Problem with cost sheet

[Chris B Campbell]

built 8 cabinets had them in an assembly checked $ amount got a whopping 104.00 Checked cut list all material is there,Checked my setting and preferences cost per sheet is ok. moved to batch, put in individual cabinets, nested, all sheets are there, cut list is correct... and still 104.00??

Any ideas?

Thanks

[Joe Dusel]

Well, you might want to post your batch job so we can see what is happening.

Joe

[Joe Dusel]

How are you doing the Cost Sheet Report? It still does not work at all in the Cabinet/Assembly Editor.

I reported that bug during the beta test, but I guess it fell through the cracks.

To re-create that bug:

Open a cabinet.

Select Reports, then Cost Sheet and nothing happens.

Cut List and Buy List Reports are working.

Joe

[Ryan Callahan]

Chris,

This has been identified and fixed for the next release.

Thanks for your input.

[Derrick Monson]

Does anyone know why I keep getting a number in the "Profit-Catalog Cabinets" section of the Cost Sheet?

It doesn't seem to matter if I batch and nest a whole job or do it directly from the C/A Editor. All of the cabinets will post a negative profit in that cell.

I don't check save as catalog cabinet when I save and I don't see any copyright symbols in front of the cabinet names.


Thanks,
Derrick

[Derrick Monson]

I just noticed that the negative profit in the catalog cabinets cell is the exact same number as the banding stock total cost.

It seems that the negative number in profit-catalog cabinets is canceling out the cost of the banding stock. Interesting...

[Joe Dusel]

We were having this bug previously in the beta test. I guess it fell through the cracks.

Joe

[Derrick Monson]

It took me forever to figure out how ecabinets calculates the "Profit Markup NON-Catalog Cabinets"

It takes (Total Material Cost + Total Labor Cost + Profit-Catalog Cabinets) X Percent Markup = Profit Markup NON-Catalog Cabinets

Since the Profit-Catalog Cabinets figure is negative (as described in above post) it is actually subtracted.

Use this for an example:

Total Material Cost = 100
Total Labor Cost = 50
Profit-Catalog Cabinets = -10
Percent Markup = 15%

(100+50-10).15 = 21


So here are my questions: Why doesn't the program add the overhead cost before determining the markup?

Why is the Profit-Catalog Cabinets figure used in determining the profit markup?


Thanks,

Derrick

[Ryan Callahan]

Derrick,

This area of the software has been corrected. The formula, using your numbers, should look more like the following:
((Total Material Cost + Total Labor Cost + Overhead) X Percent Markup) + Fixed Markup = Profit NON-Catalog Cabinets


Use this for an example:

• Total Material Cost = 100
  Total Labor Cost = 50
  Overhead (fixed) = 25
  Fixed NON-Catalog Markup = 75
  Percent Markup = 15%

(100+50+25).15 + 75 = 99.75
This represents Profit NON-Catalog Cabinets. This is the way it will work in the next build.

So then the final Selling Price would equal Total Cost + Profit NON-Catalog Cabinets, or 99.75+175=274.75

The formula you listed was in error and was corrected shortly after the release of Build1.

Sorry for any confusion. I hope this information helps.

[Derrick Monson]

Thanks Ryan!

This is exactly what I was hoping for. The cost sheet looks to be accurate all the way to the Total Cost. From there it is simple to determine the Selling Price manually until the next Build comes out.

[Derrick Monson]

Ryan, eCabinets is still not including overhead in the total that it uses to calculate the percent markup.

((Total Material Cost + Total Labor Cost) X Percent Markup) + Fixed Markup = Profit NON-Catalog Cabinets

I noticed in your last post that you have (fixed) after overhead in your example. I am using labor based cost calculations therefore my overhead cost is per hour. Does this make a difference in how eCabinets calculates

[Ryan Callahan]

Derrick,

Seems that it is using a different formula for Labor Based over Historical Ratio Calculation methods. I think they should use the same formula. It appears that the formula may be correct, but the summary formula is the guilty spot.

I am having it reviewed now and I expect the changes to be made so that both scenarios are correct.

Sorry for the oversight.