ERP systems were built for back-office transactions, not forward-looking cost estimation. They can't model should-costs across multi-year horizons, handle parts that don't yet exist, or price the risk of uncertain volumes. That's why cost estimators open 6 tabs, 3 spreadsheets, and their inbox when an RFQ lands. If ERP runs the business, why doesn’t it run the quote?
Missed internal deadlines are still the #1 bid-development problem for automotive suppliers, with severity worsening from 2.4 to 2.6 on a 3-point scale between 2002 and 2025 (CAR/UHY).
Automotive quotes require should-costing across 3-7 year horizons with annual price-downs and indexed materials. ERP tracks actuals and standard costs but can't model what a part should cost in the future.
ERP standard costing assumes volume is real. If you quote at 250K units and actuals come in at 175K, per-unit cost is wrong by 30%+, but ERP keeps invoicing at the standard. Quoting tools model the risk that volume isn't what was forecasted.
A quoting tool isn't an ERP replacement. It's the connector that pulls from ERP, PLM, CRM, historical quotes, and external feeds, then synthesizes them into a defensible quote.
Let's take a walk back down memory lane. Starting with MRP (basic Material Requirements Planning) in the 60's, to MRP II (Manufacturing Resource Planning) in the 80s which added other resources like labor, machines and capacity, to ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) in the 90's, the evolution was clear: a single source of truth across back-office functions. Not estimating, not selling, not designing. Not yet anyway.
I come from the era of using "colored folders" (yes, this dates me) to manage urgency for automotive RFQs - plain manila was regular, red was urgent. Sales reps would have a pile of these at any time on their desks.
Our brilliant engineer-turned-cost estimator (did I mention it was the old days?) had a computer that was dedicated to "cranking the numbers" for the "cost tracker" once all the assumptions from the customer and the internal stakeholders were input (which frankly took days, sometimes weeks, to gather and assemble all that data). The cost models were really complex and took a lot of computing power - even back then it was your "secret sauce", so this step was essential. Estimators were smart, talented and computer savvy, give them Excel and a computer or 2 and you'd have a custom less-finished part "cost tracker" in about, oh I'd say, 4-8 hours depending on the complexity - more if you had to do any recalculations using past data.
Today a good cloud-based ERP tool spans finance, procurement, manufacturing, inventory, order management, warehouse management, supply chain, CRM, and workforce management, with extensions into lots of automation tools. But it still doesn't cover what we need for the automotive quoting world, meaning we are still using Excel models with better computers and combining data from siloed (but capable) systems.
ERP systems are great at tracking actuals, rolling up standard costs from BOMs and routings, and variance tracking, but can they tell you what your part should cost after 3, 5, or 7 years, when annual price-downs and indexed materials have moved the goalposts?
Be honest, do you really want thousands of "quoting" parts cluttering up your transactional system that are just for quoting and may or may not become reality?
ERP is built around the transactional present: what got made, what shipped, what got invoiced. Tooling recovery and commercial terms are bets on the future. Different math, different tools.
ERP costing knows what a part costs to make. It doesn't know how to answer the capital question sitting behind every automotive program: "Should we spend $400K on this tool, and at what piece price do we recover it across an uncertain volume forecast?"
ERP standard costing requires a volume assumption to absorb fixed cost. If you quote at a 250K-unit absorption rate and actuals come in at 175K, your per-unit cost is wrong by 30%+, but ERP just keeps invoicing at the standard.
Automotive quoting demands the ability to model what a part should cost after 3, 5, or 7 years, when annual price-downs and indexed materials have moved the goalposts. Not historical actuals. Forward-looking math.
Should we make or buy a particular component? If you have multi-regional capabilities, there are regional decisions to evaluate: US, Mexico, China? Or maybe the customer has asked you to quote 3 different ways, considering the current global climate, so they can reduce their own risk.
Quoting requires modeling parts before they're real, without cluttering up a transactional system.
