Chapter 6: Support Department Cost Allocation



CHAPTER 6

support department cost allocation

1 questions for writing and discussion

1. Stage one assigns service costs to producing departments. Costs are assigned using factors that reflect the consumption of the services by each producing department. Stage two allocates the costs assigned to the producing departments (including service costs and direct costs) to the products passing through the producing departments.

2. Service costs are part of the cost of producing a product. Knowing the individual product costs is helpful for developing bids and cost-plus prices.

3. GAAP requires that all manufacturing costs be assigned to products for inventory valuation.

4. Allocation of service costs makes users pay attention to the level of service activity being consumed and also provides an incentive for them to monitor the efficiency of the service departments.

5. Without any allocation of service costs, users may view services as a free good and consume more of the service than is optimal. Allocating service costs would encourage managers to use the service until such time as the marginal cost of the service is equal to the marginal benefit.

6. Since the user departments are charged for the services provided, they will monitor the performance of the service department. If the service can be obtained more cheaply externally, then the user departments will be likely to point this out to management. Knowing this, a manager of a service department will exert effort to maintain a competitive level of service.

7. The identification and use of causal factors ensures that service costs are accurately assigned to users. This increases the legitimacy of the control function and enhances product-costing accuracy.

8. Allocating actual costs passes on the efficiencies or inefficiencies of the service department, something which the manager of the producing department cannot control. Allocating budgeted costs avoids this problem.

9. Variable costs should be allocated according to usage, whereas fixed costs should be allocated according to capacity. Variable costs are based on usage because, as a department’s usage of a service increases, the variable costs of the service department increase. A service department’s capacity and the associated fixed costs were originally set by the user departments’ capacities to use the service. Thus, each department should receive its share of fixed costs as originally conceived (to do otherwise allows one department’s performance to affect the amount of cost assigned to another department).

10. Normal or peak capacity measures the original capacity requirements of each producing department. It is used when one department’s spike in usage affects the amount of capacity needed.

11. Using variable bases to allocate fixed costs allows one department’s performance to affect the costs allocated to other departments. Variable bases also fail to reflect the original consumption levels that essentially caused the level of fixed costs.

12. The dual-rate method separates the fixed and variable costs of providing services and charges them separately. In effect, a single rate treats all service costs as variable. This can give faulty signals regarding the marginal cost of the service. If all costs of the service department were variable, there would be no need for a dual rate. In addition, if original capacity equaled actual usage, the dual-rate method and the single-rate method would give the same allocation.

13. The direct method allocates the direct costs of each service department directly to the producing departments. No consideration is given to the fact that other service centers may use services. The sequential method allocates service costs sequentially. First, the costs of the center providing the greatest service are allocated to all user departments, including other service departments. Next, the costs of the second greatest provider of services are allocated to all user departments, excluding any department(s) that have already allocated costs. This continues until all service center costs have been allocated. The principal difference in the two methods is the fact that the sequential method considers some interactions among service centers, and the direct method ignores interactions.

14. Agree. The reciprocal method is more accurate because it fully considers interactions among service centers.

2

3 Exercises

6–1

a. producing

b. support

c. support

d. support

e. support

f. producing

g. producing/support

h. producing

i. producing

j. support

k. support

l. support

m. producing

n. producing

o. support

1 6–2

a. support

b. support

c. producing

d. producing

e. producing

f. support

g. support

h. producing

i. producing

j. support

2 6–3

a. Number of employees

b. Square footage

c. Pounds of laundry

d. Orders processed

e. Maintenance hours worked

f. Number of employees

g. Number of transactions processed

h. Machine hours

i. Square footage

6–4

1. Dr. Poston may want to cost the cleanser for several reasons: to value inventory; to determine profitability; and to plan sales and costs for the coming year. As long as he sells relatively few bottles of cleanser, it is not necessary to allocate any indirect costs to the cleanser. The medical assistant is paid the same amount whether she mixes the cleanser or not. The space used to store the cleanser materials is small, and the incremental cost is zero.

