Fabricator Inc Allocation Of Overheads

When manifold line was dropped, the situation of 1991 in comparation to 1990 was similar to the situation of 1988 in comparation to 1989. Assume that the change of the overhead per the change of labor cost of 1988 and 1989 was the situation of 1990 and 1991 and was not changed equal to 2.7 (see table 5). Assume that the direct labor cost of 1991 for the product dropped manifolds was the direct labor cost of that product in 1990 (see table 5). The total direct material of 1991 was $33,821 (see table 6), the direct labor was $7,562; the total overhead was $61,741 and the rate of overhead per direct labor was 816% (see table 5).

Only the incremental costs and benefits are relevant. In particular, only the variable manufacturing overhead and the cost of the special tool are relevant overhead costs in this situation. The other manufacturing overhead costs are fixed and are not affected by the decision.

Overhead costs are not in proportion to the production output because of the method they are using. This leads to inaccurate pricing and costing decisions. An Activity Based Costing System would help find the real relationship between the products produced and overhead.

The budget analysis shows that the labor hours of the firm are higher than the budgeted amount. As such, the firm needs to evaluate the cost benefit analysis of making or buying their products. To make this decision, various factors need to be considered. Before making the decision, Peyton needs to evaluate the marginal costs and revenue of making versus buying the products. The firm should take the option which provides the highest marginal profit which is the

when overhead is underapplied a must be made to the manufacturing overhead account to close it out

In the case of Mendel Paper Company which produces four basic paper products lines at one of its plants: computer paper, napkins, place mats, and poster board. Although the plant superintendent, Marlene Herbert is pleases with increased sales he is also concerned about the costs. The superintendent is concerned with the high fixed cost of production, the increases in fixed overhead and even variable overhead. He feels that the production of place mat should be discontinued. His reason for the discontinuation is that the special printing is driving up the variable overhead to the point where the company may not find it profitable to continue with the line. After reviewing the future predictions of the

Overhead costs include rent, office staff, depreciation, and other. Once the flexible budget was complete, variances between the actual and flexible budget could be calculated (Exhibit B). The variance for frame assembly was favorable with actual costs being $82,663 less than in the flexible budget. The variances for wheel and final assembly however were both unfavorable. Wheel assembly had an unfavorable variance of $50,650, while final assembly variance was the highest at an unfavorable variance of $231,200. Taking into account these three aspects of direct cost, direct cost has an unfavorable variance $199,187. Although most overhead costs are fixed, 2/3 of other costs are variable and increase with the increased production. As shown in Exhibit B, overhead variance is unfavorable at $60,000. The direct cost variance and overhead variable together lead to a total unfavorable variance of $259,187.

Adifferential cost / benefit analysis is made based on the cost of buying [dd11] of 70000$ and the savingin in direct materials [dd11] 45000 plus direct labor 60000 plus vriable factory over head 24000$ plus fixed factory over head 2000$ by stoped in produced [dd11] buying [ dd11] woud cut scapand re work costs ..

Under the existing cost system for the turning machine area, there are two direct costs and three cost pools for overhead costs. The two direct costs are simply Direct Labor and Direct Material, which are traced to the cost object, which is Machine Parts. The total overhead is split into three cost pools, which are the following: overhead applied on direct labor, overhead applied on material dollars, and overhead applied on ACTS machine hours. Furthermore, each cost pool is broken down into direct and period sub categories. The mentioned cost pools for the following cost drivers: Direct Labor dollars, Material dollars, and machine hours.

• This cost method does not provide the best system for JDCW’s cost allocation. By using only three overhead rates the present system grossly undermines the true production costs since other activities of the production process are not acknowledged.

1. Use the Overhead Cost Activity Analysis in Exhibit 5 and other data on manufacturing

Therefore, there is no doubt that it is significant to allocate overhead cost accurately for every production. If the overhead is calculated incorrectly, the selling price of the product will change. The company will not cover the cost and make a loss.

6. Calculate the volume-based (traditional) cost per reel for grades A-D identified in Exhibit 1.

The overhead spending is greater than the direct labour costs or the direct material costs for all three product lines- Valves, Pumps and Flow Controllers (Exhibit 2). Overheads are simply charged at 185% constant for three diverse products. The fact that there is huge variance in the number of units produced per production run- it is 375 for valves and 18 for flow controllers per production run. This shows the reason for high overheads cost too. Hence it calls for checking the cost allocation system of the company.

In addition, it wrongly allocated its indirect costs at volume bases. The use of process technology mentioned in the case led to an increase in factory overheads Since direct labor hours was not a cost driver of them, allocating its large proportion of fixed factory overheads and other indirect batch-level costs on the basis of DLHs in this cost system did not accurately measure how resources were being used. As a result, these inaccurate allocations would have significant costs to Elkay. Moreover, it disregarded its cost structure in which most costs were “fixed” that would not vary in the short run and should be allocated based on its practical capacity. By using the “actual sales volume” as the allocation base for allocating its large corporate overheads, this standard costing system in fact over-pricing its products for its actual productivity was lower than the practical capacity under the intense competition. As a consequence of all problem within the standard costing system, PPD urgently needed an accurate costing system.