DFM review. Cost optimization. Engineer to engineer.

Yes — DFM review is included with every quote. Our engineering team reviews customer drawings/CAD for: manufacturing issues (impossible features, tolerance issues), cost optimization opportunities, design improvements. Findings shared in quote response. No separate engineering charge for typical DFM. For complex redesign or extensive optimization, may quote engineering services separately — but standard DFM is no-charge value-add.

Typical cost reduction from DFM: (1) Loose unnecessary tolerances — 20-30% machining cost reduction. (2) Generous internal corner radii — eliminate EDM operations, 30-50% cost reduction. (3) Material substitution (6061 vs 7075 where strength allows) — 20-40% material cost. (4) Combine multiple parts into one casting — sometimes dramatic cost reduction. (5) Reduce surface finish requirements where not functionally needed — 15-25% cost reduction.

Customer provides: hand sketches, rough dimensions, application description, function requirements. We create: 3D CAD model, 2D production drawing with proper dimensioning and tolerances, GD&T as appropriate, material specification, finish specification. Iteration with customer to verify intent. Typical effort: 4-16 hours engineering depending on complexity. Cost: $300-1500 for typical part. Once drawing complete, customer can quote elsewhere if desired.

Customer ships physical sample. We measure with: CMM (precision dimensional), 3D scanner (complex surfaces), traditional measurement tools. Create CAD model matching sample geometry. Develop production drawings with appropriate tolerances. Verify model against sample. Typical effort: 8-24 hours depending on complexity. Used for: legacy part replacement, design starting point, competitive analysis.

We accept all major CAD formats: SolidWorks, Inventor, Fusion 360, Catia, NX, ProE/Creo, STEP, IGES, Parasolid, STL. Native file better than STEP when possible — preserves design intent. STEP works for most cases. For complex assemblies or precision tolerances, native file preferred. Customer specifies which format works best for their design system.

GD&T review identifies: (1) Missing datums on controls that need them. (2) Over-constraining datums. (3) Tighter tolerances than function requires (cost issue). (4) Looser tolerances than function requires (quality issue). (5) Inconsistent tolerance practice. (6) Missing critical features. Improves drawings before production — catches issues that would cause manufacturing or functional problems.