DSP Selection for Flammable Goods and the Delivery Risks That E-commerce Paint Brands Overlook

When your delivery service becomes a safety decision

Most e-commerce brands treat DSPs, or delivery service providers, as interchangeable. Fast, cheap, reliable: pick two and hope for the best. But when you sell paint or any flammable product, DSP selection becomes a regulated choice, not a convenience choice. Research across hazardous last mile delivery trends shows that DSP mismatches are one of the top reasons flammable goods fail to reach customers. Some DSPs simply are not authorized or equipped to handle HAZMAT.

What looks like a normal parcel to a shopper is classified as a controlled liquid by the DOT. That means not every driver, vehicle, or route is compliant. Brands that treat DSPs like generic delivery partners often find themselves dealing with refusals, returned shipments, or unexpected hazardous surcharges.

Kay Hillmann, Director of Vendor Operations, reminds founders: "Youre liable, as the shipper, to make sure its packaged correctly." DSPs expect packages to arrive ready for compliant delivery. If they do not, the delivery stops before it begins.

Why DSP selection matters for flammable shipments

Research shows that flammable goods introduce three major risks for DSPs: vapor release, container instability, and temperature sensitivity. Some DSPs will not transport flammable liquids at all. Others impose strict package quantity limits or prohibit certain ZIP code ranges during hot months.

Kay captures the regulatory foundation behind these rules. "Theres a book almost four inches thick of the rules and regulations that the DOT requires for you to label, ship, and store hazardous materials." DSPs build their guidelines around the same book.

Assumptions that cause DSP delivery failures

Delivery Service Providers sit at the far edge of the logistics system, where regulatory intent meets residential reality. They operate under time pressure, uneven training standards, and fragmented contractual arrangements, yet many paint and chemical brands implicitly assume DSPs function as a seamless extension of their outbound carrier. That assumption breaks down quickly when flammable goods enter the picture, because the last mile is governed less by centralized policy and more by local enforcement, driver discretion, and risk avoidance.

Most DSP failures involving hazardous goods stem from three embedded assumptions that feel reasonable during planning but collapse during execution.

Assumption one: All DSPs accept flammable goods.

DSP networks are heterogeneous by design. Many providers subcontract routes to independent operators, who in turn rely on individual drivers with varying certifications, experience, and risk tolerance. Even when a parent carrier technically supports hazardous materials, that support does not propagate evenly through the DSP layer.

Acceptance of flammable goods often depends on factors that are invisible upstream: whether a specific driver has current HAZMAT training, whether their vehicle meets internal safety standards, whether their insurance permits hazardous transport, and whether local management allows residential delivery of regulated materials at all. In practice, this means two identical packages can receive entirely different treatment depending on which driver shows up that day.

From a systems perspective, the problem is variance. Brands plan against a carrier’s stated capability, while execution occurs through a patchwork of local decisions. The result is sporadic refusal, delayed delivery, or quiet rerouting, all of which surface as “delivery exceptions” with no clear corrective path.

Assumption two: If the outbound carrier accepts it, the DSP will too.

Outbound carrier acceptance reflects compliance at the linehaul or regional level; DSP acceptance reflects exposure at the doorstep. These are fundamentally different risk environments.

Residential delivery introduces variables absent from hub-to-hub transport: children, pets, enclosed porches, poor ventilation, and unpredictable customer behavior. Many DSPs impose stricter internal rules for residential stops precisely because flammable liquids behave differently outside controlled commercial settings. A shipment cleared for transport can still be deemed unsuitable for delivery once it reaches the last mile.

This disconnect creates a false sense of completion. The package has moved through sorting, transit, and dispatch, so teams assume the hardest part is over. In reality, the point of highest scrutiny often arrives last, when the driver must decide whether placing a flammable package at a residence aligns with their training and guidelines. When it does not, the system has few graceful recovery options.

Assumption three: Customers can simply refuse damaged packages.

Refusal is straightforward for ordinary consumer goods; hazardous materials introduce a different set of obligations. A damaged flammable package cannot always be returned to the delivery network without assessment. Leaking containers, compromised seals, or vapor release trigger escalation protocols that involve documentation, containment, and sometimes regulated disposal.

From the customer’s perspective, refusal feels like a clean boundary. From the logistics side, it creates a compliance event. DSPs may be required to isolate the package, notify supervisors, and prevent reentry into standard circulation. In some cases, the item cannot be returned at all and must be handled as hazardous waste.

This transforms a simple customer interaction into an operational incident, one that consumes time, training, and coordination well beyond the value of the order itself. Brands that treat refusal as a neutral outcome underestimate the downstream cost and risk created by hazardous goods at the doorstep.

Taken together, these assumptions reveal a deeper issue: last-mile delivery is not a continuation of outbound logistics, but a different operating system with its own constraints. Flammable goods expose that difference because they carry risk into environments where control is weakest and discretion is highest. Brands that plan DSP delivery as if it were merely a shorter leg of the same journey inevitably encounter failures that feel random but are, in fact, structurally predictable.

How DSP issues disrupt last mile fulfillment

Research shows that mismatched DSP selection creates failed deliveries, increased return costs, and wasted customer service hours. A DSP that cannot legally deliver a flammable parcel will either return it or mark it undeliverable. That means the brand pays for shipping twice and receives nothing but a frustrated customer.

Connor Perkins, Director of Fulfillment, has seen the consequences of poor handling long before delivery. "One of the pain points our clients have experienced with previous 3PLs is inventory accuracy... I think some have lost product due to storage practices." Poor storage increases DSP rejection risk before the package ever reaches a vehicle.

DSP challenges across D2C, B2B, and retail partner programs

In D2C, DSPs must follow carrier-approved routing for HAZMAT parcels. That means slower delivery speeds, mandatory ground transport, and potentially limited service areas.

In B2B and retail, DSPs must follow strict routing guides. Failure to choose compliant delivery partners leads to automatic rejections. Holly Woods describes how unforgiving retailer timelines can be: "If we missed that window, Target would have canceled the order." DSP disruptions make hitting those windows impossible.

Why a HAZMAT trained 3PL keeps DSP selection under control

A certified hazardous 3PL knows which DSPs can legally handle flammable products, which service levels apply, and which delivery zones are approved. They prevent mismatches by enforcing compliance upstream.

Kay explains that G10s team trains with GSI Training Services, whose founder teaches regulators and Amazon. DSP compliance benefits from that same deep training.

Technology adds safeguards. Maureen Milligan notes that G10s WMS incorporates carrier and DSP routing logic, hazardous labels, and service restrictions automatically.

Visibility that eliminates DSP guesswork

Founders often feel anxious about last mile delivery because they cannot see where DSP failures occur. Visibility fixes that.

Connor highlights G10s transparency: "They can see their daily orders, they can see KPIs, and they can see historical transactions." That includes delivery performance and DSP behavior.

Building a delivery network ready for hazardous growth

Research shows that brands who evaluate DSPs based on hazardous capability scale faster, reduce failed deliveries, and improve customer satisfaction. DSP selection is not an afterthought. It is part of the safety infrastructure.

CEO Mark Becker frames it perfectly. "At the end of the day, all we are is builders. We love to build." Hazardous brands must build delivery networks with equal intention.

Your paint is hazardous. Your DSP selection should protect it.

Ready to stop losing deliveries to hazardous restrictions? Let's build a DSP strategy engineered for flammable goods and fast growth.