# Freight Invoice Audit in Industrial Machinery and Equipment

> Freight audit for machinery and equipment differs on freight class, oversize permits, and parts freight buried in supplier invoices. Read the full guide.

Source: https://valuexpa.com/insights/freight-invoice-audit-in-industrial-machinery-and-equipment
Publisher: ValueXPA (https://valuexpa.com)
Updated: 2026-09-05

---

Margin drift is the gap between what a vendor contract says and what the invoice actually charges. In industrial machinery and equipment, freight spend does not sit in one clean GL line. It splits across inbound component freight, outbound finished-unit shipments, and spare parts moving under service contracts, and each of those three has a different way of drifting from the rate agreement that governs it.

This page covers what is specific to machinery and equipment shippers: freight class disputes on dense, irregular-dimension freight, oversize and permit costs on finished units, and parts freight that never appears as a freight line at all because a supplier folds it into a component invoice.

## Executive Summary

Machinery and equipment companies carry three freight profiles at once: inbound components, outbound finished units, and spare parts tied to service and warranty obligations. Carriers reclassify dense or irregularly shaped machine freight against NMFC codes that were negotiated for a different product mix, and the resulting class change raises the bill without a line item that says so. Oversize and overweight shipments carry permit and escort costs that are rarely rate-carded at all, so there is no contract line to test the invoice against.

The least visible drift sits inside supplier invoices. When a component supplier ships freight-included and folds the charge into the unit price, that freight never reaches the freight GL account and never gets audited as freight, even though the terms behind it, and the markup on it, are exactly what a freight audit exists to check.

A freight invoice audit for this vertical has to pull three data sources, not one: carrier invoices, the freight class and NMFC basis on the original quote, and the landed cost detail on supplier component invoices where freight is embedded rather than billed.

## 1. How does freight invoice audit differ in industrial machinery and equipment?

**It differs because machinery freight rarely fits a clean rate card. Finished units and heavy components get reclassified against NMFC freight class codes based on density and handling, inbound component freight often arrives freight-included inside a supplier's unit price, and spare parts move under separate service-contract freight terms. A single audit has to test three distinct freight relationships instead of one lane-rate agreement.**

A distributor or a fabricator typically has one dominant freight relationship: outbound product on negotiated lanes. A machinery and equipment company has at least three running in parallel. Inbound freight brings in castings, motors, hydraulics and subassemblies, often on terms the buyer negotiated with the component supplier rather than with a carrier directly. Outbound freight moves finished units, which are frequently oversize, overweight, or both. Parts freight moves under a service or warranty contract with its own turnaround and cost terms.

Each relationship has a different document trail. Inbound freight-included terms hide the carrier invoice inside a purchase order. Outbound finished-unit freight generates a carrier invoice with class, weight, and accessorial charges that need to be checked against the original rate quote. Parts freight generates smaller, more frequent invoices that are easy to wave through individually and expensive in aggregate.

An audit built for one of these profiles misses the other two. Testing only outbound lane rates, the model that works for a distributor, leaves inbound freight-included markup and parts freight expedite fees unchecked.

## 2. Why do freight class disputes hit machinery shipments harder?

**Freight class under NMFC rules is set by density, handling difficulty, and stowability, and machine components routinely sit at the boundary between two classes. A carrier that reweighs or reclassifies a shipment after pickup changes the billed rate without changing the description on the bill of lading, so the invoice can look ordinary while charging against a different class than the one quoted.**

Freight class for general commercial goods is stable: a pallet of packaged product density rarely moves between classes shipment to shipment. Machine components do not behave the same way. A gearbox, a control cabinet, or a weldment can have low density relative to its footprint, awkward dimensions that increase handling difficulty, or packaging that changes from one shipment to the next as engineering revises a bracket or a crate design.

Carriers are entitled to reweigh and reclassify under the NMFC rules that govern the original quote, and a reclass after pickup is a legitimate carrier right, not automatically an error. The audit question is not whether reclassification happened. It is whether the reclass matches the actual freight characteristics, and whether the invoice states the class it billed against clearly enough to check.

Because the bill of lading description rarely changes even when the class does, this drift is invisible without pulling the original class code, the carrier's reweigh or inspection report where one exists, and comparing both to the invoiced class line by line.

