{"id":2439,"date":"2026-08-18T15:21:48","date_gmt":"2026-08-18T07:21:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sourcingall.com\/sourcing-basics\/check-low-factory-price-actually-viable\/"},"modified":"2026-08-21T15:45:53","modified_gmt":"2026-08-21T07:45:53","slug":"check-low-factory-price-actually-viable","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sourcingall.com\/es\/sourcing-basics\/check-low-factory-price-actually-viable\/","title":{"rendered":"How to Check Whether a Low Factory Price Is Actually Viable"},"content":{"rendered":"

A low factory price is not automatically a problem. It may reflect a better process, more suitable equipment, a simpler product assumption, lower overhead, a different production plan, or a supplier that wants the business.<\/p>\n

It may also reflect a different product, missing work, thinner packaging, omitted testing, a shorter price-validity period, a lead time that starts later than you think, or an assumption that was never written down.<\/p>\n

The useful question is not, \u201cIs this factory too cheap?\u201d It is: Can this factory deliver the same released product, evidence, quantity, timing, and commercial scope at this price\u2014and can it explain how?<\/strong><\/p>\n

A low quote becomes decision-ready only after it is normalized against the same baseline as the other quotes. SupplyForge cautions that manufacturing quotations are rarely comparable on arrival because suppliers may include or exclude different material, inspection, finishing, documentation, packaging, or carriage assumptions. 1<\/a> The headline unit price comes last, not first.<\/p>\n

Start with one controlled comparison baseline<\/h2>\n

Do not compare factories from separate email threads, old drawings, unmarked product photos, and different RFQ attachments. Create one comparison pack and give every quote a versioned baseline.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Baseline item<\/th>\nWhat to lock before comparing price<\/th>\nWhy it matters<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Product identity<\/td>\nSKU, model, part number, size\/color\/variant, and quantity split<\/td>\nA low quote for a different variant is not a lower quote for the same product<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Technical package<\/td>\nDrawing, CAD, BOM, material specification, artwork, label, packaging specification, and revision date<\/td>\nMissing or outdated documents produce different assumptions<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Product requirements<\/td>\nFunction, fit, appearance, tolerance, performance, customer requirements, and defined compliance responsibility<\/td>\nA cheaper product may not meet the same required outcome<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Quality plan<\/td>\nSample\/first-off reference, inspection\/test scope, acceptance criteria, report, and release authority<\/td>\n\u201cQuality included\u201d is not a usable comparison field<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Quantity basis<\/td>\nMOQ, order quantity, production lot, price tier, and anticipated order pattern<\/td>\nUnit price can change because the quantity assumption changed<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Commercial basis<\/td>\nCurrency, price validity, payment terms, tooling\/sample charge, delivery term, freight inclusion\/exclusion, and tax\/duty assumption<\/td>\nAn apparently low factory price may exclude costs elsewhere in the transaction<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Timing basis<\/td>\nLead-time start point, material availability, drawing approval, sample approval, production duration, inspection, and shipment readiness<\/td>\nTwo quoted lead times can begin at different events<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Supplier clarification log<\/td>\nQuestions, answer date, supplier contact, document attached, and effect on quote<\/td>\nPrevents important answers from disappearing into messages<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Hub Industrial recommends detailed specifications before RFQs because unclear requirements let suppliers interpret materials, tolerances, packaging, inspection, documentation, and delivery differently. 2<\/a> The goal is not paperwork for its own sake. It is making sure the comparison has a shared meaning.<\/p>\n

Treat a low price as a question, not a verdict<\/h2>\n

A large gap may be a valuable clue. Do not assume it proves that the low bidder is dishonest or that the higher bidder is overcharging. Use the gap to ask what differs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Possible reason for a lower price<\/th>\nQuestion to ask the factory<\/th>\nEvidence or clarification to request<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Different material assumption<\/td>\n\u201cPlease confirm material grade, supplier\/source where controlled, finish, and any permitted alternative.\u201d<\/td>\nUpdated material\/component list linked to current product revision<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Different process route<\/td>\n\u201cWhich process and equipment approach does this price assume?\u201d<\/td>\nShort process assumption and any identified production limitation<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Different tooling\/setup basis<\/td>\n\u201cWhich tooling, fixture, setup, trial, and engineering work is included or excluded?\u201d<\/td>\nSeparate one-off cost list and revision\/tool identification where relevant<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Different quantity\/yield assumption<\/td>\n\u201cWhat order quantity, production lot, scrap\/yield, or price tier does this unit price assume?\u201d<\/td>\nRevised quote with quantity basis and stated assumptions<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Lower packaging scope<\/td>\n\u201cPlease show the inner pack, carton, protection, labels, count, and palletization included.\u201d<\/td>\nPackaging specification\/photo\/sample or detailed list<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Omitted quality work<\/td>\n\u201cWhich inspection, test, documentation, sample, and final release steps are included?\u201d<\/td>\nQuality plan, report\/sample evidence, and exclusions list<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Different delivery interpretation<\/td>\n\u201cWhen does lead time start, what does it end at, and are inspection\/finishing\/transport included?\u201d<\/td>\nDated production and delivery timeline with stated start\/finish conditions<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Commercial choice<\/td>\n\u201cIs this a limited-time, introductory, consolidated-volume, payment-dependent, or otherwise conditional price?\u201d<\/td>\nClear validity, condition, and revised term in the quote<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

