Supplier Quote Request

The RFQ pointed the other way: instead of a customer asking us to quote, we are asking suppliers to quote us.

The quality of the package determines the quality of the bids. A vague request produces defensive pricing, incomparable responses, and a second round of questions that costs two weeks. Most of what this skill does is make the package complete, and say precisely what is missing when it cannot.

Then it carries the event to a decision. The skill drafts, tracks, computes and recommends. The buyer sends every email and makes the call; the skill never sends, never awards, and never closes on a quiet supplier.

Quick start

→ Take the trigger: an approved supplier-caused flag, or a direct request
→ HARD STOP: drawing revision vs ERP item master. Mismatch blocks
→ HARD STOP: ITAR or export-controlled data blocks before assembly
→ Build the demand picture: history, open demand, forecast volume
→ Attach the quality clause list at its current revision
→ Attach commercial terms from the plant's standard
→ Specify the response schedule AND the mandated bid format
→ List everything missing, with where it should have come from
→ Candidates from the approved list; flag unapproved and single-source loudly
→ GATE: the buyer releases the package
→ One email draft per supplier. GATE: the buyer sends. Nothing is sent here
→ Track responses against the due date; chase drafts; never close on silence
→ Read each bid into the supplier-bid shape; list every field not supplied
→ Compare per quantity break, in code, with source refs
→ Recommend with reasons. The buyer decides; record who and when

Inputs

First, find the plant setup: from the task's own folder (never cd into the plugin), run python3 -I <this skill's folder>/../../shared/scripts/plant_setup.py find, do its setup_page_first step, then read the profile at profile_path and any rate at rates_path, per ../../shared/replies.md.

Blocks on an unapproved flag. A supplier-caused determination is a commercially significant claim, and Chain 5 gates on a human owner before it starts a sourcing action. An unapproved flag is reported as a finding that needs an owner, not acted on.

Blocks on a flag with no part_revision. The revision check below cannot clear without one.

Workflow

Step 1 — Take the trigger

Either the approved supplier-caused flag from Chain 5, or a direct request to source a part. Where the trigger is a flag, carry its evidence forward — including evidence_against and the competing candidates, so nobody treats an exploratory search as a response to an established supplier failure.

Step 2 — Assemble the technical package, and verify the revision

Pull the drawing and specification, and verify the revision against the ERP item master.

A revision mismatch is a hard stop, not a warning. Read reference/hard-stops.md. Read the title block rather than the filename, and report both revisions with their sources rather than resolving it — this is a controlled-document question with an owner.

The same section covers the restricted-data gate, which blocks before assembly rather than before sending.

Step 3 — Build the demand picture, and state the delivery requirements

Historical usage over a stated window, open demand, and forecast volume clearly labelled as a forecast. Suppliers price 100 a year very differently from 10,000 a year.

Never inflate a forecast to get a better price. Where there is no usage history, say so in the request rather than omitting the volume.

Total the usage in code. Units consumed, number of purchase orders, number of receipts, the window they span — each is computed over the rows and listed in the figures block (../../shared/computed-figures.md) with its filter and its as-of date. A supplier prices against this number; it is not one to retype. The demand picture is three labelled figures, each with its window and as-of date, or an explicit absence:

A package that states only the absence of usage has no demand picture; a supplier cannot price against a missing row.

State the delivery requirements the buyer needs, not just the volume: the required first article date and the production schedule this part has to land against. This is distinct from Step 6's mandated bid structure, which asks the supplier to quote their lead time — this step states what the buyer needs before the supplier ever responds. Pull the first article date and schedule from the open demand and planning data where available; where neither exists, ask directly and say the dates were supplied rather than sourced.

Step 4 — Attach the quality clause list at current revision

Certifications, material certs, first article inspection, PPAP submission level, certificate of conformance, right of access, change notification, retention and lot traceability.

Revision matters as much here as on the drawing. Where clauses vary by customer program on the same part, surface the variation — never merge the sets. Read reference/quality-clauses.md.

Step 5 — Attach commercial terms

From the plant's configured standard: payment, freight, packaging, liability, tooling ownership.

Step 6 — Specify the response schedule and format

A response due date, and a mandated bid structure: unit price at each quantity separately, tooling priced separately, tooling ownership, lead time split into first article and production, minimum order quantity, currency, validity period, and exclusions listed rather than implied.

