Draft — FCC test lab quote request¶
Status: draft, not sent. Written 2026-08-10 by /todo from Todos.md → Draft the Fanstel and FCC-lab emails.
This document is a wrapper, not a second copy. Every technical answer lives in FCC Lab Quote Responses.md and is pasted from there. Two documents saying the same thing in different words is how the numbers stop being comparable — which would defeat the only reason to get three quotes.
Market scope: US only, decided 2026-08-10. No CE/RED, no ISED. Recorded in launch-plan.md §5.
Placeholders to fill: [LAB NAME], and the four blanks the responses document already flags (watch cell mAh, anchor cell mAh, enclosure weights, mains adapter make/model/FCC ID).
1. Who to send it to¶
Lab 1 is spent: Washington Laboratories (wll.com, Gaithersburg/Frederick MD) got the intake form on 2026-08-09. Two to go, and they have to be genuinely different companies — see the warning below, because one obvious candidate is a trap.
| # | Lab | Why this one | What to watch |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | Element Materials Technology Washington DC LLC — Columbia, MD. This is the former PCTEST Engineering Laboratory, acquired by Element in 2020. | Founded by ex-FCC engineers, and a SAR and TCB specialist rather than a general EMC shop. The three questions in §5 item 3 are TCB judgement calls, and this is the lab most likely to answer them authoritatively rather than punt. If the extremity question comes back yes, it moves your 1-g threshold from 3.0 to 7.5 and changes what you buy. | Big-lab pricing. Expect the highest of the three, and treat their answers as the value even if the number is uncompetitive. |
| 3 | CKC Laboratories — independent, multiple US sites. | Independent and long-established, appears as the test lab on filed FCC RF-exposure reports, so the exposure work is in scope. Good price contrast against Element. | Confirm on the call that the SAR/RF-exposure line is done in-house rather than subcontracted — a subcontracted line makes the delta questions much less useful. |
| alt | F2 Labs — Damascus MD / Middlefield OH / Indianapolis IN. | Accredited, Part 15 focused, oriented to smaller manufacturers. A good third if CKC's exposure scope doesn't fit. | Their Part 15 pages do not advertise SAR. Ask before assuming. A Part 15B-only quote is still useful, but only if you compare it against the Part 15B line of the other two, not their totals. |
⚠️ Do not treat "Element Washington" as a second opinion on Washington Laboratories. They are different companies with confusingly similar names — Washington Laboratories, Ltd (
wll.com, Gaithersburg, independent, family-founded) is lab 1; Element Materials Technology Washington DC LLC (Columbia MD, ex-PCTEST) is lab 2. The similarity is a coincidence of geography. It is worth being sure of, because two quotes from one company is one quote.
Verify accreditation scope before sending, on the A2LA directory or the FCC's own lab list — accreditations lapse and change, and everything above is desk research, not a phone call.
2. The covering email¶
Short on purpose. The scope detail is pasted below it; the email's whole job is to make a lab engineer read the rest and quote the right work.
Subject: Quote request - FCC Part 15B SDoC + RF exposure, wearable + mains device, US only
Hello [LAB NAME],
I am a small hardware business preparing a two-device consumer product for a
crowdfunding launch, and I would like a quote for FCC compliance testing.
What I am buying, stated up front because it is narrower than "certify my
product": both radios are pre-certified modules, so I am not seeking
intentional-radiator certification. I need Part 15 Subpart B SDoC testing on
the finished product, plus an RF exposure evaluation. US market only - no CE
or ISED in this scope.
The product is two devices built on one 40 x 42 mm four-layer PCB, differing
in firmware role and enclosure: a wrist-worn battery-powered watch, and a
mains-powered fixed anchor with battery backup and an attached servo. They
range against each other using Bluetooth Channel Sounding, so the radio
measurement involves both devices at once.
Full scope detail is below - product description, all operating modes, cabling,
dimensions and electrical, and the specific questions I would like the quote to
answer. I have written it out in the format your intake form asks for so that
the same text goes to every lab I approach and the numbers stay comparable.
