AI for Proposal and Scope Generation for Logistics

The system treats them as distinct document types with different data inputs. Spot quotes pull current market rates and available carrier capacity from your TMS and generate a short-form document with a defined expiration window. Contract lane proposals pull your negotiated rate structures, volume commitments, transit time SLAs, and any dedicated equipment or dock scheduling terms, then assemble a longer-form scope document appropriate for a shipper RFP response. The workflow routes each type through the right approval path - spot quotes can often go out with minimal review, while contract proposals route to the VP of Operations before they leave the building.

Yes. Your supported EDI transaction sets - 204, 210, 214, 990, and others - along with WMS capabilities like lot tracking, cross-docking, or temperature-controlled storage are configured once as part of your operational profile. When a 3PL proposal is generated, those capabilities are pulled in automatically and formatted in language that matches what a shipper's logistics or IT team expects to see. If your capabilities change - you add a new EDI partner or expand a facility - you update the profile once and every subsequent proposal reflects it.

The system connects to your carrier compliance data - whether that lives in your TMS, a dedicated onboarding tool, or a carrier management platform - and checks FMCSA authority status, insurance COI expiration dates, and safety ratings before any carrier is referenced in a proposal. If a carrier's COI is expiring within 30 days or their authority status has changed, the system flags it before the document is finalized rather than after the shipper has already signed. This keeps your Carrier Relations team from inheriting a compliance problem that originated in a sales document.

That complexity is exactly what the system is built for. Rate logic is configured to reflect your actual pricing structure - different base rates by lane and mode, customer-tier discounts, accessorial schedules, fuel surcharge tables, and any spot-versus-contract differentials. When a proposal is triggered for a specific customer and lane combination, the system applies the correct rate logic rather than pulling a generic number. The output is a document that reflects your actual margin structure, not a placeholder that ops has to correct before the contract is signed.

The VP of Operations and other designated reviewers receive a structured approval request that shows the key operational commitments in the proposal - lane coverage, transit time guarantees, carrier assignments, accessorial terms - without requiring them to read the full document. They can approve, flag specific line items for revision, or reject with a note, all from within the workflow tool. The goal is to keep ops in control of what is being promised without making them responsible for document assembly. Proposals do not leave the system without the required sign-offs in place.

For brokers, the system is designed around available capacity at the time of quote rather than committed assets. It pulls current carrier availability and rate data from your TMS or load board integrations, generates a proposal with appropriate language around capacity confirmation timelines, and flags any carrier compliance gaps before the document goes out. Because broker proposals carry more uncertainty than asset-based quotes, the system includes configurable language around rate validity windows and capacity confirmation steps so the shipper understands what is a firm commitment and what is subject to carrier confirmation - reducing disputes after the load is tendered.