Quotes are still taking auto suppliers 2-3 weeks to respond, based on data Campfire has collected from customers and prospects. According to a study conducted by UHY/Center for Automotive Research, which compared how suppliers manage RFQs today vs. 2002, they found that in 2002, 24% of RFQs missed submission deadlines, "leading to billions in lost opportunities" (CAR's words). Fast forward to 2025, missed internal deadlines are still the #1 bid-development problem, and the severity rating actually worsened (2.4 to 2.6 on a 3-point scale). Closing this gap to submission is going to separate those who survive from those who do not, in the very near future. If you don't make it to the table in time to eat, the food is going to be gone!
Tooling recovery typically amortizes across program volumes. Quoting tools need to answer: "Should we spend $400K on this tool, and at what piece price do we recover it across an uncertain volume forecast?"
Automotive commercial terms create oodles of manual work and possible costly mistakes. They have dozens of variables, and they don't live in any system; they live in PDFs, emails, and the estimator's head. From LTAs to material index agreements, tariff and trade clauses and more.
Quoting tools run breakeven and margin-at-volume scenarios so you can see what happens at 80%, 60%, 50% of forecast. ERP costs the part assuming the volume is real. Quoting tools price the risk that the volume isn't. And when the actuals get posted and volume isn't what was expected, commercial recovery wheels are set in progress, since you've captured the contract details in a system that now has eyes.
In summary, ERP systems can't solve every problem an organization has - that's why there are lots of systems that exist to solve specific problems and that also deeply integrate with ERP data.
A good quoting tool isn't a replacement for ERP. It's the connector that pulls from ERP (cost truth), PLM (design truth), CRM (customer truth), historical quotes (lessons truth), and external feeds (market truth), then runs them through the human-expert logic to produce a defensible quote.
A great quote isn't sourced from a single system - it's a synthesis. The job of a quoting tool is to be the assembly point, not the silo.
If your team is rebuilding the same quoting spreadsheet every Monday or for every quote, cutting and pasting from your ERP and/or other sources, let's compare notes.
Q: Can an ERP handle automotive quoting?
A: Partially. ERP tracks actual costs and standard BOMs but can't do forward-looking should-cost analysis, multi-scenario modeling, or manage the cross-functional workflow between sales, engineering, costing, and plant operations that automotive quoting requires.
Q: Why are automotive supplier quotes still taking 2-3 weeks?
A: Because the quoting process depends on inputs from 4-5 functions (sales, engineering, costing, manufacturing, finance) that are coordinated through email and spreadsheets rather than a connected workflow. The bottleneck isn't any one team being slow, it's typically the handoffs between them.
Q: How fast should an automotive supplier be quoting?
A: Suppliers who can compress the quoting cycle to under a week gain a significant competitive advantage, not just in response time, but in the ability to run more scenarios and submit a more defensible quote.
Q: What happens when actual production volume doesn't match the quoted volume?
A: ERP keeps invoicing at the original standard cost, which can be 30%+ wrong if volume drops significantly. Quoting tools model breakeven and margin-at-volume scenarios upfront so you can see the risk before you commit, and capture the commercial terms needed to trigger cost recovery when actuals diverge.
Sources
Faler, E., Mabley, T., & Prasad, K. (2025). Automotive Suppliers and the Revenue Acquisition Process – Then and Now: 2025 Update. Center for Automotive Research / UHY Consulting, Ann Arbor, MI. https://uhy-us.com/media/oasdkqcd/automotive-suppliers-and-the-ra-process-2025-final.pdf
Autoline.tv. (2026, May 6). Tier 1's Need To Fix Their RFQ Process. Interview with Ted Mabley (UHY) and Edgar Faller (CAR). https://www.autoline.tv/automotive-insight/tier-1s-need-to-fix-their-rfq-process/
UHY Consulting. (2025, November). Quote Chaos: Inside the Rising Pressure on Automotive Industry's RFQ Teams. https://uhy-us.com/newsroom/2025/november/inside-the-rising-pressure-on-automotive-industrys-rfq-teams