An RFQ that just says "inspection required" leaves the deliverable to guesswork, and guesswork usually resolves toward reporting every dimension on the part whether or not it matters — adding cost and lead time without adding confidence where the design doesn't need it. The more useful question isn't whether inspection is needed. It's which features need it, who decides that, and what form the record should take.

Not every feature needs the same level of reporting

Lab Ready's own quality and inspection planning step starts from that same premise: call out the dimensions, interfaces or surface requirements that actually need documented inspection, instead of assuming every feature on the drawing carries the same reporting requirement. A bearing surface or a mating interface earns a different level of scrutiny than a non-critical external radius. That call belongs with the engineering team that owns the drawing, not with a blanket instruction left for the shop to interpret. Deciding which features are critical is the same exercise covered in how to read a tolerance callout — the tightest tolerance on the print is usually also the feature that needs the clearest inspection deliverable attached to it.

Dimensional inspection on the features that control fit

For features that control fit or function, request a dimensional inspection report measured against the drawing. CMM measurement is the applicable method once a tight-tolerance or geometrically complex feature has been established by CNC machining or a secondary process such as EDM or grinding. Naming the specific features on the RFQ, rather than asking for "full inspection," keeps the report scoped to what actually needs verifying, keeps the quote accurate to the work involved, and avoids paying for measurement data on features nobody downstream will read.

Material and condition documentation

Separate from dimensional inspection, confirm what material and condition documentation the part needs: the grade, condition and any applicable certificate requirement, matched to the alloy or engineering plastic specified on the materials page. This is a quoting-stage question, not an assumption — state it on the RFQ so availability and any added lead time are accounted for before the order is placed, not discovered after it ships. A titanium implant component and a PEEK spinal component can carry different documentation expectations for the same reason they carry different machining and finishing plans: the material, not the part family, drives the requirement.

Fit and functional sign-off, when it's part of the scope

If the part is going into a mating set — an implant-to-instrument interface or a multi-part surgical instrument, for example — assembly and fit testing can be scoped as its own deliverable: a documented check that the interface engages the way the drawing intends, covered in full in trial fit and assembly checks before you sign off a part. That check confirms the agreed assembly scope. It is not a substitute for the device manufacturer's own verification, validation or regulatory acceptance process.

Add the inspection deliverable next to each critical feature on the RFQ, rather than one blanket "inspection required" line, using the RFQ checklist or the fuller input list in what to include in an RFQ for medical device parts, or send the drawing with the deliverable noted directly through the contact page.