Both FR5 proposals quote our steel housing mass, but one excludes the customer-supplied adapter from its assessment and the other merely lists it alongside the extended fingers and hose fittings; I want each supplier to account for the complete fitted assembly before a low headline price becomes the purchasing recommendation.
The first explicitly leaves our adapter to us, while the second includes an engineering review but has not stated what information it needs or who signs off its completed proposal; neither has received an order.
Ask the first to price the missing assessment and the second to define its included review, with the adapter drawing and complete tool arrangement supplied to both; ownership should not depend on who happened to buy one component.
Put the actual arrangement in front of them. The housing mass alone leaves out the tool and how far the load acts from the wrist, and the intended movement matters too. Ask for the applicable limits and their assessment assumptions, not just another total labelled suitable.
An existing adapter with its drawing available, although the proposed hose bracket is not yet on that drawing; I have asked our tooling owner to provide the fitted arrangement rather than letting either supplier assume the bracket away.
Pavel's question matters for cost too. On a review I helped with, the adapter drawing was complete but the drawing supplied with the quotation wasn't the one the toolmaker was using. Both people honestly said they had the adapter drawing. We lost time comparing load figures before noticing the different stand-off. I'd put the drawing revision alongside each assumption here, and leave the unfinished bracket visibly unfinished until its owner settles it.
The proposal also needs to state which tool opening and workpiece arrangement it assesses; otherwise a complete list of component identities can still accompany an incomplete operating case.
Our tooling owner has supplied the adapter revision and a bracket arrangement for assessment, with the extended fingers shown at the nest; Alex, access is not yet accepted, and Theo, both suppliers have the loaded and open-tool arrangements rather than only the closed grip.
Pavel, it had changed for access. Purchasing sent the earlier revision, while the toolmaker worked from the later one. We corrected the proposal to the intended assembly before continuing the assessment; the earlier figures weren't reused.
The first supplier has added a priced assembly assessment, and the second has named the engineer completing its included review with the remaining inputs listed; our comparison now includes that work, although neither proposal has a completed suitability result.
The second has proposed shorter fingers and is checking whether their release still clears the nest; I have kept that as a separate candidate, so its possible load benefit is not being attached to the original fingers' access drawing.
Would the shorter fingers still let maintenance reach the tool connection, Aaron? Worth drawing the hand access before that candidate gets too comfortable on the shortlist.