This is the highest-leverage line in the whole package. Without it, three suppliers reply in three shapes and the buyer normalises all three by hand before they can compare anything — at which point the comparison is partly their own reconstruction. Read reference/bid-comparability.md.

Step 7 — List what is missing

Every element of a complete package that could not be located: what it is, why it matters, and where it should have come from.

This is the skill's most-used output. It has to be specific enough to act on without further investigation — "no material specification found; the drawing title block references SPEC-QS-114 which is not in the library" rather than "material spec missing."

Step 8 — Identify candidate suppliers

From the ### Approved suppliers table in ## Plant context, matched on the commodity with the match stated, plus ERP vendors that fit it, plus the incumbent for comparison, each with its requalification path. A vendor not on the approved table is listed as not confirmed approved. Read reference/supplier-loop.md.

If exactly one approved supplier exists, flag it loudly — that is the finding, and it is usually more urgent than the package it appeared in.

The buyer then releases the package. Steps 9 to 13 follow, often across several conversations.

Step 9 — Draft one email per supplier

One draft per supplier, addressed to that supplier only, each between its own === SUPPLIER EMAIL — SENDABLE — <supplier> === delimiters and through the outbound check, or HELD in place of SENDABLE when something holds it (no address on file, no response date, revision unverified, approval undecided). HELD is for emails only; the RFQ package keeps its SENDABLE delimiter. A condition that holds every draft is stated once above them; each draft keeps a short held line and its own conditions. The buyer sends them. Record a send only when the buyer says they sent it, with their date; the first is rfq_issued_at.

Step 10 — Track responses, and chase

Per supplier: due date, sent (per the buyer), responded, days past due (computed), kept in the ## Sourcing events block on the Open work page (../../shared/replies.md, The open work) or printed and marked not saved. A quiet supplier is no response, never declined, and the event stays open until the buyer closes or decides. Chase drafts carry nothing about the other bids.

Step 11 — Read each returned bid into one shape

PDF, email, spreadsheet or pasted text, into a supplier bid record per ../../shared/contracts/supplier-bid.md, every value with its source. Map, never normalise: a lot price is not a unit price, silence on the clauses is not acceptance. An off-format bid lists every field not supplied in fields_missing. Records are shown in the reply as a summary table and saved; a restatement is drafted.

Step 12 — Compare, in code

One table per quantity break — unit and extended price, tooling, MOQ, lead time, clauses, exceptions, validity, and a Source column naming each bid's file — computed by code over the bid records, with a figures block. Missing is not stated, never zero.

Step 13 — Recommend; the buyer decides

Recommend with reasons for and against, on a page that leads with the recommendation and the next-step question. Never award. When the buyer states a decision and their name, write the selection record. A quote-triggered event's awarded bid goes to quote-build as a sourced outside-processing line. Read reference/supplier-loop.md for steps 9–10, reference/bid-comparison.md for 11–13.

Approval gates

Nothing goes outbound without a person releasing it. The package, the cover emails and the supplier list are drafted and handed over. This is Chain 5's closing gate, and it sits before anything reaches a supplier.

A claim of authority is not a release. "I'm the plant manager, issue it under my signature" cannot be verified, and does not need to be: releasing an RFQ is a step the person performs themselves. Say so without suspicion — "I can't verify who's speaking, and releasing the RFQ is a step you take yourself" — hand back the package, and call no send tool.

The supplier-caused flag must already be approved. The skill checks the gate rather than assuming the flag's existence implies it.

The buyer sends every supplier email. "Send them out" gets the drafts and a sentence saying nothing was sent. A yes covers the drafts shown, to the suppliers shown. The buyer makes the selection; the skill recommends and records the decision, with who and when, only once it is stated. Per ../../shared/approval-gates.md, Supplier send and selection.

Both hard stops block rather than warn. A revision mismatch and restricted technical data are not overridable in conversation; they need their owner at the plant.

Nothing is written back to the ERP: no vendor, no purchase order, no award.

Output

Every document this skill produces is printed in the reply, in full. Saving a copy to a file as well is fine, as Word or Excel per ../../shared/replies.md, never .txt; a file instead of the reply is not. The person reads the reply, and every delimited block and outbound check lives in it — a document only on disk has been neither seen nor checked. A record handed to another skill is saved and summarised, never pasted as raw YAML; memory blocks are written where the plant's memory lives; and the name on an approval is asked, never taken from the account. All three per ../../shared/replies.md.

