Nu-Way Industries

Does Your Part Really Need Galvannealed Steel?

When you spend as much time quoting custom metal fabrication projects as our estimating team does, you become well attuned to trends in material cost. One thing we’ve noticed recently is that galvannealed steel costs keep rising.

If your sheet metal design has specified galvannealed steel for years, it can be easy to assume it’s the best material for the job. However, taking a few minutes to think about your design’s real-world needs and whether they can be fulfilled by another material option can help you cut costs without sacrificing quality.

In some cases, galvannealed steel is still the best material for your application. But it’s also very possible that another, less expensive material will work just as well.

When Galvannealed Steel Is Worth Keeping

Despite its higher cost, galvannealed steel has advantages. Its zinc-iron coating provides corrosion protection and a surface that works well for painting or powder coating. It can also be useful for certain welding applications, particularly spot welding. Here are a few questions to ask about your sheet metal design to determine whether this material, or a comparable alternative, makes sense for your part:

Will the part be painted or powder coated, and is coating adhesion important?
Do appearance and finish consistency matter?
How will the part be welded, and does the material affect that process?
Are both corrosion protection and painted finish performance essential?

A “yes” to any one of these questions doesn’t automatically mean galvannealed steel is required. But when several of these requirements come together, or a customer specification calls for it, galvannealed may be the right choice. Common applications include automotive body panels, electrical enclosures, commercial doors, and painted industrial products.

Alternatives to Galvannealed Steel

The right material for your custom metal fabrication comes down to the application and end-use requirements. Here are a few materials we might recommend as alternatives to galvannealed steel if your sheet metal design allows for a material change.

Cold-Rolled Steel (CRS)

For appropriate indoor applications, cold-rolled steel often offers the greatest potential for material cost savings. It lacks galvannealed steel’s zinc coating (and the added cost that comes with it), so it’s generally best for indoor parts. Paint or powder coating can provide corrosion protection, but the part’s exposure and expected service life still matter.

Galvanized Steel (G60/G90)

Galvanized steel may be a good choice when zinc-based corrosion protection is needed. G60 and G90 refer to different zinc-coating weights, so the right choice depends on how the part will be used and exposed. Galvanized steel is frequently used for equipment housings, enclosures, structural components, and outdoor applications. If the part will be painted, galvanized steel may require more preparation than galvannealed steel to achieve the desired finish.

Hot-Rolled Steel (HRS)

Hot-rolled steel may be another lower-cost alternative for parts without tight dimensional tolerances or high surface-finish requirements.

Aluminum

When low weight, corrosion resistance, or fabrication needs favor aluminum, it’s worth evaluating whether it makes sense for the sheet metal design. However, aluminum isn’t necessarily less expensive, so it needs to be evaluated project by project.

Other Coated Steels

Depending on the application, electrogalvanized steel, Galvalume® and other aluminum-zinc-coated steels, or other zinc-coated sheet metal products from domestic mills may also be worth a look. These materials might be viable when corrosion resistance is important but galvannealed steel’s paintability advantages are not essential.

How to Evaluate a Material Change

If your sheet metal design currently specifies galvannealed steel and you’re interested in exploring alternative material options, it’s important to consider the environment, exposure, finishing needs, expected service life, cosmetic and structural requirements, and how the part must be formed and welded.

It’s also important to consider that the lowest material price doesn’t always produce the lowest overall part cost. A material change may necessitate changes to how the material is cut, bent, welded, and finished. It can also affect tooling, lead times, and material availability.

If your sheet metal design calls for galvannealed steel because the application requires it, then by all means, keep using it. But if it’s being used simply because that’s how it’s always been spec’d out, and no one has considered alternatives, it may be worth exploring your options.

At Nu-Way Industries, we’re happy to work with your engineering and purchasing teams to evaluate material alternatives based on your part’s actual requirements. Request a quote to get started.

Weld, Fasten, Clinch, or Bond? How Joining Choices Affect Sheet Metal Fabrication

In sheet metal fabrication, joining methods are often treated as a production detail: add a weld here, place a rivet there, specify a clinched joint or structural bonding adhesive. But the joining method you choose can affect much more than how two parts are held together. It can also influence cost, cycle time, sheet metal finishing requirements, lead time, and the sequence of operations needed to build the part.

At Nu-Way Industries, we often receive a part number, a drawing, and a joining callout without the full picture of how the part will be used. We can still quote from the print, and in many cases, the joining method shown is exactly what the application requires. But when we understand the end use, we can have a more useful conversation about whether there may be a faster, cleaner, lower-cost, or more production-friendly joining option.

