When I run a BOM cost report on a sales kit item, I get a cost that is higher than I get when I use the Opportunity Quote and pull the details in for that same revision of the part. I’m trying to figure out what the things are in the setup of the BOM for the sales kit that could be driving these two methods of estimating the cost of the part to be different. My end goal is to use the workheet in the quote tool to mark up the item on a cost + basis but right now on a 5k item i get about $300 difference in cost between the two.
One thing I’ve noticed is the BOM Cost report shows subcontract costs that don’t seem to be showing up on the worksheet. Has anyone ever experienced that and what have I done in the configuration of the part rev that is causing one tool to show it and the other to not?
Aaron, the other thing is that the BOM Cost Report does not use alternate methods in lower level subassemblies so if the part you are printing the BOM cost for includes a subassembly with an alternate part revision in play for that plant, the quote would pull that rev, but not the BOM cost report.
I will audit for this but I don’t know that I have any alternate revisions. I may have more than one active revision at some level in the parts though, this is going to require checking a lot of part setup.
Based on your experience, which of these two approaches is more likely to match the actual costs that are going to be on the invoiced items later, the BOM Cost report or the cost shown in the opportunity quote after getting details? I don’t have to match 13% exactly but I need to be as close as possible, consistently, in setting the future price expectation to match our cost+13% goal. Our raw material costs vary and we use avg cost so setting this up to hit it exactly in the future seems almost impossible unless we price the product after it is produced, and we have a requirement to publish a price and hold it for 4 months at a time getting as close as possible to the cost+13 goal.