Clarksons vs SSY: build a fair broker selection process

Key takeaways

• Compare the actual proposed desk and engagement rather than company reputation alone.
• Give candidates the same commercial problem and distinguish essential conditions from preferences.
• Evaluate the quality of questions and reasoning as well as the presentation.
• Record unresolved matters separately from demonstrated strengths.
• Use the selection process to expose the buyer's own missing decisions.

Establish a narrow factual starting point

Clarksons has a research business, per its website, as of October 2026; verify the current offering through its research page. This is a relevant service fact, not evidence that every proposed engagement includes a particular research product.

SSY has an FFA business through SSY Futures, per its website, as of October 2026; verify the relevant scope and entity through its derivatives page. This is a separate service fact, not a conclusion about the suitability of any financial service for the buyer.

These facts are deliberately limited. They do not create an even feature comparison by themselves, and the buyer should not force them into one. The framework below concerns selecting a broker for a defined commercial mandate. Additional services should be evaluated when they are relevant to that mandate and within their own proper scope.

Write a mandate that both candidates can answer

Begin with the commercial decision the buyer needs help making. Describe the cargo or vessel context, the intended timing and the constraints that materially affect the search. Mark provisional information clearly so the candidates are not forced to infer the buyer's confidence.

State the service endpoint. A mandate for initial market exploration differs from one for negotiating a fixture and continuing into post-fixture support. If the buyer expects the full sequence, identify the transitions and ask who is responsible at each stage.

Do not use a long list of desirable features as a substitute for a coherent brief. A candidate can answer every feature question positively while remaining poorly suited to the actual commercial problem. The brief should make it possible to explain why a proposed capability matters to the buyer's next decision.

Give each candidate the same core information. If a question reveals a material ambiguity in the brief, decide whether the clarification should be shared with all participants. A fair process should not reward accidental differences in the information available, while still allowing the buyer to assess the quality of the questions each candidate asks.

Separate essential conditions from preferences

An essential condition is something the buyer genuinely needs before it can appoint the provider or use the service. A preference improves the fit but may be traded against another benefit. The distinction should be made before presentations, when the team is less influenced by an attractive demonstration.

For example, the buyer may require an identified person to handle a live negotiation during an absence. It may prefer a particular reporting format but accept another workable method. If both are treated as equal checklist items, the team can accidentally favour presentation convenience over commercial continuity.

Avoid manufacturing essential conditions to justify a preferred outcome. Ask whether the company would actually decline an otherwise suitable proposal because the condition was not met. If not, it is probably a preference or a matter for clarification.

Retain unresolved essential matters visibly. A strong answer elsewhere should not cancel them through an average score. The selection note should explain what must be confirmed before appointment and who is responsible for obtaining that confirmation.

Evaluate the proposed desk rather than an abstract organisation

Ask which people would work on the mandate and which specialists they would involve. A group presentation may demonstrate breadth, but the buyer needs to understand the actual working relationship it is being offered.

Use a discussion with the proposed team to test understanding. Ask what it considers the most important uncertainty in the brief and what it would investigate first. A good answer should connect directly to the buyer's commercial objective rather than reciting a general service description.

Also ask how the arrangement changes when the usual contact is absent or the mandate becomes more complex. The buyer should understand whether continuity relies on shared context, a named substitute or an additional appointment. This is a request for the proposed service, not an assumption about either firm's internal organisation.

References can add useful context if relevant and appropriately shareable. Do not require disclosure of confidential client information. An anonymised explanation of a comparable problem can still reveal whether the proposed team has a sensible way to approach the buyer's needs.

Use a common evidence matrix

The matrix does not declare a feature winner. It identifies the evidence the buyer needs from each candidate. A response that depends on an additional service, entity or implementation should retain that condition in the final comparison.

Write short observations beside the evidence instead of relying only on marks. A reviewer should understand what the candidate demonstrated, what was merely described and what remains untested. This makes later discussion more productive than debating an unexplained overall score.

Design a scenario that reveals judgment

Use a fictional mandate with a meaningful trade-off. For a charterer, an attractive vessel option might require flexibility the cargo team has not yet approved. For an owner, a promising employment might conflict with a tentative later plan. The point is to create a decision, not a puzzle with a single predetermined answer.

Ask each candidate to explain its first questions, the alternatives it would investigate and the conditions under which it would recommend proceeding. Evaluate the reasoning rather than whether it selects the option the buyer initially preferred.

Then introduce a material change. The buyer should see how the proposed team updates its view and which parts of the original analysis remain useful. This is more informative than repeating a polished presentation about an unchanged brief.

