A quote refresh buyer review should identify the prior offer, active revisions, changed inputs, quantity, workshare, and exact supplier response required. The official Gerber format resources from Ucamco help identify the fabrication-data revision, while the buyer request still controls quotation scope.
A PCBA quote refresh request is incomplete until the buyer identifies which previous response is being refreshed and what has changed. A supplier cannot reliably separate price movement from scope movement when the message omits the active BOM, assembly revision, quantities, workshare, test input or requested validity basis.
At this gate, the buyer should first choose the output: a complete replacement quotation, a limited delta response, or clarification of one assumption. Those outputs serve different decisions. A delta may be efficient for one controlled change, but it cannot be compared as a complete quotation unless every unchanged field remains tied to the previous response.
This checklist prepares the request; it does not promise a supplier turnaround, validity period, price result or capacity. The active supplier response and authorised project records control the commercial decision.
Start the Quote Refresh Buyer Review with a Defined Request Type
Tell the supplier whether you need a replacement quotation, a priced delta, or clarification of an existing condition. A replacement should identify the response it supersedes. A delta should name the changed lines and the prior terms that remain active. A clarification should state whether it changes a commercial value or only explains the original wording.
Put that request beside the previous quote reference, intended purchasing decision, and requested response date. Ask the supplier to confirm the form of response it can support. Use the quotation assumptions register to carry unresolved conditions into the comparison. If the returned offer answers a different question, clarify the scope before treating its total as the basis for an award.
Choose the question according to the decision ahead. If only the quotation validity has expired, ask whether the stated price, lead-time basis and exclusions can still support the intended order. If the BOM also changed, identify that as a technical refresh rather than hiding it inside a validity request. A supplier can then distinguish a confirmation from a revised calculation, and the buyer can see which original assumptions still require an explicit answer.
Name the previous quotation being refreshed
Identify the exact quotation being refreshed, including its revision, issue date, supplier entity, currency, and validity. Keep the original response available rather than sending only a copied total. If several offers or variants exist, name which one the request concerns and whether any earlier clarification forms part of that basis.
List later changes separately from the accepted original inputs. The PCBA engineering change control record can explain which technical revisions changed after that offer; it cannot establish whether the supplier accepted a new price or date. Ask the supplier to identify its previous response in the return package. A different reference, missing attachment, or unexplained revision should be resolved before the buyer compares the old and new commercial positions.
Include enough identity for the supplier to retrieve the exact earlier response: quotation number, revision, issue date and the product or assembly reference. If two responses cover different quantities, do not attach one total without its quantity basis. Point to the response actually used in the previous purchasing decision and attach the alternative separately as background. The request should make it possible to compare the correct pair without relying on the buyer’s recollection of an email conversation.
Quote refresh request: review baseline, delta, scope, response against the active project records. Freeze the Baseline for the Quote Refresh Buyer Review
Build a dated source index for the proposed refresh. Include the assembly and PCB revisions, BOM and approved-part information, quantity basis, placement data, relevant drawings, firmware, and test requirements that the supplier needs for the requested scope. Distinguish active files from reference material and identify any objects that are still awaiting approval.
Ask the supplier to acknowledge that index or list exceptions against it. Sending a newer archive does not establish that every recipient used it. Keep open questions in the BOM risk report linked to the affected rows, rather than burying them in a general request to requote. If an input is intentionally unchanged, point to the controlled version being carried forward so the supplier can reproduce the intended comparison.
Sample one request field before issue and confirm that its prior basis, new input, unit and expected supplier reply can be compared without explanation.
Request field
Evidence to attach
Responsible role
Pause the refresh when
Requested response
Prior quotation reference and a list of questions requiring a revised price, clarification or validity extension
Buyer coordinating the request
The supplier cannot tell which response is being requested
Technical baseline
Approved BOM, assembly revision and applicable test-input versions
Engineering baseline owner
Two attachments claim to be the active revision
Changed scope
Old and proposed quantities, workshare, sourcing responsibilities and excluded operations
Buyer with the affected process owner
An omitted operation could change what the price includes
Response deadline
Requested decision date and the supplier-confirmed response timing
Buyer and supplier quotation contact
The purchase decision assumes a response date the supplier has not accepted
Record changed and unchanged inputs
Create a delta list that tells the supplier what changed and what did not. Record the old value, proposed value, source reference, affected configuration, and the response needed for each item. Include deletions and scope transfers, since an omitted activity can change a quotation even when no new component appears in the BOM.
