Tracking RFQs in a small shop: what to record, and when to say no-quote
Short answer
Give every RFQ a number, an owner and a due date the day it arrives, and decide early whether to quote it. Record a reason for every no-quote and every loss, follow up on a fixed schedule, and mark outcomes honestly: silence is not the same as losing to a competitor. A spreadsheet can do this; what matters is that every request is on one list and nothing lives only in someone’s inbox.
Why RFQ tracking breaks in a small shop
RFQ tracking tends to hold up until volume goes up, then fail all at once. In 2025 a Practical Machinist member asked how other shops “keep track of the quotes to determine what has come in to quote, what has been quoted, what was won and what was lost”, because “I have been overwhelmed with the volume of quotes I am getting, and am starting to miss some of them” [1]. He added that he had “about $750,000 worth of work on my desk that I am going to have to pass on”.
Many requests now arrive by email: “Its all email, and we get to them when we have free time ( at least 2x daily)”, one shop wrote in 2026 [7]. The inbox is a poor tracker. On a 2026 thread from someone starting their own shop, one reply was blunt: “I’d highly advise against managing everything by email. Speaking from experience things get lost really easily” [6].
What to record for every RFQ
Keep one line per request, in whatever tool you already use. These are the fields that earn their place:
| Field | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| RFQ number | One number that follows the job everywhere. One owner assigns a quote number to every job and puts it in the subject of material requests, so the whole thread is searchable in the inbox [1]. |
| Received, and due | When it arrived and when the buyer needs the quote. Sort the list by due date, not by arrival. |
| Customer and contact | Who asked, so you can see your history with them. |
| Parts, revisions, quantities | What was asked for. A repeat part number tells you to look up the last quote. |
| Owner | The one person responsible for getting it out or declining it. |
| Decision, with a reason | Quote or no-quote, and why. The reasons, added up, tell you what work you keep turning away. |
| Sent, and value | When the quote went out and for how much. |
| Next follow-up | A date, not a good intention. |
| Outcome, with a reason | Won, lost, on hold, no response or expired, and why if you know. |
One owner per RFQ
In a one-person shop the owner is obvious, and the risk is the bottleneck: “it’s mostly just me quoting so I am a bit of a bottleneck” [12]. Once two or three people share quoting, the risk changes. A ten-person shop that asked about quoting software in 2026 had three people sharing quotes [8], and another shop described “hundreds of part numbers due in a couple weeks time with only 1-2 people working it” [3]. Requests fall between people when everyone assumes someone else has them.
The fix is simple: every RFQ gets exactly one name on the day it arrives, and anything without a name stands out on the list. The owner can hand it on, but it is never nobody’s.
When to say no-quote
Quoting takes real hours, and some of that time is hard to see. One shop says its ERP can’t record work-order time until the customer approves a quote, so estimating time has to be tracked somewhere else [9]. Deciding early what not to quote is how you protect that time. Shops on Practical Machinist describe a few tests:
- Fit. “bid only to our core customers, and core industries … When we see a quote for agriculture, we no quote and let them know why” [3].
- The customer’s record. One owner wrote in 2010: “I no quote about 10% of what I get RFQ’s for and if I don’t get more than 25% of what I quote, I stop quoting for them” [2]. At the other end: “I am 13 for 13 with them … Customers like that need to be moved to the front of the line” [3].
- Whether they mean to buy. “I’m sure a lot of RFQs are just that, they want to know how much? but have no intention of buying” [2]. Another poster: “most companies are required to send each RFQ to 3-4 shops” [5].
- Red flags on the request. One machinist lists “1. Overspecified accuracy. 2. No tolerance or dimensional limits. 3. A requirement for secrecy combined with the above” [11].
- Capability and capacity. Size, material, tolerance or a process you don’t run, and whether you can meet the date.
Write the reason down every time. After a few months, the reasons show whether you are turning away work you should buy a machine for, or work you should stop being sent.
Tell the buyer why
A no-quote is still a reply. One shop’s answer to an unknown customer is short: “These parts are not a good fit for my current capabilities, but thanks for the opportunity.” A buyer in the same thread said: “If I get a no-quote without feedback I’ll write back or call to request feedback” [4]. Another poster warned that buyers want “their three quotes with the least effort … After a few of times they will probably drop you” [4].
Two sentences are enough: thanks, the reason in plain words (we don’t hold that tolerance reliably, we can’t meet that date), and whether you’d like the next one. It keeps the door open for work that does fit.
