How to write an aircraft parts RFQ that gets complete, comparable quotes

Why quotes come back incomplete

An RFQ that goes out as a list of part numbers and quantities tends to come back the same way: a price, and not much else. One supplier quotes overhauled, another new surplus. One attaches a certificate, the next says nothing about paperwork, a third leaves out the lead time. None of them is wrong. The request never said what a complete answer looks like.

A spread like that means price alone tells you very little. Two offers can only be compared when both state the same facts: condition, certificate, trace, lead time and quantity. The reliable way to get those facts is to ask for them by name in the RFQ, and to treat a quote that leaves them out as incomplete rather than cheap.

What to put on every line

One part number per line, in a spreadsheet rather than in running text. A spreadsheet is the easiest format for any supplier to work from, and it gives you a fixed set of columns to hold the answers against. These are the columns worth having, and what each one prevents.

Certificates and trace: ask for them by name

Release paperwork does not come by default. The regulation asks for release procedures only “if the production approval holder intends to issue those documents” (14 CFR 21.137(o)), and the FAA has long treated the form as encouraged, not mandatory, for domestic use (FAA Form 8130-3 FAQ, written under the since-cancelled Order 8130.21H). The Aviation Suppliers Association makes the same point from the distributor's side — because the 8130-3 is technically optional, it does not exist for every part. If the RFQ does not ask for a certificate, a quote without one is a fair answer.

What to write depends on the part and on where the aircraft is registered:

• Used component for an EU-registered aircraft. If it was released by a U.S. repair station, EASA requires a dual release: an FAA 8130-3 that also carries the EASA Part-145 release statement. Write “8130-3 dual release”, not just “8130-3”.
• Standard hardware. Parts made to a published government or industry specification — the regulation's own example is a nut or bolt — usually travel with a certificate of conformance (CoC) rather than an 8130-3. If a CoC is all you need, say so, and you will not rule out good offers.
• Used parts in general. Ask for a statement on whether the part was involved in an incident or accident. The ASA Statement, a free industry form, has an incident-clearance block for exactly this.
• Trace. Commercial trace often comes on a seller's statement — an ATA Spec 106 form or the newer ASA Statement. Both are commercial documents, not airworthiness releases: they record the part's identity and condition as the seller declares them. Say how far back the chain has to go.

Why settle this at RFQ stage rather than on receipt? Because the paperwork is what you will rely on. The FAA's advisory circular on replacement parts is direct about it: distributors that are not production approval holders “cannot certify the airworthiness of the parts they advertise and/or sell; therefore, it is the installer's responsibility to request documentation establishing traceability to a PAH” — a production approval holder (AC 20-62E CHG 1). Even a correct 8130-3 “does not constitute approval to install” — the receiver or installer makes that call. Asking in the RFQ costs one cell per line and saves a quote you could never have used.

What to say once, for the whole request

Some things belong at the top of the RFQ, not on every line:

• Your reference, and a request to quote it back. It is how answers find their way to the right file.
• Quote due by, with a time zone. “End of day” means different hours in Orlando, Madrid and Hong Kong.
• Currency. Mixed currencies are one more column to convert before you can compare.
• Delivery term and ship-to address — for example EXW or FCA, and the city and country.
• End user, if it is not your company. For items exported from the United States, licensing depends on what the item is, where it is going, who will receive it and what they will do with it, so a supplier may ask anyway.
• What every answer must state, per line: condition, certificate, trace, quantity available, lead time in days, minimum order, ships-from country and how long the price holds.

That last item does more than any other to make quotes comparable. The airline industry's e-business specification, ATA Spec 2000, treats quotation requests and responses as standard structured messages. A spreadsheet with fixed columns is the manual version of the same idea: the answer comes back in the shape of the question.

Then keep the thread clean. One RFQ per email, your reference in the subject line, and a new version of the file when lines change — not a reply that edits three of them in prose.

With MG-AVIATION you do not need to convert anything first. Send the file as it leaves your system — Excel, PDF, a scan or the body of an email, five lines or five hundred — to [email protected], and your inquiry will be reviewed by a specialist within one business day. Customers with an RFQ Radar account can upload the same file (Excel, CSV or PDF up to 10 MB), get an RFQ number at once and see when it is picked up.

