A practical checklist for turning contract renewal into a more strategic, measurable and operationally effective supplier agreement.

Renewing a marine lubricant contract should involve more than updating prices and estimated volumes. It is an opportunity to reassess the supplier model, the allocation of responsibilities, the pricing mechanism and the way buyer and supplier operate together.

There is no universally correct model. The right approach depends on the buyer’s priorities around integration, resilience, pricing and flexibility.

The following seven questions help buyers consider not only what they purchase and at which price, but also how responsibilities, performance and improvement should be addressed during the next contract period.

1. Single-supplier or multi-supplier strategy?

This is a strategic sourcing decision. Neither approach is inherently safer or more efficient; the right model depends on the fleet, trading pattern, product requirements and the buyer’s ability to manage complexity.

A predominantly single-supplier model can offer:

• Simpler product and contract management
• Greater product consistency across the fleet
• Fewer interfaces for crews and procurement teams
• A stronger basis for integration and common process development

A multi-supplier model can offer:

• Reduced dependency on one production and logistics network
• Access to different regional strengths
• Access to specialist product capabilities
• Greater flexibility where suppliers have coverage gaps
• Continued commercial comparison

The choice need not be binary. A buyer may appoint one strategic primary supplier and retain approved secondary suppliers for selected regions, products or contingencies.

2. Should suppliers be assigned by vessel, port or product group?

Once the supplier portfolio is defined, assignments must be decided.

Assigning one supplier or brand to each vessel can simplify onboard handling, reduce ambiguity and limit product changes. However, assignments could also be divided by:

• Geographic region or port cluster
• Major and minor lubricant grades
• Product family or technical application
• Vessel type
• Supplier specialisation

Regional allocation can reflect differences in production and logistics networks, while product-based allocation can make better use of technical specialisation. Separating bulk engine oils from packaged speciality products may also reflect their different supply and handling requirements.

The trade-off is complexity. Several brands on one vessel increase requirements around product identification, storage, compatibility assessment, crew guidance and remaining-on-board management.

The objective is to place each supplier where it creates the most value without introducing disproportionate friction.

3. Fixed pricing, index-linked pricing or a hybrid model?

Index-linked pricing can reflect market developments and allow buyers to benefit when selected inputs decline. But finished lubricant prices are not determined by a single base-oil reference, so the formula, cost components and adjustment process must be clearly agreed.

Possible models include:

• Fixed pricing for an agreed period
• Full or partial indexation
• A weighted basket of indices
• A hybrid model with fixed and variable components
• Caps, floors or reopening clauses for exceptional movements

Frequent adjustments require clear version control, validity periods and digitally readable price lists. Indexation improves transparency only when both the formula and the resulting prices are equally clear.

4. What contract duration and extension mechanism is appropriate?

A shorter agreement lets the buyer test the market more often and respond to changing supplier capabilities. It also creates more tendering and implementation work and may force renegotiation at an unfavourable point in the market cycle.

A longer agreement provides continuity and supports investment in integration, data quality and operational improvement. It also increases lock-in if performance or competitiveness declines.

Extension options can balance these considerations. A two-year agreement could include extension options linked to notice periods, performance reviews or commercial adjustments, providing flexibility without making renewal automatic.

Contract duration should reflect both the preferred negotiation cycle and the time needed to implement meaningful improvements.

5. What should the modus operandi be?

Traditional contracts are detailed on products, prices and legal terms but often less precise on day-to-day cooperation. A modern agreement should also define how buyer and supplier exchange information, execute transactions and manage exceptions.

A modular structure could separate the principal legal terms from:

• An operational schedule
• A data and integration schedule
• Product, port and pricing schedules
• A KPI and governance schedule

This allows procedures and technical formats to evolve without reopening the entire agreement.

The framework could cover data standards, forecasts, order and confirmation channels, price-list updates, response times, shortages, substitutions, partial deliveries, alternative ports and escalation procedures. It should also clarify how supplier data connects with the buyer’s procurement environment.

The contract should define not only what the parties buy and sell, but also how they exchange information and manage exceptions.

6. Which key performance indicators should be shared?

Performance should be managed through a shared scorecard rather than only through supplier penalties. The aim is to understand where either party can improve.

Possible supplier KPIs include:

• On-time, in-full delivery
• Offer and order-confirmation times
• Product and port availability
• Price and invoice accuracy
• Timeliness of shortage notifications
• Exception or claim resolution time

Possible buyer KPIs include:

• Orders placed within agreed lead times
• Forecast accuracy
• Completeness of order information
• Late changes or cancellations
• Timeliness of schedule and ROB updates

Each KPI needs a clear definition, data source, owner and review frequency. Shared KPIs make reciprocity measurable and recognise that not every service failure starts with the supplier.

7. Which improvement objectives should be shared?

A two- to four-year agreement should not assume that the processes and technologies in place at contract award will remain sufficient until expiry.

A common roadmap could define the operational outcomes both parties want to achieve and how suitable solutions will be evaluated, without committing either side to a particular technology too early.

Potential initiatives include:

• Availability visibility for key products and ports
• Machine-readable and version-controlled price lists
• A common product catalogue with successor relationships
• Automated order and confirmation exchange
• Standard APIs or other structured integration methods
• Better demand-forecast exchange
• Reduced manual order corrections
• Improved exception and claims workflows
• Product-range rationalisation
• Joint sustainability or reporting initiatives

Artificial intelligence may support some initiatives, but “implement AI” is not a useful objective in itself. The agreement should define the problem, desired outcome and measure of success while leaving room to select the appropriate technology.

Renew the operating model, not only the terms

Contract renewal is an opportunity to reconsider the complete commercial and operational relationship.

What matters is that these choices are deliberate and workable in daily procurement. The agreement should clarify both parties’ roles, define how performance will be assessed and create room for improvement over time.

The result is not necessarily a longer or more complicated contract. It is a more complete one.

‍