## 3. What freight costs come with oversize and overweight equipment shipments?

**Finished machinery over standard legal dimensions or weight carries permit fees, escort or pilot car charges, and route-survey costs that a standard truckload rate card does not include. These charges are quoted shipment by shipment rather than under a blanket rate agreement, which means there is often no contract line for an audit to test the invoice against.**

A standard truckload or LTL rate agreement covers freight, fuel surcharge, and a defined accessorial list. Oversize and overweight machinery shipments add a category of cost that sits outside that agreement entirely: state-by-state permit fees, escort or pilot car charges on wide or tall loads, and route surveys where bridge or clearance limits apply. These costs are quoted per shipment because the route, the state permit fees, and the escort requirement change with origin, destination, and dimensions.

That per-shipment quoting is exactly what makes the charge hard to audit. There is no standing rate to compare the invoice against, so the check has to be against the specific quote given for that move, not a contract rate card. An invoice that bills escort charges the quote did not include, or bills permit fees for states the route did not cross, will pass a three-way match against the purchase order because the PO usually just authorizes the shipment as a lump sum.

The audit control here is a route-and-permit reconciliation: the states the load actually crossed, the permits required for each, and the escort requirement for the load's actual dimensions, checked against what was billed.

## 4. Where does freight hide inside component supplier invoices?

**When a component supplier quotes freight-included pricing, the freight cost is folded into the unit price on the purchase invoice and never appears on a freight GL line. It still carries a markup, and it is still governed by whatever freight terms the purchase agreement states, but a freight audit that only pulls carrier invoices never sees it.**

Machinery and equipment buyers commonly negotiate freight-included terms with component suppliers: the quoted unit price for a casting, a motor, or a subassembly already contains inbound transportation. This is a reasonable commercial arrangement. The problem is that it removes the freight cost from the account where a freight audit normally looks.

The purchase agreement behind a freight-included price usually states a freight basis, either a flat allowance per unit or a percentage of unit cost, and that basis is a contract term like any other. If the supplier's actual freight cost drops, because of a lane change, a volume increase, or a fuel decrease, and the unit price does not adjust, the buyer is paying embedded freight markup that has drifted from the original basis.

Finding this requires reading the component purchase agreement for its freight basis clause, not just the carrier rate card, and comparing the freight allowance embedded in the unit price against that clause. This is a document most freight audits never open, because it lives in procurement's contract file rather than the freight GL account.

## 5. How does spare parts freight differ from finished-unit freight?

**Spare parts freight is governed by service or warranty contract terms rather than the freight carrier's rate card, and it is billed in small, frequent shipments that are individually too small to review but collectively material. Expedite fees for downtime-critical parts are a recurring driver, and they are the charge least likely to be checked against the service contract's own terms.**

Finished-unit freight is large, infrequent, and visible: a small number of shipments a year, each large enough to get scrutiny. Spare parts freight is the opposite: frequent, small, and individually beneath the threshold that triggers a manual review, which is exactly what lets drift accumulate unnoticed.

The governing document for parts freight is usually a service or warranty contract, not a freight rate agreement. That contract typically states who bears expedite costs for downtime-critical parts, what response-time tier triggers air freight versus ground, and whether the customer or the equipment maker pays. An invoice that bills air freight without the downtime documentation the contract requires to trigger that tier is a contract compliance issue wearing a freight invoice.

Because each shipment is small, the audit approach has to be aggregate rather than line by line: pull a period of parts freight invoices, sort by expedite tier billed, and check that population against the service contract's trigger conditions rather than reviewing each shipment in isolation.

## 6. Which audit steps are specific to this vertical versus a general freight audit?

**A machinery-specific audit adds five steps a generic freight audit skips: comparing NMFC class history, reconciling oversize permits route by route, reading freight-included purchase agreements, checking parts freight in aggregate by expedite tier, and treating inbound, outbound, and parts freight as separate governed relationships rather than one blanket rate card covering everything the company ships.**

These steps exist because the drift in this vertical sits in places a standard carrier-invoice audit does not look: contract clauses inside procurement's files, permit quotes tied to a specific route, and expedite tiers buried in small parts invoices. Running only a carrier rate-card comparison leaves all five gaps open.

- **Pull NMFC class history:** Compare the freight class quoted at booking against the class actually billed for each machine component shipment, not just the weight.

- **Reconcile oversize permits by route:** Match permit and escort charges to the specific states and clearances the load's dimensions actually required.