Of course, nobody knows your product better than your team. But the earlier we’re part of the discussion, the more we can do to help make sure the joining method supports how the part actually needs to perform while still respecting the design intent behind it.

Common Ways to Join Sheet Metal Components

Most sheet metal joining decisions come down to a handful of methods, each with its own cost, strength, finishing, and production implications. Looking at those trade-offs early can help confirm whether the joining method on the print is the right fit as designed, or whether an approved alternative is worth talking through.

Mechanical Fastening

Mechanical fastening is often the most economical starting point for joining sheet metal components. This category includes rivets, bolts, and other loose fasteners, along with pressed-in hardware such as PEM-style inserts and interference-fit joints. The appeal of mechanical fastening is speed and cost. Installing a rivet or fastener typically requires no heat, minimal setup, and less labor cost than many welded joints. The trade-offs are that many mechanical methods require holes, overlaps, or additional hardware, and they may not be the right fit for high-vibration or strength-critical applications where a fastened joint could eventually loosen.

Welding

Welding includes processes such as MIG, TIG, spot, and laser welding. These methods fuse the metal itself, creating a strong, permanent joint that mechanical fastening may not be able to match in certain applications. For structural loads, sealed assemblies, or parts exposed to heavy vibration, welding is often the right call, and in some cases, it may be the only acceptable option.

The trade-offs vary by process and production volume. MIG and TIG welding can be labor-intensive, and if the finished part needs a clean cosmetic surface, the weld may need to be ground flush and blended. Spot welding can sometimes reduce the amount of visible finishing required. When the volume and geometry support it, MIG, TIG, or laser welding can be automated. Automation requires additional setup but can improve consistency and cycle times across the production run.

Clinching

Clinching is a mechanical joining method that uses a punch and die to press two or more overlapping layers of sheet metal into a permanent interlocking joint, without welding, rivets, or added hardware. In automated applications, the connection can be formed in less than a second. TOX® is a trademarked name for this type of clinched connection.

Because clinching is a cold-forming process, it avoids heat-related distortion and the need for filler material or separate fasteners. It can be a fast, repeatable option for joining materials with different thicknesses or compositions, including pre-coated stock, while potentially reducing the need for post-join finishing. Suitability depends on the materials, combined thickness, joint geometry, required strength, and access for the punch and die. For applications involving extremely high strength requirements, thicker materials, or critical structural joints, welding may still be the better choice. But when conditions allow, clinching can be an efficient, lower-cost alternative.

Structural Bonding Adhesives (SBA)

Structural bonding adhesives and high-bond tapes join parts across a surface rather than at discrete points. This approach can distribute load across a bonded area and avoids the heat-related distortion and drilled holes that other methods can introduce, which is one reason it shows up frequently in automotive assembly. Like clinching, it can be a practical option in applications where welding is not always possible or economical. As with any joining method, SBA fits some applications better than others, and the right approach depends on what the part has to do.

The End Use Determines What Is Possible

End use matters because a joining method is often selected for a specific purpose that may not be apparent from the drawing alone. Without knowing how a part will be used, where it will operate, or what it needs to withstand, it can be difficult to tell whether the method on the print is fixed or whether there is room to discuss an approved alternative.

Sometimes the end use makes the method non-negotiable. If a component has to contain pressure, support a critical load, or meet a specific safety standard, the application may dictate the joint, and the right move is simply to build it as specified.

Other times, understanding the end use can point toward a different approach. A part destined for a high-vibration environment, for example, may not be a good candidate for certain fastened joints if there is a risk that the connection could gradually work loose. Knowing that the part will face heavy vibration gives us a chance to flag that concern early and talk through a more durable approach before it becomes a field problem.

The takeaway is that the more we understand about what a part does and where it will be used, the more useful the conversation becomes. That context is what separates quoting a print from helping identify the best manufacturing path for the application.

Sometimes the Best Joint Is No Joint

Before choosing between the various joining methods, it’s worth stepping back, because the best joint is often the one you can eliminate entirely. In the right cases, a feature that was going to require a weld or fastener may be able to be formed directly into a single part instead.

In addition to removing the joint itself, consolidating parts this way can reduce labor, hardware, the finishing work around the joint, and the tolerance stack-up that comes from assembling multiple pieces. Fewer parts can mean lower cost, faster production, and one less thing that can shift out of alignment during assembly.