The answer can be \u201cwe have a more efficient route.\u201d That is plausible. The buyer should then ask for the route, its assumptions, and the product evidence needed to confirm it works for this order.<\/p>\n

Normalize the scope before you compare unit price<\/h2>\n

Use a scope-normalization sheet. For every supplier, mark each item as included, excluded, assumed, pending clarification, or not applicable. Never turn a blank into an \u201cincluded.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Comparison field<\/th>\nSupplier A<\/th>\nSupplier B<\/th>\nSupplier C<\/th>\nBuyer decision note<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Correct product\/document revision<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Required material and component basis<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Manufacturing process\/finish<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Tooling, fixture, engineering, and trial work<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Sample\/first-off requirement<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Dimensional\/functional\/appearance checks<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Inspection report and release condition<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Packaging, labels, and protection<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Quantity, MOQ, and price tier<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Lead-time start\/end definition<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Delivery term and freight inclusion<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Price validity, currency, and payment condition<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Listed exclusions and open assumptions<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Required evidence before production\/shipment<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

A completed sheet may show that the low quote is genuinely comparable. It may show that it is not yet comparable. Both outcomes are useful. The mistake is awarding the business while the sheet still contains \u201cTBD\u201d in material, quality, packing, or delivery fields.<\/p>\n

Separate recurring price, one-off cost, and delivered-cost items<\/h2>\n

Unit price is only one number in the commercial picture. Separate it from charges that arise once, per run, per order, or after goods leave the factory.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Cost bucket<\/th>\nExamples to ask about<\/th>\nComparison action<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Recurring unit price<\/td>\nFinished product or component unit price at the stated quantity\/variant<\/td>\nConfirm exactly what is included in the unit price<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
One-off engineering\/tooling<\/td>\nTool design\/build, fixture, die, mold, pattern, programming, prepress, setup, qualification, or first-off<\/td>\nList separately and identify the product\/tool revision and inclusion limit<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Sample and validation<\/td>\nDevelopment sample, production sample, testing, lab work, inspection, report, corrective verification<\/td>\nConfirm scope, currency, timing, and whether the charge is included\/excluded<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Packaging and labeling<\/td>\nInner pack, carton, insert, retail box, labels, barcodes, pallet, protection, artwork\/prepress<\/td>\nCompare the same pack-out and protection standard<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Factory-to-port\/collection cost<\/td>\nInland haulage, export packing, loading, documents, handling, or other named item<\/td>\nAlign delivery term and exact handover point<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Freight, insurance, and destination cost<\/td>\nCarrier\/forwarder charge, insurance, import handling, duties\/taxes, local delivery<\/td>\nTreat as a separate estimate with clear assumptions; do not assume a factory unit price includes it<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Quality failure\/transition cost<\/td>\nExtra inspection, sorting, rework, retest, delay, replacement, supplier onboarding\/qualification<\/td>\nDo not invent a figure; identify the risk and decide what evidence\/control reduces it<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

SupplyForge specifically advises separating recurring price from items such as programming, fixtures, patterns, tooling, gauges, qualification testing, and first-article inspection, and including packaging, carriage, minimum-order effects, currency exposure, duties, and buyer-managed operations in a delivered-cost comparison. 1<\/a><\/p>\n

This does not mean you can calculate a precise lifetime cost from an RFQ. It means you can avoid calling a partial factory quote the \u201ctotal cost.\u201d<\/p>\n