- **Read [freight-included purchase agreements](/guides/post-acquisition-vendor-contract-consolidation):** Locate the freight allowance clause inside component supplier contracts and test it separately from any carrier invoice.

- **Aggregate parts freight by expedite tier:** Sort spare parts shipments by the response tier billed and check that population against service contract trigger conditions.

- **Separate inbound, outbound, and parts freight:** Audit each freight relationship against its own governing document instead of one blanket freight rate card.

## 7. What does this mean for the recovery scope on a machinery and equipment diagnostic?

**A diagnostic scoped to this vertical has to include supplier purchase agreements and service contracts alongside carrier invoices, because the largest sources of drift here are contractual, not carrier billing errors. Margin drift across a full diagnostic typically runs 1% to 3% of service vendor spend, evaluated across the whole scope of vendor categories a diagnostic reviews.**

The categories covered in a margin drift diagnostic include [freight and 3PL](/guides/indirect-spend-is-30-60-of-operating-cost-and-gets-a) alongside contract labor, MRO, and IT and professional services. For a machinery and equipment company, the freight portion of that scope needs three document sets rather than one: carrier rate agreements and invoices for outbound and inbound direct freight, [component supplier purchase agreements](/guides/post-acquisition-vendor-contract-consolidation) for freight-included terms, and service or warranty contracts for parts freight.

This is broader than the document set a freight-only audit usually pulls, and it is the reason a freight audit run in isolation on this vertical tends to miss the embedded and contractual drift described above. A diagnostic that reads all three document types alongside the invoices is checking the actual governing terms, not just the carrier's math.

The output is the same as any margin drift diagnostic: a prioritized finding by vendor and drift type. For this vertical, expect that list to include at least one finding rooted in a purchase agreement or service contract clause, not a carrier billing error, because that is where the least-audited drift in this industry sits.

For the wider pattern this sits inside, start with the [margin drift](/guides/cfo-agenda-mid-market-manufacturing) guide.

For the wider pattern this sits inside, start with the [margin drift](/guides/cfo-agenda-mid-market-manufacturing) guide. See also [the six categories drift hides in](/guides/indirect-spend-audit-categories) and [margin drift vs. legitimate price increases: how to tell them apart](/guides/margin-drift-vs-legitimate-price-increases-how-to-tell-them).

## 8. Frequently Asked Questions (People Also Ask)

### Does a standard freight audit already catch these machinery-specific issues?

No. A standard freight audit tests carrier invoices against a rate card. It does not read component supplier purchase agreements for embedded freight terms, does not reconcile oversize permits against actual routes, and does not check spare parts expedite fees against service contract trigger conditions. Those three document sets sit outside a typical freight audit's scope.

### Who is responsible for catching freight-included markup drift, procurement or AP?

Neither team owns it by default. Procurement negotiates the freight-included purchase agreement but rarely revisits its freight basis clause after signing. AP pays the invoice at the unit price without visibility into what freight allowance is embedded. The gap exists because no team's normal workflow checks the embedded allowance against the original clause.

### Can three-way matching catch an incorrect freight class reclassification?

No. Three-way matching checks the invoice against the purchase order and receipt for quantity and unit price. It does not compare the freight class billed against the class quoted at booking, because that comparison requires the original NMFC class code and the carrier's reweigh documentation, neither of which sits in the PO or receipt record.

### Do oversize permit costs get reviewed as part of a normal PO approval?

A PO for an oversize shipment usually authorizes the move as a lump sum rather than itemizing permit fees, escort charges, and route surveys. That means PO approval confirms the shipment happened, not that each itemized charge on the resulting invoice matches what the specific route and dimensions actually required.

### Why does spare parts freight get less scrutiny than finished-unit freight?

Each spare parts shipment is small enough to fall below the dollar threshold that triggers a manual review, so individual invoices pass without a second look. The service contract terms governing expedite fees also sit outside the freight GL account, in a warranty or service agreement, which most AP review does not reference.

### What document should I ask a supplier for to check freight-included pricing?

Ask for the purchase agreement's freight basis clause, whether stated as a flat per-unit allowance or a percentage of unit cost. Compare that clause against the freight allowance actually embedded in the current unit price to see whether the two still match, since suppliers do not always adjust price when their own freight cost changes.