2. The situation has changed dramatically. Now, the cleanser should be allocated some of the office rent as well as all of the new assistant’s salary. The office rent could be apportioned 75 percent to the three doctors and 25 percent to the cleanser bottling operation given that the cleanser operation takes an office and an examining room. It could be argued that this overstates the allocation to the cleanser, since the waiting room area does not serve the cleanser. However, the receptionist probably takes calls and opens mail for this project, so overstating the rent may be an easy way to adjust for this. The cost per bottle would then be:

Materials $0.50

Labor ($12,000/40,000) 0.30

Office rent* 0.38

Total cost $1.18

*Office rent allocation = [($5,000 ( 12)/4]/40,000 bottles

3 6–5

1. The incremental method of allocating the cost of the trip would result in a cost to LaTisha of $125 ($10 times five nights for the rollaway and $75 for her food).

2. The benefits-received approach could result in the following cost allocation to LaTisha:

Motel ($425/3) $141.67

Food 75.00

Gas ($50/3) 16.67

Total $233.34

The treatment of the motel cost is problematical. This computation adds the rollaway cost for five nights to the cost of the double room for five nights. However, if LaTisha spends the entire time on a (less comfortable) rollaway, she may be less than pleased. Perhaps the vacationers could trade off sleeping on the rollaway.

6–6

1. Single charging rate = ($2,500/1,000) + $0.50

= $3 per gift

Number Charging

Store of Gifts ( Rate = Total

Candles, Etc. 170 $3 $ 510

Dream Weaver Gift Shoppe 310 3 930

Back-in-the-Saddle Westernwear 240 3 720

Cuppa Java Gourmet Coffees 10 3 30

Shoe You 50 3 150

Dana’s Sportswear 200 3 600

Penelope’s Secret 450 3 1,350

Total 1,430 $4,290

2. Number Allocated

Store of Gifts Percent Fixed Amount*

Candles, Etc. 200 20 $ 500

Dream Weaver Gift Shoppe 300 30 750

Back-in-the-Saddle Westernwear 100 10 250

Cuppa Java Gourmet Coffees 70 7 175

Shoe You 50 5 125

Dana’s Sportswear 130 13 325

Penelope’s Secret 150 15 375

Total 1,000 100 $2,500

*Allocated fixed amount = Percent ( $2,500

Variable rate = $0.50 per gift

Number Variable Fixed Total

Store of Gifts Amount + Amount = Charge

Candles, Etc. 170 $ 85 $ 500 $ 585

Dream Weaver Gift Shoppe 310 155 750 905

Westernwear Back-in-the-Saddle 240 120 250 370

Cuppa Java Gourmet Coffees 10 5 175 180

Shoe You 50 25 125 150

Dana’s Sportswear 200 100 325 425

Penelope’s Secret 450 225 375 600

Total 1,430 $715 $2,500 $3,215

6–6 Concluded

3. The shops which actually use the gift-wrapping service less than anticipated would like the single charging rate. The single charging rate assigns less of the fixed cost to the shops using less of the service. Cuppa Java Gourmet Coffees originally anticipated having 70 gifts wrapped per month but actually had only 10 gifts wrapped. Under the single charging rate, Cuppa Java pays only $30; under the dual charging rate, Cuppa Java pays $180.

The dual charging rate method is preferred by shops which use the service as much as or more than anticipated. Penelope’s Secret had a much greater use for the service and would be charged $600 under the dual rate but $1,350 under the single rate.

4. Irrespective of the charging rate method, James may be overcharging by overestimating his fixed costs. The space used by the gift-wrapping service is one of five vacant spaces. The opportunity cost of using it to wrap gifts is zero. Until the eleventh space is rented and there is an occupant for the twelfth, perhaps the fixed cost should include only the salary of the wrapper.

4 6–7

1. Allocation ratios:

Year 1 Year 2

Department A 0.40 0.50

Department B 0.60 0.50

Allocation:

Department A $48,000 $60,000

Department B 72,000 60,000

2. The manager of Department B is not controlling maintenance costs better than the manager of Department A. The only reason that Department A’s allocation of maintenance cost increased is because Department B’s usage decreased.

3. First, variable and fixed costs should be allocated separately. Second, budgeted (not actual) costs should be allocated. Variable costs should be assigned to the two user departments by multiplying the budgeted variable cost per hour by the actual hours or budgeted hours used, depending on whether the purpose is performance evaluation or product costing. Fixed costs would be assigned in proportion to the practical or normal activities of each user department.

