Tarrow RFQ completeness and clarification sheet
Tarrow RFQ completeness and clarification sheet
Owner: Benedict Oyelaran. Updated Sep 28, 2026.
RFQ check at a glance
What Keelson needs on every Tarrow RFQ before engineering review, how the 14 RFQs received since Aug 8 measured up, and the three RFQs that still wait for an answer from Tarrow purchasing. Prepared by the Keelson inside sales desk for Ingrid Solheim, director of purchasing at Tarrow Pump Systems, and the Tarrow buyers. Rosalind Chau, vice president of engineering at Keelson Precision Manufacturing, decided that no RFQ enters engineering review without the drawing revision letter. Benedict Oyelaran, commercial operations manager, returned the three open RFQs to Ingrid with the exact missing fact on each.
The check every RFQ gets
Every Tarrow RFQ is read against the same list when it arrives. The agreed RFQ rule is: drawing revision, quantity, material, tolerance and delivery date before engineering review. For blanket order releases the sheet also asks for annual volume. A quote built from the RFQ is valid for 30 days from issue, so a missing fact found late costs days of that window.
The list below shows the check for RFQ 5125, a pump housing. Five facts are present. The drawing revision letter is not.
An RFQ with all six items ticked moves to commercial fit and then to engineering review. An RFQ with any item open goes back to Tarrow once, with that item named.
How the 14 RFQs sorted
Nine RFQs were complete on the first pass and went straight to commercial fit. Two needed an answer and were released after it arrived. Three are still waiting. Read the bars from left to right: the first is the work that cost Tarrow and Keelson nothing extra, the last is the work that is stuck today.
The oldest of the three has waited 8 days for the missing fact. Before the revision rule, engineering found the same gap only after review had started. Tarrow buyers attach the drawing without the revision letter, so the gap is easy to miss on the buyer side and easy to catch on the first read.
Why five needed clarification
Five of the 14 RFQs were not complete on the first pass. Three lacked the drawing revision letter and two lacked annual volume. The two annual volume RFQs were answered and released. All three RFQs still waiting are missing the drawing revision letter.
The five RFQs took 2 clarification cycles on average. A cycle is one request from Keelson and one answer from Tarrow. The aim of this sheet is one cycle for every RFQ.
Complete on the first pass
The count below is the one Tarrow sees at the top of the sheet. It counts RFQs, not lines, and the three waiting RFQs count as not complete until the fact arrives.
RFQs complete on the first pass, 9 of 14
The three RFQs still waiting
Days waiting are counted to Sep 28. Each RFQ is missing one fact and Benedict Oyelaran sent each request to Ingrid Solheim with a reply date of Oct 6.
| RFQ | Part family | Fact missing | Days waiting | Reply owed by | Needed by | State |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RFQ 5125 | Pump housings | Drawing revision letter | 8 | Ingrid Solheim | Oct 6 | |
| RFQ 5127 | Impellers | Drawing revision letter | 5 | Ingrid Solheim | Oct 6 | |
| RFQ 5129 | Shaft assemblies | Drawing revision letter | 2 | Ingrid Solheim | Oct 6 |
RFQ 5125 has waited 8 days
RFQ 5125 is the oldest RFQ in the queue. The drawing was attached without its revision letter, and engineering cannot tell whether the quote should be built on the current revision or on an earlier one. Owner: Benedict Oyelaran. Consequence: the RFQ cannot enter engineering review, so no quote can start, and the 30 day quote validity cannot begin. Ask: Ingrid Solheim sends the revision letter for RFQ 5125, 5127 and 5129 by Oct 6.
A request that names the missing revision letter and gives a reply date gets one answer. A general request about the drawing gets two or three rounds.
How an RFQ moves
An RFQ has one of four states on this sheet: received, clarification needed, commercial fit, engineering review ready. The loop on the right of the diagram is the one to shorten. Every trip around it costs Tarrow a day or more of waiting.
- RFQ received from Tarrow: Read against the six facts
- One request to Tarrow purchasing: Names the exact missing fact
- Tarrow supplies the fact: Reply owed by Oct 6
- Checked again: The loop repeats only if a fact is still missing
- Engineering review ready: Quote built on the accepted revision
Sending one clarification request
Each waiting RFQ follows the same five steps. The marks below show RFQ 5125 as of Sep 28.
The request that went out for RFQ 5125 reads as follows. The same wording is used for 5127 and 5129 with their own part family and missing fact.
Note
To: Ingrid Solheim, Director of purchasing, Tarrow Pump Systems
From: Keelson inside sales desk
Subject: RFQ 5125, pump housing: drawing revision letter needed
Ingrid,
The drawing attached to RFQ 5125 shows the part number but not the revision letter. Please send the revision letter for the attached housing drawing by Oct 6.
Quantity, material, tolerance, delivery date and annual volume are complete. Engineering review starts as soon as the letter arrives.
Keelson Precision Manufacturing, inside sales desk
What Tarrow decides on this sheet
Tarrow decides the requirement clarification: which drawing revision applies and what annual volume to quote against. Keelson engineering and commercial review decide fit, feasibility and price only after the facts are on the RFQ. Nothing on this sheet is a quote or a delivery commitment.
Owners and dates
Who is on this sheet
Demo decision room. Keelson Precision Manufacturing, Tarrow Pump Systems, the people, part numbers and every figure are fictional sample data. Built on FuseBase.