Flex PCB RFQ Checklist: Make Competing Quotes Comparable

UPDATED October 9, 2026

Discuss your flex PCB project →

Two flex PCB quotations can show different unit prices because they describe different purchases. One may include a test report, tooling and delivery in individual pieces; another may assume panels, exclude a fixture or quote against an earlier drawing. Before ranking prices, put the offers on a common technical and delivery basis.

This worksheet is for comparing received offers. If the immediate task is defining what a prototype should demonstrate, begin with the prototype build guide. Here the output is a comparison record that explains which offers are comparable, which need clarification and how the arithmetic was performed.

Freeze the comparison baseline

Name the part number, revision, quantity and delivered state at the top of the comparison. Include whether the purchase is for bare circuits, populated assemblies or a combination. If the requested quantity means usable individual circuits, make that explicit when a supplier quotes panels. Do not compare panel count directly with circuit count.

Minco’s flex design guide distinguishes early estimates from firm quotations and lists the manufacturing, material and test information needed for the latter. It also calls attention to exceptions and substitutions in the received offer. This is a useful reason to read the complete quotation rather than extracting its unit-price line. Minco Flex Circuits Design Guide, Request a Quote section, pages 23–25.

Keep the same baseline across every bidder. A proposed material substitution can be recorded as an alternate offer, but it should not silently replace the baseline in only one column. The manufacturing guide helps identify which construction and inspection decisions need engineering review.

Use evidence states instead of empty cells

For every requirement, enter one of four states: confirmed included, separately priced, explicitly excluded or unresolved. An empty cell is not evidence of inclusion. Add a quotation page or written clarification reference beside each state so a later reviewer can reconstruct the decision.

Normalize a small example without inventing market prices

The following numbers are invented comparison units, not currency quotations or typical flex PCB prices. Assume both offers have already been confirmed technically equivalent, cover 100 accepted individual circuits and include the same delivery boundary. Offer A lists 8 units per circuit plus 200 units of one-time work. Offer B lists 9 units per circuit plus 50 units of one-time work. Assume no other charge applies in this example.

The first-order comparison is A = 100 × 8 + 200 = 1,000 units and B = 100 × 9 + 50 = 950 units. B has the higher unit-price line but the lower first-order total. Dividing each total by the same 100 circuits gives 10 and 9.5 comparison units per delivered circuit, respectively.

For an unchanged repeat order, if the supplier has confirmed that the one-time work does not recur, the corresponding totals would be 800 and 900 units. That does not establish a future price commitment. It illustrates why an initial-build decision and an unchanged-repeat decision need separate columns. Tool reuse, revised artwork or a different order quantity can change the assumptions.

The illustrative cost estimator can help organize early budget inputs. Do not replace a missing supplier charge with an estimator output and label the result a confirmed quote total. Keep unresolved charges visible and request clarification.

Do not turn an unknown into a zero

If a required test record is excluded from one offer, the normalized total remains incomplete until the scope or additional charge is resolved. Similarly, a proposed construction change is not just a monetary adjustment when it requires new engineering evidence. Mark that offer conditional rather than assigning an invented risk premium to make a spreadsheet produce a ranking.

Schedule comparisons need the same discipline. “After engineering approval” and “after receipt of order” use different starting events. Record both the trigger and the promised endpoint, then identify any prerequisite the project has not yet met. A smaller number of days is not necessarily an earlier usable delivery.

Normalize the delivered unit before comparing quantity breaks

Start with the physical item the receiving team will count. A production panel, an individual bare circuit and a populated assembly are different deliverables even when they share a design reference. Record the number of usable circuits represented by each quoted unit and who performs separation. If separation is outside the quotation, identify where that operation enters the project plan instead of assuming the panel price includes a finished individual part.

Consider an original hypothetical offer for ten panels containing twelve circuit positions each. The drawing therefore describes 120 positions, but that arithmetic alone does not establish a commitment to deliver 120 accepted circuits. Ask whether the supplier guarantees a stated accepted quantity, permits marked-out positions or offers another explicitly described delivery basis. Record the supplier’s answer. Do not invent a yield assumption and use it as though it were an agreed shipment condition.