6–8

1. Product costing (Year 1 and Year 2 are identical):

Department A Department B

Variable costs:

($0.25 ( 20,000) $ 5,000

($0.25 ( 20,000) $ 5,000

Fixed costs:

(0.50 ( $100,000) 50,000

(0.50 ( $100,000) 50,000

Total cost $ 55,000 $ 55,000

2. Performance evaluation:

Year 1

Department A Department B

Variable costs:

($0.25 ( 24,000) $ 6,000

($0.25 ( 36,000) $ 9,000

Fixed costs:

(0.50 ( $100,000) 50,000

(0.50 ( $100,000) 50,000

Total cost $ 56,000 $ 59,000

Year 2

Department A Department B

Variable costs:

($0.25 ( 25,000) $ 6,250

($0.25 ( 25,000) $ 6,250

Fixed costs:

(0.50 ( $100,000) 50,000

(0.50 ( $100,000) 50,000

Total cost $ 56,250 $ 56,250

6–9

1. Allocation ratios:

Traditional Gel

Machine hours 0.2500 0.7500

Square feet 0.6000 0.4000

No. of employees 0.5625 0.4375

Cost assignment:

Power:

(0.2500 ( $90,000) $ 22,500

(0.7500 ( $90,000) $ 67,500

General Factory:

(0.6000 ( $300,000) 180,000

(0.4000 ( $300,000) 120,000

Personnel:

(0.5625 ( $120,000) 67,500

(0.4375 ( $120,000) 52,500

Direct costs 137,500 222,500

Total $407,500 $462,500

2. Departmental overhead rates:

Traditional: $407,500/8,000 = $50.94* per MHr

Gel: $462,500/24,000 = $19.27* per MHr

*Rounded

6–10

1. Assume the support department costs are allocated in order of highest to lowest cost: General Factory, Personnel, and Maintenance.

General

Power Factory Personnel Traditional Gel

Square feet 0.15 — 0.10 0.45 0.30

No. employees 0.20 — — 0.45 0.35

Machine hours — — — 0.25 0.75

General

Power Factory Personnel Traditional Gel

Direct costs $ 90,000 $ 300,000 $120,000 $137,500 $222,500

General Factory:

(0.15)($300,000) 45,000 (45,000)

(0.10)($300,000) (30,000) 30,000

(0.45)($300,000) (135,000) 135,000

(0.30)($300,000) (90,000) 90,000

Personnel:

(0.20)($150,000) 30,000 (30,000)

(0.45)($150,000) (67,500) 67,500

(0.35)($150,000) (52,500) 52,500

Power:

(0.25)($165,000) (41,250) 41,250

(0.75)($165,000) (123,750) 123,750

Total $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $381,250 $488,750

2. Traditional: $381,250/8,000 = $47.66* per MHr

Gel: $488,750/24,000 = $20.36* per MHr

*Rounded

6–11

1. Allocation:

Maintenance Personnel Assembly Painting

Square footage — 0.20 0.40 0.40

Number of employees 0.10 — 0.24 0.66

P = $60,000 + 0.2M M = $200,000 + 0.1P

P = $60,000 + 0.2($200,000 + 0.1P) M = $200,000 + 0.1($102,041)

P = $60,000 + $40,000 + 0.02P M = $200,000 + $10,204

0.98P = $100,000 M = $210,204

P = $102,041

Allocate Allocate Total After

Direct Cost Maintenance* Personnel** Allocation

Maintenance $200,000 $(210,204) $ 10,204 $ 0

Personnel 60,000 42,041 (102,041) 0

Assembly 43,000 84,082 24,489*** 151,571

Painting 74,000 84,082 67,347 225,429

$377,000 $377,000

*(0.20 ( $210,204) = $42,041 **(0.10 ( $102,041) = $10,204

(0.40 ( $210,204) = $84,082 (0.24 ( $102,041) = $24,489

(0.40 ( $210,204) = $84,082 (0.66 ( $102,041) = $67,347

***Rounded down to balance.

2. Departmental overhead rates:

Assembly: $151,571/25,000 = $6.06*/DLH

Painting: $225,429/40,000 = $5.64*/DLH

*Rounded

6–12

1. Allocation:

Assembly Painting

Square footage 0.5000 0.5000

Number of employees 0.2667 0.7333

Maintenance:

(0.5000 ( $200,000) $100,000

(0.5000 ( $200,000) $100,000

Personnel:

(0.2667 ( $60,000) 16,002

(0.7333 ( $60,000) 43,998

Direct costs 43,000 74,000

$159,002 $217,998

2. Department overhead rates:

Assembly: $159,002/25,000 = $6.36*/DLH

Painting: $217,998/40,000 = $5.45*/DLH

*Rounded

5 6–13

1. Allocation:

Personnel Assembly Painting

Square footage 0.2000 0.4000 0.4000

Number of employees — 0.2667 0.7333

Maintenance:

