An injection mold quotation is only comparable when every supplier receives the same controlled inputs and makes its open assumptions visible. The objective of an RFQ package is not to freeze engineering before review. It is to show what is confirmed, what still needs a proposal, and which acceptance conditions will affect the sourcing decision.
If you are evaluating production-tool scope as well as the RFQ package, our custom injection mold tooling services page explains project fit, engineering review, and the inputs needed to start a supplier discussion.
RFQ package checklist
Send one indexed package, identify the controlling revision, and give each file a clear status. Avoid mixing superseded drawings into the same folder without marking them obsolete.
| Input | What to provide | If it is not confirmed |
|---|---|---|
| Controlled 3D and 2D files | A revision-matched 3D model, dimensioned 2D drawing, units, datums, critical characteristics, and a file list that identifies the controlling revision | Mark preliminary geometry and list the expected release date; do not let a quotation silently turn a draft model into the production baseline |
| Resin | Exact supplier and grade where specified, including filler, color, regulatory or appearance requirements, and any permitted alternatives | State the known resin family and service conditions, then require each proposed grade and its quote impact to be identified |
| Demand | Annual demand, expected batch size, peak demand, program duration, and whether the figures are forecasts or committed volumes | Give a planning range and ask the supplier to show the capacity assumption used for cavitation and cycle-time planning |
| Critical quality | Functional interfaces, sealing areas, cosmetic zones, critical dimensions, inspection method, and acceptance criteria | Identify the function at risk and assign an owner and due date for agreeing the measurable requirement |
| Target press and tool destination | Known press constraints, interfaces, utilities, local standards, shipping destination, and the plant that will sample or run the tool | Mark the press and destination as open; require the quotation to list the assumed machine envelope and delivery basis |
| Timing | Quote due date, design-input freeze, target first trial, validation window, and production need date | Separate requested dates from committed dates and ask suppliers to state dependencies and excluded approval time |
Include a short priority note as well: for example, whether the sourcing decision will weight launch timing, tool life, maintenance access, interchangeable components, or initial investment most heavily. This helps suppliers explain trade-offs without presenting an assumption as a buyer-approved requirement.
Separate confirmed inputs from open assumptions
Create an assumptions register beside the file index. A blank cell is ambiguous; write Confirmed, Open for supplier proposal, or Not applicable, then name the person who can close each open point.
| Topic | Confirmed input to record | Open assumption to make visible |
|---|---|---|
| Resin grade | Manufacturer, full grade, filler and required compliance or color | Service conditions and candidate grade used for quoting |
| Cavity count | Buyer-approved output or footprint constraint | Proposed cavitation and the demand, cycle and press assumptions behind it |
| Runner | Approved hot- or cold-runner direction and permitted gate constraints | Proposed runner concept, material waste basis and any controller requirement |
| Steel family | Approved steel requirement by mold component, if one exists | Proposed family by component and the conditions that could change it |
| Texture | Texture reference, controlled area, gloss or appearance criterion | Texture allowance, draft dependency and timing for final texture approval |
| Color | Masterbatch or compound reference and visible color requirement | Color status, supplier assumption and whether a later change affects sampling |
| Press | Target machine data, interfaces and available utilities | Assumed press envelope, injection unit and utility needs |
| Inspection | Critical characteristics, method, sampling plan and acceptance owner | Proposed measurement method and any fixture, gauge or capability study excluded from the quote |
Use the register during clarification calls and return a dated copy with each revision. When an assumption changes, ask the supplier to identify the effect on price, timing, tool layout, validation, and scope instead of replacing the earlier basis without explanation.
Normalize supplier replies before comparing price
Ask every supplier to complete the same comparison sheet. Preserve their explanatory notes: two rows with the same headline price can represent very different technical and commercial boundaries.
| Comparison field | Details to normalize |
|---|---|
| Cavity | Quoted cavitation, family or dedicated layout, and any output assumption |
| Runner | Hot or cold runner, gate concept, controller scope, and quoted supplier where applicable |
| Steel by component | Steel family for cavity, core, inserts, slides, mold base and other price-significant components—not one undifferentiated steel label |
| Component brands | Named brands or accepted equivalents for hot runner, cylinders, fittings, electrical parts and standard components |
| Mold-life basis | The stated cycle basis and the operating, resin, maintenance and approval conditions attached to it |
| Sampling | Number and location of trials, sample quantity, resin responsibility, reports, shipping and machine time included |
| Corrections | Which design or manufacturing corrections are included, the approval boundary, and what becomes a charged change |
| Spares | Included wear parts, quantities, identification, material and documentation |
| Packing | Preservation, export packing, lifting or handling provisions and any long-term storage preparation |
| Delivery boundary | Incoterm and named place, freight, insurance, customs, taxes, unloading and final destination responsibilities |
| Support | Installation, trial, training, remote support, on-site support and response or travel boundaries |
| Exclusions | Buyer-supplied items, gauges, fixtures, automation, validation, resin, special testing and any other omitted scope |
Compare the normalized technical basis before ranking total price or lead time. If a supplier cannot state a major assumption, keep that line open rather than inventing a comparable value on the supplier’s behalf.
When this checklist is not enough
This checklist organizes an initial sourcing conversation; it is not an engineering-release or acceptance plan. Add part-specific specialists, evidence and approvals when the program includes:
- safety-critical functions or sealing performance where a failure mode and verification method must be agreed;
- regulated parts or materials that require documented jurisdiction, traceability, testing or customer approval;
- optical surfaces where appearance, optical performance, handling and measurement need specific definitions;
- extreme tolerances or interacting tolerance stacks that require functional analysis and an agreed measurement strategy;
- an unfamiliar resin, additive, recycled-content target or service environment that requires material-provider and processing review; or
- automation-dependent loading, ejection, transfer, inspection or packaging that must be reviewed as a connected system.
In these cases, obtain the relevant material, quality, tooling, process, automation and regulatory review before treating a supplier proposal as approved. A quotation cannot resolve missing functional requirements by itself.
How this guide was prepared
This guide combines public technical references with JF MOULD’s perspective on organizing overseas RFQ communication. It is not a published project case study, and it does not replace part-specific DFM, material, quality, or tooling review.
Sources and further reading
- ISO 20457:2018 — Plastics moulded parts — Tolerances and acceptance conditions. ISO 20457 describes tolerances and acceptance conditions for plastics moulded parts. It does not provide this RFQ checklist, and it does not replace functional requirements or an agreement between customer and supplier.
- Autodesk Moldflow Adviser: Design Adviser analysis, a public introductory tutorial for preliminary design-analysis setup.
If your files are ready for a part-specific review, send the controlled package and list open assumptions through the manual RFQ form.
Next step
Turn this article into an RFQ review.
Send files or a project brief, material, annual volume, or target timing notes. Jessica and the engineering team will review manufacturability risk and reply with initial engineering feedback or quote guidance within 12 hours.
