The slow part of quoting is rarely the math. It is resolving ambiguity: everything the file leaves unclear forces an assumption or an email, and that is where time goes.
What stalls a review most
- Drawing and model that disagree. One dimension that differs forces a question about which one rules.
- Tight tolerances on the whole part. If everything is ±0.02 mm we cannot tell what is functional, so every feature is treated as critical.
- Unspecified threads. A round hole in the model does not say whether it is threaded, which thread or which class.
- A finish described in one word. "Anodized" without color, type or faces is not a specification.
- An assembly in one file. Several solids together have to be split and quoted part by part.
- Geometry that cannot be made as is. Sharp internal corners, walls too thin or very deep holes need a proposed change before quoting.
What you can leave open
The exact material and final quantity. If you do not have them, describe the application and expected volume and we will propose options. That is very different from leaving a functional dimension ambiguous.
The short rule
Specify what matters for the part to work and leave the rest to the general tolerance. That cuts review time and almost always the price too.