### Is a reclassified freight charge always an error worth disputing?

Not always. Carriers have a legitimate right to reweigh and reclassify freight under NMFC rules if the shipment's actual density or handling differs from what was quoted. The audit question is whether the reclass matches the freight's real characteristics, not whether a reclass happened at all.

### How often should parts freight invoices be reviewed against the service contract?

Rather than reviewing shipments as they arrive, pull a defined period of parts freight invoices together, sort them by the expedite tier billed, and check that batch against the service contract's trigger conditions in one pass. That aggregate approach surfaces patterns that single-invoice review misses.

### What's the first document to request when starting this kind of audit?

Start with the original freight rate quote or booking record for a sample of shipments, including the class code used at quote time. That document is what the invoiced class, weight, and accessorial charges get checked against, and without it there is no baseline for the rest of the audit.

### Is contract complexity quietly draining your operating margin?

A small systematic drift between your negotiated contracts and your actual vendor billing compounds quietly across a year of invoices. Stop guessing at your exposure and run a targeted audit.

**[Take the Free Screener → https://valuexpa.com/margin-drift-screener](https://valuexpa.com/margin-drift-screener)**

## Executive Summary

Machinery and equipment companies carry three freight profiles at once: inbound components, outbound finished units, and spare parts tied to service and warranty obligations. Carriers reclassify dense or irregularly shaped machine freight against NMFC codes that were negotiated for a different product mix, and the resulting class change raises the bill without a line item that says so. Oversize and overweight shipments carry permit and escort costs that are rarely rate-carded at all, so there is no contract line to test the invoice against. The least visible drift sits inside supplier invoices. When a component supplier ships freight-included and folds the charge into the unit price, that freight never reaches the freight GL account and never gets audited as freight, even though the terms behind it, and the markup on it, are exactly what a freight audit exists to check. A freight invoice audit for this vertical has to pull three data sources, not one: carrier invoices, the freight class and NMFC basis on the original quote, and the landed cost detail on supplier component invoices where freight is embedded rather than billed.

## 1. How does freight invoice audit differ in industrial machinery and equipment?

It differs because machinery freight rarely fits a clean rate card. Finished units and heavy components get reclassified against NMFC freight class codes based on density and handling, inbound component freight often arrives freight-included inside a supplier's unit price, and spare parts move under separate service-contract freight terms. A single audit has to test three distinct freight relationships instead of one lane-rate agreement. A distributor or a fabricator typically has one dominant freight relationship: outbound product on negotiated lanes. A machinery and equipment company has at least three running in parallel. Inbound freight brings in castings, motors, hydraulics and subassemblies, often on terms the buyer negotiated with the component supplier rather than with a carrier directly. Outbound freight moves finished units, which are frequently oversize, overweight, or both. Parts freight moves under a service or warranty contract with its own turnaround and cost terms. Each relationship has a different document trail. Inbound freight-included terms hide the carrier invoice inside a purchase order. Outbound finished-unit freight generates a carrier invoice with class, weight, and accessorial charges that need to be checked against the original rate quote. Parts freight generates smaller, more frequent invoices that are easy to wave through individually and expensive in aggregate. An audit built for one of these profiles misses the other two. Testing only outbound lane rates, the model that works for a distributor, leaves inbound freight-included markup and parts freight expedite fees unchecked.

## 2. Why do freight class disputes hit machinery shipments harder?

Freight class under NMFC rules is set by density, handling difficulty, and stowability, and machine components routinely sit at the boundary between two classes. A carrier that reweighs or reclassifies a shipment after pickup changes the billed rate without changing the description on the bill of lading, so the invoice can look ordinary while charging against a different class than the one quoted. Freight class for general commercial goods is stable: a pallet of packaged product density rarely moves between classes shipment to shipment. Machine components do not behave the same way. A gearbox, a control cabinet, or a weldment can have low density relative to its footprint, awkward dimensions that increase handling difficulty, or packaging that changes from one shipment to the next as engineering revises a bracket or a crate design. Carriers are entitled to reweigh and reclassify under the NMFC rules that govern the original quote, and a reclass after pickup is a legitimate carrier right, not automatically an error. The audit question is not whether reclassification happened. It is whether the reclass matches the actual freight characteristics, and whether the invoice states the class it billed against clearly enough to check. Because the bill of lading description rarely changes even when the class does, this drift is invisible without pulling the original class code, the carrier's reweigh or inspection report where one exists, and comparing both to the invoiced class line by line.

