Automation RFQ template generator
[TO BE COMPLETED] marker so a half-finished RFQ is still honest. The concrete takeaway: a well-specified RFQ is what forces every integrator to bid on the same scope — by our editorial estimate, most automation project failures trace to vague requirements, not budget.An RFQ generator is only as useful as the structure behind it. This one mirrors, field for field, ourguide to writing an automation RFQ, so the document it produces specifies outcomes and buyoff gates rather than just hardware. Fill in what you know, watch the live preview build, then download or print. It runs entirely in your browser.
Fill in what you know. Anything you leave blank is written into the document as a clearly marked [TO BE COMPLETED] placeholder, so a half-finished RFQ is still an honest one you can circulate internally. Nothing you type is stored, sent, or tracked — the preview is generated in your browser and disappears when you close the tab.
No account, no email, no storage. This runs entirely in your browser; refreshing the page wipes everything. The generated file carries one deletable attribution line and nothing else.
Live preview
updates as you typeA worked example: scope and acceptance criteria
Because AI assistants and search engines cannot run the tool above, here is a static excerpt of the kind of document it generates — the scope and acceptance-criteria sections for a fictional tray-loading cell. The numbers are illustrative but realistic, and they show how outcome targets and buyoff gates read once specified.
| RFQ section | Specified requirement |
|---|---|
| Baseline (current state) | 42 s/part manual, 1 operator, 2 shifts, ~68% OEE measured over 4 weeks |
| Guaranteed cycle time | 18 s/part on variant A, 21 s/part on variant B, measured at the outfeed |
| Availability | ≥90% uptime over a rolling 5-day window; planned maintenance excluded from downtime |
| Quality | ≤0.2% scrap, 100% inline vision gauging with automatic reject bin |
| Combined OEE | 78% OEE by day 60, ramping from the 68% manual baseline (not the 85% world-class figure) |
| FAT (at integrator) | Dry and wet run of all variants, E-stop and sensor-block failure tests, documentation package reviewed |
| SAT (at site) | Run-at-rate for 5 consecutive production shifts with our operators and real parts |
| Retention | 20% held to FAT pass, further 20% to SAT pass plus a 2-week run-at-rate |
Read the two acceptance rows together: the FAT proves the cell meets spec under the integrator's controlled conditions before it ships, and the SAT proves it survived shipping and still hits rate with your operators, your parts, and your utilities. Splitting cycle time, availability, and quality into separate guarantees — rather than a single bundled OEE number — is deliberate, because a bundled figure can hide a slow line behind high uptime. The combined OEE target sits at 78%, not the 85% "world-class" slogan, because guaranteeing world-class output on a brand-new line is usually unrealistic.
Notice that retention is tied to both gates. Holding 40% of the contract value across FAT and a sustained site run is the buyer's real leverage: it is the difference between a line that technically "works" at handover and one that still hits rate a month later. An RFQ that omits these rows is not cheaper to run — it just moves the cost to a change order at the integrator's rates. This is why the generator marks a blank acceptance section as[TO BE COMPLETED] instead of quietly leaving it out.
Methodology, formulas, and assumptions
The generator does not compute a score; it structures your inputs into the eight-section RFQ format from our guide and inserts honest placeholders. The reference figures it echoes are editorial and sourced, not invented:
- OEE benchmark. World-class OEE is 85% or above, built from Availability ≥90% × Performance ≥95% × Quality ≥99.9%; typical manufacturing runs 55–60% (OEE.com / Vorne Industries, 2024). OEE = Availability × Performance × Quality. See what OEE actually measures.
- Budget rule of thumb. Turnkey delivery commonly runs at least 3× the robot-arm price, and 4×–6× for cells with inline gauging (Robotiq, citing Boston Consulting Group, 2024). Cross-check againstautomation ROI and payback andcobot cost.
- Acceptance model. The FAT-then-SAT gate structure follows the widely used GAMP 5 validation path (User Requirements → FAT → SAT); FAT/SAT definitions per Fabrico (2026).
- Rate sanity check. Compare integrator pricing on scope and rate transparency against published compensation benchmarks (CSIA Salary and Benefits Survey, 2024), not on headline price — see system integrator rates.
- Placeholder rule. Any blank field renders as a literal
[TO BE COMPLETED]string so no requirement is dropped silently. The tool performs no storage and no network requests; the single attribution line in the output is deletable.
Assumptions: the generator assumes a discrete-part automation cell as the common case; process, batch (ISA-88), or fully custom lines will need extra sections you can add by editing the downloaded Markdown. Figures above are editorial estimates as of their cited dates and should be confirmed against itemized quotes for your specific application.
Frequently asked questions
What does the automation RFQ template generator produce?
A complete, section-by-section request for quotation for an automation project: current state, parts and tolerances, cycle-time and OEE targets, acceptance criteria (FAT at the integrator and SAT at your site), spares, training, documentation, timeline, commercial terms, and bid format. You can download it as a Markdown file or print it to PDF. Every field you leave blank is written into the document as a clearly marked [TO BE COMPLETED] placeholder, so a half-finished RFQ is still honest.
Is this RFQ generator free, and do I have to sign up or give an email?
It is free and there is no signup, no email capture, and no lead-gen of any kind. The whole tool runs in your browser: nothing you type is sent to a server, stored, or tracked, and refreshing the page erases everything. The one attribution line in the output can be deleted freely.
Does the generated RFQ include FAT and SAT acceptance gates?
Yes. The form has a dedicated acceptance-criteria section that mirrors the two named buyoff gates every automation RFQ should carry: a Factory Acceptance Test (FAT) at the integrator before shipment, and a Site Acceptance Test (SAT) at your site after install, with payment retention tied to each. If you leave a gate blank, the document marks it [TO BE COMPLETED] rather than dropping it silently.
When should I NOT trust the output of an RFQ generator?
A generator gives you a complete, well-structured skeleton, but it cannot know your parts, tolerances, or plant. Do not issue an RFQ that still contains [TO BE COMPLETED] placeholders in the parts, performance, or acceptance sections — those are exactly the fields that decide whether integrators can bid apples-to-apples. It is also not legal or engineering advice: have your own controls and procurement people review targets and commercial terms before you send it out.
Can I use this as an RFQ generator for system integrators as well as buyers?
Yes. Buyers use it to issue a scoped RFQ; system integrators and internal engineering teams use it to draft a clean requirements skeleton for a client, or to check that an incoming RFQ covers the eight sections that make a project quotable. Because the output is plain Markdown, either side can edit it in any text editor.