Follow up on a schedule
Pick a rule and keep it. One shop: “If we don’t hear back on an RFQ, we follow up after 5 business days and repeat until we get to a conclusion” [1]. A follow-up works best when it carries news. One machinist uses “I was wondering where you are on that job I quoted, because the material price will be changing in a week or so” [5].
Ask for feedback, even though most buyers won’t give it: “very rarely will a customer be honest with you about where you stand” [5]. When they do, it pays. One poster who checks follow-up dates in their ERP followed up on three quotes, “got 3 honest answers”, learned he was three times high on one, and heard on the last: “Thanks for checking in! I’m sending a PO for $75,000” [5].
Record outcomes honestly
Not every quote that doesn’t turn into a PO was lost. One poster: “Many seem to be under the guies that anything quoted - but not gotten, was ‘lost’. I would want verification that someone that quoted it to my customer actually got the job” [1]. Another keeps unawarded quotes filed by month and sorts the reasons: “we are either too high and not suited for, did not quote fast enough or project was put on hold” [2].
- Won.
- Lost, with to whom and at what price if the buyer tells you.
- On hold or cancelled: the project didn’t go ahead.
- No response: you never heard back.
- Expired: the quote passed its validity date.
Learn from won and lost work
Once outcomes have reasons, look at them a few times a year. Which customers buy, and which only collect prices? Which part types do you win, and which do you lose on price? Wait for enough quotes before trusting a percentage: three wins out of four says little about a customer.
Close the loop on won jobs too. Asked whether shops compare actual hours and costs with the bid, one machinist said “Always track and compare” [10]. Losing on price and losing money on what you win are two different problems, and only actual hours tell them apart. If it is the price, check your shop rate and your quoting method.
Tracking RFQs in QuoteSooner
QuoteSooner keeps every request on one list with its status. Once a second person joins the shop, each RFQ can have an owner, and the list filters to yours or to unassigned. Marking a request no-quote takes a reason (capability, tolerance, part size, material, capacity, lead time, not our work) and drafts a short reply to the buyer that you can edit or turn off. Won and lost quotes are recorded with a reason, and a win rate appears only once there are at least 10 decided quotes. See how it works; the free plan covers 5 RFQs a month, with no card: start free.
Questions
- How should a small machine shop track RFQs?
- On one list, one line per request, with an RFQ number, the date received and due, the customer, the parts and quantities, an owner, the quote or no-quote decision with a reason, the follow-up date and the outcome. A spreadsheet works; the inbox alone does not [6].
- When should a shop no-quote an RFQ?
- When the work doesn’t fit your capability, capacity or industry, when the customer rarely buys, or when the request has red flags such as unexplained tight tolerances combined with secrecy [2][3][11]. Record the reason every time.
- Should you tell a customer why you are not quoting?
- Yes, briefly. One buyer on a shop forum says a no-quote without feedback gets a call asking why, and a short, polite reason keeps the door open for work that fits [4].
- How soon should you follow up on a quote?
- Pick a fixed rule; one shop follows up after five business days and repeats until there is an answer [1]. A follow-up that carries news, such as a material price change, gets a better response [5].
Sources
Facts about other products come from their own websites, read on the dates shown. If something has changed, tell us at hello@quotesooner.com and we will correct it.
- Practical Machinist: Quote tracking (2025) (read October 3, 2026)
- Practical Machinist: What percentage of quotes do you win? (2010) (read October 3, 2026)
- Practical Machinist: Overwhelming RFQ backlog, being selective and bidding quickly (2020) (read October 3, 2026)
- Practical Machinist: Do you explain to customers why you no-quote? (2020) (read October 3, 2026)
- Practical Machinist: Following up on quotes (2012) (read October 3, 2026)
- r/Machinists: Finally starting my own shop, what’s good to use? (2026) (read October 5, 2026)
- Practical Machinist: How do you handle inbound RFQ calls when the front office is slammed? (2026) (read October 3, 2026)
- r/Machinists: How’s your experience with automated quoting tools? (2026) (read October 5, 2026)
- Practical Machinist: Need advice for quoting very high mix, low quantity jobs (2025) (read October 5, 2026)
- Practical Machinist: How many shops track actual hours vs. the bid price? (2026) (read October 3, 2026)
- Practical Machinist: Information needed for the quoting process (2015) (read October 3, 2026)
- Practical Machinist: What should a basic job shop quoting software have? (read October 3, 2026)