Quote Chaos: Inside The Rising Pressure On Automotive Industry's RFQ Teams
Quoting might sound like routine paperwork, but in today’s automotive supply chain, it’s becoming one of the biggest pressure points.
Behind every new program sits an RFQ process that’s overworked, outdated, and dangerously dependent on a few people who know how to make it run.
That’s where Ted Mabley, Director at UHY and co-author of a new white paper with the Center for Automotive Research (CAR), steps in. His study compares how suppliers manage RFQs today versus in 2002, and the numbers tell the story.
The average supplier now handles approximately 800 RFQs per year, up from 495 two decades ago; yet, the tools and processes remain largely the same. Most companies are still managing quotes through emails, spreadsheets, and manual coordination, leaving room for costly errors and missed opportunities.
Ted explains that while technology in other areas has advanced, the RFQ process is stuck. It relies heavily on “sticky knowledge,” the experience locked inside a handful of veterans who know which levers to pull and whom to call.
As those experts retire, companies are left scrambling without proper succession or mentoring plans in place. The result is confusion, inconsistent data, and at times, quotes submitted with zero profit margins.
Some suppliers are making progress by utilizing supplier relationship management tools to track and compare quotes; however, Ted notes that the gap between leaders and laggards remains wide. The bigger issue, he adds, is cultural. Siloed departments, poor communication, and a lack of accountability slow everything down.
Ted believes the way forward starts with people, not technology. Building mentoring and training programs, or “farm clubs,” ensures new talent learns the process before stepping into key roles.
From there, automation and AI can take on repetitive tasks, such as comparing supplier data, reconciling quotes with production performance, and even auditing PPAP documentation. But the key isn’t just automation; it’s connecting people, process, and systems so data actually works for the business.
To fix the system, Ted recommends documenting every step of the RFQ process, identifying leaks and inefficiencies, and modernizing with lightweight digital tools that integrate existing data. He also calls on OEMs and suppliers to collaborate more closely, not just commercially, but to standardize and strengthen the systems that power their shared supply chain.
The message is clear: the RFQ process might seem routine paperwork, but it’s the foundation of every program launch. How suppliers manage it will determine their ability to compete and deliver in an industry that’s moving faster than ever.
Themes discussed in this episode:
- The growing complexity of the RFQ process and how it impacts supplier performance in automotive manufacturing
- How the lack of automation and standard systems slows down the quoting process for suppliers
- The problem of “sticky knowledge” and the risk of losing critical expertise as experienced employees retire
- Why mentoring and structured training programs are essential to preserving quoting knowledge in the supply chain
- The benefits of using supplier relationship management (SRM) tools to improve accuracy and speed in RFQ handling
- How siloed departments and disconnected systems cause costly errors in quote preparation and review
- The need for suppliers to document, analyze, and streamline their end-to-end RFQ workflow for better results
- How stronger collaboration between OEMs and suppliers can create a more consistent and efficient quoting process across the industry
Featured on this episode:
Name: Ted Mabley
Title: Director at UHY Consulting
About: Edward “Ted” Mabley has over 15 years of experience optimizing sales and business development operations, providing customer-specific solutions catering to a wide array of industries on a global scale. He works with OEMs, tier-one suppliers, and other manufacturing companies to create transparency in their cost process and develop vendor management programs to address relevant KPIs. His experience includes active cost management in accordance with enterprise product costing procedures, as well as developing strategic business roadmaps, product visions, and sales strategies.
Connect: LinkedIn
Mentioned in this episode:
- QAD Midwest User Group
- AIAG Quality Summit
- AIAG IMDS Compliance Conference
- Catena-X
- Automotive Suppliers and the Revenue Acquisition Process – Then and Now: 2025 Update
Episode Highlights:
[04:33] Then and Now: Ted breaks down how the RFQ process has evolved since 2002, revealing that while quoting volumes have soared, automation and knowledge transfer haven’t kept up, leaving suppliers overwhelmed and understaffed.
[06:25] The Bottleneck Problem: Outdated tools and scattered systems are clogging the RFQ pipeline, leaving suppliers to chase quotes through emails, spreadsheets, and late-night calls.
[09:07] Keeping Knowledge Alive: As experienced experts retire, Ted explains why mentoring and hands-on training programs are key to passing on the skills needed to manage complex RFQs.
