Precision metal and engineering plastic parts from prototype through repeat production.
Tooling development, molded parts and production support for repeat plastic manufacturing.
Functional prototypes, complex geometry and low-volume parts without conventional tooling.
Explore 3D PrintingStart with geometry, material, quantity and critical requirements before selecting the route.
Request Engineering ReviewSend your CAD, drawing, material and quantity for an initial manufacturing review.
Request Engineering ReviewA quote-ready injection mold RFQ should give every supplier the same technical and commercial baseline: current 3D CAD, controlled 2D drawings, resin grade, annual volume, CTQ and tolerance requirements, surface or cosmetic expectations, mold-life target, validation scope, and delivery requirements. The goal is not to design the mold inside the RFQ. It is to remove missing inputs and hidden assumptions before suppliers prepare tooling quotations.
This checklist helps buyers do three things before requesting a mold quote:
A supplier can only prepare a reliable quotation when the RFQ defines the part, material, demand, quality expectations and commercial scope clearly enough to avoid guesswork. The minimum package does not need to solve every mold-design question before quotation, but it should make all major buyer requirements visible.
Send the latest STEP, IGES or X_T model and identify the current revision.
Mark CTQ dimensions, datum references, tolerances and key assembly interfaces.
State the approved resin grade where known, including filler, color or certification requirements.
Provide estimated annual demand, expected production life and any cavity-count expectation.
Identify cosmetic zones, finish or texture expectations and any visible-surface restrictions.
State required samples, dimensional reports, FAI, CMM or customer-specific approval evidence.
Include target timing, delivery destination, currency, packaging and any required quotation assumptions.
| RFQ Input | Priority | What to Provide | If Not Yet Fixed |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3D CAD | Required | Current part geometry and revision | Identify incomplete or provisional geometry |
| 2D Drawing / CTQ | Required | Critical dimensions, datums and tolerances | Flag open tolerances for supplier review |
| Resin Grade | Required | Exact grade or approved material requirement | State property range or approved alternatives |
| Annual Volume | Required | Annual demand and expected production life | Provide forecast range |
| Cavity Expectation | Helpful | Buyer target or preferred cavity count | Mark “supplier to propose” |
| Validation Scope | If Applicable | FAI, CMM, PPAP or customer-specific evidence | State minimum approval requirement |
| Packaging / Shipping | If Applicable | Destination, export packaging and delivery expectation | Request a separate logistics assumption |
The RFQ should give suppliers one controlled definition of the molded part. 3D CAD defines nominal geometry; the 2D drawing defines what must be controlled. When revision, CTQ, datum or tolerance information is unclear, suppliers may quote against different dimensional assumptions.
Send the current STEP, IGES or X_T file together with a controlled 2D drawing. The drawing should identify the active revision, CTQ dimensions, datum scheme, tolerance limits and any critical assembly interfaces that must be included in the quotation scope.
Avoid using the RFQ to solve every manufacturability issue. If a tolerance, datum or feature is still under review, mark it clearly as TBD or supplier review required. This gives every supplier the same uncertainty instead of allowing each supplier to silently assume a different requirement.
For quote comparison, the important question is not whether the drawing is completely finalized. It is whether each supplier is quoting from the same revision and the same critical dimensional requirements.
| Drawing Input | RFQ Priority | What the Buyer Should State | Avoid This Ambiguity |
|---|---|---|---|
| CAD Revision | Required | Current file revision and release status | Supplier quoting from an obsolete model |
| CTQ Dimensions | Required | Dimensions that affect fit, function or customer acceptance | Treating every dimension as equally critical |
| Datum Scheme | Required | Functional datum references used for inspection or assembly | Different suppliers interpreting measurement origins differently |
| Tolerance Limits | Required | Critical tolerances plus applicable general tolerance | Quoting against undefined or assumed commercial tolerances |
| Assembly Interfaces | Required | Mating surfaces, snap fits, sealing or location features | Critical interfaces remaining invisible in the RFQ |
| Open Requirements | Required | Mark as TBD, provisional or supplier review required | Allowing each supplier to make a different hidden assumption |
These four inputs give suppliers the basic production context behind the RFQ. The goal is not to specify the final mold architecture in advance, but to provide enough material and demand information for each supplier to quote against the same program basis.
State the approved manufacturer and grade where known, including filler content, color, flame rating or certification requirements. If the exact grade is still open, provide the approved material family or property requirement and mark alternatives as subject to buyer approval.