(0.2000 ( $200,000) $40,000

(0.4000 ( $200,000) $ 80,000

(0.4000 ( $200,000) $ 80,000

Personnel:

[0.2667 ( ($60,000 + $40,000)] 26,670

[0.7333 ( ($60,000 + $40,000)] 73,330

Direct costs 43,000 74,000

Total $40,000 $149,670 $227,330

2. Departmental overhead rates:

Assembly: $149,670/25,000 = $5.99* per DLH

Painting: $227,330/40,000 = $5.68* per DLH

*Rounded

6–14

1. Allocation:

Tulsa Ames

Ratio for fixed costs* 0.65 0.35

Fixed costs** $ 39,000 $ 21,000

Variable costs*** 65,000 35,000

Total $104,000 $ 56,000

*Tulsa = 1,625/2,500 = 0.65; Ames = 875/2,500 = 0.35

**($60,000 ( 0.65) (60,000 ( 0.35)

***$40 ( 1,625 and $40 ( 875

2. Costing out services serves the same purposes as costing out tangible products (e.g., pricing, profitability analysis, and performance evaluation). Once the costs are allocated to each revenue-producing center, then the costs must be assigned to individual services through the use of an overhead rate or rates.

6 6–15

1. a. If the purpose is to cost out individual services, the allocation is identical to that given in Requirement 1 of Exercise 6-14.

b. If the purpose is for performance evaluation, then variable costs equal the predetermined rate multiplied by the actual usage. The fixed costs are allocated the same way as before.

Tulsa Ames

Variable costs:

$40 ( 1,200 $ 48,000

$40 ( 1,100 $ 44,000

Fixed costs 39,000 21,000

$ 87,000 $ 65,000

2. The allocated costs of $152,000 were $1,500 higher than the actual costs of $150,500, because the producing departments are charged an allocation based on budgeted costs rather than actual costs. Budgeted costs are allocated so that the efficiencies or inefficiencies of the legal services center are not assigned to the user departments.

6–16

1. 2003 graphics rate $12,000/(2,000 + 2,000) = $3.00/hour

2004 graphics rate $14,000/(2,000 + 2,000 + 1,000) = $2.80/hour

2. Total charge to the Nonprofit Organ. Dept. = $2.80 ( 1,000 = $2,800

Mike Adams is no doubt angry. The amount charged was $800 above the indicated charge of $2,000.

3. Graphics Department charges did increase by $2,000 ($14,000 – $12,000). However, the charging rate changed as well. Thus, Tangible Goods and Public Relations saw a decrease in their graphics charges of $400 each. It is this $400 decrease (times 2) which showed up as an $800 increase in Mike’s bill.

4 problems

6–17

1. Allocation ratios for fixed costs (uses normal levels):

SLC Reno Portland

Hrs. of flight time 0.2500 0.5000 0.2500

No. of passengers 0.3333 0.5000 0.1667

Variable rates:

Maintenance: $30,000/8,000 = $3.75 per flight hour

Baggage: $64,000/30,000 = $2.1333 per passenger

SLC Reno Portland

Maintenance—fixed:

(0.25 ( $240,000) $ 60,000

(0.50 ( $240,000) $ 120,000

(0.25 ( $240,000) $ 60,000

Maintenance—variable:

($3.75 ( 2,000) 7,500

($3.75 ( 4,000) 15,000

($3.75 ( 2,000) 7,500

Baggage—fixed:

(0.3333 ( $150,000) 49,995

(0.5000 ( $150,000) 75,000

(0.1667 ( $150,000) 25,005

Baggage—variable:

($2.1333 ( 10,000) 21,333

($2.1333 ( 15,000) 32,000

($2.1333 ( 5,000) 10,667

$138,828 $242,000 $103,172

6–17 Concluded

2. The allocations are the same as in Requirement 1, except variable costs are assigned using actual instead of budgeted activity.

SLC Reno Portland

Maintenance—fixed $ 60,000 $ 120,000 $ 60,000

Maintenance—variable:

($3.75 ( 1,800) 6,750

($3.75 ( 4,200) 15,750

($3.75 ( 2,500) 9,375

Baggage—fixed 49,995 75,000 25,005

Baggage—variable:

($2.1333 ( 8,000) 17,066

($2.1333 ( 16,000) 34,133

($2.1333 ( 6,000) 12,800

$133,811 $244,883 $107,180

Yes, maintenance actually cost $315,000, but only $271,875 was allocated. Baggage actually cost $189,000, but $213,999 was allocated (no costs remain). Actual costs are not allocated so that inefficiencies or efficiencies are not passed on.