AOG: send it separately, and say so

An AOG line inside a 200-line routine list waits for the whole list to be read. Send it as its own RFQ, with AOG in the subject line, the aircraft type, the station where the aircraft is, and a phone number that answers after hours. Marketplace RFQ tools treat urgency as a field of its own for the same reason: the parts RFQ on ILSmart, for example, offers Routine, Expedite, Critical need and AOG as priorities, next to a deliver-by date.

If your engineering allows it, widen what you accept for that line. One more condition or an approved alternate can be the difference between stock today and a part next week. And keep the flag honest: AOG on every line is AOG on none.

MG-AVIATION supports AOG 24/7. For what to do in the first hours, see AOG: a parts buyer's checklist for the first two hours.

Lining up the answers

Put every answer in one grid: a row per offer, the columns you asked for, plus price, quantity available, lead time, minimum order, ships-from country and price validity. Then work through it in this order:

1. Match the part number. Is it the number you asked for, or an alternate? If an alternate, is it on your list?
2. Normalize units and currency. A price per foot and a price per roll are not the same number.
3. Treat “not stated” as “no”. A certificate or trace the quote does not mention is not there until the supplier confirms it in writing.
4. Read condition as a code, not an adjective. “Like new” and “near new” are not conditions (the codes themselves are in our guide to condition codes). The FAA notes that such terms do not help a buyer determine whether a part is acceptable for installation.
5. Compare lead time to your door. Stock in another country plus freight and customs can arrive later than a week's lead time from a warehouse nearby. This is why ships-from matters.
6. Only then compare price — between the offers that passed.

Here is how that plays out on one line. The aircraft is EU-registered; the RFQ accepts NE, NS or OH and, for an overhauled unit, asks for an 8130-3 with dual release. Four hypothetical answers:

Price is left out on purpose. Offer D may well be the cheapest line in the grid, and it is still not an answer to this RFQ. Only offer C is comparable as it stands; offer A may become comparable after one email.

When the part arrives, the ASA's advice is to correlate an 8130-3 with your purchase order and make sure its blocks 7–11 match the part you actually received. The RFQ, the PO and the paperwork should all say the same thing — and the paperwork only means as much as the seller behind it, which is the subject of how to verify an aircraft parts supplier.

If you buy from MG-AVIATION, RFQ Radar gives you this grid for our answers without the re-keying: every line with part number, description, condition, certificates, quantity, unit price in US dollars, lead time in days, minimum order and the country it ships from — searchable, sortable and downloadable to Excel or CSV.

Sources

• FAA — Authorized Release Certificate, FAA Form 8130-3: Frequently Asked Questions (written under Order 8130.21H, since cancelled; questions 13–14 on domestic use)
• FAA — Order 8130.21J, Completion of FAA Form 8130-3 under Part 21 (25 September 2025; the form does not constitute approval to install)
• FAA — AC 20-62E CHG 1, Eligibility, Quality, and Identification of Aeronautical Replacement Parts (14 September 2018; paragraph 14, “Know your suppliers”)
• eCFR — 14 CFR 21.9, Replacement and modification articles
• eCFR — 14 CFR 21.137, Quality system (paragraph (o), authorized release documents)
• eCFR — 15 CFR 736.2, General prohibitions and determination of applicability (Export Administration Regulations)
• EASA — FAQ: Bilateral agreement (BASA) related to continuing airworthiness
• EASA — FAQ: What is an EASA Form 1?
• Aviation Suppliers Association — Documentation: The Tie Between Traceability and the Regulations (webinar, 16 November 2023)
• Aviation Suppliers Association — Using the ATA 106 for Commercial Trace (The Update Report, January 2000)
• Airlines for America — Spec 2000: Gen 2 Procurement (publication description)
• ILSmart — Help: Create Parts RFQ
• MG-AVIATION — offer lines from supplier quotes received between June and September 2026, aggregated; no prices or supplier names published.