FCBCO helps companies select and evaluate 3PL providers, resolve problems with existing 3PL relationships, review pricing and contracts, and make informed decisions about outsourcing fulfillment.
| Decades of 3PL Consulting Experience | Completely 3PL Vendor Independent | Hundreds of 3PL Clients Assisted | Experience Across Diverse Operations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Helping companies make better 3PL outsourcing decisions. | FCBCO receives no referral fees or commissions from 3PLs , ever. | Supporting existing facilities, expansions, new buildings and complex distribution operations. | Retail, ecommerce, multichannel, wholesale, manufacturing and critical parts distribution. |
F. Curtis Barry & Company
3PL Consultants
Questions About Your 3PL Strategy?
Discuss your situation with an independent 3PL consultant.
FCBCO helps companies select and evaluate 3PL providers, resolve problems with existing 3PL relationships, review pricing and contracts, and make informed decisions about outsourced fulfillment and 3PL strategy.
A 3PL consultant helps companies make better decisions about outsourced fulfillment, including selecting a new provider, evaluating or repairing an existing 3PL relationship, reviewing pricing and contracts, and determining whether outsourcing is the right operating model.
FCBCO provides independent 3PL consulting that combines operational, financial and contractual analysis before recommending whether to stay, renegotiate, rebid, replace or change fulfillment strategies.
Companies typically engage FCBCO when they need an objective answer about what to do next with fulfillment.
Sometimes the situation is straightforward: the company has decided it needs a new 3PL and wants help identifying, evaluating and selecting the right provider. In other situations, the company is already working with a 3PL, but service, pricing, invoicing, inventory accuracy or communication has deteriorated and management is unsure whether the relationship can be repaired.
A 3PL consultant can also be valuable when a 3PL contract is approaching renewal and the company wants to benchmark the market, evaluate current 3PL pricing, review service levels or determine whether the existing commercial terms still make sense.
Less frequently, the question is about the fulfillment model itself. A company may be deciding whether to continue operating fulfillment internally or outsource some or all of the operation. Conversely, a company already using a 3PL may reach a point where bringing fulfillment back in-house deserves consideration.
These situations require different analyses. FCBCO does not begin with the assumption that changing providers, outsourcing or staying with the current 3PL is automatically the right answer. We begin by understanding the operating, financial and contractual facts well enough to determine the best path forward.
Selecting a 3PL should begin with understanding the business, not with calling providers.
Before a qualified bid process begins, FCBCO works to understand how the operation functions today, how the business is expected to change, what makes the company unique and what management expects from a 3PL relationship.
Order volumes, SKU characteristics, seasonality, customer requirements, systems, service expectations, special handling needs and growth plans can all influence which providers should be considered.
A provider can be an excellent 3PL and still be a poor fit for a particular company. The objective is not to find the largest provider, the lowest-priced provider or the company with the strongest sales presentation. It is to identify providers whose capabilities, operating model, systems, facilities and management approach align with the client's actual requirements.
Poor performance does not automatically mean a company should replace its 3PL.
When an existing relationship is struggling, FCBCO first works to determine what is actually happening, what is causing the problem and who owns it.
That requires looking beyond the symptoms. We want to understand the 3PL itself, where the client is in the contract term, what problems are occurring, what both parties believe is causing them, what corrective actions have already been attempted and whether those actions have produced measurable improvement.
We also determine whether the problem is entirely the 3PL's responsibility or whether the client may be contributing to it. In some cases, volumes, operating requirements or business processes were not represented accurately during the original sales process. In others, the provider misunderstood the operation, pricing structure or level of support required.
Only after the facts are established should management decide whether to repair the relationship, renegotiate terms, test the market or begin planning an exit.
Contract renewal is an opportunity to evaluate the relationship rather than simply extend it.
FCBCO can help determine whether current pricing is still appropriate for the client's volumes and operating profile, whether the statement of work still reflects the business, whether the service-level agreements provide meaningful protection and whether the master services agreement remains balanced and reasonable.
The answer is not necessarily to change providers.
