The Hormuz crisis has exposed major differences in supplier performance. For ship managers, future tenders will need to assess not only price and port coverage, but also resilience, transparency and digital execution.

For decades, marine lubricant contracts have been built around a familiar set of questions: Which products are included? Which ports are covered? What price applies? What volumes are expected? And which payment and delivery terms have been agreed?

All of these questions remain important. But recent months have demonstrated that they no longer provide a complete picture of the value of a lubricant supply agreement.

The disruption around the Strait of Hormuz has acted as a stress test for the entire marine lubricant supply chain. Physical availability tightened, suppliers became more selective in allocating stock, lead times increased and spot options declined. Closelink data showed incomplete deliveries increasing from 9.3% in the second half of 2025 to 22.5% in March and April 2026. Over the same period, average surcharge costs more than doubled.

The wider supply shock has been exceptional. But the International Energy Agency (IEA) concluded that the crisis is likely to leave lasting marks on commercial strategies, infrastructure decisions and global supply routes. (IEA)

For marine lubricant buyers, the crisis has reset expectations and is likely to have a lasting influence on how supplier relationships and future lubricant contracts are evaluated.

The next generation of marine lubricant contracts will not only define what buyers pay. It will increasingly define how effectively and reliably buyers and suppliers can operate together.

A contract is tested when supply tightens

Most lubricant contracts are negotiated under relatively stable market conditions. Suppliers present their product portfolios, port coverage and commercial terms. Buyers compare prices, technical approvals, service capabilities and expected total costs. The result is usually documented through a framework agreement and a collection of product and port price lists.

The true value of that agreement, however, becomes visible when normal conditions no longer apply.

When the Hormuz crisis started, buyers experienced substantial differences in how suppliers responded. Those differences were partly related to physical capability: production networks, access to base oils and additives, regional stock positions and logistics capacity.

But capability was only part of the picture.

Suppliers also differed in how they communicated shortages, allocated limited inventory, handled high volume requests, introduced temporary surcharges and proposed alternative products or supply locations. Some informed customers early and worked actively on solutions. Others communicated only when a delivery could no longer be fulfilled.

A price list can state what a product should cost at a particular port. It cannot guarantee that the product will be available, that a potential shortage will be communicated in time or that viable alternatives will be proposed.

This is the execution gap in many traditional lubricant contracts. The agreement defines the intended commercial conditions, but says comparatively little about how both parties should work together when circumstances change.

The most favorable offering is therefore not necessarily the one with the lowest nominal price. Its value may also depend on how reliably the supplier communicates, how transparently it manages constraints and how effectively it helps the buyer maintain fleet operations.

Personal relationships need solid operational infrastructure

Personal relationships remain an important part of marine lubricant procurement. 

Experienced account managers, technical experts and procurement leaders can resolve problems that no automated process will solve on its own. But recent months have also shown that personal relationships alone do not solve global supply-chain issues.

A strong relationship cannot create stock that does not exist. It cannot manually reconcile hundreds of vessels, products, ports, prices and delivery dates at fleet level. And it cannot provide reliable forward visibility when the necessary operational data is fragmented across emails, spreadsheets and different systems.

Therefore, these strong relationships must be supported by reliable operational and digital infrastructure.

This infrastructure, however, does not replace cooperation between people. It gives them better information, identifies exceptions earlier and allows their time to be focused on decisions that genuinely require commercial or technical expertise. The contract should therefore define not only what the parties buy and sell, but also how they exchange information and manage exceptions.

That could include agreed processes for shortage notifications, price changes, order confirmations, product substitutions, partial deliveries, escalation procedures and delivery updates. Instead of relying on individual habits or personal availability, the operating model has to become more transparent and repeatable.

And as procurement becomes increasingly data-driven, that infrastructure also needs to support the digital exchange of information between buyers and suppliers. Marine lubricant suppliers do not need to build every digital capability themselves. But they do need to exchange availabilities, prices, confirmations and delivery updates in formats that can connect with the systems and processes their customers already use. The objective is not to create more disconnected supplier portals, but to enable connected buyer-supplier workflows with less manual effort and greater transparency.

The old contract documented commercial terms: the new contract has to govern operational cooperation.

Buyers also need to step up

Digital enablement cannot be treated as a one-sided supplier obligation.

Buyers cannot demand communication and digital excellence from suppliers while continuing to provide inconsistent data, poor forecasts and last-minute orders.

Many suppliers still receive tender invitations containing incomplete vessel lists, ambiguous product descriptions, inconsistent port names and volume estimates that do not match actual purchasing patterns. Once a contract is awarded, requisitions may arrive only shortly before delivery, leaving the supplier with limited time to position stock or coordinate local logistics.

Closelink’s analysis of lubricant procurement data found that every fourth enquiry was raised less than one week before delivery and every ninth only a few days before supply. Earlier and more reliable demand signals benefit not only buyers but also suppliers by supporting better inventory allocation and more reliable delivery planning. (Closelink)

Digital cooperation cannot work if buyers expect suppliers to modernise while continuing to send incomplete, inconsistent or last-minute information. This starts with the professionalisation of lubricant tender invitations as an important part of the development ahead. A structured tender should provide suppliers with a reliable basis for calculating prices and designing their supply model.