Consolidation is not always possible. Geometry, material, bend access, strength requirements, and the original design intent all play a role, and sometimes joining separate parts really is the right answer. But it’s one of the most valuable questions to ask early, while the design is still flexible, because once the part is finalized, that opportunity is usually gone.

Joining Choices Affect Finishing, Cost, and Lead Time

In addition to determining how parts come together, the joining method can change the sequence of operations required to manufacture an assembly. Those downstream effects can influence labor, part movement, finishing requirements, and overall production time. A few examples:

– Manufacturing and finishing sequence: A welded design may move from fabrication to welding, then through grinding or blending before the completed assembly is powder coated. A mechanically fastened design may allow the individual components to be fabricated and powder coated first, then brought together for final assembly. Clinching can sometimes be used with pre-coated materials without the heat damage associated with welding, while SBA may require specific surface preparation before the adhesive is applied.
– Appearance requirements: A MIG weld may be fine on a hidden structural surface, but a visible surface may need that weld ground flush and blended, which adds labor. Spot welds are often less visible and may require little cosmetic finishing. Clinched joints leave a formed impression, while SBA can create a clean exterior without visible welds or fasteners.
– Lead time: If timing is a priority and the application allows for an approved alternative, choosing a faster joining method may help the part move through production more quickly. Clinching can provide a fast, repeatable process with little post-join finishing, while SBA can reduce finishing but introduce curing time, so the full production sequence needs to be considered.

The cost of a joining method should therefore be evaluated not just as a single operation, but by the manufacturing steps it adds, changes, or eliminates throughout the process.

In each of these cases, the goal is to talk through the options early, while the design is still flexible. Any change to the print would always go through your team for review and approval first.

Choosing the Joining Method That Fits the Part

The best joining method depends on more than strength, speed, or cost. It depends on what the part actually has to do.

That is why end-use context matters. If Nu-Way understands how the part will be used, where it will operate, what it needs to withstand, how it should look, and how quickly it needs to move through production, we can have a more useful manufacturing conversation. Sometimes the print is already showing the right approach. Other times, there may be an approved alternative that reduces cost, simplifies finishing, improves lead time, or eliminates a joint entirely.

It’s important to reiterate that any alternative we suggest is offered for review, never implemented on our own. The final decision belongs to your team, and if there is a reason a part has to be joined a certain way, we respect it. Our role is to bring manufacturing experience to the discussion early, while there is still room to weigh the options.

If you are developing a sheet metal assembly and want to choose the right joining approach for cost, strength, finish, and production, request a quote today. Nu-Way Industries can help you think through the manufacturing path before the design is finalized.

How Early Collaboration Helps Control Sheet Metal Costs

Anyone who works in purchasing knows that a sheet metal quote can raise questions that aren’t always obvious from the print alone. A part may look straightforward, the drawings may be complete, and the material callouts may all appear reasonable. But when you understand the entire scope of the project (ie. how all these individual parts are being used together) from a manufacturing standpoint, small details in the design can have a meaningful impact on price, lead time, and production efficiency.

At Nu-Way Industries, we recently reviewed an enclosure assembly that demonstrates how much those details matter. The enclosure was roughly desktop-sized and made from about six sheet metal components. At first glance, it looked like a routine sheet metal assembly. But once our team reviewed how the components would be cut and nested, the cost drivers became clearer. Every part called for a different material thickness, and one unfolded component consumed nearly an entire sheet of material on its own. If more of the parts had shared a common gauge, some of the smaller ones may have nested into that unused sheet area instead of leaving it as scrap.

To be clear, that doesn’t mean the design was wrong. Each material choice may have made sense on its own, especially from a performance standpoint. But from the fabrication side, those choices limited nesting opportunities and created material waste that the individual component prints didn’t fully show.

That’s why it helps to bring your manufacturing partner into the conversation early. When Nu-Way understands what the part needs to do and engineering has room to weigh in, there may be practical ways to improve cost, yield, or lead time before the project moves into production.

Where a Manufacturing Partner Can Help You Spot Hidden Cost Drivers

When Nu-Way reviews a project for quoting, our team looks at how the part will move through production, including material usage, nesting, outside processing, sourcing, and scheduling. That manufacturing perspective can reveal cost drivers that may not have been obvious during design or purchasing.

Material Yield Adds Up Across an Assembly

In many cases, the material cost isn’t limited to the metal inside the finished part’s perimeter. The sheet metal quote also has to account for the material consumed to make the part, including the skeleton, cutouts, and leftover areas that may not be usable once the part is cut.

