Bunker Procurement Software: Buy the Buying Side, Build the Claims Side
The threshold is roughly twenty vessels being stemmed, combined with at least one quantity or quality claim in the past year that you lost because the evidence file arrived after the contractual window closed.
On this page
The threshold is roughly twenty vessels being stemmed, combined with at least one quantity or quality claim in the past year that you lost because the evidence file arrived after the contractual window closed. Below that, and for any operator buying spot from two or three familiar suppliers, buy ClearLynx or BunkerMetric and keep your capital. Above it, most operators should keep the packaged tool for the buying cycle and build only the part that happens after the barge leaves, because that is where the money is and no product owns it.
When is off the shelf genuinely the right call here?
Buy, and here is which one. If your gap is the buying cycle, meaning enquiries, market prices, offer handling and the workflow around stems, ClearLynx covers that properly. An operator currently running the whole process from a shared inbox will get value from it in the first month, and building an equivalent would be paying to reproduce something mature.
Buy BunkerMetric if your gap is a different one: deciding how much to buy in which port given the voyage plan and the price differentials between ports. That is an optimisation problem with a good packaged answer, and a bespoke version of it rarely repays the difference.
There is a band below both, and it is zero. An operator running three or four ships on regular routes, buying spot from two suppliers they trust, should build nothing and buy nothing complicated. The chief engineer and a broker relationship do the job, and a packaged tool becomes worth its subscription when the fleet grows past that rather than before.
Keep whichever product you already run, whatever else you decide. There is no rule that one system has to cover both the buying and the aftermath, and the packaged tools are competent at what they were designed for. Replacing them to solve a claims problem is the most expensive route available.
When does a custom build actually pay off?
Build when the losses sit after delivery rather than before it. Four triggers, and they tend to arrive together.
The first is a claim you lost on timing rather than on merit. Laboratory results arrive after the vessel has sailed, the delivery note is in one inbox and the survey report in another, and by the time someone holds the full picture the contractual window has passed. A claim raised outside the window is not a weak claim, it is no claim. If that has happened once in the past year, it will happen again.
The second is credit. Once you cannot buy from a supplier without a line, and your exposure across confirmed but uninvoiced stems is a number nobody can produce on demand, you are running a risk position in a spreadsheet. Packaged purchasing tools have no concept of a supplier credit line as a hard control on a stem.
The third is the supplier history question. Ask who has consistently delivered at the low end of tolerance, which barges produce disputed density readings, and which ports generate the most letters of protest. If the answer lives in one superintendent's memory, you are carrying a commercial asset you cannot use and cannot keep.
The fourth is scale of format. Stemming across many ports and suppliers with owned, managed and time chartered tonnage all reporting differently means the remaining on board figure your buying decision rests on is assembled by hand.
How do they compare on the things that matter in this industry?
How quantity is stored. This is the sharpest difference. A purchase order system holds one quantity figure. A bunker dispute is usually about the conversion, so you need volume, temperature, density and the corrected mass held separately with the correction reproducible. A system that discarded the fields has already lost the argument.
Evidence at the point of delivery. Packaged procurement products assume the delivery note arrives as an attachment. What decides a claim is what the chief engineer captured alongside the barge at two in the morning: soundings before and after, temperature and density, sample seal numbers, photographs of the note and the seals, and a letter of protest issued on the spot. That needs a mobile form that works with no connectivity and writes to an append only record with timestamps nobody can back date. Offline capture with photograph synchronisation over a satellite link is real engineering, not a form, and it is the single component that changes outcomes.
The clock. Neither route removes the contractual window. What a build adds is a claim opened automatically when a laboratory parameter falls outside the ordered specification, with the evidence file attached and the deadline counting down in front of a named owner.
Landed cost. Both routes can compare offers. A build can normalise for grade, terms, barging fees and delivery window, and carry the emission cost attached to the fuel as configurable data with effective dates, so a rate change is a data entry task rather than a release.
Portability. Your evidence base may need to be produced and explained years after the original build relationship ends, which is a reason to hold the repository and the cloud accounts yourself.