[10:53] Data Without Action: Even with all the right data inside their systems, many suppliers still rely on manual work, missing the chance to use automation and AI to make quoting faster and more accurate.
[14:22] Breaking the Silos: Siloed systems and limited visibility across departments make quoting harder than it needs to be, especially when key teams can’t access the data they need.
[15:36] Fixing What’s Broken: Ted outlines three steps to repair the RFQ process: invest in people, modernize with simple digital tools, and push OEMs and suppliers to work together on shared solutions.
[19:09] Managing the Unknowns: With constant shifts in volumes and programs, suppliers are learning to manage risk by planning smarter, staying flexible, and working closely with OEMs to adapt when assumptions fall apart.
[22:47] Protecting What Matters: Ted shares his goal for the white paper, encouraging OEMs and suppliers to use it as a starting point for real collaboration, stronger supplier councils, and better protection of critical knowledge across the industry.
[25:29] Where to Start: Ted shares two actions suppliers can take right now to strengthen their RFQ process: document every step to find gaps and start building a trained bench of new talent ready to take over.
Top Quotes:
[12:15] Ted: “If you take a look at this process, it really screams for some type of automation, 'cause the data's all in-house. I'm not going anywhere else. I own the BOM. I know what my cost structure is. I know how much it takes to make something right from a time point. I know my burden rates, both fixed and variable. So, all that stuff is there, right? It's just a matter of, in the Japanese manufacturing methodology, put the tools in front of the people so they can do their job, right? Really simple. Get it there.”
[15:06] Ted: “Everyone has to have a visibility into this process. And again, we found some companies are doing a very good job of getting that window open for everyone to be able to see. Others, you're absolutely right, it comes from this system which I don't have access to, 'cause I'm in purchasing and I can't get into this engineering system, or God forbid I have to get into the logistics system so I can put together a total landed cost, roles, responsibility, permissions. All of that really kind of falls apart, and just complicates the process.”
Transcript
[Transcript]
[:[00:00:27] Jim Liegghio: I'm Jim Liegghio from AIAG.
[:[00:00:36] Jan Griffiths: Hello, and welcome to another episode of the Auto Supply Chain Prophets Podcast. Let's check into my co-host, Terry Onica. Terry, what have you been up to?
[:[00:01:22] Jan Griffiths: Yeah, it was a great event. Jim, what have you been up to?
[:So yeah, sometimes you don't think about it. You don't think about the impact the show has on listeners and their lives and their careers. So yeah, a little bit of feedback was nice to hear. Events? Obviously, right now it's event season, right? There's a ton going on. AIAG had the Quality Summit last week. We had 470 plus attendees and exhibitors, so a big year for us. Tomorrow and the next day is the IMDS conference out in Novi. So yeah, it's definitely thick in the event season. Yesterday, the Midwest User Conference for QAD, that was fun, like Terry said. So yeah, just a ton going on. Life's moving really fast these days, Jan. I wish it would slow down, but it's been a lot of fun.
[:[00:02:22] Jim Liegghio: Oh, perfect. Yeah.
[:[00:02:32] Jim Liegghio: Yeah. You know, that's great, Terry. It was very serendipitous to be in that room with you guys yesterday. I didn't know I'd be part of the presentation, which was fun. But a lot of people are curious about Catena-X, more to come on that. Plug for AIAG.org, if you're curious about Catena-X or have questions or wanna see some of the use case data. I'm gonna put a little plug in there for AIAG.org, plenty of information there.
[:There's one process that we haven't talked about at all on this podcast and it needs some attention. And I was fortunate enough to be at the CAR MBS conference several weeks ago, and I happened to pick up a white paper and it is written by CAR - Center for Automotive Research - and UHY, and it's titled, Automotive Suppliers in the Revenue Acquisition Process Then and Now.
Now, revenue acquisition process. I'm sure there's a story as to why you call it that, but nobody I've ever come across has ever called it that. It's the RFQ process. Let's just call it what it is, shall we? That's why I am thrilled today, we have on the show Ted Mabley, a Director at UHY and co-author of this white paper. And before we have Ted talk about the white paper, I gotta tell you and all our listeners out there, of all the white papers I've ever read, this one hit home with me. It's factual, it's real. It's not written by AI, it's not full of fluff. It's data, it's insights, and it's really bloody good. And that's all I gotta say. So, Ted, how's that for an intro?