A strong incumbent 3PL with competitive pricing, acceptable service and a workable contract may still be the best option. But a renewal should not happen simply because changing providers is difficult or because the relationship has existed for years.
Benchmarking the market and understanding available alternatives gives management a stronger basis for deciding whether to renew, renegotiate or run a competitive 3PL selection process.
Some companies reach a point where the question is not which 3PL to use, but whether a 3PL should be used at all.
A growing company may be trying to determine whether it should continue operating fulfillment internally or outsource some or all of the operation to a 3PL. The decision may be influenced by labor availability, warehouse capacity, systems, capital requirements, management bandwidth, service expectations or the economics of the current operation.
The opposite decision can also arise. A company already using a 3PL may eventually reach a scale or level of complexity where bringing some or all of the operation back in-house deserves consideration.
FCBCO evaluates these alternatives based on economics, operational capability, risk and long-term business requirements rather than beginning with a predetermined answer.
A qualified 3PL selection process starts with the business—not with a list of providers.
One of the most common mistakes FCBCO sees is a company beginning discussions with a 3PL it knows, was referred to or simply feels comfortable with before clearly defining what the operation requires.
The provider may be capable and the conversations may go well, but that does not necessarily mean the 3PL is the right fit.
FCBCO first develops a clear understanding of the existing operation, expected future changes and the characteristics that make the business different. Those requirements help determine which 3PLs should be invited into the process, what they need to price, how their proposals should be evaluated and what ultimately needs to appear in the statement of work and service-level agreements.
In some cases, this analysis can also reveal that certain characteristics of the business do not fit particularly well with many traditional 3PL operating models. Identifying that before the selection process begins can prevent a company from moving to another provider that ultimately struggles with the same requirements.
Every meaningful 3PL decision should begin with a documented understanding of what the provider will actually be expected to do.
FCBCO evaluates the current operation as well as how the business is likely to change. Depending on the client, that analysis may include:
A requirement that appears minor to the client can materially affect how a 3PL needs to design, staff or price the operation.
These requirements become the foundation for provider pre-qualification, the RFP, pricing comparisons, the statement of work and service-level expectations.
Not every good 3PL is a good fit for every company.
Once FCBCO understands the operating requirements, we can begin identifying providers whose capabilities align with the business.
Provider size, geographic footprint, industry experience, systems capabilities, warehouse network, operational strengths, management resources and ability to support future growth all matter.
The objective is not to invite as many 3PLs as possible into the process. It is to create a competitive field of providers that have a credible ability to support the client's requirements.
The quality of the final selection depends heavily on the quality of the providers allowed into the process in the first place.
A 3PL RFP should provide every participating provider with a consistent and sufficiently detailed picture of the business.
Without that discipline, the proposals may not be meaningfully comparable.
One provider may make one assumption about volumes, another may interpret a process differently, and a third may include services that another provider excluded from its pricing. The proposals can appear comparable even though the providers are bidding on different versions of the business.
FCBCO develops the RFP around documented volumes, processes, service requirements, systems, operating expectations and other relevant business characteristics so participating 3PLs are responding to the same core requirements.
The goal is not simply to collect multiple prices.
The goal is to create a competitive process that allows management to make a defensible comparison between qualified alternatives.
Receiving several proposals does not automatically create a meaningful price comparison.
3PLs may use different pricing structures, assumptions and operating approaches. Charges can be structured differently for receiving, storage, order processing, picking, packing, value-added services, returns and other activities. Minimums and accessorial charges may also materially affect total cost.
FCBCO works to understand and normalize those differences against the client's expected operating profile.
The important question is not simply which provider quoted the lowest individual rates.
It is what each proposal is likely to cost for the work the client will actually require the 3PL to perform.
Price is important, but selecting a 3PL solely because it submitted the lowest proposal can be a costly mistake.
A provider that appears somewhat more expensive may offer stronger operations, more stable management, better systems, greater scalability or a better ability to support the client's growth. Those capabilities can create significant value.
A lower-priced provider that cannot consistently support the operation may create service failures, customer problems, management distraction and unexpected costs. If the relationship ultimately fails, the company may also face the expense and disruption of another 3PL selection and transition.