Check whether the production story is credible for your product<\/h2>\n

A low quote must be operationally viable, not merely mathematically low. Ask whether the supplier has the equipment, process controls, capacity, inputs, and quality evidence needed for the exact item.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Viability area<\/th>\nQuestions to ask<\/th>\nUseful evidence<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Similar work<\/td>\n\u201cWhat comparable process\/product experience is relevant to this order?\u201d<\/td>\nAnonymized examples, process description, sample, or discussion of comparable technical requirements<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Equipment\/process fit<\/td>\n\u201cWhich machine\/process handles the critical feature, size, material, finish, or test?\u201d<\/td>\nCapability statement, process route, equipment range, and stated limitation<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Capacity and scheduling<\/td>\n\u201cWhat capacity is assumed and how does the quoted lead time fit the current schedule?\u201d<\/td>\nProduction plan\/timeline at an appropriate level; clear lead-time start point<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Material\/component control<\/td>\n\u201cHow will required material\/components be identified, received, and controlled for this order?\u201d<\/td>\nNamed specification\/record approach and approved-alternative process<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Control de calidad<\/td>\n\u201cHow are the critical function, dimensions, appearance, and packaging checked?\u201d<\/td>\nInspection plan, measurement\/test method, sample\/first-off, and report format<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Corrective action<\/td>\n\u201cHow will a nonconformity be contained, reported, corrected, and rechecked?\u201d<\/td>\nCorrective-action route and communication owner<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Traceability\/revision control<\/td>\n\u201cHow do you prevent an outdated drawing\/artwork\/material instruction from being used?\u201d<\/td>\nRevision-control approach, work-instruction linkage, and sample\/reference control<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Subcontracted work<\/td>\n\u201cWhich operations are subcontracted and how are their quality\/delivery results controlled?\u201d<\/td>\nList of operation types, control\/acceptance approach, and timing assumption<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Hub Industrial identifies supplier quality systems, inspection\/testing capability, calibration, corrective action, capacity, audit observations, and historical performance as relevant evidence alongside price. 2<\/a> A certificate or factory photo alone does not establish that a supplier can make your current product. Use them as inputs to a broader evidence check.<\/p>\n

Compare lead time from the same start and finish line<\/h2>\n

\u201cTwenty days\u201d can mean twenty days from deposit, artwork approval, material arrival, final drawing release, or production slot confirmation. It can end at factory completion, post-inspection readiness, loaded container, or arrival at your destination. A lower quote with a shorter lead time is not a comparable commercial offer until those boundaries match.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Timing field<\/th>\nDefine it in writing<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Start condition<\/td>\nQuote acceptance, deposit\/payment event, final specification release, sample approval, material arrival, or production scheduling confirmation<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Engineering\/tooling<\/td>\nDFM review, tool design\/build, trial, modification loop, and approval event<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Sample\/first-off<\/td>\nDate\/condition for sample availability, evaluation, rework, and release<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Production window<\/td>\nPlanned production start, completion condition, and capacity assumption<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Quality\/release<\/td>\nInspection\/test timing, report completion, rework process, and release authority<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Packing and handover<\/td>\nPacked date, collection\/factory handover point, export handling, or carrier booking condition<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Transport<\/td>\nOnly include a transport date if the party responsible and actual service assumption are stated<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Delay handling<\/td>\nCommunication owner, update method, and which changes require revised written agreement<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

This check often explains a low quote without implying a problem: one factory may have a process that starts later, excludes testing, assumes available raw material, or uses a different handover condition. The buyer\u2019s decision is whether the clarified promise fits the required schedule.<\/p>\n

Use cost-driver questions without pretending to know the answer<\/h2>\n

A cost model can help structure questions, but it does not prove the exact price a factory should accept. aPriori notes that cost estimation considers variables such as materials, processes, labor, overhead, batch size, volume, tooling, and facility investment\u2014and that such estimates have inherent uncertainty. 3<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Instead of saying<\/th>\nAsk this<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
\u201cYour price is impossibly low.\u201d<\/td>\n\u201cWhich main cost assumptions make this price possible, and which are different from our RFQ?\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u201cYour competitor says this should cost more.\u201d<\/td>\n\u201cPlease help us compare material, process, tooling, quantity, packaging, inspection, and delivery assumptions.\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u201cKeep the same scope but reduce it again.\u201d<\/td>\n\u201cWhich option can reduce cost while preserving the attached non-negotiable requirements, and what verification would it require?\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u201cWe accept your price.\u201d<\/td>\n\u201cBefore award, please confirm the scope-normalization sheet and list all exclusions\/assumptions in the revised quote.\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u201cCan you guarantee no problems?\u201d<\/td>\n\u201cWhat evidence will demonstrate the stated product\/process\/quality controls before production and shipment?\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