Quantity-break comparisons also need a common commitment. An annual forecast is not necessarily the same purchase as one released lot of that quantity. Identify whether a price applies to a single order, several agreed releases or an estimate of future demand. Compare the quoted scenarios separately. A volume price conditioned on a different ordering arrangement cannot be inserted into the prototype column without retaining that condition.

Keep technical alternates beside the baseline

A supplier may propose a different laminate, reinforcement arrangement or delivered panel to simplify manufacture. Record the baseline offer and the alternate as separate entries when both are available. Name exactly which requirement changes and which engineering decision would make the alternate acceptable. A lower alternate price is useful information, but it does not demonstrate that the original requirement has been met.

For example, imagine that an alternate changes the reinforced connector tail while leaving the overall circuit outline unchanged. The buyer should identify whether the finished connector interface remains within the approved requirement and what evidence supports that conclusion. Do not treat a matching outline as proof of an equivalent construction. If the alternate requires a new sample review, include that unresolved step in the decision record without assigning an unsupported probability of success.

When an alternate is accepted, update the comparison baseline deliberately and communicate the same revised requirement to any other bidders still being compared. Otherwise the final worksheet can mix prices for different revisions. Preserve the original offers so the team can understand why the comparison changed, but clearly identify which revised offer is valid for the intended order.

Ask what the one-time charge actually buys

Break a combined setup line into the activities that matter to the project. It may describe manufacturing preparation, a fixture, programming or another defined service. Ask what deliverable or reusable resource is represented and what event causes a new charge. The purpose is to understand the offer, not to assume that every supplier divides costs in the same way.

For a repeat-build comparison, request explicit clarification about unchanged artwork, revised artwork and a changed quantity. Record any stated storage or reuse conditions rather than assuming that paying an initial charge guarantees indefinite reuse. A fixture suitable for one population or test arrangement may not represent the next revision. Keep those questions connected to the relevant line item so a later purchaser does not interpret an old comparison as a current quotation.

Use the same discipline for customer-supplied components and test equipment. Identify which items the buyer supplies, when the supplier needs them and which operations remain in the offer. A quoted assembly price cannot be evaluated fully when an essential fixture or component sourcing responsibility has no owner. Mark that row unresolved until the actual scope is established.

Compare schedule events with a small dependency map

Write the quoted sequence as named events: technical questions closed, files approved, required materials available, production started, goods dispatched and goods received. Use only events applicable to the offer. Place the stated interval between its actual start and endpoint. This simple map exposes whether the promised duration covers manufacturing alone or includes another part of the delivery process.

In a hypothetical comparison, one offer starts its clock after drawing approval while another starts after all buyer-supplied components arrive. If the drawing is ready but the components are not, the two clocks have different prerequisites. The worksheet should display that dependency rather than rank the offers by the smaller printed duration. No assumed shipping time or material availability should be presented as a supplier commitment.

If the project needs an initial sample decision before the remaining quantity proceeds, ask how that hold point affects the schedule and quotation. Identify who reviews the sample and what releases the next step. A schedule that omits an intended approval pause is incomplete for planning even if its manufacturing interval is clearly stated. Keep the decision date and the supplier’s stated interval separate so neither is silently converted into a promise by the other party.

Close clarifications with evidence rather than a score

Send a focused clarification list organized by the unresolved comparison rows. Each question should name the relevant requirement and request a specific inclusion, exclusion or alternate. After receiving a response, update the evidence state and reference the response date. Avoid replacing an unresolved technical issue with a subjective numerical score merely to complete a ranking chart.

A useful comparison can end with only some offers ready for an award decision. That is a valid result: it shows which proposals answer the controlled request and which still need information. Preserve conditions attached to an otherwise acceptable offer, and confirm that the eventual purchase documents describe the same scope. The worksheet supports the decision by making differences visible; it does not create supplier commitments that were absent from the offer.

Keep the award decision traceable

Retain the baseline package, original offers, clarification responses and completed worksheet. Record who accepted each technical deviation and which conditions remain before release. If the design changes after comparison, reopen the affected rows and obtain the necessary revised offer instead of carrying the old ranking forward automatically.

Request a flex PCB quotation with the controlled build package, required quantity, delivery form and acceptance evidence. A useful comparison starts with suppliers answering the same question and ends with the unresolved differences clearly identified.

Explore the flex PCB guide and tools →