1 6–18

1. Direct method:

Proportion of: Pottery Retail

Machine hours 0.375 0.625

Number of employees 0.429 0.571

Power:

(0.375 ( $100,000) $ 37,500

(0.625 ( $100,000) $ 62,500

Human Resources:

(0.429 ( $205,000) 87,945

(0.571 ( $205,000) 117,055

Direct costs 80,000 50,000

$205,445 $229,555

6–18 Concluded

2. Sequential method:

Power Human Res. Pottery Retail

Machine hours — — 0.375 0.625

Employees 0.125 — 0.375 0.500

Direct costs $ 100,000 $ 205,000 $ 80,000 $ 50,000

Human Resources:

(0.125 ( $205,000) 25,625 (25,625)

(0.375 ( $205,000) (76,875) 76,875

(0.500 ( $205,000) (102,500) 102,500

Power:

(0.375 ( $125,625) (47,109) 47,109

(0.625 ( $125,625) (78,516) 78,516

$ 0 $ 0 $203,984 $231,016

3. Reciprocal method:

Power Human Res. Pottery Retail

Machine hours — 0.200 0.300 0.500

Employees 0.125 — 0.375 0.500

HR = $205,000 + 0.200P P = $100,000 + 0.125HR

HR = $205,000 + 0.200($100,000 + 0.125HR) P = $100,000 +

0.125($230,769)

HR = $205,000 + $20,000 + 0.025HR P = $128,846

0.975HR = $225,000

HR = $230,769

Total Cost Pottery Retail

Human Resources: $230,769

(0.375 ( $230,769) $ 86,538

(0.500 ( $230,769) $115,385

Power: 128,846

(0.3 ( $128,846) 38,654

(0.5 ( $128,846) 64,423

Direct costs 80,000 50,000

$ 205,192 $229,808

6–19

1. Repair Power Molding Assembly

Department costs $ 48,000 $ 250,000 $200,000 $ 320,000

Allocation of:

Repair (1/9, 8/9) (48,000) 0 5,333 42,667

Power (7/8, 1/8) 0 (250,000) 218,750 31,250

Total overhead cost $ 0 $ 0 $424,083 $ 393,917

Direct labor hours ÷ 40,000 ÷ 160,000

Overhead rate per DLH $ 10.60* $ 2.46*

*Rounded

2. Algebraic equations for relationship between service departments

(R = Repair Department; P = Power Department):

R = $48,000 + 0.2P

P = $250,000 + 0.1R

R = $48,000 + 0.2($250,000 + 0.1R)

= $48,000 + $50,000 + 0.02R

0.98R = $98,000

R = $100,000

P = $250,000 + 0.1($100,000)

P = $260,000

Repair Power Molding Assembly

Department costs $ 48,000 $ 250,000 $ 200,000 $ 320,000

Allocation of:

Repair (0.1, 0.1, 0.8) (100,000) 10,000 10,000 80,000

Power (0.2, 0.7, 0.1) 52,000 (260,000) 182,000 26,000

Total overhead cost $ 0 $ 0 $392,000 $ 426,000

Direct labor hours ÷ 40,000 ÷ 160,000

Overhead rate per DLH $ 9.80 $ 2.66*

*Rounded

3. The direct allocation method ignores any service rendered by one support department to another. Allocation of each support department’s total cost is made directly to the production departments. The reciprocal allocation method recognizes all support department support to one another through the use of simultaneous equations or linear algebra. This allocation procedure is more accurate and should lead to better results which would be of greater value to management. However, the method is infrequently used in actual practice because of the problems associated with developing a more complex or difficult model to recognize the interrelationships between support departments.