Provide expected annual demand, typical batch size and any planned ramp-up. If demand is uncertain, give a realistic forecast range rather than leaving volume blank. Suppliers can then state the production assumptions behind their quotation.
State the expected lifetime production quantity or customer tooling-life requirement. The RFQ should distinguish between a short-life bridge tool and a production mold expected to support long-term manufacturing.
If the buyer has a fixed cavity requirement, state it clearly. Otherwise use “supplier to propose” and require the quotation to identify the proposed cavity count so competing quotes can be compared on the same disclosed assumption.
| RFQ Input | What to State | If Not Yet Fixed | Quote Comparison Check |
|---|---|---|---|
| Resin Grade | Manufacturer, grade, filler, color and required certification | Approved family or property range | Confirm every supplier quoted the same material basis |
| Annual Volume | Expected annual demand and typical batch quantity | Provide low / expected / high forecast range | Check whether quoted production capacity matches the stated demand |
| Mold Life | Target lifetime production quantity | State expected program duration or provisional life target | Confirm the quoted tool is intended for the required production life |
| Cavity Count | Buyer requirement or preferred target | Supplier to propose | Compare quotes only after the proposed cavity count is visible |
Appearance requirements should be visible before suppliers quote the mold. The RFQ does not need to prescribe every gate, ejector or polishing decision, but it should clearly identify which surfaces matter, what finish is expected, and where visible tooling marks are restricted.
Mark Class-A, customer-facing or appearance-critical surfaces on the drawing or CAD snapshot.
State the required SPI, VDI, texture reference or approved visual standard where applicable.
Identify surfaces where gate vestige, ejector marks, witness lines or parting-line visibility are restricted.
Include any mandatory mold standard, preferred component system, labeling, spare-part or export-tool requirement already fixed by the customer.
| RFQ Requirement | What the Buyer Should State | If Not Yet Fixed | Quote Review Check |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cosmetic Zone | Clearly marked visible or appearance-critical areas | Mark as provisional and request supplier review | Confirm the quotation acknowledges the same appearance zones |
| Finish / Texture | SPI, VDI, texture reference, sample or approved visual standard | State target appearance and request finish proposal | Check whether texture or polishing is included in the quoted scope |
| Visible Tool Marks | Restricted gate, ejector or parting-line locations | Identify only the no-go surfaces | Confirm supplier assumptions are disclosed before tool design |
| Tooling Standard | Customer-mandated mold standard, components or export requirements | Use “supplier standard” where no mandate exists | Compare quotes on the same tooling-standard basis |
The RFQ should make clear what the supplier is expected to deliver beyond the mold itself. Samples, inspection evidence, packaging, shipping and commercial exclusions should be visible before quotation so later approval work is not treated as an unexpected extra.
State the required sample quantity, any customer trial-stage expectation and whether additional tuning or resubmission rounds must be included in the quoted scope.
Identify the required dimensional report, FAI, CMM layout, material certificate, cavity comparison or customer-specific approval evidence without expanding the RFQ into a full validation procedure.
Define delivery destination, export packaging expectations, tool-preservation requirements and whether freight, customs or special handling should be included or quoted separately.
Require suppliers to list what is included, excluded or subject to re-quotation so gauges, texture work, extra samples, engineering changes or special validation are not hidden outside the initial scope.
| RFQ Requirement | Priority | What the Buyer Should State | Quote Review Check |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sample Quantity | Required | Number of samples expected at the agreed trial or submission stage | Confirm sample quantity and included trial scope are stated in the quotation |
| Inspection Evidence | If Applicable | Dimensional report, FAI, CMM, cavity study, certificate or customer document | Verify each required deliverable is marked included or excluded |
| Packaging | Required | Standard, export or customer-specific packaging requirements | Check whether packaging cost is included in the tooling quotation |
| Delivery Location | Required | Final ship-to location and required delivery basis | Confirm freight and delivery assumptions are visible |
| Commercial Exclusions | Required | Items not included in the base tooling price | Compare excluded scope before comparing headline tool prices |
Two suppliers can receive the same CAD file and still return very different quotations if important RFQ inputs are missing. The issue is not uncertainty itself—it is hidden uncertainty. Open requirements should be stated as TBD, buyer review required or supplier to propose so each quotation shows the assumption behind the price.
Missing information does not stop the quotation process; it shifts decisions to the supplier. One supplier may assume a standard resin, another may assume a higher mold-life target, and another may include more inspection or packaging work. The resulting prices can look comparable even though the scopes are different.