For material changes, relate the request to the components management workshare: supplier-sourced, buyer-supplied, or consigned. Ask whether the delta changes purchasing exposure, minimum quantities, handling, or the basis for an alternate. Mark an unknown value as unresolved instead of labelling it unchanged. The return package should address every submitted delta, including items with no stated commercial effect and items that require further information.
A useful delta row identifies the old input, the proposed input and the response expected from the supplier. For example, a changed board revision may require the supplier to confirm which process or tooling assumptions need review; it does not establish that a new charge is inevitable. Put confirmed unchanged inputs in a separate column. Where engineering has not decided an item, mark it open and name the person who will provide the controlling answer.
The refresh delta package separates changed, unchanged, missing, and disputed inputs. Normalise Quantity, Date, and Workshare
The quote refresh buyer review should state whether quantity, delivery date, currency, purchasing model, and buyer-supplied material changed from the prior offer.
State the quantity the supplier should price and how it will be released. A forecast, one purchase order, and several scheduled releases describe different purchasing decisions. Identify variants, batch splits, and buyer-supplied material separately where they affect the scope. Give dates an observable meaning, such as the requested handover event or the deadline for a valid response.
Record currency, included work, and the treatment of conditions in the comparison sheet without making assumptions about their financial effect. Ask the supplier to state its basis for any minimum, commitment, or time-limited offer. If two responses use different quantities or endpoints, retain that difference visibly until the commercial owner decides how the offers can fairly be compared.
Make unit and total comparisons on the same basis. State whether a quantity is a single order, an estimated annual requirement or a release against a larger agreement. Distinguish the requested shipment timing from any supplier-confirmed lead time. Record who buys each material group and whether a listed tooling amount is recurring or one-time. A lower displayed unit price is not a useful comparison if it rests on a different order quantity or a transferred customer responsibility.
Reopen sourcing test tooling and delivery dependencies
Ask which dependent activities must be reviewed when the input changes. A revised component may require another sourcing check; a new test requirement may change fixture or program work; a design revision may affect existing tooling. List the affected activity and request its current basis rather than assuming that an unchanged assembly price covers every dependency.
Identify whether each activity is included, excluded, conditional, or quoted separately. Request the owner and closure input for any unresolved item. Delivery commitments need a current response tied to the proposed product, quantity, and workshare. Packaging requirements belong in a separate project-specific review when applicable. An earlier equipment list or completed project does not reserve capacity or establish readiness for this refreshed scope.
Select one dependency from sourcing, test, tooling, packaging, or delivery and confirm that the refreshed request identifies its owner, current basis, supplier response, and unresolved boundary.
Supplier response
Buyer action
What remains separate
Record before the next step
Revised quotation
Compare changed line items and assumptions with the request
Technical approval and purchase-order authority
Quotation revision, validity and unresolved exclusions
Clarification only
Attach the answer to the question it resolves
A clarification does not automatically renew pricing
Answered question, source and respondent
Conditional response
Identify which condition must be satisfied before relying on the affected price
Unrelated lines can be reviewed independently
Condition owner, evidence required and expiry
No confirmed response
Keep the affected purchasing decision open
Silence is not acceptance of unchanged terms
Follow-up owner and decision deadline
The dependent-scope view connects quantity, workshare, sourcing, test, and tooling changes. Request a Supplier Response the Buyer Can Compare
Request a response that can be traced back to the submitted changes. The supplier may use its own format, but the buyer still needs to identify the active source set, affected lines, unchanged conditions, exclusions, validity, and any questions preventing a firm answer. Ask the supplier to distinguish a complete replacement from a supplement to the original offer.