That unused material is where the assembly-level view can make a difference. If six related parts all use different gauges, the shop is essentially working with six separate material requirements. But when several of those parts can share a common material thickness, there may be room to nest them together more efficiently and reduce the amount of unused material.

Not every material callout can or should be changed. Some thicknesses are selected for strength, fit, or performance. But when the reason is less clear, it’s worth asking the question before the quote is finalized or the PO is placed. If the design intent allows for a common gauge, a different sheet size, or a small adjustment to how parts are grouped, the result may be a lower-cost, more efficient production path.

Outside Processing Can Carry Minimum Charges

Some sheet metal quote surprises come from what happens after the parts are fabricated. If a part needs wet paint, plating, anodizing, or passivation, Nu-Way typically sends that work to a specialized outside vendor, which is common for many job shops. That outside processing has to be included in the quote, and on small orders, the pricing can look disproportionate to its size or complexity.

Those vendors often charge a minimum lot fee to set up and run a batch. On a small order, that minimum gets absorbed by just a few parts. Ten small plated brackets, for example, may come back much higher than expected on a per-piece basis because those ten pieces are carrying the entire finishing minimum on their own.

This is one place where grouping related parts can help. When several parts need the same finish, they may be able to move through production and outside processing as a family, spreading the minimum charge across a larger run instead of applying it to one small batch. Capturing that benefit usually takes a small adjustment on the purchasing side. The related parts need to be ordered and processed as a set, rather than as separate one-off POs, so the fabrication partner can manage the finishing as a single lot.

Material Availability Can Change the Best Approach

Raw material pricing and availability have been changing quickly, which makes early conversations more important during quoting and planning. Steel, aluminum, copper, and stainless have all seen price movement, and some materials that used to be easy to source are now harder to get on a predictable timeline. When a service center is out of a given material, filling the order may mean waiting on the mill, which can push lead times beyond what the buyer expected when the RFQ package went out.

That uncertainty is worth surfacing early, because there are often options once everyone understands the tradeoffs. If the specified material is expensive or hard to source, the next question is whether the part really needs that exact material to do its job. Could a different grade work? Is there a more available thickness? If the print calls for aluminum, would powder-coated steel still hold up in the application? While those are engineering decisions, Nu-Way can help raise the question before cost or lead time becomes the only thing left to react to.

Once the material choice is clear, the next step is to discuss timing. When material is scarce or a project requires a larger commitment buy, the customer and manufacturer may need to talk through how that material will be secured. In some cases, locking in price and availability calls for a firmer purchasing commitment up front, so the material can be purchased, scheduled, and held for the work ahead. Getting those conversations on the table early gives everyone room to weigh cost, availability, and timing before the order is locked in.

Better Sheet Metal Quotes Start With Better Conversations

None of this is about second-guessing the design or adding steps to an already busy process. A print can be complete and correct and still leave room to improve how the part is produced. Purchasing, engineering, and your fabrication partner each see the project from a different angle, and the earlier those perspectives come together, the more options everyone has to manage cost, yield, and lead time.

That’s the real value of treating a manufacturing partner as an extension of your own team rather than another name on a bid list. The work still gets built to print. It just gets built with fewer surprises.

Ready to talk through your next project? Get in touch with the Nu-Way team to request a quote.

The Sheet Metal RFQ Checklist: 10 Ways to Get Faster, More Accurate Quotes

Anyone who works in purchasing knows how quickly a sheet metal RFQ can turn into a chain of follow-up questions. One vendor needs a missing drawing, another asks for a 3D file, and someone else wants to know whether the annual volume will be released all at once, monthly, or in smaller production runs. Before long, you’re tracking down answers from engineering, forwarding updates to multiple vendors, and trying to keep the quote timeline from slipping.

That kind of back-and-forth usually doesn’t happen because someone dropped the ball. Buyers are often working with parts they didn’t design, files they may not control, and deadlines they didn’t set. But the more complete and organized the RFQ package is from the start, the easier it is for your sheet metal fabrication partner to understand the scope, ask better questions, and return a quote that reflects the real project.

At Nu-Way Industries, we assembled this checklist to make that process easier. It outlines the information that gives sheet metal fabricators a clearer picture of the project, helping buyers reduce back-and-forth, compare quotes more confidently, and avoid eleventh-hour surprises.

