Quick answer
Send the available project brief together with an explicit record of what is missing, conflicting or assumed. Identify where each uncertain input came from, who can confirm it and which quotation decision depends on it. Use the existing RFQ worksheet for ordinary project fields; resolve its gaps through documented clarification rather than filling them with guessed equipment specifications.
Keep the existing RFQ, identify its unresolved inputs
Use the UTAI quotation page's existing RFQ downloads for the normal enquiry fields. This workflow starts when a field cannot be answered reliably. Do not create another worksheet or silently replace missing information with the purchasing team's best guess.
Classify the gap before sending it for clarification: missing means no evidence is available; conflicting means sources disagree; assumed means someone has proposed a basis without confirmation. These states need different responses. A quotation can disclose an assumption without making it an approved engineering decision.
Trace each gap to its decision and owner
The examples below are hypothetical clarification cases, not a client project or a design recommendation. Record the original source alongside the question so its owner can resolve the actual disagreement.
| Uncertain input and provenance | Decision affected | Resolution request |
|---|---|---|
| Gas name differs between an old drawing and process information | Basis for proposing the sensing configuration | Process owner confirms the current gas with a document reference |
| Point count comes from an unapproved sketch | Whether quantity is an estimate or an order basis | Designer identifies the approved schedule or leaves quantity provisional |
| Existing interface is described only in an email | Whether integration can be included as confirmed scope | Technical owner supplies applicable equipment evidence |
| Site work assumed from an earlier order | Whether attendance belongs in this offer | Buyer and supplier agree the current scope explicitly |
Send a clarification that can be closed
For each gap, send the competing references or the source of the assumption, the precise question and the person needed to answer it. Ask for a response linked to the enquiry revision. 'Please confirm everything' is harder to close than identifying one disputed input and its consequence.
For example, the Modbus Organization's introduction distinguishes network interfaces from application messaging and describes manufacturer-specific mapping. An email that says only 'RS485' therefore cannot settle an integration question. Request the missing equipment evidence; do not convert that label into a compatibility commitment.
Control assumptions while an answer is pending
If the buyer requests an early budget estimate, ask the supplier to identify the assumed basis and which parts may change. Keep unresolved technical inputs out of the approved-design column. The responsible reviewer should determine whether the information is sufficient even for a provisional offer.
Do not let a deadline turn an unanswered gas, configuration or approval question into a guessed value. For Malaysian site attendance, distinguish the requested location and scope from the supplier's confirmed commitment. An assumption about a previous project is not evidence for the present order.
Close the clarification and reconcile the offer
Record the response, supporting reference, reviewer decision and revised input. Keep the original assumption in the change history. Then ask whether the answer changes the offered configuration, quantity or scope, and request a revised offer where needed. Receipt of an email is not closure if the question remains unanswered.
Before order placement, review remaining gaps explicitly. This is a single-enquiry input-resolution process, not the comparison of two bids. Broader location design remains with the UTAI installation guide and the responsible project designer.