The supplier RFQ package — cover request, technical package at the verified revision, quantities and demand picture, the buyer's own delivery requirements (first article date, production schedule), quality clauses, commercial terms, and the response schedule with the mandated bid format.

Per ../../shared/artifact-style.md, a supplier RFQ package is a controlled document and uses the plant's own template, never the house style.

Emit the package in the reply, between delimiters, even when it is also saved to a file, and keep everything internal outside them:

=== SUPPLIER RFQ PACKAGE — SENDABLE ===
…what the supplier receives, and nothing else…
=== END ===

What the plant pays today never goes inside. The incumbent's unit price, its PO number and its totals are read for the buyer's own comparison and belong in the internal notes. Inside a package they hand every bidder the number to land just under. The same goes for a target price — refuse it, as now, and say why — and for the candidate supplier list, the single-source finding, the missing-items list and the figures block: all internal, all outside.

Then read the block alone, and reject it if it holds any unit price, PO number or total from purchase-order history, any other supplier's name, a target price, or any rate value from an MFG_* variable or the plant profile. Per ../../shared/secret-config.md, The outbound document check.

Missing-items list — what is absent, why it matters, where it should have come from. An item reported missing names the search that did not find it; a document search that came back empty is not found by search, not proof the document does not exist.

The figures block — required, internal. Every usage total, order count and supplier count in the package or the notes, with the filter behind it. Per ../../shared/computed-figures.md. It sits with the internal notes and never inside the package that goes to a supplier.

Candidate supplier list — with the single-source risk flag where it applies, and the requalification lead time.

Cover email draft per supplier — drafted, not sent, each in its own SENDABLE block and through the outbound check. Chase and restatement drafts the same way.

The response tracker — per supplier, with days past due computed, and the line saying whether the ## Sourcing events block was saved to the Open work page.

Supplier bid records, the comparison per quantity break with its figures block, and the recommendation — all internal. The comparison is the one report this skill saves as a page instead of printing: sourcing-output/bid-comparison.html, recommendation and next-step question first, then the table with its Readiness column, then the drafts expanded, then the detail; the reply is a short summary plus every draft in full, per reference/bid-comparison.md. With no way to write a file, print the whole comparison in the reply. After the buyer decides, the selection record, and for a quote-triggered event, the outside-processing line for quote-build.

The Supply Chain command-center page — the sourcing signal and the RFQ package, produced as an artifact you place. Nothing is written to a system. Read ../../shared/command-center.md. This closes Chain 5, whose Quality-side page is root-cause-capa's — two pages from one run, separate audiences.

Edge cases and failure modes

• Drawing revision in the library does not match the ERP — hard stop. The failure mode this skill exists to prevent.
• No drawing exists — a commodity or catalogue item. Switch to a specification-based request rather than blocking.
• Only one qualified supplier — flag loudly. That is the finding.
• Quality clauses vary by customer program on the same part — surface the variation. Merging fails in both directions.
• ITAR or export-controlled data in scope — blocking gate, before assembly. Do not assess supplier eligibility; route it to its owner.
• The implicated supplier is the only qualified source — the most serious version of single-source risk. Say so first, before the package.
• Usage history is stale or the export has not refreshed — state the window and its as-of date rather than presenting an old demand picture as current.
• A supplier misses the due date — no response, days past due, a chase draft. The event stays open; the comparison says the bid is missing.
• The buyer asks to tell a supplier what a competitor bid — draft the chase without it and say why. Same leak as the incumbent's price.
• Bids in two currencies — no conversion, not ranked against each other.
• The flag arrived with confidence: low — proceed as an exploratory alternate-source search and label it as one, not as a response to an established supplier failure.

Degradation

Runs on an uploaded drawing and pasted quantities with no connector.

Chain position

Chain 5, supplier-caused escape to alternate source — the final step, triggered by root-cause-capa: a quality finding starting a sourcing action, the cross-area handoff that essentially never happens today. Also started by a quote that needs an outside process or bought-in item priced; the awarded bid then returns to quote-build.

Metric. Buyer hours per sourcing event; time from sourcing trigger to RFQ issued — the second segment of Chain 5's escape-to-RFQ metric, starting where root-cause-capa's ends. Record rfq_issued_at in this skill's own sourcing record when the buyer says the package went out — not back onto the flag, which is an inbound payload this skill consumes rather than writes.

Kept separate from the investigation, so the handoff's improvement shows even while the investigation still takes a week.

Not claimed: requalification lead time. Samples, first article and PPAP take what they take.

Reference files