What to Include in Your Sheet Metal RFQ Package

Not every RFQ will require every item below, and not every buyer will have access to all of this information. And that’s okay. Nu-Way can and does quote projects with less information, but the more detail that’s available up front, the easier it is for us to improve the quality and speed of the quote. The goal here isn’t to spend time creating the perfect RFQ package, but rather to know what to aim for and who to loop in when something’s missing. Here are 10 things that, in our experience, can make the biggest difference in how fast and accurately a sheet metal fabrication partner can quote your project.

#1: Include 3D CAD Files and PDF Drawings

3D files increase quoting speed. When an estimator can load a model directly, they can spend less time interpreting flat drawings or manually working through dimensions and bend calculations from scratch. That difference adds up quickly, especially on weldments and multi-component assemblies, where the geometry becomes more complex.

We recommend including 3D CAD files for everything when possible, along with PDF drawings for all levels of the assembly, not just the top-level drawing. The model helps the estimator understand the geometry and fitup, while the drawings provide important details such as tolerances, notes, finishes, revisions, and component-level requirements. And if you don’t have access to the CAD files yourself, it’s worth finding out who in your organization does, so they can be included with the package or made available to the vendor if needed.

#2: Provide a Digital Bill of Materials

A structured bill of materials (we recommend an Excel spreadsheet) helps the vendor understand the full scope of what you need quoted, especially on complex assemblies with multiple subcomponents. Without a clear BOM, your manufacturing partner has to piece together the project scope from the drawings alone. This can slow the RFQ process down and increase the chances of something being missed or misinterpreted.

#3: Clarify Material and Finishing Specifications

If your sheet metal parts have specific material requirements or require powder coating, plating, anodizing, or wet paint, it helps to include that information in the original RFQ package. These details are sometimes handled separately from the drawings, but when they’re missing from the quote package, one of two things usually happens: the vendor has to ask (which adds delay) or make an assumption (which adds risk).

#4: Share Specialty Item Sources

If the assembly includes specialty hardware, fasteners, springs, or other components that aren’t widely available, include the name of the supplier you typically use. You don’t need to share pricing, just the source. That gives your manufacturing partner a clear starting point, so they don’t have to spend time tracking down who makes a particular item (and delaying your quote).

#5: Define Release Quantities and Cadence

While estimated annual usage (EAU) is helpful because it tells your manufacturing partner the size of the opportunity for the year, most sheet metal fabricators don’t quote as if they’ll run the full annual quantity at once. Material costs are too volatile to buy a year’s worth of raw material up front, shops may not have the capacity to run that volume in a single production cycle, and chances are you don’t have the warehouse space to receive it all in one shipment anyway.

What’s especially useful for your sheet metal fabrication partner is the release quantity, meaning how many pieces you expect to order per purchase order, and the cadence, meaning how frequently those orders or shipments will occur. Without that information, the vendor has to estimate both, and the quote you get back will be based on their best guess rather than your actual plan. If you’re starting with a prototype run before scaling to full production, it’s worth flagging that up front, too, since it changes how the work is scheduled and priced.

#6: Include an Engineering Point of Contact

When technical questions come up during the quoting process, the fastest path to an answer is a direct line to someone on your engineering team. Including that person’s name and contact information in the RFQ package means that when your manufacturing partner has a question about a missing drawing, a critical-to-quality feature, or a tolerance called out to several decimal places, they can go straight to a technical resource instead of relaying questions back and forth through the buyer.

There’s a second benefit here, too. When the vendor understands what a part actually does and how it functions, they can quote more accurately and may be able to suggest alternative approaches that reduce cost. Without that context, they’re pricing the geometry on the drawing without knowing what matters most.

#7: Share Documentation and Quality Requirements Up Front

Here’s a scenario we’ve run into before: Nu-Way completes a quote, it looks competitive, and the buyer agrees to the lead time. Then, later in the process, the buyer mentions they’ll need a Level 3 PPAP, or Production Part Approval Process, with the first-piece submission. That kind of quality documentation requires significant administrative work and has to be factored into both the price and the timeline. It’s not something that can be pulled together at the last minute when parts are already manufactured and sitting on the shipping dock.

If your project has documentation or quality requirements, such as PPAP, first-article inspection, or certifications, it pays to include them in the sheet metal RFQ. When your fabrication partner has that information from the start, the quote reflects the full scope of the work, and nobody is scrambling at the end to catch up.