[:[00:04:32] Jan Griffiths: It's true. So Ted, then and now, your paper compares a 2002 baseline with today. You know, what's really changed? There's a lot more RFQ activity happening right now. Give us the highlights.
[:It's different and similar in every single situation. So what we looked at were all the key variables in terms of how many people, all the key metrics, about how many a year do you get, how long does it take the process, who's involved, who has to do the review process.
So again, all of those workflows that go into this entire microcosm of a business flow. It's always very time consuming. It's driven by a few key people who've been doing it for a very long time. They have what we call sticky knowledge. So over 10, 15 years, they just know. They know who to call out the plan, they know who to call on purchasing. They can pull all this together very quickly, and with a high level of fidelity.
So what's happened in all those years? It's gotten more complex. Those people that know how to do it are leaving and not being replaced. There's not much automation at all in the process. It's very, very manually driven, and suppliers are struggling, right? Because they're getting a deluge of new quotes coming in. Not only, as you talked about for relocation to North America, a huge amount of market tests going on.
Again, those could be similar. They could be linked. We didn't know it wasn't really part of the study. There was a lot of the feedback that we got on the one-on-one meetings.
[:[00:06:44] Ted Mabley: There's a couple things. One is there's been a lack of technology investment. It's again, SharePoint, Excel files, emails, right? It's all over the place, so there's no real standard set up there. Now, some companies have built their own systems and they're very robust and reliable. They're very good. Others, no, it's still extremely ad hoc and it's phone calls. Were late, can you get me the information? There's no audit. Tracking capability. So, again, very loose process that's broken in multiple different areas.
[:And if you force suppliers to doing it too fast, not only is there a chance that they will make a mistake, and that era can go both directions, it's the time that's involved and you have a natural tendency to pad it. Okay? I mean, you just do. If somebody's gonna push you for a quote, what are you gonna do? You're gonna pad it.
in:[00:08:22] Ted Mabley: That's correct. So, if you look at just the velocity going through that pipeline, how do you manage? The pipeline to that funnel is still this big. It's not this big. So you get all of that back pressure going through, and that was one of the most common reasons we heard for not proper submittal. They were late internally, they were late externally. So you had both of those things going on. We also learned that there are issues around communication errors, data composition errors, things were filled out. We had samples where people had submitted in their RFQs with zero profit and zero SGA. How does that happen?
[:[00:09:00] James Liegghio: There was definitely a pause on the other side of the mic there, Jan.
[:[00:09:04] Jim Liegghio: Yeah.
[:[00:09:07] Jim Liegghio: Ted, you mentioned sticky knowledge early on in the conversation. Obviously, generational turnover. We deal with that in a lot of different areas of supply chain, the loss of generations exiting the industry and some new folks coming in, and that tribal knowledge, we'll call it that as well. What are some best practices to manage that right now? That's a huge problem in all areas of the business, but what in the procurement sector, in the RFQ sector, what are some of the best practices that are out there to contain that issue?
[:So if you just look at the duration that it takes for someone to be competent, it's a while. If there's no mentoring programs, some companies, the best in class companies do have a farm club, right? So they'll bring people in, they'll get 'em trained up, coached up. Then they put them back out in their functional area.
So you bring an engineer in who knows how to get experience of building a BOM very quickly. So they know how to do the process from a functional point. Then when they get back out into their DRE function, they get it. They know what they have to do, and the same thing from a procurement point of view. They can quickly come in, and many times there's not enough time to get an accurate quote, so you have to do some fudging. What did we do last program? What about the program before? What about a program for another OEM? So, if you start to build what we call these Franken BOMs, it gives people a sense of understanding, right? To say, okay, we pick here, we pick here, we pick here. So I get it, I can start to put this process together bit by bit, piece by piece.
[:When we look at tariffs moving suppliers around, where are all my locations? We really start to see that drive efficiencies and to be able to make those decisions faster. So have you seen anything out there, when you look at those suppliers that do use automation, do you have any insights on that?
[:So the question that we did drill down on, which it was really about what are people using or think about using with AI? And quite frankly, it was not much faith. Most of the respondents said, "We don't have anything in process, and we're also looking at something." I think the actual term was about 38% of the companies were looking at doing something and the rest were like, we're gonna wait and see.
