I am comparing two FR5 tooling proposals for machined aluminium housings. Each suitability statement uses the housing mass alone. Both arrangements also have extended fingers, an adapter and hose fittings. What evidence should I require for the complete assembly before purchasing?
Our layout review once lengthened an adapter to clear a fixture without updating the load assessment. Get the actual assembled proposal identified first: masses, centres of mass, geometry and relevant load information for the intended motion. The responsible supplier should assess it against the applicable robot and tooling limits, not give you a verdict about an isolated housing.
One proposal lists the adapter as customer supplied. Its sketch still shows it. I had assumed a pictured item was included in both the price and assessment.
Then that offer needs an explicit interface and assessment responsibility for your adapter. Customer supplied does not mean it can be absent from the assembled load case. It also leaves you responsible for obtaining its actual data rather than letting the illustration supply imaginary dimensions.
I wouldn't insist every detail is frozen before a quotation. But the quotation must say which arrangement it covers and what would trigger a revised assessment and price.
The first supplier will assess the complete assembly once we provide the adapter data. The second has supplied its assembled drawing and identified an unresolved finger-extension requirement. Neither offer is approved for purchase yet.
Tooling has it, including the arrangement used for the access study. Grace's point also corrected my comparison: the first offer no longer appears to include an adapter we would have to supply.