#8: Ask About In-House Capabilities

Before sending your RFQ to a list of vendors, it’s worth asking a simple question: do they have the manufacturing and finishing capabilities your project requires in-house, or will they need to subcontract part of the work? The answer can have a direct impact on both pricing and lead time for sheet metal parts. A vendor who has to send parts out for plating or another secondary process may need more time, and that outside processing can also affect the final price.

When that information surfaces in the quote rather than before it, the buyer may have already spent weeks waiting on a response that was never going to be the right fit. Asking the question early gives vendors who can’t meet the requirements a chance to say so up front, and it helps the buyer avoid spending time on quotes that won’t work.

#9: Consider Sharing a Target Price

Target pricing isn’t always straightforward, and we understand why buyers can be hesitant to share it. After all, it can feel like showing your hand, especially if you’re worried a vendor will build their quote around that number instead of giving you their most competitive price. It can also create a practical challenge if too many vendors decide the target isn’t a fit, and you still need to collect a certain number of bids.

But here’s what we see from the quoting side: without a target price, a fabricator can spend days putting together a detailed quote for a complex assembly, only to find out the number was never close. An experienced estimator can often look at a target and know within minutes whether the raw material cost alone makes the project a non-starter. That kind of early clarity saves time for everyone involved.

Think of it like a job posting with no salary range. You probably wouldn’t invest the time to apply without some idea of whether the compensation was in the right ballpark. Target pricing gives your fabrication partner the same kind of context. Even a general range can be enough to determine whether it makes sense to invest the time in a full quote.

#10: Aim for Realistic Quote Deadlines

We know there’s often pressure on the procurement side to get quotes back quickly, and we understand that timelines aren’t always yours to set. But when a large or complex sheet metal RFQ comes in with a turnaround time of a day or two, many fabricators won’t be able to review it thoroughly enough to return a confident, accurate quote. Some may pass on the opportunity entirely.

If the goal is to get responses that are thorough, competitive, and easy to compare, a timeline that reflects the scope of the RFQ can make a meaningful difference.

Better RFQs Make Better Quotes

It’s easy to look at a list like this and think it adds steps to an already busy process. But the alternative is often more time spent fielding the same clarifying questions from multiple vendors, chasing down specs and drawings after the fact, and trying to compare quotes that were each built on different assumptions.

When the RFQ package is more complete from the start, everyone spends less time filling in the blanks later. Your fabrication partner can quote around the real scope of the project, and you get responses that are easier to compare, easier to trust, and less likely to come with surprises.

Ready to put this checklist to work? Get in touch with the Nu-Way team to request a quote or talk through your next project.

How Steve Elliott Is Helping Nu-Way Build Systems That Scale

Nu-Way Industries had previously tried to migrate from its legacy Meridian file management system to SolidWorks PDM. The earlier attempts had failed, as the challenge was bigger than switching software. Engineering records had to be migrated, data structures mapped, and workflows, user permissions, and CAD integration aligned, all without disrupting daily operations across Nu-Way’s precision sheet metal manufacturing environment. Before that was done, keeping engineering and production aligned on current revisions was a more manual process, increasing the risk that a part could be built from an outdated revision.

That changed when Steve Elliott, now Nu-Way’s Vice President of Engineering & Estimating, took ownership of the project. He led the system architecture, executed the full data migration across engineering records, and stabilized the platform after launch. The result was a reliable, scalable document management platform that remains Nu-Way’s standard today.

For Elliott, the project reflects a broader pattern across his time with the company: replacing improvisation with systems that scale.

“The better, more economical decision, and the one with the least amount of resistance, was to switch to the SolidWorks PDM vault system,” Elliott said. “Since we were already a heavy user of SolidWorks, it was an easy decision to go through with that.”

Seven years later, the impact is clear. “We’re now seven years into using it, and in the seven years that it’s been running, we’ve never had a catastrophic failure of the vault system,” he said. “It’s common use and common practice here at Nu-Way. Nobody thinks about the old system that much anymore.”

A Career Built on the Shop Floor

Elliott has spent nearly 25 years in precision sheet metal manufacturing, including 21 years at Nu-Way Industries. Over that time, his role has steadily expanded from Industrial Engineer to Industrial Engineering Manager, New Product Development Engineering Manager, and now Vice President of Engineering & Estimating.

That progression gave him a detailed view of how engineering decisions show up on the shop floor.

“Being hands-on all these years has been the biggest teacher,” Elliott said. “I got to spend a lot more time out on the floor in the first 15 years of my career, seeing things done in fabrication firsthand. All of that has been incredibly helpful where I’m at today.”