## 3. What freight costs come with oversize and overweight equipment shipments?

Finished machinery over standard legal dimensions or weight carries permit fees, escort or pilot car charges, and route-survey costs that a standard truckload rate card does not include. These charges are quoted shipment by shipment rather than under a blanket rate agreement, which means there is often no contract line for an audit to test the invoice against. A standard truckload or LTL rate agreement covers freight, fuel surcharge, and a defined accessorial list. Oversize and overweight machinery shipments add a category of cost that sits outside that agreement entirely: state-by-state permit fees, escort or pilot car charges on wide or tall loads, and route surveys where bridge or clearance limits apply. These costs are quoted per shipment because the route, the state permit fees, and the escort requirement change with origin, destination, and dimensions. That per-shipment quoting is exactly what makes the charge hard to audit. There is no standing rate to compare the invoice against, so the check has to be against the specific quote given for that move, not a contract rate card. An invoice that bills escort charges the quote did not include, or bills permit fees for states the route did not cross, will pass a three-way match against the purchase order because the PO usually just authorizes the shipment as a lump sum. The audit control here is a route-and-permit reconciliation: the states the load actually crossed, the permits required for each, and the escort requirement for the load's actual dimensions, checked against what was billed.

## 4. Where does freight hide inside component supplier invoices?

When a component supplier quotes freight-included pricing, the freight cost is folded into the unit price on the purchase invoice and never appears on a freight GL line. It still carries a markup, and it is still governed by whatever freight terms the purchase agreement states, but a freight audit that only pulls carrier invoices never sees it. Machinery and equipment buyers commonly negotiate freight-included terms with component suppliers: the quoted unit price for a casting, a motor, or a subassembly already contains inbound transportation. This is a reasonable commercial arrangement. The problem is that it removes the freight cost from the account where a freight audit normally looks. The purchase agreement behind a freight-included price usually states a freight basis, either a flat allowance per unit or a percentage of unit cost, and that basis is a contract term like any other. If the supplier's actual freight cost drops, because of a lane change, a volume increase, or a fuel decrease, and the unit price does not adjust, the buyer is paying embedded freight markup that has drifted from the original basis. Finding this requires reading the component purchase agreement for its freight basis clause, not just the carrier rate card, and comparing the freight allowance embedded in the unit price against that clause. This is a document most freight audits never open, because it lives in procurement's contract file rather than the freight GL account.

## 5. How does spare parts freight differ from finished-unit freight?

Spare parts freight is governed by service or warranty contract terms rather than the freight carrier's rate card, and it is billed in small, frequent shipments that are individually too small to review but collectively material. Expedite fees for downtime-critical parts are a recurring driver, and they are the charge least likely to be checked against the service contract's own terms. Finished-unit freight is large, infrequent, and visible: a small number of shipments a year, each large enough to get scrutiny. Spare parts freight is the opposite: frequent, small, and individually beneath the threshold that triggers a manual review, which is exactly what lets drift accumulate unnoticed. The governing document for parts freight is usually a service or warranty contract, not a freight rate agreement. That contract typically states who bears expedite costs for downtime-critical parts, what response-time tier triggers air freight versus ground, and whether the customer or the equipment maker pays. An invoice that bills air freight without the downtime documentation the contract requires to trigger that tier is a contract compliance issue wearing a freight invoice. Because each shipment is small, the audit approach has to be aggregate rather than line by line: pull a period of parts freight invoices, sort by expedite tier billed, and check that population against the service contract's trigger conditions rather than reviewing each shipment in isolation.

## 6. Which audit steps are specific to this vertical versus a general freight audit?

A machinery-specific audit adds five steps a generic freight audit skips: comparing NMFC class history, reconciling oversize permits route by route, reading freight-included purchase agreements, checking parts freight in aggregate by expedite tier, and treating inbound, outbound, and parts freight as separate governed relationships rather than one blanket rate card covering everything the company ships. These steps exist because the drift in this vertical sits in places a standard carrier-invoice audit does not look: contract clauses inside procurement's files, permit quotes tied to a specific route, and expedite tiers buried in small parts invoices. Running only a carrier rate-card comparison leaves all five gaps open. 1. Pull NMFC class history: Compare the freight class quoted at booking against the class actually billed for each machine component shipment, not just the weight. 2. Reconcile oversize permits by route: Match permit and escort charges to the specific states and clearances the load's dimensions actually required. 3. Read [freight-included purchase agreements](/guides/post-acquisition-vendor-contract-consolidation): Locate the freight allowance clause inside component supplier contracts and test it separately from any carrier invoice. 4. Aggregate parts freight by expedite tier: Sort spare parts shipments by the response tier billed and check that population against service contract trigger conditions. 5. Separate inbound, outbound, and parts freight: Audit each freight relationship against its own governing document instead of one blanket freight rate card.