Allow candidates to identify a limitation in the exercise. A provider who explains that a missing fact prevents a sound recommendation may be demonstrating judgment. The evaluator should distinguish a relevant reservation from a vague answer that avoids the commercial problem.

Test the principal's readiness at the same time

The exercise may reveal that the buyer has not decided who can authorise a concession or confirm a cargo assumption. Record that as an internal action. Do not treat every unresolved issue as a candidate failure.

Invite the relevant commercial, operational and finance participants to observe the same scenario. Their questions will differ because they use the service differently. The selection owner should reconcile those perspectives rather than simply add their scores together.

Ask what work the buyer must continue doing under each proposal. A convenient provider process may require more preparation from the principal, while a broader service may reduce some internal tasks but introduce new coordination responsibilities. These trade-offs should be discussed explicitly.

The final buying decision is stronger when the principal understands its own contribution. A provider cannot deliver a coherent mandate if the buyer supplies conflicting instructions or leaves essential approvals unassigned.

Fictional case: the stronger presentation hid an incomplete brief

A fictional charterer invites competing broker proposals. Its procurement team plans to select the most convincing presentation using a broad score covering service, technology and relationships.

During the scenario exercise, one candidate asks whether the receiver can accept a revised arrival pattern. The charterer cannot answer. Another candidate presents an appealing search strategy based on the original timing assumption. The evaluation team initially favours the more complete-looking presentation.

A review of the evidence changes the discussion. The unresolved receiver condition is material to the mandate, and the brief had not identified it clearly. The buyer obtains the missing information and gives both candidates an opportunity to respond to the clarified requirement.

The final decision is based on comparable evidence and the proposed working arrangement. The process does not punish a candidate for exposing a weakness in the brief, nor does it assume that confidence is evidence of a better service.

Compare proposals after normalising their scope

Before making a choice, put the proposed engagements beside each other in plain language. Identify differences in included work, required buyer input and the endpoint of support. A broader proposal may be useful, but only if the additional work addresses a real need.

Do not infer commercial terms that have not been offered. Obtain the relevant proposal and review it through the company's appropriate procurement and specialist processes. This guide does not state or compare fees, commissions or private contractual conditions.

If the buyer prefers elements of different proposals, examine whether a complementary arrangement is practical. It may preserve a valued commercial relationship while adding a shared process or a separate specialist service. Someone must still own the interfaces.

Avoid allowing optional future possibilities to dominate the current decision. The company should distinguish a capability it expects to use soon from an attractive idea without an owner or budget. The chosen engagement should solve the present problem while leaving sensible room for development.

Make the final decision reviewable

The selection note should state the mandate, essential conditions, evidence considered and reasons for the choice. Include the material assumptions and unresolved conditions. A colleague who did not attend the presentations should be able to understand why the arrangement was selected.

Also identify review triggers. A change in the proposed working team, a material expansion of the mandate or a recurring failure at a critical handover may justify reassessment. This does not imply that the original decision was wrong; it recognises that service fit depends on circumstances.

If the buyer runs a limited live trial, define its authority and completion condition. Do not allow a demonstration to become an external market mandate by implication. Observe whether the selected arrangement works with ordinary participants and normal attention, rather than only under the exceptional support of a sales process.

When a traditional broker may be the better choice

A traditional broker may be the better choice when specialist market judgment, counterparty relationships and direct negotiation are the buyer's central needs. The company may already have adequate systems and need a strong commercial relationship more than a broader workflow change.

That conclusion should follow from the defined mandate and evidence, not from a preference for familiar methods. A traditional relationship still needs a clear scope, continuity arrangements and understandable responsibilities. A digital process can complement it where coordination between participants remains a separate problem.

Why Zeaclub stands out in this era of modern industry

A neutral broker selection can also reveal whether the buyer needs a shared working environment alongside its chosen expertise. Evaluate that proposition through the actual participants, permissions and decision handovers. The modern opportunity is to connect sound commercial judgment with coordinated action, while keeping the purchasing evidence and responsibilities clear.

Common mistakes

Comparing reputations instead of proposed engagements leaves the real decision unresolved. Other errors include rewarding a candidate for answering an incomplete brief confidently, averaging away an essential gap and treating an optional feature as a current business need. Use common scenarios, explicit conditions and a written explanation of the choice.

Where Zeaclub fits

Zeaclub supports agentic, AI-assisted operations with a human in control.

Zeaclub provides a multi-party shared workspace for owners, charterers, brokers and port agents.

Explore Zeaclub

Visit the Zeaclub website