6–20

1. $40,000/300,000 = $0.1333/mile (uses normal activity)

2. Variable rate: ($40,000 – $16,000)/300,000 = $0.08/mile

Budget Luxury Truck

Fixed cost allocation ratios 0.4000 0.3333 0.2667

Allocation of costs:

Fixed portion ($16,000 ( ratio*) $ 6,400 $ 5,333 $ 4,267

Variable portion (act. miles ( $0.08) 12,000 8,800 8,000

$ 18,400 $ 14,133 $12,267

*Budget: 120,000/300,000

Luxury: 100,000/300,000

Truck: 80,000/300,000

3. Of the actual fixed costs, $1,100 ($17,100 – $16,000) was not allocated. Only budgeted fixed costs were allocated. Variable costs of $1,200 ($30,000 – $28,800) weren’t allocated because the actual variable rate ($0.083 per mile = $30,000/360,000) was greater than the budgeted rate ($0.08 per mile). In both cases, this practice follows the principle of not passing on efficiencies or inefficiencies of the support department to the producing departments.

2 6–21

1. Henderson ($431,800/$2,540,000)($182,500)* = $31,025

Boulder City ($508,000/$2,540,000)($182,500) = $36,500

Kingman ($381,000/$2,540,000)($182,500) = $27,375

Flagstaff ($635,000/$2,540,000)($182,500) = $45,625

Glendale ($584,200/$2,540,000)($182,500) = $41,975

*($26)(3,750) + $85,000 = $182,500

6–21 Concluded

2. Share of Accounting Department fixed costs based on 2003 sales:

Henderson ($337,500/$2,250,000)($85,000) = $12,750

Boulder City ($450,000/$2,250,000)($85,000) = $17,000

Kingman ($360,000/$2,250,000)($85,000) = $13,600

Flagstaff ($540,000/$2,250,000)($85,000) = $20,400

Glendale ($562,500/$2,250,000)($85,000) = $21,250

Variable Cost + Fixed Cost = Total

Henderson ($26)(1,475) = $38,350 + $12,750 = $51,100

Boulder City ($26)(400) = $10,400 + $17,000 = $27,400

Kingman ($26)(938) = $24,388 + $13,600 = $37,988

Flagstaff ($26)(562) = $14,612 + $20,400 = $35,012

Glendale ($26)(375) = $9,750 + $21,250 = $31,000

3. The method in Requirement 2 ties cost allocated to the driver that causes the cost. Thus, motels would be more likely to use Accounting Department time efficiently. The method in Requirement 1 assigns accounting costs on the basis of a variable which may not be causally related. Also, a motel with stable sales from year to year may still experience wild fluctuations in allocated cost due to changing sales patterns of other motels.

3 6–22

1. Single rate = [$210,000 + 6,000($14)]/6,000 = $49 per legal hour

Great West Tissue (25 ( $49) $ 1,225

Morton Canned Meats (1,400 ( $49) 68,600

Pettigrew Valve and Tap (3,600 ( $49) 176,400

Bellini Musical Instruments (1,000 ( $49) 49,000

Total $295,225

6–22 Concluded

2. Dual rate: $14 per legal hour plus share of budgeted fixed costs

Budgeted Share of

Division Hours Percent Fixed Cost

Great West Tissue 500 8.333 $ 17,499

Morton Canned Meats 1,500 25.000 52,500

Pettigrew Valve and Tap 3,000 50.000 105,000

Bellini Musical Instruments 1,000 16.667 35,001

Total 6,000 100.000 $210,000

Actual Var. Var. Fixed Total

Division Hours Rate Amount Amount Cost

Great West Tissue 25 $14 $ 350 $ 17,499 $ 17,849

Morton Canned Meats 1,400 14 19,600 52,500 72,100

Pettigrew Valve & Tap 3,600 14 50,400 105,000 155,400

Bellini Musical Instr. 1,000 14 14,000 35,001 49,001

Total $ 84,350 $210,000 $294,350

3. Actual variable costs $ 83,145

Actual fixed costs 215,000 $298,145

Costs charged 294,350

Difference $ 3,795

The Legal Department spent $3,795 more than was charged to the divisions. Fixed costs were $5,000 over budget. (Actual fixed costs were $215,000, and budgeted fixed costs were $210,000.) However, variable costs came in under budget. The budgeted variable rate was $14, but actual variable cost per hour was $13.80 ($83,145/6,025), resulting in $0.20 savings times the 6,025 actual hours worked.

4. In general, the dual-rate method is preferred. However, some divisions would not be pleased with their charges after the first year. In particular, Great West Tissue is charged far more under the dual-rate method ($17,849) than under the single-rate method ($1,225), because it overestimated its legal needs for the first year. This led to a larger share of fixed costs. This may not be a long-term problem, since Great West may require more legal services in the future (making the first-year experience an anomaly). Note that the estimates made by all four divisions led to the establishment of the size Legal Department created and that each division must bear responsibility for its estimate.