FCBCO helps management evaluate the value and risk associated with each alternative rather than simply ranking proposals from lowest to highest price.
A strong sales presentation does not prove that the proposed operation will work.
This is where FCBCO's warehouse and distribution experience becomes especially important.
We want to understand how the provider intends to receive, store, replenish, pick, pack and ship the client's products; what systems and processes will support the operation; how the facility will absorb the volume; and whether the proposed approach makes sense for the client's actual requirements.
The management team and operating environment also matter.
High turnover among warehouse employees, account managers or facility general managers does not automatically disqualify a provider, but it is a warning sign worth investigating. Management continuity, workforce stability and the ability to execute consistently can be just as important as the solution presented during the sales process.
FCBCO's role is to look beyond what is being promised and determine whether there is a credible operating model and organization behind the proposal.
Selecting a preferred provider is not the end of the 3PL decision.
The pricing, statement of work, service-level agreements and master services agreement need to accurately reflect the business evaluated during the selection process.
FCBCO reviews these elements from an operational and commercial perspective. The objective is to establish an agreement that clearly defines expectations and reasonably balances responsibilities between the client and the 3PL.
Pricing should make sense for the client's volumes, average order characteristics, SOPs, required services and operating complexity.
Rates that are materially outside reasonable industry expectations deserve additional analysis. The same is true when the assumptions embedded in the pricing do not reflect how the client's operation will actually work.
FCBCO evaluates pricing within the context of the entire proposed operation rather than simply comparing isolated rates.
The statement of work should clearly define what the 3PL is expected to perform.
Ambiguity creates problems later when the client believes a service was included but the provider interprets the requirement differently.
The more accurately the business is documented during the requirements and RFP process, the easier it becomes to develop a SOW both parties understand.
SLAs should establish realistic performance expectations based on the client's business.
FCBCO also looks carefully at what happens when those standards are not achieved.
A contract may contain numerous performance metrics, but if the 3PL has little meaningful accountability for repeatedly failing to meet them, the SLAs may provide less protection than the client assumes.
Client obligations must also be reasonable. Service levels should not depend on forecasting requirements, order cutoff times or other assumptions that do not align with how the client's business actually operates.
The MSA should reasonably balance the responsibilities and risks of both parties.
When most of the burden is placed on the client while the provider assumes little responsibility for operational failures, the agreement deserves additional scrutiny.
Termination provisions, liability, commercial obligations and other important terms also need to be understood before the relationship begins.
Not every issue requires abandoning the provider or starting negotiations over from scratch. In many cases, the documents are close enough that targeted changes can produce an arrangement that is workable and reasonable for both parties.
Poor 3PL performance does not automatically mean the provider should be replaced.
Moving from one 3PL to another can be expensive, disruptive and risky. Before recommending a change, FCBCO works to determine what is actually wrong, who owns the problem and whether there is a credible path to improvement.
The answer may be to repair the relationship. It may be to renegotiate pricing or contractual terms. It may make sense to test the market while continuing to work with the incumbent provider.
In other situations, the evidence may indicate that the relationship is unlikely to recover and management should begin preparing for a transition.
The decision should be based on facts rather than frustration.
FCBCO first wants to understand the provider itself.
Who is the 3PL? What do we know about the company? Has it recently been acquired? Has management changed? Is it losing significant accounts? Is the facility experiencing high turnover? Is the provider preparing for a warehouse move or going through a WMS conversion?
None of these conditions automatically means the client should leave.
But they can materially affect the likelihood that existing problems will improve.
A struggling operation that is also preparing for a major WMS implementation, facility move, ownership change or leadership transition may face additional disruption before conditions improve.
Where the client sits within the contract term can significantly affect the available options.
A company approaching renewal may have far more flexibility than one that recently entered a multi-year agreement. Termination provisions or other contractual obligations may also create a significant financial burden if the client leaves early.
Sometimes a relationship needs to be repaired in the short term because the cost and disruption of leaving are greater than the pain of attempting to fix it.
That does not necessarily mean the existing provider is the best long-term 3PL. It means the timing and economics of the decision need to be considered along with operational performance.
The client's explanation of the problem is an important starting point, but it should not automatically be treated as the final answer.
FCBCO wants to understand what is occurring, what the client believes is causing it, what the 3PL believes is causing it and what the evidence shows.
Sometimes the problem clearly belongs to the provider.
Other times both parties have contributed.
The client may have materially misrepresented volumes or operating requirements during the original sales process, or the business may have changed substantially since implementation. The 3PL may have misunderstood the operation, underestimated the resources required or built its pricing around assumptions that did not prove accurate.
Understanding how the problem developed is essential before determining how it should be corrected.
The history of corrective actions can reveal a great deal about whether a relationship is recoverable.
What conversations have already occurred? What improvements were proposed? Were the corrective actions actually implemented? Did performance improve?
A provider that acknowledges problems, suggests meaningful improvements and identifies reasonable changes the client can also make is demonstrating a willingness to work toward a solution.
But a 3PL saying it has a plan is not enough.
FCBCO evaluates whether the proposed corrective actions are likely to solve the problem based on our experience designing, assessing and optimizing warehouse and distribution operations.
A troubled 3PL relationship may be worth repairing when there is still a credible path forward.
The provider may be actively proposing corrective actions. The client may also have changes it can make. FCBCO may determine that the proposed operational solution is reasonable and likely to correct the underlying problem.
In other cases, some of the conflict results from expectations that do not align with normal 3PL operations. Helping the client understand those realities and bringing the expectations of both parties back into alignment may be more practical than changing providers.
Contract economics also matter.
If leaving creates a significant financial burden while the underlying operational problems can reasonably be corrected, repairing the relationship may be the better near-term business decision.
A relationship being fixable does not necessarily mean it is ideal.
Sometimes the best course of action is to stabilize the operation, correct immediate problems and improve the commercial relationship while management evaluates the longer-term alternatives.
Bad performance alone is not the only indication that a 3PL relationship may be approaching the end.
Behavioral, organizational and commercial signals can be equally important.
FCBCO becomes more concerned when the provider begins pushing for substantial repricing, starts questioning whether the client's business is still a good fit for its operation, or repeatedly falls back on contract language instead of working collaboratively to correct the problems.
Pricing or contract terms that are materially outside reasonable expectations also deserve attention.
Operational instability can be another warning sign. High turnover among floor employees, account managers or facility general managers may indicate deeper issues within the operation. An acquisition, management change, warehouse relocation or major WMS conversion can introduce additional risk into a relationship that is already struggling.
The impact on the client's customers and business is critical as well.
If service failures are materially damaging the business and repeated corrective actions have failed, the cost of continuing the relationship may eventually become greater than the risk of changing providers.
No single warning sign automatically means a company should leave its 3PL.
The concern becomes much greater when operational failures, organizational instability, commercial misalignment and an unwillingness or inability to correct problems begin occurring together.
Not every company that can outsource fulfillment should do so.
Some companies reach a point where growth, labor availability, warehouse capacity, systems requirements, capital needs or management demands make outsourced fulfillment worth evaluating.
Others may have operating characteristics or economics that continue to favor an internal operation.
FCBCO compares the alternatives based on the requirements of the business rather than beginning with the assumption that outsourcing is inherently better.
The analysis may consider operating costs, facility capacity, labor, management resources, technology, capital requirements, customer service expectations, operational complexity, implementation risk and future growth.
The answer may also involve outsourcing only part of the business rather than the entire fulfillment operation.
Management should understand the economics, capabilities and risks of both alternatives before changing the operating model.
Outsourcing does not have to be a permanent decision.
A company that originally lacked the scale, facility, systems, labor or management resources to operate fulfillment efficiently may look very different several years later.
Growth can change the economics. Customer requirements may change. Fulfillment may become strategically important enough that management wants greater direct control.
That does not mean dissatisfaction with a 3PL automatically justifies bringing fulfillment back in-house.