This approach gives a capable supplier an opening to explain a real advantage. It also gives a buyer a record when the low price was based on an unapproved assumption.<\/p>\n

Ask clarifying questions before award\u2014not after the first failure<\/h2>\n

Send a concise, neutral clarification request. Keep every answer tied to the quotation version.<\/p>\n

\n

Thank you for the quotation. Your price is lower than the other offers, so we want to make sure we are comparing the same scope before award. Please confirm the attached product revision, material\/component basis, process\/finish, quantity tier, packaging, sample\/first-off, inspection\/test\/report scope, tooling\/setup, lead-time start and end point, delivery term, and all exclusions. If any item differs from our RFQ, please state the old\/new assumption, price effect, lead-time effect, and verification needed. Please update the quotation or attach a signed clarification sheet.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

SupplyForge recommends using clarification questions when a low quote appears to be based on missing scope and recording the answer with the quotation before award. 1<\/a> The purpose is not to trap the supplier. It is to turn an ambiguous offer into a usable commercial record.<\/p>\n

Score the offer beyond price<\/h2>\n

You do not need a complex procurement system to avoid a price-only decision. Use a small scorecard with weights appropriate to the product\u2019s risk. An urgent technical part should not be judged like a simple, replaceable commodity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Criterion<\/th>\nEvidence to review<\/th>\nWeight question<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Technical\/scope compliance<\/td>\nCompleted normalization sheet, current document revision, deviations, and approved alternatives<\/td>\nIs the product truly comparable?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Delivered commercial cost<\/td>\nUnit price, one-off charges, packaging, logistics\/delivery basis, currency, and exclusions<\/td>\nIs the price complete enough for this decision?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Quality confidence<\/td>\nSample\/first-off, inspection\/test plan, quality-system\/process evidence, corrective route<\/td>\nWhat product failure would be costly, and which evidence reduces uncertainty?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Capability and capacity<\/td>\nSimilar work, equipment\/process fit, capacity plan, subcontract control, and response quality<\/td>\nCan the factory execute this order at the stated time?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Lead time and delivery<\/td>\nSame start\/end definition, schedule credibility, communication, and logistics assumption<\/td>\nDoes the supplier promise the required service level?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Commercial terms and risk<\/td>\nPrice validity, payment, tooling\/ownership records where relevant, change control, and exceptions<\/td>\nAre the terms clear and workable?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Supplier relationship\/communication<\/td>\nClarification discipline, responsiveness, accuracy, and problem-solving behavior<\/td>\nDoes the supplier reduce or amplify execution uncertainty?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

A scorecard does not generate an objective \u201cbest supplier\u201d by itself. It makes the reasons for a decision visible, lets the buyer show which evidence is missing, and reduces the chance that price overrules an unaddressed product risk.<\/p>\n

Decide whether to verify, clarify, negotiate, or decline<\/h2>\n

Once the low quote is normalized, choose the next action based on the evidence\u2014not on the emotional effect of the price gap.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Finding<\/th>\nSensible next step<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Scope matches and capability evidence is credible<\/td>\nMove to sample\/first-off, quote\/PO finalization, and the defined production-control plan<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Scope is unclear but supplier responds precisely<\/td>\nComplete the clarification sheet, obtain a revised quote, and re-compare<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Scope differs in a potentially acceptable way<\/td>\nTreat it as a controlled option: assess product\/quality\/commercial impact and define verification before approval<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Price depends on a condition you cannot meet<\/td>\nRecalculate on a realistic quantity, timing, payment, or delivery basis; do not award on an unavailable assumption<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Capability evidence is incomplete for a critical feature<\/td>\nRequest the appropriate sample, test, audit, or technical review before committing further<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Quality, packaging, timing, or commercial scope is omitted and cannot be resolved<\/td>\nDo not treat the quote as comparable; keep the issue open or select a different approach<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Supplier answer conflicts with the quotation or product documents<\/td>\nRequire a corrected, versioned record before proceeding<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

For full quote comparison structure, see How to Compare Supplier Quotes Without Being Misled by Price<\/a>. For quality-floor negotiation once an alternative is proposed, see How to Negotiate Without Lowering Your Quality Standard<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Final low-price viability check<\/h2>\n