Earlier in his career, Elliott led the setup and optimization of high-volume assembly lines, including workflow design, line balancing, tooling, fixtures, and detailed work instructions. He supported large-scale production programs such as heavy copper busbar battery rack assemblies, helping enable throughput of up to 18 units per day using properly balanced production lines and tooling.

He also established dedicated assembly cells for complex precision sheet metal programs, including stainless steel oven door production and Department of Defense (DoD)-related builds, and engineered a robotic handling system for aluminum motorcycle fuel tanks that automated the internal sealing process.

That hands-on foundation continues to shape how he leads today. He understands that scalable systems must be practical, usable, and grounded in the realities of production.

As his responsibilities have expanded, so has the nature of the work. “Now it’s about assigning the right tasks to the right people who are qualified to do those projects,” Elliott said. “Learning to delegate and trust has been another transition, and so has helping others develop where there is opportunity for them to grow.”

A Standards-First Leadership Style

In his current role, Elliott is focused on bringing more structure to the decisions that shape a job before it reaches production.

He is driving the development of standardized work across engineering and estimating, with an emphasis on improving consistency, accuracy, and scalability. That initiative includes formalizing documentation, procedures, and onboarding materials so the organization relies less on tribal knowledge and more on shared processes.

The effort also connects directly to downstream performance. Elliott is aligning engineering methods and estimating practices with cost, scheduling, production performance, and ERP execution, including improved integration with Epicor.

For those changes to hold, the people closest to the process have to be involved in shaping and maintaining them.

“I prioritize open communication with my team, ensuring managers are informed, involved, and part of the decision-making process to drive better outcomes,” Elliott said.

That approach gives standardization a practical purpose. It creates clearer ownership across the leadership team and gives the people doing the work a stake in how it gets done.

Using Technology to Strengthen the System

Elliott is also applying that systems mindset to Nu-Way’s estimating platform and internal technology. He is leading enhancements to Paperless Parts to better reflect Nu-Way’s manufacturing processes, cost structures, and quoting inputs, including faster, more accurate raw material pricing updates.

For Elliott, the value is not simply moving from paper to digital. It is about reducing ambiguity and improving the consistency of the decisions that shape cost, capacity, and competitiveness.

“With analog quoting systems, you’re really using interpretation,” Elliott said. “And with interpretation in human beings comes various answers. Paperless helps pull some of the ambiguity out of quoting.”

That clarity matters because estimating decisions affect the entire operation. A quoted rate has to be competitive, but it also has to reflect what the company can realistically produce.

“It’s forcing a revisit to core estimating functions and making sure we have a dialed-in estimating rate that remains competitive among our competitors,” Elliott said. “Everybody has a personal objective, but you have to keep the company in the front of mind. We won’t be competitive if we constantly cut rates in half.”

Similarly, Elliott is using AI-assisted code generation to support development inside Paperless Parts’ P3L scripting environment, allowing the team to iterate on system improvements more quickly and reduce reliance on external programming resources. He is also applying AI to documentation-heavy work, including SOP development, technical communication summaries, and knowledge capture across engineering and estimating.

For Elliott, the value of AI is practical because it gives teams another way to improve internal systems, capture information more efficiently, and solve problems faster without being limited by traditional technical barriers.

“I’m not a programmer. I’m an engineer,” Elliott said. “The advent of AI has been a huge lift for a non-programmer like me. It has made many things possible that I could only get done through contracted services before.”

That includes writing scripts for SolidWorks PDM automation, creating tools to help process large customer drawing packages, and modifying Paperless Parts code more efficiently.

“What really started to knock down obstacles to improving software and workflows was having AI help me understand the programming side,” Elliott said. “Now I’m building my own scripts, building my own executables, and modifying P3L code.”

Building for Scale

Looking ahead, the next stage of improvement is stronger integration across engineering, estimating, and production. That means continued investment in technology and automation, faster and more reliable quoting, better data, and more standardized processes.

It also means building an organization where teams take greater ownership and collaborate across fewer silos. After helping analyze company-wide employee feedback, Elliott has focused early efforts on documentation, training, and cross-functional understanding.

“I expect leaders and teams to take full responsibility for their work, follow through on commitments, and step up to challenges even when they fall outside their traditional roles,” he said.

The goal is a more scalable operation, with systems that support better decisions closer to the work.

