A low unit price can hide setup charges, inspection fees, packaging, freight, and costs from rejected parts. Compare the full landed cost at the production quantity you expect, not only the first-article quote. The American Society for Quality’s cost-of-quality guidance notes that poor quality can cost organizations 15–20% of sales. That figure is not specific to machining, but it shows why scrap, rework, and late delivery deserve a place in supplier comparisons. Ask for a sample made with the proposed material, tolerances, and finishing process. Measure critical features yourself, such as a bore diameter or hole position, and request the inspection record. A polished sample is useful. A repeatable process is better.
Change control reveals whether sample results can survive a drawing revision. Ask how the supplier records revision levels, approves substitutions, and communicates changes to tooling or inspection methods. Request a simple example: if a hole moves by 0.5 millimeters, who updates the program, checks the first revised part, and authorizes shipment? Keep written approval tied to the drawing revision. That matters. Even a tidy scorecard can miss informal changes made on the shop floor. I would treat vague answers as a risk, not proof of poor capability; sometimes the process exists but is poorly documented. Record what remains unclear, then verify it with a small controlled order before committing larger volumes.