What belongs in a carrier Vetting File
A complete breakdown of the records, signals, policy checks and approvals that make a Vetting File defensible in audit and litigation.
What Belongs in a Carrier Vetting File
CarrierTrust Insight Series | Reference
A Vetting File is the organized, documented record of everything a broker reviewed - and decided - before tendering a load to a carrier. It is the artifact that determines whether a broker can defend a carrier selection decision in a regulatory audit, a shipper compliance review, or a courtroom.
This reference article provides a complete taxonomy of the Vetting File: what it contains, how each element is sourced, what its evidentiary value is, and how it should be maintained. It is intended as a standing reference for compliance officers, operations leaders, and legal counsel at freight brokerages.
A complete Vetting File has six sections. Together they constitute the broker's documented answer to the question courts and auditors ask first: What did you check, when did you check it, who decided, and can you prove it?
Section 1: Identity & Authority Record
This section documents that the carrier is who it claims to be and holds the legal authority to perform the operation being tendered.
Required elements
| Element | Source | Verification frequency |
|---|---|---|
| USDOT Number (active status) | FMCSA SAFER System (real-time query) | Every tender |
| MC/MX Number (active status) | FMCSA SAFER System (real-time query) | Every tender |
| Legal entity name | FMCSA SAFER / Secretary of State records | Onboarding + material change |
| Physical address (confirmed real location) | FMCSA records + independent verification | Onboarding + annual |
| Operating authority type and scope | FMCSA SAFER | Onboarding + change event |
| Authority age (months since issuance) | FMCSA grant date | Onboarding |
| Prior revocation history | FMCSA licensing history | Onboarding |
| Related entity and prior-name history | FMCSA related-records search | Onboarding |
| EIN / Tax ID | W-9 on file | Onboarding |
| Dispatch contact verification | Direct call log | Onboarding + annual |
Evidentiary value
The identity record establishes that the broker confirmed, at the time of tender, that the carrier existed as a legal entity with active FMCSA authority to perform the operation. It is the foundational layer of the negligent-selection defense and, in fraud cases, documents the steps taken to verify carrier identity - which, if contemporaneously recorded, shifts responsibility toward the fraudulent actor.
Key legal standard: Courts have found that failure to verify active operating authority at the time of tender - as distinct from a one-time onboarding check - constitutes a breach of the reasonable care standard. See Schramm v. Foster, 341 F. Supp. 2d 536 (D. Md. 2004).
Section 2: Insurance Record
This section documents that the carrier held current, adequate insurance coverage at the time of tender.
Required elements
| Element | Source | Verification frequency |
|---|---|---|
| Primary liability - insurer, policy number, active status | FMCSA BMC-91 filing (real-time query) | Every tender |
| Primary liability limits vs. regulatory minimums | FMCSA filing + COI | Every tender |
| Cargo insurance - insurer, policy number, limits | COI + direct verification | Every tender |
| Insurer A.M. Best financial rating | A.M. Best database | Onboarding + annual |
| Policy effective and expiration dates | COI + FMCSA filing | Every tender |
| Named insured match to carrier entity | COI | Every tender |
| Exclusions relevant to load commodity | COI / policy endorsement | Per load type |
| General liability (if shipper contract requires) | COI | Per contract |
Notes on insurance verification
COI vs. FMCSA filing: A certificate of insurance is formatted for convenience and names the broker as certificate holder, but it is a point-in-time document that may not reflect post-issuance cancellations or lapses. The FMCSA's insurance filing database - BMC-91 for liability, BMC-34 for cargo - is the authoritative real-time source. Both should be on file; the FMCSA filing is the live check, the COI provides load-specific detail.
Minimum limits under 49 C.F.R. § 387.9:
- General freight, non-hazmat: $750,000
- General freight, oil (non-hazmat): $1,000,000
- Hazardous materials (most classifications): $1,000,000–$5,000,000
- Check applicable shipper master agreements, which commonly require $1,000,000 or more regardless of regulatory minimums.
Evidentiary value: Insurance verification is among the most litigated elements of carrier qualification in negligent-selection cases. The FMCSA's filing database is timestampable public evidence. A broker who tendered to a carrier whose FMCSA insurance filing showed as lapsed at the time of tender has essentially no defense on that element.
Section 3: Safety Record
This section documents the carrier's regulatory safety standing at the time of tender.