But if you take a look at this process, it really screams for some type of automation, 'cause the data's all in-house. I'm not going to anyplace else. I own the BOM. I know what my cost structure is. I know how much it takes to make something right from a time point. I know my burden rates, both fixed and variable. So all that stuff is there, right? It's just a matter of, in the Japanese manufacturing methodology, put the tools in front of the people so they can do their job, right? Really simple. Get it there.
[:[00:13:21] Ted Mabley: Absolutely. So if you, pardon the pun about Rod Stewart, right? Every picture tells a story, every quote tells a story. And it's a picture in time, 'cause I am putting together a bomb and an estimate at an engineering level at a certain point in time. Now, when I submit it, and two, when the PO is being issued, there can be a very long gap. It could be weeks, it could be months, right?
So that BOM has moved several different iterations. So by the time I'm awarded a PO, it's nowhere near where I quoted. So I've gotta do a true up catch up, and then I gotta move on in terms of change, development, whatever testing. But then there's nothing here in terms of reconciliation.
So again, you're starting from such a data gap. And again, you're right, you can go find some stuff and put together an audit trail, and some of your better suppliers actually do that. But it's tough, right? It's really tough, 'cause who wants to go backwards? 'Cause I got all this pressure to get this program launched and oh by the way, here's another 799 quotes behind me, right?
[:[00:14:39] Ted Mabley: So if you look at the critical path, right? So you've got sales and marketing, right? They have a role in it's finance, obviously from an final audit to make sure that the quote hits all the financial targets before it goes in. But purchasing, you got plant operations, you've got manufacturing engineering, you have cost engineering, and also you've got some sort of a product development or manufacturing — product manufacturing engineering.
That's a lot of folks, right? Everyone has to have a visibility into this process. And again, we found some companies are doing a very good job of getting that window open for everyone to be able to see. Others, you're absolutely right, it comes from this system which I don't have access to, 'cause I'm in purchasing and I can't get into this engineering system, or God forbid I have to get into the logistics system so I can put together a total landed cost, roles, responsibility, permissions. All of that really kind of falls apart, and just complicates the process.
[:[00:15:49] Ted Mabley: Well, I think there's a litany of things from a triage point, like what do you do? Right? How do you fix the patient? But really, the first thing is addressing the people issue, 'cause if you don't address that, rest of it just falls apart. So it's about coaching people up, getting a true replacement plan. So if I'm leaving in two years, what's my plan to be able to train one or two people behind me to be able to do this? And I think we all know how bad the tool and die industry is right now, right?
And again, a lot of people that are excellent in this process, or guess what? Tool makers, 'cause they know how much a tool costs, they know cycle times and they know how much a part in theory could cost. So those folks are not being replaced in the industry. So if we address the people problem first, then we can tackle some of the IT issues that are behind it.
And again, there's a whole bunch of new technology coming into play that is, you don't have to spend a lot of money. It's not like an ERP system, but takes years to install. These new type of programs are very user-friendly. All the heavy lifting is pretty much done. So again, you're telling it where to go, not how to get there, and the interface is in there. Just to your point earlier about all the new APIs that are being developed. So if I can get that data moving faster and it's good data, then the people that are there, they can start to use it much more efficiently. Now, the third thing, if we're talking about ifs and wishes and everything else, the third thing would be the OEMs really starting to work together to help with the fix this process.
[:[00:17:21] Jim Liegghio: Yes.
[:[00:17:24] Jim Liegghio: We're on it, Jan. We're on it. That's what we do at AIAG — collaboration.
[:But remember, in every RFQ, depending on how sophisticated the OEM is and the process that they use, they've probably got a little box in there that says, "If you wanna quote this, you better accept all my terms and conditions, or you better accept this statement of work. Otherwise, you can't even get into the process to quote it properly."
And buried in those documents are a whole slew of things. It could be Terry, to your passion, MMOG/LE requirements. It could be ESG requirements, it could be quality requirements. It could be a number of different things. Now, to me, Jim, this seems like one heck of an opportunity for Catena-X in terms of the data flow, not the commercial, actual commercial piece of it, but that data highway to get all this data moving. What do you think, Jim?
[:[00:19:07] Jan Griffiths: Yeah, I would agree.
