Our job costing isn’t perfect. Is it good enough?

It usually is for this purpose. Consistent errors in labor reporting affect every job similarly, so the gaps between part families still show up clearly.

Will this slow down quoting?

No. The output is a better starting point for the estimator, with the history behind it, so quotes get faster and closer.

Quote accuracy in contract manufacturing: how to find it in your records

The short answer

A contract manufacturer quotes setup, run time, material, and outside processing before it has built the part. After the job runs, the actual hours and costs are in the ERP, but they are rarely compared with the quote. Join quotes to completed jobs and compare quoted and actual cost by part family, machine, customer, and quantity. Some families are usually underquoted every time, and the pattern is consistent enough to fix in the estimating model.

Where it hides in contract manufacturing

Setup on short runs

Setup time is spread across the quantity, so on small runs a setup underestimate swamps the margin.

Outside processing

Plating, heat treat, and coating quoted from an old vendor price and invoiced at a new one.

Repeat orders at the old price

A part quoted years ago keeps shipping at the original price after labor and material have both moved.

Scrap and rework

Difficult parts with high scrap rates are often quoted at the shop’s average yield.

The records to pull

Twelve to twenty-four months of each. Nothing needs to be installed or connected; a spreadsheet export is enough.

Quotes

Part, customer, quantity, quoted setup hours, run hours, material, outside processing, and price.

Job costing

Job, part, quantity, actual setup and run hours by work center, material issued, outside processing invoices, and scrap.

Sales orders

Part, quantity, price, and date, to find repeat orders shipping at old prices.

The ten-day test

Days 1–2

Have estimating write down how close it believes quotes are, by part family. Hold out the last quarter of completed jobs.

Days 3–5

Match quotes to completed jobs and compute quoted versus actual cost for every cost element.

Days 6–8

Find the part families, machines, and quantities where the gap is consistent rather than random.

Days 9–10

Confirm in the holdout and size an updated estimating model and a repricing list for repeat parts.

Specimen · illustrative figures

A $45M contract manufacturer matched 6,200 quotes to completed jobs. Overall, actual cost ran 7 percent above quote, but runs under 100 pieces ran 23 percent above, almost all in setup. Forty repeat parts were still shipping at prices more than three years old. Correcting the setup model and repricing repeat parts was worth an estimated $500K to $750K in margin a year.

Stop condition, written first

Stop if actual cost is within five percent of quoted cost across part families and quantities, in both the search period and the holdout.

What gets built if it holds

An estimating model recalibrated from your own job history, with a quarterly repricing check on repeat parts. It runs inside your operation, belongs to you, and is measured weekly against the dollar range the test produced.

Specimen figures are illustrative and do not describe a Modven client. Reviewed October 10, 2026.

Quote accuracy in contract manufacturing

Where it hides in contract manufacturing

The records to pull

The ten-day test

What gets built if it holds

Asked often, answered plainly.

Where do you suspect the value is hiding? Tell us your hunch. Ten days later it comes back with numbers on it.