In 2023, I nearly skipped the optional FARO support plan on our first FARO portable CMM. I'm the procurement manager here, and I've managed our metrology equipment budget—roughly $140,000 a year—for six years. I've negotiated with 17 vendors, logged 200+ purchase orders in our cost tracking system, and built a cost calculator out of self-defense after too many hidden fees. My first instinct was to cut support to the minimum. It took a $9,400 invoice to show me that the problem wasn't the price of support. The problem was my definition of it.
The Problem Starts With the Price
When someone searches for FARO or asks about FARO support, the goal is usually a clean comparison. I did the same. Two quotes, a spreadsheet, and a three-year plan that saved roughly $4,800. It looked like discipline. It was actually a trap.
The trap is that support doesn't have one price. It has a scope. The cheap plan I chose didn't include travel time, software updates, or calibration after a rough move. What I mean is that the difference between a useful support contract and a cheap one isn't response time; it's clarity: what's covered, who pays for what, and whether the contract matches how your team actually works, not how the brochure imagines your team works.
Why This Goes Wrong: The Deep Causes
Support Contracts Are Scope, Not Products
I said standard coverage. The vendor heard basic coverage. We were using the same words while meaning different things. Discovered this when our laser tracker was dropped off a forklift—not exactly dropped, more like nudged—and the repair wasn't covered because the plan excluded physical damage after delivery.
To be fair, it was in the contract. Page 36. The real issue wasn't deception. It was my assumption that all support plans are basically the same. They aren't. Three things move the cost: software updates, calibration/verification, and travel time. In that order. If a plan doesn't list them explicitly, assume they aren't included.
A Portable CMM Moves, and So Does Risk
A stationary CMM sits in a climate-controlled room with a trained operator and a fixed routine. A FARO portable CMM is different. It gets carried to the shop floor, loaded into a crate, driven to a supplier, set up on an uneven floor. Every move adds a risk that a fixed machine never faces.
The deeper issue was that we treated our FARO portable CMM like a portable computer. We thought if it survived the trip, it was fine. That's not how precision measurement works. Thermal drift, a bumped probe, a loose mount, even a dirty connector can change readings. The support plan you buy has to include verification after transport, or you're only buying the right to pay for repairs later.
Small Tools Create Quietly Large Costs
I spent six years tracking big-ticket items and missing the small ones. A 110 plus multimeter, a digital angle finder, a simple digital caliper—each has a calibration interval, an operator, and a failure mode. They don't show up on a capital budget, so they don't get managed.
One example: an uncertified digital angle finder used to set a fixture was 0.2 degrees off. We didn't notice for two days because the setup process didn't include a zero check. The resulting bad parts generated a $1,200 rework order and a lot of uncomfortable meetings. The angle finder itself was $60.
Another warning sign is when somebody on the floor searches how to use a fluke multimeter. That's not a criticism. It's a symptom. If a tool is part of inspection, there should be a work instruction, a training signature, and a calibration record. Otherwise the tool is being trusted based on luck.
The Cost of Not Solving This
The numbers add up faster than you'd think. In Q4 2024, I delayed the annual calibration on our laser tracker. I knew it was due. I told myself it could wait until the next budget cycle. What are the odds? The odds caught up with us when a probe offset drift appeared in the middle of a 300-part production run.
We had to quarantine the parts, call a field engineer, and re-inspect a month of completed work. The calibration would have cost about 8% of what that emergency cost us. The invoice, the downtime, and the trust lost with our production manager were not line items I had forecast.
That was the overconfidence failure. And I saw the same pattern with the 110 plus multimeter and the digital angle finder. The cost of probably fine is rarely the repair. It's the production stop, the rework, and the risk of sending a bad part to a customer.
When I finally compared what we spent on measurement failures in two years—scrap, rework, expedited freight, emergency tech visits—it was nearly 30% of what we spent on the equipment itself. That's the part nobody quotes.
I should be transparent about the limits of this evidence. My experience is based on about 200 metrology-related purchase orders in one 400-person manufacturing company. If you're in aerospace or in a lab with internal metrology specialists, your support needs and hidden costs will differ. I can't speak to every industry.
A Better Way: Treat Support as a System
After getting burned enough times, I changed the process. It isn't complicated, but it does require a different mindset.
First, define FARO support before you buy it. We now use a simple rule: the contract must name software updates, calibration/verification, and on-site response. If it doesn't, it's not a support plan. It's a warranty with extra paperwork.
Second, budget for the whole measurement system. That includes the FARO portable CMM, the laser tracker, the 110 plus multimeter, the digital angle finder, and the calibration standards they touch. We set aside a fixed percentage of equipment value each year for calibration and repair. It's an estimate, but it's based on actual history.
Third, write the training down. Yes, we literally have a work instruction for how to use a fluke multimeter now. It sounds basic, but it stopped the maybe-it's-the-tool / maybe-it's-the-operator debate. Same for the digital angle finder: zero-check before every major setup. Fifteen seconds, no surprises.
Fourth, don't recreate a bad support plan every year. After the unbudgeted field engineer visit, we went back to the more complete plan. The gap between the cheap plan and the useful plan was about $2,200 per year. That's less than one hour of unplanned downtime on the line. It's the cheapest insurance we carry.
I still compare quotes. I still negotiate. That won't change. But I no longer look at support as a single number in a spreadsheet. The fundamentals haven't changed—measurement accuracy has to be trustworthy. The execution has transformed. Portable systems, field work, and small digital tools all have new failure modes that require new thinking.
The cheapest FARO support plan is the one that describes what you're actually buying. Once you know that, you can make a real budgeting decision. Until then, you're just hoping the machine doesn't talk back. I've learned to stop hoping.
Leave a Reply