RFQ decisions are usually documented through a controlled quote or contract review record that shows how requirements were evaluated, what risks or exceptions were identified, who approved the decision, and what was finally offered to the customer. For AS9100 and customer audits, the expectation is generally not just that a quote exists, but that you can show objective evidence of the review and decision path.
In practice, an auditor will usually look for evidence that your organization reviewed applicable requirements before committing. That commonly includes technical requirements, delivery expectations, capacity, special processes, quality clauses, customer flow-downs, configuration or revision status, and any assumptions or exclusions used in the quote. If the RFQ was declined, many organizations also retain the reason for no-bid when that is part of their process discipline or risk management.
The RFQ or customer request received, including revision level and date.
The requirements reviewed, including drawings, specifications, statements of work, quality clauses, and customer-specific terms where applicable.
Any identified risks, constraints, assumptions, exclusions, or open questions.
Cross-functional input where needed, such as sales, engineering, quality, supply chain, operations, or program management.
The decision outcome: bid, no-bid, conditional bid, or quote revision.
The approver(s), approval date, and the version of the information approved.
Traceability from the review to the issued quote, and later to the contract, purchase order, or order acceptance if awarded.
If your process includes re-reviews after customer changes, that should also be documented. A common audit failure mode is having a clean initial review but weak evidence that revised requirements, changed quantities, expedited delivery dates, or updated drawings were re-evaluated before acceptance.
There is no single required format. Documentation may live in ERP, CRM, QMS, a quoting system, PLM-linked workflows, or controlled forms and attachments. What matters is that the record is controlled, retrievable, attributable to responsible roles, and consistent with your documented process.
Email alone is usually not strong enough unless your organization has a controlled way to capture, retain, approve, and trace those messages as part of the official record. In many plants, email contains important context, but the auditable record is a formal contract review, quote approval workflow, or linked change-controlled form.
Auditors commonly sample from a released order backward. They may ask you to show:
How the original RFQ was reviewed before the quote was issued.
Whether customer and regulatory requirements were identified and flowed into planning.
How exceptions, assumptions, or capability gaps were handled.
Whether quote revisions and order changes were re-reviewed.
Whether the final accepted scope matches what was reviewed and approved.
If the organization cannot link the quote decision to the accepted contract terms, manufacturing plan, or quality requirements, the issue is usually traceability, not just missing paperwork.
In brownfield environments, RFQ decisions are often spread across CRM, ERP, spreadsheets, email, shared drives, and tribal knowledge. That is common, but it creates audit risk. The main problem is not that you use multiple systems. The problem is weak evidence trails, inconsistent revision control, unclear ownership, and manual re-entry that breaks traceability.
For that reason, full replacement is often not the best answer. In regulated, long-lifecycle environments, replacing quoting, ERP, QMS, or planning systems can trigger significant qualification effort, validation work, integration risk, and operational disruption. Many organizations get better results by adding a controlled review workflow and evidence model around existing systems, then improving linkage over time.
A workable approach is often to define a minimum required RFQ review record, identify the system of record for each data element, and enforce approval, revision handling, and retention rules through change control. That is usually more realistic than trying to force a single new platform across every plant and legacy process.
RFQ decisions for AS9100 and customer audits should be documented in a controlled, traceable review record that shows requirements review, risk and exception handling, approvals, revisions, and linkage to the final commercial and operational commitment. The exact mechanism can vary, but if your evidence depends on scattered inboxes, undocumented judgment, or manual file hunting, it is unlikely to hold up consistently under audit.
Whether you're managing 1 site or 100, Connect 981 adapts to your environment and scales with your needs—without the complexity of traditional systems.
Whether you're managing 1 site or 100, C-981 adapts to your environment and scales with your needs—without the complexity of traditional systems.