FCBCO evaluates the facility requirements, labor, systems, management resources, capital investment, operating costs and transition risks required to rebuild an internal operation.
The question is whether the economics and strategic benefits justify bringing fulfillment back under direct control—or whether improving or replacing the existing 3PL remains the better alternative.
Although every engagement is different, FCBCO follows a consistent consulting principle:
Understand the business. Establish the facts. Define the requirements. Evaluate the alternatives. Understand the financial and operational implications. Then recommend the path that best supports the client's business.
We do not begin with a predetermined recommendation.
For a 3PL selection engagement, that may mean moving from business requirements through provider pre-qualification, RFP development, proposal analysis, operational evaluation, pricing comparison, contract considerations and transition planning.
For a troubled existing relationship, the work may begin with operational performance, pricing, invoicing, SLA performance, contract obligations, the SOW and the corrective actions already attempted.
The analysis then determines whether the better path is to repair, renegotiate, rebid or replace the relationship.
For outsourcing and insourcing decisions, FCBCO compares the economics, operational requirements, risks and resources associated with the alternatives.
The methodology changes with the problem.
The objective does not: give management enough independent analysis to make a confident decision.
FCBCO's role is not simply to participate in meetings or provide general advice.
Depending on the scope of the engagement, management may receive:
The specific deliverables should support the decision management is trying to make rather than forcing every client through the same consulting process.
A company making a significant 3PL decision needs advice based on what is right for the business.
FCBCO is not engaged to find a reason to change 3PLs.
We are engaged to determine the right decision.
That may mean selecting a new provider. It may mean staying with the incumbent and correcting the underlying problems. It may mean renegotiating pricing or contract terms, competitively bidding the business, outsourcing fulfillment for the first time or bringing an outsourced operation back in-house.
FCBCO's warehousing and distribution consulting experience also allows us to evaluate more than pricing spreadsheets and contract language.
We can assess whether a proposed operating process, facility, systems approach, labor plan or corrective action is likely to work in the warehouse.
That combination of operational, financial and contractual analysis helps management understand not only what each alternative costs, but whether it is likely to succeed.
A 3PL consultant helps companies make better decisions about outsourced fulfillment, including selecting a new provider, evaluating or repairing an existing 3PL relationship, reviewing pricing and contracts, and determining whether outsourcing is the right operating model.
A company may benefit from a 3PL consultant when selecting a provider, approaching a contract renewal, experiencing service or pricing problems with an existing 3PL, benchmarking the market or deciding whether fulfillment should be outsourced or operated internally.
The process should begin by clearly defining the company's operating requirements and future needs. Providers capable of supporting those requirements should then be pre-qualified and given a consistent RFP so their proposed operations, pricing, service levels and commercial terms can be compared on a meaningful basis.
Not necessarily. The first step is to determine the root cause of the problem, who owns it, what corrective actions have already been attempted, whether a credible solution exists and what contractual or financial implications would result from leaving. Some relationships can be repaired while others warrant a new 3PL search.
3PL pricing should be evaluated against the client's actual volumes, order characteristics, required services, SOPs and operating complexity. Individual rates can be misleading when providers use different pricing structures or assumptions, so the expected cost of supporting the client's actual business should be compared.
A 3PL RFP should provide participating providers with consistent information about the business, including relevant volumes, order and inventory profiles, operating processes, service requirements, systems, special handling requirements and future expectations. The objective is to ensure each provider develops its proposal from the same core assumptions.
No. Price is an important part of the decision, but the lowest-priced provider may not offer the operational stability, systems, management resources or scalability the client needs. A lower initial price can become significantly more expensive if poor service, operational failures or another provider transition follows.
Whether you are selecting a new 3PL, dealing with problems at an existing provider, approaching contract renewal or reconsidering your fulfillment strategy, the first step is understanding the facts and alternatives before committing to a direction.
FCBCO can help evaluate the operational, financial and contractual issues, identify realistic alternatives and develop a practical path forward.
Talk with FCBCO about your 3PL situation.
804.740.8743
2400 Old Brick Road, Glen Allen, VA 23060
Copyright 2026. All Rights Reserved.