Required elements
| Element | Source | Verification frequency |
|---|---|---|
| All 7 SMS BASIC scores | FMCSA SMS (ai.fmcsa.dot.gov/SMS) | Every tender |
| BASIC percentile thresholds exceeded (if any) | FMCSA SMS | Every tender |
| Formal Safety Rating | FMCSA SAFER | Every tender |
| Active enforcement actions or out-of-service orders | FMCSA SAFER | Every tender |
| Crash indicator - last 24 months | FMCSA SMS | Every tender |
| Driver OOS rate vs. national average | FMCSA SMS | Every tender |
| Vehicle OOS rate vs. national average | FMCSA SMS | Every tender |
| Compliance review history - most recent | FMCSA MCMIS (via SAFER) | Onboarding + annual |
| Safety fitness determination | FMCSA Part 385 | Every tender |
BASIC threshold policy
Every brokerage should maintain a written BASIC threshold policy defining which scores trigger automatic disqualification versus elevated review, what percentile levels govern each response, who has authority to approve a tender to an above-threshold carrier, and what additional documentation is required for exceptions. The policy should be dated, versioned, and cross-referenced in each Vetting File so the standard applicable at the time of tender is always clear.
The FMCSA's own intervention thresholds (65th percentile for most BASICs, 50th for HOS Compliance) are a useful reference point, but they reflect the agency's enforcement trigger - not necessarily the right broker-qualification standard for every load type. Many brokers apply stricter internal thresholds for high-value, hazmat, or time-sensitive loads.
Evidentiary value: Plaintiffs in negligent-selection cases obtain SMS data as of the load date in discovery. If a carrier had elevated BASICs that a broker did not review - or reviewed and ignored without a documented rationale - the exposure is significant. Documenting the review and the decision, even when scores are within acceptable ranges, is essential.
Section 4: Fraud & Compliance Intelligence
This section documents checks against non-public fraud signals - the category of risk most rapidly growing and most completely absent from FMCSA-only qualification workflows.
Required elements
| Element | Source | Verification frequency |
|---|---|---|
| Identity verification beyond FMCSA records | Address confirmation; direct dispatch contact | Onboarding |
| Double-brokering flag check | Internal load history; industry fraud intelligence | Every tender |
| Authority cloning / entity mimicry check | Carrier name + number cross-reference | Every tender |
| Industry fraud registry query | TIA alerts; NCSC intelligence; commercial providers | Every tender |
| Prior cargo theft incidents (carrier-linked) | CargoNet; NICB intelligence | Onboarding + annual |
| Load board activity review | Internal + load board data | New or flagged carriers |
| Chameleon carrier check | FMCSA related-entity search; prior revocation history | Onboarding |
Evidentiary value
Fraud intelligence checks are the element most likely to be absent in a broker's vetting file and the element plaintiffs' counsel increasingly targets in cargo theft litigation. Documentation that a broker cross-referenced fraud databases, verified the physical address, and called the dispatch number directly - and found no anomalies - is meaningful legal protection even when fraud ultimately occurs. It demonstrates the reasonable care standard was met. An absence of any such record provides no comparable protection.
Section 5: Operational Performance Record
This section documents the carrier's track record as an operational partner - the signals that distinguish a carrier's actual behavior from what its FMCSA profile can show.
Required elements
| Element | Source | Verification frequency |
|---|---|---|
| On-time pickup rate (last 12 months) | Internal TMS; third-party performance data | Every tender (for carriers with history) |
| On-time delivery rate (last 12 months) | Internal TMS; third-party performance data | Every tender (for carriers with history) |
| Cargo claim frequency (last 24 months) | Internal claims records | Every tender (for carriers with history) |
| Cargo claim severity (average and maximum) | Internal claims records | Every tender (for carriers with history) |
| Load volume history with this brokerage | Internal TMS | Every tender |
| ELD compliance summary (if available) | Carrier-connected ELD data | Onboarding; periodic refresh |
| GPS operating lane consistency (if available) | Carrier-connected telematics | Onboarding; periodic refresh |
| Equipment type confirmed | Carrier profile; verification call | Per load type |
| Driver pool size and ELD registration status | FMCSA; carrier confirmation | Onboarding |
| References (for new carriers) | Direct contact; verified dates and contact info | New carrier onboarding |
New carrier protocol
Carriers with no history with the brokerage, or with fewer than 12 months of FMCSA authority, warrant additional documentation:
- External references from at least two identified and verified brokers or shippers
- Senior compliance officer or operations manager approval for first-load tender
- Reduced load value limits until a performance history is established
- More frequent real-time tracking requirements during initial loads
This protocol should be documented in the brokerage's carrier qualification policy, so that its application - and any deviations from it - are recorded in each relevant Vetting File.