A structured tender should also define the standards buyers and suppliers are expected to use across products, ports, prices and delivery information. Where accepted standards already exist, such as UN/LOCODE for port identification, they should be applied consistently rather than replaced by company-specific naming conventions. Other commercially relevant information, including product identifiers, units of measure, product substitutions and price-list formats, in particular, should also be defined clearly so it can be understood and applied consistently by both parties.

In the end, more clearly defined tenders provide suppliers with the information they need to build more accurate, reliable and operationally meaningful proposals.

A shared operating framework

The future lubricant contract could become more than a commercial agreement. It could become a shared operating framework.

Such a framework could clarify how the parties plan demand, exchange data, manage price changes, communicate supply constraints and assess performance, including commonly agreed KPIs to evaluate the partnership performance. Most importantly, it has to connect commercial negotiations and results from the tendering period with the day-to-day execution of enquiries, offers and orders.

Future contracts could therefore define reciprocal obligations, recognising that efficient procurement depends on both sides and that both buyers and suppliers can benefit from clearer operating commitments.

A buyer could, for example, commit to:

• Providing a rolling demand forecast
• Updating important schedule or volume changes
• Maintaining accurate vessel lists
• Using agreed port and product identifiers
• Placing a defined share of orders within normal lead times
• Sharing individual vessel schedules and ROB updates
• Submitting complete and structured order information

A supplier could commit to:

• Maintaining accurate product and port coverage information
• Providing standardized, holistic and version-controlled price lists
• Confirming orders within agreed response periods
• Communicating supply limitations proactively
• Providing structured delivery updates
• Displaying actual product-port availability
• Defining clear escalation and exception-management procedures
• Supporting an agreed method of digital data exchange

These commitments would not remove operational uncertainty. Tramp shipping will continue to produce short-notice requirements, schedule changes and exceptions. But clearer expectations could make those exceptions easier to identify and manage.

Buyers that provide accurate forecasts, sufficient lead times and clean data also make the supply chain more predictable and efficient for suppliers. Over time, this creates an opportunity for contracts to reward good operational performance - not through informal preferential treatment, but through transparent commercial arrangements that recognise the value both parties create.

Suppliers could help redesign the relationship

A more reciprocal framework would also give suppliers a stronger voice in improving the buyer-supplier relationship.

Traditional tenders often ask suppliers to price the buyer’s existing procurement model. Buyers provide a list of products, ports and estimated volumes and request a commercial response.

A more advanced tender could also ask suppliers how the process itself might be improved.

Not every proposal will be suitable for every fleet. Buyers must retain control over their sourcing strategy and operational requirements. But suppliers often hold valuable information about production planning, regional logistics, stock positioning and the administrative cost of different ordering processes.

A professional tender should not only ask suppliers to price the buyer’s existing process. It should create room for them to suggest how that process could be improved. This changes the tender from a largely one-directional request into a structured discussion about the future operating model.

A contract award is not the end, but the beginning

Even a well-designed contract creates limited value when it remains disconnected from daily procurement.

Once a contract has been awarded, the agreed conditions are often transferred into siloed spreadsheets, contract documents and manually maintained price lists. Different vessel groups may operate under different agreements. Product and port prices may change several times during a contract period without being updated for the daily ordering process.. Newbuildings, owner-specific agreements or special delivery arrangements can add further complexity.

As a result, procurement teams may still need to check manually which contract and price list apply to an individual enquiry. Suppliers may need to correct outdated prices or clarify which conditions are valid for the expected delivery date. Managing contract compliance, both ways, becomes a complex task.

The broader opportunity is to connect the entire sourcing and contract lifecycle:

Tender preparation → demand forecast → supplier invitation → standardized proposals → transparent comparison and decision-making → contract award → live contract → performance reviews → continuous improvements

A contract should not be understood as a purely static document. It should become an active part of every relevant enquiry, offer and order.

Thinking contracts digitally

Closelink’s Contracts Management functionality already allows buyers to manage multiple agreements and price lists with defined validity periods and to assign different contracts to selected companies and vessels. When an enquiry is created, the platform can apply the price list matching the expected delivery date rather than merely using the price available on the date of the enquiry. (Closelink)

Future tender processes should consider a digitally improved, detailed demand forecast, provide suppliers with a structured, standardized approach to enter a proposal, offer a transparent and standardized comparison and eventually transfer the agreed conditions directly into the operational ordering environment.

The objective is not to automate every commercial decision. Negotiation, technical evaluation and supplier relationships will remain essential. The objective is to connect those decisions with the data and processes for which they have been negotiated for in the first place.

A new era of contract management

The core details of current marine lubricant contracts are not disappearing. Products, prices, ports, volumes and payment terms will remain central to every agreement. But these commercial terms need to be extended to provide a more comprehensive framework for managing an increasingly complex buyer-supplier relationship.

The Hormuz crisis has exposed major differences in supplier performance. It has shown the value of transparent communication, resilient supply structures and operational flexibility, and revealed the risks if these are missing. At the same time, digitalisation is making the weaknesses of fragmented data and manual processes increasingly visible.

Buyers, in turn, cannot expect this transition without improving their own tenders, forecasts, master data and ordering discipline.

Not every future lubricant contract will immediately include detailed digital standards or reciprocal performance commitments. But the opportunity is clear. Contracts could define not only what the parties buy and sell, but how they plan, communicate, exchange information and improve the relationship together.

The future lubricant contract will be more than a commercial agreement. It will be a shared operating framework.

Marine lubricant contracts are dead. Long live the contracts.

‍