FAIR
A first article inspection report, the documented proof that every characteristic on the print was measured on a real part, and paperwork the quote pays for.
The quoting mistake with a FAIR is treating it as quality’s problem instead of a line on the estimate. A full report on an aerospace detail part means ballooning every characteristic on the drawing, measuring each one, recording the results against serialised requirements, and packaging it in the customer’s format. On a dense print that is real hours of skilled time, inspection and documentation both, and it happens whether the order is 5 pieces or 5,000, which makes it brutal on small quantities. Amortised across 5 pieces, the report can rival the machining.
The argument mid-quote is usually scope. Does the customer require a full FAIR or a partial, does a revision trigger a complete re-report or a delta covering only the changed characteristics, and does the requirement flow down to castings, platings and other outside processes, each of which then needs its own supporting documentation collected from suppliers who charge for it. Each answer moves the price, and the flow-down documents in the package answer them, which is why the takeoff reads those documents rather than assuming.
Where it costs money is the re-report nobody priced. Revisions on long programs arrive routinely, and if every revision reopens the FAIR, the program carries a recurring documentation cost that the piece price never mentioned. The QA and PPAP amortisation line in how to quote a machined part is small on that high volume part precisely because the volume is enormous. Invert the volume and the same obligation becomes one of the largest lines on the sheet, which is the entire point of pricing it deliberately.