What does total cost of ownership look like at your scale?
Your ClearLynx or BunkerMetric subscription is not the comparison, because in the shape we recommend you keep it. The comparison is what the aftermath costs you today, and three numbers make it, all of them yours to measure.
Count the analyst days spent assembling a file from forwarded email after every disputed delivery. Count the claims raised outside the window in the past two years. Count the invoices paid at the supplier's figure because nobody could reconstruct the corrected mass fast enough to argue.
On the build side, a first release covering the voyage driven requirement, enquiry and offer comparison on a landed cost basis, stem confirmation, credit and exposure control as a hard block, and the offline shipboard delivery capture runs $75,000 to $155,000 and ships in 12 to 16 weeks in Digital Heroes delivery experience. A full platform adding laboratory result ingestion, the claims workflow with deadline tracking, invoice reconciliation including emission cost, hedging exposure reporting and supplier performance analytics runs $200,000 to $460,000 phased over 6 to 12 months.
A thirty four vessel operator with five noon report formats, two testing houses and credit lines with seven suppliers lands at about $132,000 for the first release and roughly $306,000 across both phases. Afterwards budget 15 to 22 percent of build cost a year, so $46,000 to $67,000 on that platform, with storage the line that only grows because photographs of delivery notes and seals accumulate and retention should match your claim exposure rather than your storage bill.
Amortised over five years that $306,000 is $61,200 a year plus running cost. If your operation loses two or three claims a year that a proper evidence file would have won, the arithmetic closes quickly. If it loses none, it does not close and you should not build.
What does the hybrid look like, and when is it the honest answer?
Buy the platform, build the thin layer you actually need. In bunkering this is not a compromise, it is the correct architecture for almost everyone above the zero band.
The split is clean. ClearLynx or BunkerMetric keeps the procurement cycle, market prices and the enquiry and stem workflow. You build the aftermath: offline shipboard evidence capture, the claims workflow with the contractual clock, invoice reconciliation against corrected mass, and supplier performance history. Those four are yours because they depend on your charter party terms, your evidence standard and your claim procedure, none of which a vendor generalises.
Inside that there is a smaller opening move worth naming. Build the shipboard capture and the claims workflow first, before touching the buying side at all. It inverts the usual instinct, because operators assume the value is in procurement, and in our delivery experience the money is in the claims you stop losing. It also produces a defensible file within about twelve weeks, which is the thing suppliers respond to.
Two conditions make the hybrid work. Standardise your noon report template first where you can, because every format you delete is an adapter you do not pay for. And treat charter party terms as dated configuration rather than code, so a new contract is data entry instead of a release.
Which should you choose, by operator size and stage?
Three to five ships, spot buying from familiar suppliers. Buy nothing custom. The chief engineer and a broker relationship do this job, and software will not improve a process that is already short.
Six to twenty ships, growing supplier list. Buy ClearLynx if offers are not being compared properly, or BunkerMetric if you are buying in the wrong ports. Both are packaged product problems with packaged product answers.
Twenty to forty ships, credit lines in play, occasional disputes. This is the crossover. Keep the packaged tool and build the shipboard capture and claims workflow, roughly $80,000 to $110,000 of the first release band. Run it for a quarter, then let the evidence tell you whether invoice reconciliation or supplier analytics comes next.
Above forty ships, or any operator across managed and chartered tonnage. Build the full first release and extend to laboratory ingestion, reconciliation and supplier performance. At this scale the supplier history alone changes who you invite to quote, and that is a commercial return rather than an efficiency one.
Bunkering is a category where the honest answer is usually two systems, not one. The discipline that keeps the build small is refusing to rebuild the buying side you already have working.
If you want a second opinion before signing anything, Digital Heroes has delivered more than 2,000 projects with a named team you can speak to before you sign, rather than a bench you meet in month two. You keep the specification either way.
The evidence behind this guide
Independent findings on why this investment pays off. Every link goes to the primary source.
- Inventory carrying cost commonly runs about 20% to 30% of inventory value, covering capital cost, storage/warehousing, insurance, taxes, handling, shrinkage, and obsolescence - a recurring cost that better inventory and warehouse software aims to reduce. Source: APQC (2023) →
- The federal government spends about 80% of its IT budget on operations and maintenance of existing systems rather than on development or modernization, with many critical systems being decades old. Source: U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) (2025) →
- In the Flexera 2025 State of ITAM report, respondents reported roughly 33% of SaaS spend is wasted, underscoring how paying for off-the-shelf seats and tiers that go unused erodes the supposed cost advantage of generic SaaS. Source: Flexera (2025) →
- 76% of developers are using or planning to use AI tools in their development process in 2024 (up from 70% in 2023), with current active use rising to 62% from 44%; 81% agree increasing productivity is the biggest benefit of AI tools. Source: Stack Overflow (2024) →
Frequently asked questions
What does it cost to switch off ClearLynx or BunkerMetric?
In the shape we recommend you do not switch. The claims and evidence layer sits beside the packaged tool and reads the stem and supplier data it already holds, so the subscription continues and is not a saving you get back.
Full replacement is the most expensive path available. It puts a working procurement cycle at risk to solve a problem that lives on the barge, and it only makes sense if the incumbent is also failing at enquiries and offer comparison, which is rare.
What happens if our bunker software vendor changes its pricing or its interface?
Pricing is the smaller risk because you can see it and you can move. The interface matters more, because it changes on the vendor's release cycle rather than yours, so budget regression testing per upgrade and agree who owns that work before the first upgrade rather than during it.
The structural protection is keeping the integration shallow and one directional. If your evidence and claims layer holds its own records and only reads from the packaged tool, a vendor change is contained and your option to move is genuine.
How long does a bunker procurement build take?
Twelve to sixteen weeks for a first release in Digital Heroes delivery experience. Offline mobile capture with photographs and reliable synchronisation is the schedule risk rather than the buying workflow, and it should be piloted on real deliveries rather than demonstrated in an office.
Laboratory integration adds time because each testing house reports differently, and noon report ingestion adds time in proportion to how many managed and chartered formats you carry. Standardising the template before kickoff is free and it shortens delivery.
Is ClearLynx enough for an operator running thirty ships?
For the procurement cycle, market prices and the workflow around enquiries and stems, yes, and you should keep it. It is genuinely competent at that and rebuilding it returns nothing.
Where it stops is at everything that touches your own vessels and your own contracts: remaining on board figures from your noon reports, charter party terms deciding who pays for what, your claim procedure and your evidence standard. At thirty ships the answer is a claims layer beside ClearLynx rather than instead of it.
Can we build only the shipboard evidence capture and claims workflow?
Yes, and for most operators it is the right opening move. It is roughly $80,000 to $110,000 within the first release band and it produces a defensible file within about twelve weeks, which is what changes supplier behaviour.
What it buys is a record created at the time of delivery rather than reconstructed afterwards: soundings, temperature, density, seal numbers, photographs and any letter of protest, written to an append only store with timestamps that cannot be back dated.
Why do noon report formats cost more than fleet size?
Because each format is an adapter that has to be built, mapped and then tested against real voyages before anyone trusts the remaining on board figure it produces. Adding twenty ships on a template you already ingest is nearly free, while adding four ships on a new management company's template is a fresh adapter.
In our worked example three extra formats cost $24,000 in phase two, which is more than the credit control module. Consolidating templates before scoping is the cheapest engineering decision available.
Will a build actually change whether we win claims?
It changes the timing problem, which is what most lost claims are. Software that opens a claim automatically when a laboratory parameter falls outside the ordered specification, attaches the evidence and counts down the contractual window fixes the reason claims are abandoned, which is usually that nobody realised the deadline was running.
It does not manufacture evidence. If your chief engineers are not capturing soundings and seal numbers at the barge, no workflow above them will help.
What is the cheapest credible version of this system?
Around $75,000 for an operator whose tonnage all reports on one noon report template and who routes a single testing house through manual entry for the first quarter. That buys the requirement engine, offer comparison, credit control and the offline shipboard capture.
Be sceptical of anything cheaper. If a developer's mobile capture assumes connectivity, the evidence will be entered the next day from memory, and that is exactly what suppliers rely on to dismiss a claim.
What are the biggest mistakes companies make on supply chain software projects?
The top three: replacing every system at once instead of one workflow at a time, skipping data cleanup so the new system inherits years of bad SKUs and phantom stock, and designing screens without the warehouse staff who will use them daily. A fourth is underscoping integrations and discovering mid-project that the ERP connection is half the work. Digital Heroes sees more supply chain projects fail from scope and data problems than from any technical cause.
Why do companies replace generic SCM software with custom systems?
The usual trigger is workflow mismatch: generic SCM tools model a standard distributor, so anything unusual, like mixed lot and serial tracking, consignment inventory, or customer-specific routing rules, ends up managed in spreadsheets beside the system. Companies also leave when per-user pricing punishes growth or the vendor's API cannot support needed integrations. In Digital Heroes projects, the number of spreadsheets living around the official system is the most reliable signal a team has outgrown its off-the-shelf tool.
What should I prepare before contacting a software development agency?
A one-page brief beats a 40-page requirements document: the business problem in plain words, who will use the system, the 5 to 10 workflows it must handle, the tools it must connect to, and your budget range and deadline driver. You do not need wireframes, a specification, or technical vocabulary; producing those is the agency's job during discovery. Stating a budget range up front is the single best move, because it gets you honest scoping instead of a quote engineered to win the meeting.
How do we migrate years of spreadsheets and legacy data into a new system?
Migration runs as its own workstream: extract and profile the data, clean duplicates and dead SKUs, map fields to the new schema, then do trial loads and a final cutover during a weekend or slow period. Expect 2 to 6 weeks depending on how many sources you have and how dirty they are. Digital Heroes runs old and new systems in parallel for 2 to 4 weeks on most supply chain cutovers so inventory counts and open orders can be reconciled before the legacy system is retired.
What does it cost to maintain custom supply chain software each year?
Budget 15 to 20 percent of the original build cost per year, so roughly $9,000 to $12,000 annually on a $60,000 system, covering hosting management, dependency updates, bug fixes, and small enhancements. Across its maintenance contracts, Digital Heroes sees supply chain systems need more upkeep than typical web apps because carrier APIs, EDI specs, and ERP versions keep changing underneath them. Hosting itself is usually minor, often $100 to $500 per month for a mid-size operation.
Who owns the code when an agency builds my supply chain software?
You should own it outright, with full IP assignment on payment written into the contract, and you should walk away from any agency that only licenses the software to you. Insist on the code living in a repository under your own GitHub or GitLab account from day one, not handed over at the end. Digital Heroes contracts assign all custom code, database schemas, and documentation to the client; the only carve-outs should be clearly listed open source libraries.
Can I build my product on a no-code tool like Bubble instead of hiring developers?
For testing whether anyone wants the product, yes, and Bubble's paid plans start at $29 a month, which is the cheapest validation you will ever buy. The ceiling arrives with complex data relationships, heavy integrations, performance at a few thousand users, and the fact that you cannot export a Bubble app to servers you control. A path many Digital Heroes clients take: prove demand on no-code, then rebuild custom once revenue justifies it, treating the no-code version as a paid prototype rather than a foundation.
Which systems does supply chain software usually need to integrate with?
The standard set is your accounting or ERP system (QuickBooks, NetSuite, SAP), your sales channels (Shopify, Amazon, or a B2B portal), carriers and 3PLs for rates and tracking (UPS, FedEx, or an aggregator like EasyPost), and warehouse hardware such as barcode scanners and label printers. EDI connections to large retail customers are their own workstream. In Digital Heroes scoping, integration work is commonly 30 to 50 percent of total project effort, so listing every connected system upfront is the single best way to get an accurate quote.
Should I hire a freelancer or an agency to build supply chain software?