If you’re looking for a precision sheet metal manufacturing partner for a new program or existing product, Nu-Way’s team is ready to help. Contact us to discuss your project needs.

Why Your RFQ Should Include More Than Just a Drawing

Buyers, here’s a question: Could you use some time back in your day? Between sending out RFQs, waiting for responses, and juggling timelines, the answer is probably yes. If you aren’t already doing so, one of the simplest ways to speed up the quoting process is to include the 3D CAD file with the drawing.

The Role of 3D CAD Files in Modern Quoting

If you’re already providing your manufacturing partners with a drawing, why does the 3D CAD file matter so much? It comes down to speed, as the 3D file fundamentally changes how fast a supplier can turn your RFQ around.

For decades, estimators manually interpreted every dimension, every spec, and every note from a drawing before they could even start quoting. They relied on spreadsheets and custom calculators to work through the numbers, making it a methodical and very manual process. Modern quoting software has changed that. Today, the software can analyze part geometry directly from the 3D file and automatically determine:

– Part features (such as holes, countersinks, and counterbores)
– Sheet metal flat patterns and blank sizes
– Part volumes
– Types of manufacturing operations

With the software handling the setup, estimators can jump straight into evaluating cost and manufacturability instead of spending time on manual calculations. Think of the 3D file as a force multiplier. For example, rather than manually calculating the total number of inches in a perimeter that resembles Rhode Island’s coastline, the software figures it out instantly. The drawing and 3D model work in unison: while the 3D file builds up the geometry, the drawing communicates specs, tolerances, and design intent. It’s the one-two punch that gets the quote done faster.

What a Missing 3D CAD File Actually Costs You

Without the 3D model, estimators have to manually interpret the drawing and approximate the information that software could otherwise extract automatically. It still gets done, but it takes longer, which means your quote takes longer to come back.

The bigger issue, however, is what happens downstream. If a supplier wins the order and the buyer didn’t provide a 3D file, their engineering team often has to recreate the 3D model from the drawing before production can even begin. That’s time on the supplier’s side, which you feel in the form of longer lead times.

Recreating the model is also where real risk enters the picture. Think about a part with 200 dimensions. When a manufacturing partner has to recreate that model from only your drawing, every single measurement is entered manually. Across 200 entries, it’s almost inevitable that someone will miskey a number. And if that mistake doesn’t get caught before production, you could end up with a thousand parts that don’t meet spec. What started as a missing file turns into rejected parts, quality teams getting involved on both sides, discrepant material reports (DMRs), credits, rework, and a whole lot of back-and-forth that really didn’t need to happen.

There’s also a less obvious benefit to including the 3D file: it acts as a built-in cross-check. There have been plenty of cases where a customer’s 3D model didn’t match their own drawing. When both are included, that discrepancy is caught early rather than showing up on the production floor. The two files should be in sync with each other, not conflicting, and having both in hand is what makes that verification possible.

What to Include in Your RFQ Package

A strong RFQ package includes a STEP file (the universal 3D CAD format) and the drawing. That’s the baseline, and for most parts, it’s all a supplier needs to get moving quickly.

For assemblies or weldments, the best approach is to export the top-level assembly as a STEP file, include the corresponding drawings, and package everything into a ZIP file or a shared folder. Most CAD software can export assembly STEPs that include all child-component geometry, so suppliers can analyze the full assembly without requesting each piece individually. Nu-Way can also accept (and it’s preferred) if the customer sends native Solidworks files using the “Pack n’ Go” feature which makes it simple to gather up those files.

The good news is that your facility almost certainly already has these files since manual drafting of these drawings seldom happens today. Instead, the part gets drawn in 3D, and the software converts it to a drawing. It’s always going from that workflow, never the other way around.

In other words, the 3D CAD file exists. It’s just a matter of including it. In most cases, all you may have to do is ask engineering.

Make Including 3D Files the New Routine

As technology continues to advance, this process is becoming the new normal across the manufacturing industry. In fact, many OEMs have been including 3D files in the quoting process for many years now. They know that better RFQ data leads to faster quotes, faster order processing, reduced lead times, fewer errors, and less back-and-forth.

If you want to streamline the RFQ process and help prevent downstream quality headaches in your manufacturing operation, including the 3D model along with the part drawing is one of the simplest ways to do so. It means faster response times from your manufacturing partners and a more efficient timeline from quote to production.Put it into practice. Send us your next RFQ with the drawing and the 3D file, and see the difference it makes. Request a quote from Nu-Way Industries.