## 7. What does this mean for the recovery scope on a machinery and equipment diagnostic?

A diagnostic scoped to this vertical has to include supplier purchase agreements and service contracts alongside carrier invoices, because the largest sources of drift here are contractual, not carrier billing errors. Margin drift across a full diagnostic typically runs 1% to 3% of service vendor spend, evaluated across the whole scope of vendor categories a diagnostic reviews. The categories covered in a margin drift diagnostic include [freight and 3PL](/guides/indirect-spend-is-30-60-of-operating-cost-and-gets-a) alongside contract labor, MRO, and IT and professional services. For a machinery and equipment company, the freight portion of that scope needs three document sets rather than one: carrier rate agreements and invoices for outbound and inbound direct freight, [component supplier purchase agreements](/guides/post-acquisition-vendor-contract-consolidation) for freight-included terms, and service or warranty contracts for parts freight. This is broader than the document set a freight-only audit usually pulls, and it is the reason a freight audit run in isolation on this vertical tends to miss the embedded and contractual drift described above. A diagnostic that reads all three document types alongside the invoices is checking the actual governing terms, not just the carrier's math. The output is the same as any margin drift diagnostic: a prioritized finding by vendor and drift type. For this vertical, expect that list to include at least one finding rooted in a purchase agreement or service contract clause, not a carrier billing error, because that is where the least-audited drift in this industry sits. For the wider pattern this sits inside, start with the [margin drift](/guides/cfo-agenda-mid-market-manufacturing) guide. For the wider pattern this sits inside, start with the [margin drift](/guides/cfo-agenda-mid-market-manufacturing) guide. See also [the six categories drift hides in](/guides/indirect-spend-audit-categories) and [margin drift vs. legitimate price increases: how to tell them apart](/guides/margin-drift-vs-legitimate-price-increases-how-to-tell-them).

## Common questions

### Does a standard freight audit already catch these machinery-specific issues?

No. A standard freight audit tests carrier invoices against a rate card. It does not read component supplier purchase agreements for embedded freight terms, does not reconcile oversize permits against actual routes, and does not check spare parts expedite fees against service contract trigger conditions. Those three document sets sit outside a typical freight audit's scope.

### Who is responsible for catching freight-included markup drift, procurement or AP?

Neither team owns it by default. Procurement negotiates the freight-included purchase agreement but rarely revisits its freight basis clause after signing. AP pays the invoice at the unit price without visibility into what freight allowance is embedded. The gap exists because no team's normal workflow checks the embedded allowance against the original clause.

### Can three-way matching catch an incorrect freight class reclassification?

No. Three-way matching checks the invoice against the purchase order and receipt for quantity and unit price. It does not compare the freight class billed against the class quoted at booking, because that comparison requires the original NMFC class code and the carrier's reweigh documentation, neither of which sits in the PO or receipt record.

### Do oversize permit costs get reviewed as part of a normal PO approval?

A PO for an oversize shipment usually authorizes the move as a lump sum rather than itemizing permit fees, escort charges, and route surveys. That means PO approval confirms the shipment happened, not that each itemized charge on the resulting invoice matches what the specific route and dimensions actually required.

### Why does spare parts freight get less scrutiny than finished-unit freight?

Each spare parts shipment is small enough to fall below the dollar threshold that triggers a manual review, so individual invoices pass without a second look. The service contract terms governing expedite fees also sit outside the freight GL account, in a warranty or service agreement, which most AP review does not reference.

---

ValueXPA runs a fixed-scope Margin Drift Diagnostic that validates every service vendor invoice against contract terms, for $100M+ US industrial manufacturers and distributors. Two to four weeks. The client retains 100% of recoveries. https://valuexpa.com/contact-us