Preserve the supplier’s actual wording when recording conditions. Where a statement is ambiguous, return a specific question rather than translating it into an apparently unconditional comparison field. Before comparing totals, check that the workshare and response type align. Keep unresolved differences beside the affected line so an approver sees what remains undecided at the point of purchase.
Ask the supplier to connect each revised amount or condition to the relevant request row. An answer such as “updated as requested” leaves the buyer unable to tell whether an open test requirement, a changed quantity or an unchanged material assumption was considered. A short response matrix can identify confirmed inputs, revised commercial lines, exclusions and unanswered questions. Keep the supplier’s original response attached; the buyer’s comparison sheet is an interpretation, not a substitute for the offer.
Read the request back before release
Close the quote refresh buyer review only after the active request and supplier response use the same revisions, workshare, assumptions, and decision owner.
Have a second buyer reconstruct the request before sending it. They should be able to locate the prior quote, open the active input set, identify every submitted change, and explain what response will support the next decision. Ask them to identify anything that is intentionally excluded or still pending; those boundaries matter as much as the changed values.
Resolve conflicting dates, duplicate revisions, and missing owners before releasing the package. Assign one contact for supplier questions and preserve the issued request in the normal project record. If a later correction is necessary, identify the superseded request and communicate the change to its recipients. Do not let an informal follow-up silently become a different baseline for the refreshed quotation.
Before sending, give the request to a colleague who did not prepare it. Ask that colleague to identify the old quotation, the active source set, each requested change and the decision date. If the colleague has to choose between two similarly named BOM files, correct the attachment index first. If a question has no named owner, assign it before issue. Record the version sent so later answers can be associated with the request the supplier actually received.
The request gate shows who prepares, responds, compares, decides, and reads the result back. Rehearse the Quote Refresh Buyer Review Before Approval
Use one real quotation line to test the request before it leaves the buyer. The sourcing lead reads the earlier line exactly as issued, including its currency, quantity break, included work and stated condition. Engineering then identifies the active BOM and assembly revisions behind the new request. A colleague who did not prepare the package must be able to explain whether the buyer wants a replacement quote, a delta or an answer to one open assumption. If that distinction requires an email explanation, the request is not ready.
The rehearsal should include one changed field and one field expected to continue unchanged. Put the old value, new buyer input, unit, source and requested supplier response in adjacent columns. When two sources disagree, preserve both and assign the conflict; do not merge them into a convenient number. The request may still proceed for unrelated lines, but the affected comparison stays open. Record the owner, response date and document that will close it. This gives the supplier a question that can be answered and gives the buyer a response that can later be traced.
FAQ
Does every BOM change require a full PCBA quote refresh?
No. The buyer should assess which commercial, sourcing, manufacturing, test, tooling or delivery fields the change affects. A bounded delta may be enough when the prior response remains active and every unchanged assumption is identified.
Can buyers ask only for a new total?
They can ask, but a total without source and scope may not support comparison. The request should identify the prior response, active files, quantity basis, workshare, dependencies and required return fields.
Should unchanged inputs appear in the request?
Yes when they control comparability. Naming an unchanged quantity, sourcing model or test scope prevents the supplier and buyer from silently carrying different baselines.
What should the buyer send for a project-specific review?
Send the previous quote ID and date, active assembly and BOM revisions, changed-file index, quantities, workshare, sourcing, test, tooling and delivery changes, plus the required response output.
Prepare the Records for a Quote Refresh Buyer Review
Bring the previous quotation, refresh type, active input set, quantity basis, workshare, changed fields and expected return format. Use the plain contact page to request a review of that defined comparison package.
For this check, the review can identify unanswered assumptions and mismatched scope. Prices, validity, availability, capacity and delivery conditions remain subject to the supplier response and authorised commercial agreement.
Use the checklist to compare the active quote request with the prior quotation, changed inputs, and required supplier reply. The buyer should resolve every open assumption against the current contract, quality requirements, and authorised project records before approving the refresh.