Section 6: Qualification Decision & Approval Log
This section is the decision record - the documented output of the qualification process.
Required elements
| Element | Purpose |
|---|---|
| Qualification timestamp (date and time) | Establishes checks occurred before tender, not retroactively |
| Qualified-by (named individual or role) | Establishes accountability for the decision |
| Policy version in effect | Records the standard that was applied |
| Flags and exceptions identified | Documents that issues were seen and specifically addressed |
| Exception approval - name, role, date, rationale | Documents that elevated risk was escalated to an authorized person |
| Load ID cross-reference | Links Vetting File to the specific load tender |
| Carrier MC/DOT number cross-reference | Links Vetting File to the carrier record |
| Next re-qualification date | Ensures qualification is not treated as a one-time event |
Policy enforcement at tender
The qualification decision is where a written, versioned policy becomes operational. A policy that defines minimum trust thresholds, required documents, approval levels, and exception paths - but that is not enforced at the moment a load is actually tendered - is often worse than no policy: it establishes a standard and then demonstrates it was not followed. The decision log is the record that a policy existed, was applied, and governed the outcome.
Evidentiary value: The decision record is the Vetting File's entire litigation value. A file containing all the right underlying data, but lacking timestamps or unable to be retrieved in discoverable form, provides limited legal protection. A complete, contemporaneous, retrievable decision log is the difference between a file that helps and a file that only shows you had good intentions.
Vetting File Retention
Minimum retention: 3 years - consistent with FMCSA record retention requirements for broker records under 49 C.F.R. Part 371.
Recommended retention: 7 years - accounting for the longer statutes of limitations applicable in major trucking states. Wrongful death claims carry longer limitations periods in some jurisdictions; consult counsel for the specific exposure profile.
Format requirements for defensibility:
- Digitally searchable - not scanned PDFs of paper records that cannot be queried
- Timestamped with immutable creation records - not editable spreadsheets where timestamps can be altered
- Exportable in common formats (PDF, structured data) for litigation discovery or regulatory production
- Retrievable by carrier, load ID, and date range without manual reconstruction
- Backed up with documented recovery procedures
Paper-only or email-thread-only vetting records are a significant litigation risk. They are difficult to produce in discovery, frequently incomplete, and lack the reliable timestamps that establish when checks were actually performed.
The Four Properties of a Defensible Vetting File
A Vetting File that holds up in audit and litigation has four properties:
Complete - all six sections are populated with no material gaps in the data required for a reasonable qualification decision.
Contemporaneous - every element is timestamped to confirm it was collected before the load was tendered, not assembled after an incident to reconstruct the appearance of due diligence.
Consistent - the same process is applied to every carrier, on every tender, with documented exceptions for any deviations. Inconsistent application - vetting some carriers carefully and others cursorily - is a plaintiff's argument that the process was not genuine.
Retrievable - the file can be produced in its entirety within hours, in a format suitable for legal or regulatory review, for any load within the retention period.
These four properties are what separate a vetting process from a vetting defense. Building both is the goal.
References
- 49 C.F.R. Part 371 - Brokers of Household Goods and Freight (record retention requirements)
- 49 C.F.R. § 387.9 - Minimum financial responsibility limits for motor carriers
- 49 C.F.R. Part 385 - Safety fitness procedures and determinations
- FMCSA Safety Measurement System Methodology: ai.fmcsa.dot.gov/SMS
- Schramm v. Foster, 341 F. Supp. 2d 536 (D. Md. 2004)
- Volkova v. C.H. Robinson Company, No. 16 C 4917, 2018 WL 741441 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 7, 2018)
- Ye v. GlobalTranz Enterprises, Inc., 18 F.4th 1002 (9th Cir. 2021)
- Transportation Intermediaries Association (TIA), Best Practices for Carrier Vetting, 2023 edition. tianet.org
- National Cargo Security Council (NCSC), Carrier Qualification Guidance, 2022
- American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI), The Impact of Nuclear Verdicts on the Trucking Industry, August 2020