You're invited! We've been building something new. Check out what Xometry has been working on HERE!

Ask Me Anything: Inspection & Quality Standards - May 13 @ 3 PM ET

Luke Florence - Xometry
Luke Florence - Xometry Posts: 131 admin
edited May 13 in Ask Me Anythings (AMAs)

Mark Kearney, Senior Director of Quality, and Kim White, VP of Global Network Operations will be hosting an open AMA on Xometry's Partner Guide inspection and quality standards. This will take place in the Xometry Community this Thursday, May 13th at 3 - 4 PM ET. Stop by, say hi, and get answers to every question you have about the changes to inspection and quality standards.

Feel free to pre-submit any questions you have in this discussion thread by commenting below. Don't worry if you can't make it, you can always see the questions and answers in the community!



  • Kacey B - Xometry
    Kacey B - Xometry Posts: 58 admin

    @simply_machining asked a great question over in the inspection article. "Am I assuming correctly that jobs with the standard inspection are now a formal inspections, just without the VQC? If not, could you please clarify?" I touched on this a little, but I'd like to hear your answer, @MKearney

  • Kacey B - Xometry
    Kacey B - Xometry Posts: 58 admin

    @rapidmachining asked a great question in another discussion post: I pass up lots of work due do very involved inspection reports that take hours to perform. I was wondering If some type of portable manual cmm would be the ticket for getting some of these reports done. There are hundreds of linear dimensions per part on some of these jobs. Also there are dimensions that are very hard to measure such as linear dimensions to centers of radius/profile tolerances, so on and so forth. I would love to purchase some type of portable cmm and not necessarily a full blown cmm that takes software training and the whole ball of wax. Let me know your thoughts on that. Thanks!

  • SpoolisCool_Monty
    SpoolisCool_Monty Posts: 2

    To @simply_machining 's question. I had the same concern about the standard inspection. This has flip-flopped over the years and I feel it was headed in the right direction when we only had to fill out the check list. Now we have to bubble a print and record and upload every dimension of a customers print. Xometry charges a premium to customers when they want a formal inspection. I am assuming some of this premium is shared with the partner doing the work. Xometry provides the bubble print and the filled out paperwork to the partner. We just need to fill out, upload and pack the paperwork. If a customer uploads a drawing, no premium is charged, yet you want the partner to bubble the print, fill out our own inspection report and upload it to the site. The only thing not required is the VQC to my knowledge. I have come across a bunch of jobs that I would have taken in the past that I skip now, because the customer uploads a drawing (the worst are the ones that have no business making a drawing and double dimension every feature on the part). I think if a customer uploads a drawing, a premium should be added. It just does not make sense to take a $100-500 job if the customer supplies a drawing (especially when they are ridiculous) and it takes me longer to do the paperwork than it does to make the parts. Maybe I we are the only ones that feel this way, but that is our opinion on the change.

  • MKearney
    MKearney Posts: 8 ✭✭

    @simply_machining Thank you for the feedback as Xometry is responsible for bubbling prints and creating the inspection reports. For standard inspections without VQC, there is no need to complete the Xometry inspection report as you may use your own method of documenting inspection data, including the machine operator documenting data on the provided drawing.

  • Luke Florence - Xometry
    Luke Florence - Xometry Posts: 131 admin

    Hey everybody! Wanted to thank @Kim White - Xometry and @MKearney for joining us in this AMA about inspection and quality with Xometry. As we're closing out the hour I want to check and make sure no one has any last questions. You can always reference the questions and answers in this thread.

  • WarnerWerks
    WarnerWerks Posts: 8

    What tools are required in addition to a CMM to do a complete CMM report? Thread gages, gage pins, tapped hole gages, etc? I know a CMM can't measure everything on its own.

  • MKearney
    MKearney Posts: 8 ✭✭

    @WarnerWerks - Although a CMM is a useful tool, you are correct that a CMM cannot measure everything. When providing a CMM Report, one must also include any threads or other features that were measured with different devices than the CMM on the report. The majority of CMM softwares offer manual entries. These manual entries would include, Drawing Notes and how they are complied with, Surface Roughness/Finishes and how they measure with a profilometer, Threads with Go/NoGo gages, etc...

  • Eric80_Tavtek
    Eric80_Tavtek Posts: 1

    I agree with SpoolisCool_Monty on this one. It seems "standard" and "formal" inspection report terminology are now being used interchangeably. These new changes will severely limit the number of jobs I will accept and the cost at which they will be accepted. Too many amateur drawings out there with three digit callouts on every dimension (thread depths, tap drill holes, edge breaks, etc.), and/or multiple dimensional callouts from different Datum points in relation to the the same feature.

    I have taken past jobs where formal/documented inspection reporting was required and one of the main decisions prior to my accepting was looking at the drawing, knowing what the inspection process will take, and not being able to communicate these sometimes crazy examples above directly with the customer.

    If you are having quality issues with certain vendors they need to be cut loose from the platform. If the customer "demands" formal inspection reports they need to check the box acknowledging the extra fees and be billed accordingly. Don't burden the shops making quality parts with extra paperwork and expect the same low margin rates. I fully understand producing quality parts but in the real world not every little part needs full inspection of every dimension. Most of the time features like perpendicularity flatness, multiple hole locations, etc. are a given to land in specification using proper setups & quality machinery and inspecting them is just a redundant time consuming process.

    If vendor quality can't be better managed maybe a better answer is to limit the number of drawing inspection features included as "Standard" to say 4 or 5 critical dimensions limited to lengths/diameters. Inspection requirements above and beyond this would require "Formal" inspection reporting and additional fees.

  • MKearney
    MKearney Posts: 8 ✭✭

    @Eric80_Tavtek Thank you for your comments. While Standard Inspection and Formal Inspection may have similarities, there are many differences as well. Although dimensional inspection and documentation have always been a requirement for both inspections mentioned in accordance with the Xometry Partner Guide, we have relaxed the Standard Inspection documentation requirement in the recent revision. For Standard Inspection, dimensional data may be recorded in any format (directly on drawing, your inspection report, etc...) in place of using the Xometry Partner Inspection Form QA2FO3 that is provided whereas the form is required for Formal Inspections. Standard Inspection documentation also does not require one to identify what gaging or gage ID that was used to measure features as well.

    Unfortunately we are unable to modify inspection sampling. The Xometry Partner Guide ( is created to provide flow-down requirements from the Customer Purchase Orders along with satisfying AS9100 body.

    For drawing questions you may have from a manufacturing or inspection perspective, we would love to hear from you. You can reach out to the Case Manager assigned to the purchase order.

    Thank you,


Sign In or Register to comment.