience level of the load planner." Industrial equipment manufacturer • "We personally use the combination of all 3 methods — with the most common for our mini-bids being Bid Now, then award to multiple carriers, giving us routing guide depth in the future for that lane. This seems to be helpful to keep a balance of cost and service as the market shifts into more of a carrier market." Supply chain services company • "We currently use waterfall as default and Bid Now when default fails to secure transportation capacity. Buy Now would be a good add-on to balance Bid Now, especially now when Bid Now is super opportunistic." Beverage manufacturer • One respondent proposed an innovative sequential structure that uses Bid Now outcomes to dynamically refresh the Waterfall routing guide — effectively creating a closed-loop system in which the Waterfall benefits from current market pricing signals generated by Bid Now events. Respondents consistently noted that the prevailing freight market cycle is a primary determinant of which method performs best, as shown in Table 5, below. Market Condition Stable / neutral Declining / shipper-favorable Rising / carrier-favorable Highly volatile / uncertain

Most Advantaged Method Waterfall (predictability) Bid Now (price discovery) Buy Now (speed, if data is accurate) Hybrid / blended approach

Least Advantaged Method Bid Now (unnecessary competition) Waterfall (overpayment on stale high rates) Waterfall (stale low rates, mass rejections) Any single-method strategy

Table 5. Strengths and weaknesses by market cycle.

6.2.

Technology is often the gating factor

A recurring and practically significant theme is that both Buy Now and Bid Now effectively require API connectivity, which systematically excludes a large segment of smaller, asset-based carriers who remain on email-based dispatching systems: • "Most smaller carriers don't have access to API and are email dispatched." Labeling and materials science manufacturer • "API pricing only works for carriers that are set up with the shipper. Shippers and carriers would both benefit by having access to 'all' shippers and all carriers instead of only those who are pre-set up." Consumer products manufacturer • "Carriers must use API to communicate offers, which could limit the carrier participants." Consumer products manufacturer This observation has implications for both market competitiveness and capacity resilience: methods that favor API-connected participants may systematically exclude the very carriers (small asset-based operators with localized capacity) who could provide coverage in constrained markets. TMS fragmentation was separately raised as a systemic inefficiency affecting all three methods: • "How can we have one universal system instead of logging into 59 separate systems [for different shippers], which is very inefficient for both shipper and carrier?" Truckload carrier

6.3.

Budgeting for dynamic procurement is a challenge

The transition toward dynamic procurement methods creates a direct tension with traditional annual budget cycles. One respondent articulated this challenge starkly: • "I would be very interested to learn any best practices for budgeting in a more dynamic and 'rapid-response' transportation paradigm. I'm getting hammered a few months into a new routing guide and financial reporting period given how upside down everything is." CPG food manufacturer This observation points to an underexplored intersection between procurement method selection and financial planning — a topic with significant organizational implications beyond the transportation function itself. Additionally, the freight audit and pay workflow and process can be a major challenge. As with any study, there are a few limitations to consider when interpreting these findings: 1. Limited survey sample: Only 50 respondents were included in the analysis. This is a very small sample of the larger shipper population – although it does represent a very large percentage of the total truckload buy. 2. Shipper-dominant perspective: With only one confirmed carrier respondent and no identified broker respondents, the dataset reflects a predominantly one-sided view of these procurement methods. The carrier and broker perspectives on Buy Now vs. Bid Now dynamics are largely absent or are inferred from shipper commentary. Future research should deliberately recruit from all three stakeholder groups.

3. Market timing bias: The survey was administered during a period of historically elevated spot rates and tightening capacity. Respondent opinions — particularly regarding Waterfall stale rates and Bid Now cost exposure — are likely influenced by the adversarial market conditions of Spring 2026. Responses from a balanced or shipper-favorable market would likely yield meaningfully different assessments. 4. Organizational clustering: Several organizations were represented by multiple respondents. Responses from colleagues at the same firm may reflect shared internal policies, systems, or experiences rather than fully independent perspectives. 5. Uneven response completeness: Approximately 16% of respondents provided minimal or no open-ended content, limiting the analytical depth available from a meaningful segment of the sample. 6. Absence of quantitative performance data: The survey captures perceptions and opinions rather than measured outcomes (e.g., coverage rates, actual cost differentials, tender rejection rates by method). Complementing this qualitative dataset with empirical performance data from TMS or load board sources would substantially strengthen the research conclusions.

7. Next Steps While one of the objectives of this survey was to better understand the current state of practice for dynamic procurement, the primary objective is to identify potential areas for future research by the MIT FreightLab with corporate sponsors. The fact that over 90% of the survey respondents replied with their contact information suggests there is strong practitioner interest in further research into dynamic procurement. The MIT FreightLab is a research initiative within the MIT Center for Transportation & Logistics focused on the application of advanced analytics, optimization, and behavioral science to freight transportation markets. FreightLab engages directly with shippers, carriers, brokers, and technology providers to conduct research that is both academically rigorous and operationally actionable. We hold periodic in-person and virtual events with leading practitioners and researchers on relevant topics and conduct research with sponsors to improve the state of science and practice. Based on this survey, and its limitations as outlined earlier, here are some potential research questions that FreightLab would be interested in pursuing. They are not in any particular order and this is not comprehensive, but they provide a sense of the type of analysis that the MIT FreightLab conducts. 1. Using actual transactional data, how does the efficiency (speed to find capacity) and effectiveness (cost as compared to market benchmark) of each method differ for different situations? 2. Should service history factor into dynamic procurement methods? And if so, how? 3. What the load-level factors influence pricing in each of these procurement methods? 4. Can dynamic procurement be handled with pure machine-to-machine mechanisms (no human in the loop)? If so, what are the pros and cons? 5. What are best practices for dynamic transportation procurement budgeting? 6. What governance structure, key performance indicators, and technologies are required for successful dynamic procurement? Can better governance minimize the need for API technologies? 7. What feedback should be provided to the bidding transportation providers to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the process? 8. How can benchmark indices be incorporated to improve the efficiency of dynamic procurement? 9. How can Machine Learning, Artificial Intelligence, Reinforcement Learning, or other methods be used to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of these methods? 10. How can an AI-driven or automated agent observe current market conditions, lane characteristics, and carrier performance data in real time and dynamically select the appropriate procurement method (or combination of methods) for each individual load? Of course, we cannot conduct research without data and practitioner insights. If you are interested in participating in follow-up research in dynamic procurement (or other areas) or engaging with the MIT FreightLab's freight procurement research program, contact us at freightlab@mit.edu or visit our site at ctl.mit.edu/research/freightlab.