Before awarding a low quote, confirm:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. The supplier quoted the correct product, quantity, document revision, and quality floor.<\/li>\n
  2. Every material, process, packaging, inspection, test, tooling, and delivery assumption is included, excluded, or clearly pending.<\/li>\n
  3. Recurring price, one-off cost, and delivered-cost components are separated.<\/li>\n
  4. Lead time starts and ends at the same defined events as the competing offers.<\/li>\n
  5. The supplier can explain the main assumptions that make the price possible.<\/li>\n
  6. Capability, capacity, quality evidence, and response discipline are credible for the product\u2019s risk.<\/li>\n
  7. Any proposed deviation is separately assessed, documented, and verified before production uses it.<\/li>\n
  8. The award record captures the comparison, clarifications, decision rationale, and remaining controls.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    A low price is not a reason to panic\u2014or a reason to skip the work. It is an invitation to compare carefully. If the scope, capability, quality evidence, timing, and commercial terms all remain intact, the low quote may be a real opportunity. If they do not, the buyer has learned that the price was not for the same job.<\/p>\n

    Referencias<\/h2>\n
      \n
    1. SupplyForge, How to Compare Manufacturing Quotes<\/em><\/a><\/li>\n
    2. Hub Industrial, How to Balance Cost and Quality When Sourcing New Suppliers<\/em><\/a><\/li>\n
    3. aPriori, A Guide to Should Cost Analysis and Negotiation<\/em><\/a><\/li>\n<\/ol>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

      A low factory price is not automatically a problem. It may reflect a better process, more suitable equipment, a simpler […]<\/p>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"rank_math_internal_links_processed":["1"],"rank_math_title":["How to Check Whether a Low Factory Price Is Viable"],"rank_math_description":["Check whether a low factory quote is truly viable by normalizing scope, costs, lead time, quality evidence, capacity, and commercial assumptions."],"rank_math_focus_keyword":["low factory quote evaluation"],"rank_math_rich_snippet":["article"],"_rank_math_rich_snippet":["article"],"rank_math_schema_Article":["a:2:{s:5:\"@type\";s:7:\"Article\";s:8:\"headline\";s:59:\"How to Check Whether a Low Factory Price Is Actually Viable\";}"],"_rank_math_schema_Article":["a:2:{s:5:\"@type\";s:7:\"Article\";s:8:\"headline\";s:59:\"How to Check Whether a Low Factory Price Is Actually Viable\";}"],"_uag_page_assets":["a:9:{s:3:\"css\";s:263:\".uag-blocks-common-selector{z-index:var(--z-index-desktop) !important}@media (max-width: 976px){.uag-blocks-common-selector{z-index:var(--z-index-tablet) !important}}@media (max-width: 767px){.uag-blocks-common-selector{z-index:var(--z-index-mobile) !important}}\n\";s:2:\"js\";s:0:\"\";s:18:\"current_block_list\";a:15:{i:0;s:11:\"core\/search\";i:1;s:10:\"core\/group\";i:2;s:12:\"core\/heading\";i:3;s:17:\"core\/latest-posts\";i:4;s:20:\"core\/latest-comments\";i:5;s:13:\"core\/archives\";i:6;s:15:\"core\/categories\";i:8;s:25:\"greenshift-blocks\/heading\";i:9;s:22:\"greenshift-blocks\/text\";i:10;s:14:\"core\/paragraph\";i:12;s:18:\"core\/legacy-widget\";i:13;s:17:\"core\/social-links\";i:15;s:16:\"core\/social-link\";i:16;s:21:\"trp\/language-switcher\";i:17;s:9:\"core\/html\";}s:8:\"uag_flag\";b:0;s:11:\"uag_version\";s:10:\"1787321448\";s:6:\"gfonts\";a:0:{}s:10:\"gfonts_url\";s:0:\"\";s:12:\"gfonts_files\";a:0:{}s:14:\"uag_faq_layout\";b:0;}"],"_uag_css_file_name":["uag-css-2439.css"]},"categories":[32],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2439","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-sourcing-basics"],"uagb_featured_image_src":{"full":false,"thumbnail":false,"medium":false,"medium_large":false,"large":false,"1536x1536":false,"2048x2048":false,"trp-custom-language-flag":false},"uagb_author_info":{"display_name":"admin","author_link":"https:\/\/sourcingall.com\/es\/author\/admin\/"},"uagb_comment_info":0,"uagb_excerpt":"A low factory price is not automatically a problem. It may reflect a better process, more suitable equipment, a simpler […]","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sourcingall.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2439","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sourcingall.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sourcingall.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sourcingall.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sourcingall.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2439"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/sourcingall.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2439\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2644,"href":"https:\/\/sourcingall.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2439\/revisions\/2644"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sourcingall.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2439"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sourcingall.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2439"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sourcingall.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2439"}],"curies":[{"name":"gracias","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}