[:So, when you're pricing out a program and you're submitting a bid for a program, you know the crystal balls getting dustier and dustier by the second, right? So what are some best in practice or best in play strategies for that to manage that on the RFQ, on the front end process?
[:So they can do a very good job of scheduling and figuring out when programs are exiting and new programs are launching. Other suppliers, not so much right? Again, because of the haze that's in that crystal ball in terms of, well, is the GM pickup program getting extended for another five years or seven years? So this industry hates unknowns, and that's where a lot of folks are right now from a scheduling and CapEx planning perspective.
[:[00:20:17] Ted Mabley: Really good question. The fact they're going back to their OEM customers in many cases and saying, we need help, right? Because when we quoted this program, the EV assumptions were here. They were never been materialized, but we put together this facility or a group of facilities to be able to handle your needs, right? And again, we all know volumes are never guaranteed on an RFQ document, right? So that's implied risk. What are companies being able to do with that risk management? Again, it varies by program, by OEM in terms of how can they start to reuse or somehow fit another program inside that CapEx.
[:And we heard the same thing yesterday in the conference with EDI. We heard the same issue. In fact, it was a question, Terry, that you asked the audience, and it was the same thing. One of the responses was, we're very concerned about people moving out of this function and training people up in this function.
To bring it back to your earlier point, Ted, yes, it's about the people. We better make sure we get the people in place that have the knowledge. We need the technology boost, whether it's an SRM type of module or product or whether it's something with AI, we need to focus more on the technology because this situation, number of RFQs is not gonna go down in the near future. If anything, it's gonna go up. So if we wanna invest time in people and technology, this is one area where we should do it.
[:[00:22:45] Jan Griffiths: Yeah, I agree. Ted, what is your hope with people that read your white paper, what do you want 'em to do with it? What action do you want 'em to take after they've read your white paper?
[:At the OEM level, it's gonna be difficult because with all of this going on, there's a lot of reduction in forces going underway right now. How do you take time and effort to protect that one person in your example? So typically, certain departments require much more hands-on experience, almost like an apprenticeship type of approach. So, how do you protect that? And again, that's gonna be one of the things that suppliers are really gonna have to pay attention to. Protect that knowledge, right? And do everything they can to help build it.
[:[00:24:22] Jan Griffiths: Yeah. I would agree.
[:[00:24:24] Terry Onica: Yep.
[:[00:24:38] Jan Griffiths: Yes, that's a good one. If that isn't a perfect use case for AI, I don't know what is. Going back and looking at PPAP submissions. Yes, I can't tell you how many times in my career I've been caught out assuming something is PPAP and it's perfect and it's all to print, and then you go back and you look at the actual documents and you go, how did this get approved?
[:[00:25:02] Jan Griffiths: Yes. There was a waiver and they said there was some temporary approval process and nobody ever went back and fixed it. Yes, we've seen that a few times. But imagine, if an AI tool could go in and read all that documentation and pull all that out, ooh, there's a use case for right there.
[:[00:25:29] Jim Liegghio: Ted, what's one action for our listeners, and what's one action, maybe two, that somebody could take today to get ahead of this? I know you said we gotta start somewhere and there's definitely ways to solve this. It's been a problem for a long time. What is one or two actions that somebody could take right now to get ahead of this problem?
[:And the second thing is, to your point, Jim, it's take a look at the people. Where can I start to put a farm team together, right? Where can I start to get some talent, new talent in there? What tools and coaching do they need to become effective? Do they need to learn about sand casting? Do they need to learn about injection molding? Do they need to learn about machining? So those are the things you can start to build today, right?
You can put those gap analysis together, and then the other things can, they can ask for professional help, like from firms and from ours, to help them from a gap analysis, benchmarking perspective, saying, well, here's what some other companies are doing, right? Every company has a DNA, so which would work for you and which would not. And then, again, attacking some of that data transformation issues, 'cause it's hard. It's super hard. And I think everyone's IT department, like we heard at MBS, Jan. Every single CEO is being asked by their board, what's your AI plan?
And the CEO turns around and tells the senior leadership team, what are you doing for an AI plan? What are gonna be your projects? And everyone's kinda looking at it downhill right now saying what makes sense and what doesn't. So again, these are the conversations that you have to start to tackle this process.
[:[00:28:03] Ted Mabley: Well, thank you everybody. It's been a pleasure.
[: