🇧🇷Brazil

Falta de Visibilidade em Histórico de Negociações de Preços de Mudanças Causa Decisões Ineficientes de Compra

2 verified sources

Definition

Change order pricing negotiations are typically ad-hoc, documented in emails or isolated spreadsheets. When a new change order is requested: (1) Procurement re-solicits quotes from the same suppliers, unaware of prior negotiated rates; (2) Finance lacks historical data to validate whether new quotes are competitive; (3) Supplier relationships lack disciplined benchmarking. Example: Supplier A quoted R$ 500K for structural steel in Month 6; in Month 18, the same supplier quotes R$ 625K for similar steel change order—procurement approves without knowing the prior rate. Over dozens of change orders, this creates 15–30% pricing variance and opportunity cost.

Key Findings

  • Financial Impact: Estimated 15–30% pricing variance across repeated change order scopes. Assume R$ 200M–R$ 500M in annual shipbuilding change order volume across Brazil (based on ~30–50 active contracts averaging R$ 4M–R$ 10M in cumulative changes/year). 15–30% waste = R$ 30M–R$ 150M annually. Conservative mid-range: R$ 50M–R$ 100M.
  • Frequency: Every change order cycle (5–15 per active contract/year).
  • Root Cause: Manual, siloed change order workflows with no centralized historical pricing database. Procurement teams lack tools to query prior negotiations by supplier, scope category, or date range.

Why This Matters

The Pitch: Brazilian shipyards waste R$ 30M–R$ 100M annually on redundant supplier negotiations due to hidden change order pricing history. A centralized change order analytics platform surfaces prior pricing benchmarks, enabling procurement to negotiate 10–20% better rates and consolidate supplier spend.

Affected Stakeholders

Procurement Managers, Supplier Quality Engineers, Finance / Budget Controllers, Project Cost Managers

Deep Analysis (Premium)

Financial Impact

Financial data and detailed analysis available with full access. Unlock to see exact figures, evidence sources, and actionable insights.

Unlock to reveal

Current Workarounds

Financial data and detailed analysis available with full access. Unlock to see exact figures, evidence sources, and actionable insights.

Unlock to reveal

Get Solutions for This Problem

Full report with actionable solutions

$99$39
  • Solutions for this specific pain
  • Solutions for all 15 industry pains
  • Where to find first clients
  • Pricing & launch costs
Get Solutions Report

Methodology & Sources

Data collected via OSINT from regulatory filings, industry audits, and verified case studies.

Evidence Sources:

Related Business Risks

Falta de Controle em Pedidos de Mudança (Change Orders) em Contratos de Preço Fixo

Estimated R$ 800M–R$ 1.6B annually across Brazilian naval industry (based on ~10–20% cost bleed on active shipbuilding contracts valued at ~R$ 8B–R$ 16B; typical shipbuilding change order overruns: 10–20% per industry benchmarks). FMM budget rejection delays = 30–90 days of financing hold per contract = R$ 5M–R$ 50M in interest costs per major contract.

Risco de Multa Fiscal por Inconsistência NF-e em Alterações de Pedidos

SEFAZ penalties: R$ 50K–R$ 500K per compliance violation (typical fine range for NF-e errors in manufacturing). Audit remediation: 40–80 hours at R$ 300–500/hour = R$ 12K–R$ 40K per incident. Estimated 2–5 compliance incidents/year per major shipyard = R$ 124K–R$ 2.7M annual exposure.

Atrasos em Negociação de Mudanças de Pedidos Causam Perda de Capacidade Produtiva

Idle dry-dock capacity: Major shipyards have 1–2 operational dry docks per facility. A dry dock idle for 20 days/year (conservative, assuming 5–10 change order cycles at 2–3 days each, understating actual delays) at R$ 50K–R$ 100K/day = R$ 1M–R$ 2M capacity loss per dry dock. Across 27 operational Brazilian shipyards[1], estimated capacity loss: R$ 27M–R$ 54M annually. Labor inefficiency (redirection to rework during negotiation waits): 10–20% of shipyard workforce (assume 5,000–10,000 workers across industry) × 20–40 days/year = 100K–400K labor hours diverted, valued at R$ 3M–R$ 20M annually.

Atraso em Pagamentos de Marcos Contratuais (Milestone Billing Delays)

BRL 2.5 billion+ in decommissioning plans alone (2025-2029); Immediate: Multiple shipyard payment suspensions; Historical: Enseada shipyard payments halted post-Lava Jato investigations

Dilatação de Prazos em Projetos de Construção Naval (Project Timeline Bleed)

Corvette Barroso: 9-year delay = estimated R$ 80-200 million in indirect costs (labor inflation, materials escalation, equipment rental); PROSUB ongoing delays = indefinite R$ cost accumulation

Multas e Embargo por Falha em Conformidade Fiscal em Pagamentos de Marcos (NF-e/SPED Rejection Cascade)

SEFAZ penalties: R$ 5,000-20,000 per rejected NF-e batch (27 states × varying severity); SPED audit costs: R$ 50,000-200,000 per investigation; Manual correction labor: R$ 2,000-5,000 per invoice × 100-500 invoices/year = R$ 200k-2.5M annually

Request Deep Analysis

🇧🇷 Be first to access this market's intelligence