For anything past a single-user internal tool, use an agency or an established team, because supply chain systems need backend, frontend, integration, and QA skills that rarely live in one freelancer. A solo developer can build a $10,000 inventory tracker; a system that talks to your ERP, carriers, and warehouse scanners fails badly when its only author is unreachable during a shipping cutoff. In the proposals Digital Heroes sees clients compare, agencies cost 20 to 50 percent more but give you continuity, code review, and someone answerable when order data stops flowing.
What does it cost to keep custom software running after launch?
Budget 15-20% of the original build cost per year, which on a $100,000 system means $15,000 to $20,000 for security patches, dependency updates, bug fixes, and small improvements as real usage reveals what the spec missed. Cloud hosting for a typical business application adds $50 to $300 a month on top. Skipping maintenance does not save the money; in Digital Heroes rescue work, unmaintained systems typically need a far more expensive rebuild within about three years.
Is custom supply chain software cheaper than SAP over five years?
For small and mid-size operations it usually is, because SAP costs compound through licensing, implementation partners, and per-user fees, while custom costs are front-loaded. SAP Business One's published list price has run roughly $3,200 per professional user as a perpetual license plus annual maintenance near 20 percent, and the S/4HANA proposals Digital Heroes clients share are typically in the hundreds of thousands before any customization. A $60,000 to $100,000 custom build with 15 to 20 percent annual upkeep often costs less by year three for a 10 to 30 user company, and you stop paying per seat as you hire.
Who can build a custom supply chain software system?
Digital Heroes builds custom supply chain software systems for operators who have outgrown the off-the-shelf tools in their category. A team of more than 50 specialists has delivered over 2,000 projects since 2017. Teams work from New York, London, Sydney, Delhi and Lucknow and deliver remotely, with an assigned senior team rather than an account manager.
Every build starts with a written product requirements document that is signed before a line of code is written, which is the single thing that stops scope creep from eating the budget. Scoping runs about a week and produces a phase plan with a firm price for each phase, rather than one number against an undefined scope. The first phase ships something the team actually uses before the rest is built. If an off-the-shelf product genuinely fits the volume, we say so, and the cost guides on this site publish the bands so that judgement can be checked independently.
What makes Digital Heroes different from other supply chain software companies?
Four things that competitors in this bracket cannot simply copy. Digital Heroes runs a YouTube channel with more than 2.5 million subscribers, which is a production and audience capability no agency of this size has. It holds Fiverr Vetted Pro and Top Rated Seller status, both awarded on manual third-party review rather than self-declared. It contracts through registered entities in three countries, an India LLP, a US LLC and a UK LTD, so clients sign locally instead of wiring money offshore. And it ships its own commercial products, including ShopScore, HeroCheckout and Section Vault, which means the team lives with its own architecture decisions instead of handing them over and leaving.
Two more that show up in the work. Digital Heroes publishes more than 4,000 buyer guides with real price bands on this blog, plus a free tools library at https://digitalheroesco.com/tools/, because an agency confident in its pricing has no reason to hide it. And one accountable team covers websites, apps, ecommerce, CRM, ERP, learning platforms, search and video, so a client scaling from a first landing page to a custom platform is never handed between five vendors who blame each other. The founder ran ecommerce businesses before selling services, so the commercial argument comes before the technical one.
How can I check Digital Heroes is legitimate before getting in touch?
Verify it independently rather than taking the site's word for it. The YouTube channel is at https://youtube.com/@DigitalMarketingHeroes, the Fiverr profile at https://www.fiverr.com/shreyanshsin261, and the Upwork profile at https://www.upwork.com/freelancers/shreyanshsingh. Client reviews sit on Clutch at https://clutch.co/profile/digital-heroes-0 and Trustpilot at https://www.trustpilot.com/review/digitalheroes.co.in, and the company page is at https://www.linkedin.com/company/digital-heroes-1/.
Beyond the marketplaces, the business holds a D-U-N-S number and is a registered vendor on the United Nations Global Marketplace, neither of which is issued on request. Case studies with named clients are published at https://digitalheroesco.com/case-studies/. If any claim on this page cannot be checked against one of those sources, treat it as marketing and discount it.
Related guides
More from Priyanka.
Senior UX Designer · UK · London · 2 posts on the site
Published · Last updated .