Two things worth knowing before you price it:
- The RF exposure pre-calculation is already done, per KDB 447498 D01 section
4.3.1. BLE comes out excluded; 2.4 GHz WiFi does not. I can send the
worksheet. Three questions in the detail below would change that result, and
I would like them addressed in the quote rather than after it.
- The boards I have are bring-up prototypes, not the shipping revision. I am
looking for a quote now and expecting to book later, once I have a
production-representative build and one outstanding module grant. Please tell
me what you require as "production-representative" so I test the right
article.
Happy to get on a call if that is faster than email.
Thank you,
David Macpherson
[PHONE]
[EMAIL]
3. What to paste underneath it¶
Take these from FCC Lab Quote Responses.md verbatim — they are already plain ASCII with no Markdown, so they survive a web form or a plain-text email unchanged. Do not retype them here or in the email; copy them.
| Order | Heading to type | Paste from |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | PRODUCT AND INTENDED USE |
Responses §1 |
| 2 | CONFIGURATIONS AND MODES OF OPERATION |
Responses §2 |
| 3 | I/O AND POWER CABLES |
Responses §3 |
| 4 | DIMENSIONS, WEIGHT, ELECTRICAL, SETUP TIME |
Responses §4 — fill the four blanks first |
| 5 | ADDITIONAL INFORMATION |
Responses §5 |
If the lab has a web intake form instead, don't send this email — the form is better, because it routes to the right engineer. Use the responses document field by field, and put the covering email's two bullet points into the form's free-text or "additional information" box so they aren't lost.
One edit to make for US-only scope, since the responses document was written before that was decided: in §5 item 1, the phrase "Part 15 Subpart B SDoC on the finished product plus an RF exposure evaluation" already says it correctly — leave it. But if the form has a CE Mark or IC/ISED checkbox, leave both unchecked now rather than annotating them. Every conditional you leave on the form is a line item a salesperson can quote you for.
4. The separate, shorter email to lab 1¶
Washington Laboratories already has the scope text. What they don't have is a correction, and it is worth sending before their quote lands rather than after.
Subject: Re: quote request - confirming scope is Part 15B, not Part 87
Hello,
I submitted a quote request through your site on [DATE] and realised
afterwards that I reached the form from your Part 87 page. Part 87 is not what
I need - my product is a consumer device with two pre-certified 2.4 GHz and
5 GHz radio modules.
To be explicit, the scope I am asking you to quote is:
- FCC Part 15 Subpart B SDoC testing on the finished product (two host
configurations sharing one PCB, ideally as a product family with a delta
test on the second)
- An RF exposure evaluation for the wrist-worn configuration, per KDB 447498
D01
US market only. Everything else in my original submission stands. Apologies
for the confusion, and please let me know if you need the scope resubmitted
against the right service.
Thank you,
David Macpherson
5. Reading the three numbers when they come back¶
The point of three quotes is not the cheapest number. From launch-plan.md §5, spreads of 2–3× on identical scopes are normal, so a spread beyond that means someone misunderstood the scope — and finding out which one is more valuable than the saving.
Compare line by line, not on totals:
- Part 15B SDoC line. Should be broadly similar across all three. A large outlier here usually means someone quoted intentional-radiator certification anyway, despite the modules.
- RF exposure line. This is where the money is and where the three questions bite. A lab that answers "wrist counts as extremity" or "coex arbitration prevents summing" may quote no SAR test at all.
- The BLE-only delta. It should come back negative — a BLE-only build is SAR-excluded by calculation, so removing WiFi removes the whole exposure test. If any lab quotes it as an increase, they misread the scope, and that tells you something about the rest of their number.
- Product-family treatment. Full test on both configurations versus worst-case-plus-delta is a large difference in chamber hours and the labs will not all propose the same thing.
Log the replies in the responses document's Where it has been sent table so the three arrive in one place rather than three inboxes.
Do not book on the strength of a quote. BLK-15 is unresolved — the BM20C has no grant number — and Board V1 is not the certification article. Quoting now and booking in October is deliberate: booking lead time is 2–6 weeks, which is exactly why the quote has to exist before the decision does.