ForzaOKB

Step 4.2 — Carrier Invoice Audit

3 min read

Step 4.2 — Carrier Invoice Audit

Previous step: Step 4.1 — Document Collection Next step: Step 4.3 — Document Completeness Check and Invoicing Queue

🎯 Ideal State

Trigger: Carrier invoice received and filed in EZ-Loader load record (Step 4.1).

The audit verifies the carrier invoice matches what Forza owes per the agreed terms.

What Accounting Audits

Audit CheckWhat It Catches
Carrier rate matches signed rate confirmationCarrier billing a higher rate than agreed
Accessorials match in-transit exceptions in EZ-Loader (Step 3.6)Carrier billing detention not agreed, or omitting accessorials that were agreed
Load number / reference on invoice matches Forza loadMisapplied billing from another broker
Quick pay status matches carrier’s quick pay flag (Step 3.2)Quick pay discount correctly applied
Payee information matches EZ-Loader carrier profileFactoring company change mid-load
Invoice date reasonable relative to delivery dateStale invoice or premature billing

The Three Outcomes

Clean match. Invoice matches rate confirmation and in-transit accessorials exactly. Move to Step 4.3.

Minor discrepancy. Small difference — rounding, accessorial documented in communications but not captured in EZ-Loader. Concetta updates the load record, documents in a load note, proceeds.

Material discrepancy. Carrier billing significantly different from agreed. Concetta flags to James (Ops Manager). James investigates with the carrier. Resolution options:

  • Ask carrier to revise their invoice
  • Adjust the EZ-Loader load record (if carrier is correct and scope change was missed)
  • Dispute and pay only the agreed amount

Payee Verification — Option B Configuration

Forza’s Option B configuration (carrier as vendor name, factoring company address as payee) applies at audit. If the payee doesn’t match the EZ-Loader profile, Concetta checks whether the carrier changed factoring companies — which triggers Step 2.4a.

Owner: Concetta (audit). James (escalation on material discrepancies).

🛑 HARD GATE:

Material discrepancies prevent the load from moving to invoicing until resolved. Paying a carrier one amount and billing a Shipper based on a different assumed cost is how margin leaks.

📍 Current State

  • Concetta audits carrier invoices as part of post-delivery workflow — functioning but manually intensive.
  • Discrepancies handled case-by-case — no documented tiering (clean / minor / material) or escalation threshold.
  • Forza has not reported significant carrier invoice audit issues — suggesting process works reasonably well but without formal structure.

🚧 Gap

  1. No documented carrier invoice audit SOP.
  2. No documented discrepancy tiering (clean / minor / material) or escalation threshold.
  3. No tracked metric for discrepancy rate or audit time per load.
  4. No automation surfacing obvious discrepancies (rate mismatch, accessorial mismatch) — all comparison is human.

🛠️ Gap Closure Actions

  • Document the carrier invoice audit SOP with 6 audit checks and 3-outcome framework Owner: Casey + Concetta | Effort: Low
  • Define material discrepancy threshold (dollar or %) for James (Ops Manager) escalation Owner: Casey + Concetta + James | Effort: Policy
  • Establish discrepancy-rate metric — % of carrier invoices with minor or material discrepancies Owner: Casey + Concetta | Effort: Low
  • Evaluate EZ-Loader’s capability to surface automated discrepancy flags (rate mismatch, accessorial mismatch) Owner: Casey + James + EZ Loader support | Effort: Medium

Graph View

Backlinks