The buyer does not need every requirement finalized before RFQ release. Instead, each unresolved item should carry an explicit instruction such as “TBD,” “supplier to propose,” or “quote separately.” This creates a visible assumption trail that can be normalized during quote review.
| Open RFQ Input | What May Be Assumed | Why Quotes Diverge | Buyer Instruction | Review Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Resin Grade | Supplier selects a generic grade or material basis | Material and tooling assumptions may differ between suppliers | Approved family / TBD | Normalize |
| CTQ / Tolerance | Supplier applies standard tolerance assumptions | Inspection and execution scope can be priced differently | Mark CTQ or provisional | Clarify |
| Annual Volume | Supplier selects its own production-volume basis | Cavity and production assumptions may not be comparable | Forecast range | Normalize |
| Cavity Count | Supplier chooses a cavity configuration | Tool price and capacity may reflect different layouts | Supplier to propose | Compare |
| Finish / Cosmetics | Supplier assumes standard non-cosmetic acceptance | Quoted scope may omit appearance-related work | Define zones / TBD | Confirm |
| Validation Scope | Supplier includes only basic samples and inspection | FAI, CMM or customer evidence may appear later as extras | State minimum evidence | Confirm |
| Packaging / Freight | Supplier excludes export packaging or delivery cost | Commercial totals may use different landed-cost boundaries | Include / quote separately | Separate |
The lowest tooling price is not automatically the lowest or best-matched quotation. Before comparing price, buyers should confirm that each supplier has quoted against the same cavity basis, mold-life target, trial scope, validation deliverables, packaging and exclusions.
Check whether suppliers are quoting the same cavity count and production-life requirement. A lower price based on a different cavitation or tool-life assumption should not be treated as equivalent.
Confirm the included sample rounds, sample quantity, dimensional reports, FAI, CMM or customer-specific approval evidence before comparing total tooling price.
Review whether export packaging, freight, texture work, gauges, spare parts, extra samples or other project costs are included, excluded or quoted separately.
If suppliers used different assumptions for an open RFQ item, normalize that scope first and request a revised quotation where the difference materially affects the award decision.
| Comparison Item | Supplier Quote Should State | Non-Comparable Condition | Buyer Action | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cavity Count | Quoted cavity configuration | Suppliers use different cavity counts | Normalize scope | Review |
| Mold Life | Production-life assumption | Tool-life basis is different or unstated | Clarify target | Review |
| Trial Scope | Included sample / tuning rounds | One supplier includes more trial work | Align scope | Review |
| Inspection / Validation | Required reports and approval evidence | FAI, CMM or customer evidence is excluded by one supplier | Confirm inclusion | Review |
| Packaging / Delivery | Packaging and shipping basis | Freight or export packaging is handled differently | Separate costs | Review |
| Excluded Items | Explicit list of exclusions | Important scope is omitted or unclear | Request clarification | Review |
| RFQ Revision | Drawing / CAD revision quoted | Suppliers quote different revisions | Re-issue RFQ | Required Match |
Use the downloadable worksheet to turn the RFQ requirements in this guide into a repeatable buyer-side process. Complete the known inputs, identify open items explicitly, send the same RFQ basis to each supplier, and use the second page to review supplier assumptions before comparing price.
The updated worksheet separates buyer-supplied RFQ inputs from supplier quote-return checks. It is designed for engineering, sourcing and quality teams that need one common record before a tooling quotation is approved.
PDF worksheet for buyer RFQ preparation, open-item control and supplier quote-return comparison.
These answers focus only on RFQ preparation, open requirements and quote comparability.
Include the current 3D CAD and 2D drawing, CTQ and tolerance requirements, resin grade, annual volume, mold-life target, cavity expectation, surface and cosmetic requirements, validation scope, packaging, delivery information and commercial exclusions.
Yes. Open requirements should be identified rather than hidden. Mark them as TBD, supplier to propose, buyer approval required or quote separately so every supplier can disclose the assumption used in its quotation.
Only when cavity count is already fixed by the customer or program. Otherwise, provide annual volume and mold-life requirements, mark cavity count as supplier to propose, and require the proposed cavity configuration to be stated in the returned quote.
Normalize scope before comparing price. Confirm that suppliers quoted the same CAD revision, cavity basis, mold-life requirement, trial and validation scope, packaging basis and exclusions. If those assumptions differ, the headline tooling prices are not yet directly comparable.
If your CAD, drawing and project requirements are ready, submit the project for injection molding review. If key manufacturability questions are still open, request a DFM review before finalizing the quotation basis.