6–23

1. Clearly, some expenses pertain to women living in the house while others pertain to all members. In-house members use the second floor, most of the food, and most of the variable expenses. All members use the first-floor facilities, food for Monday night dinners, and cereal and milk for snacks. HCB must determine a fair method of allocating the costs since the sorority is a nonprofit entity and house bills in total must equal house costs. It is difficult to allocate the costs precisely to the two types of members given the sketchy nature of the data.

2. Using a benefits-received approach, the following charging rates might be applied.

In-house members:

Use of second floor ($240,000 – $40,000)/2 $100,000

Use of first floor [($240,000 – $40,000)/2]0.6 60,000

Food* ($1.01)(60)(20)(32) 38,784

Variable expenses 34,800

Total $233,584

Charging rate per in-house member per year: $233,584/60 = $3,893

*Cost per meal: $40,000/{[40 + (60 ( 20)] ( 32} = $1.01

Out-of-house members:

Use of first floor [($240,000 – $40,000)/2]0.4 $40,000

Food ($1.01)(32)(40) 1,293

Total $41,293

Charging rate per out-of-house member per year: $41,293/40 = $1,032

5 case

6–24

1. Allocation, direct method:

Allocation ratios: Laboratory Nursing

Administrative (employees) 0.286 0.714

Laundry (lbs.) 0.200 0.800

Janitorial (sq. ft.) 0.200 0.800

Allocation:

Administrative:

0.286 ( $20,000 $ 5,720

0.714 ( $20,000 $ 14,280

Laundry:

0.20 ( $75,000 15,000

0.80 ( $75,000 60,000

Janitorial:

0.20 ( $50,000 10,000

0.80 ( $50,000 40,000

Direct costs 43,000 150,000

Total costs $ 73,720 $264,280

6–24 Continued

2. Cost-to-charges ratio:

Let X = Number of blood count tests (Test B)

X + 2X + 3X = 22,500 (RVUs)

6X = 22,500

X = 3,750 tests

Revenues:

B: $5.00 ( 3,750 $ 18,750

C: $19.33 ( 3,750 72,488

CB: $22.00 ( 3,750 82,500

Total revenues $173,738

Costs:

Materials:

B: $2.00 ( 3,750 $ 7,500

C: $5.00 ( 3,750 18,750

CB: $3.00 ( 3,750 11,250

$ 37,500

Labor:

B: $2.00 ( 3,750 $ 7,500

C: $4.00 ( 3,750 15,000

CB: $6.00 ( 3,750 22,500

45,000

Overhead (from Requirement 1) 73,720

Total costs $156,220

Cost-to-charge ratio = $156,220/$173,738 = 0.90

3. Cost per test using the cost-to-charges ratio:

Test B: 0.90 ( $5.00 = $4.50

Test C: 0.90 ( $19.33 = $17.40

Test CB: 0.90 ( $22.00 = $19.80

6–24 Concluded

4. Cost per test using RVUs:

Overhead rate: $73,720/22,500 = $3.28 per RVU

Test B:

Materials ($2.00 ( 1) $2.00

Labor ($2.00 ( 1) 2.00

Overhead ($3.28 ( 1) 3.28

Total $7.28

Test C:

Materials ($2.50 ( 2) $ 5.00

Labor ($2.00 ( 2) 4.00

Overhead ($3.28 ( 2) 6.56

Total $15.56

Test CB:

Materials ($1.00 ( 3) $ 3.00

Labor ($2.00 ( 3) 6.00

Overhead ($3.28 ( 3) 9.84

Total $18.84

5. RVU costing is the more accurate approach. This method traces materials and labor to each product and assigns overhead using a factor that correlates with its consumption. The cost-to-charges approach makes no effort at all to identify specific consumption of resources by individual products.

6. Test CB, bid using cost-to-charges ratio:

Cost (from Requirement 3) $19.80

Markup (5%) 0.99

Bid price $20.79

Test CB, bid using RVU costing:

Cost (from Requirement 4) $18.84

Markup (5%) 0.94

Bid price $19.78

As the problem illustrates, inattention to costing accuracy can cause the hospital to lose bids. If other hospitals, equally efficient, have better cost information, then they will tend to be more successful bidders.

6 Collaborative learning exercise

6–25

1. a. Direct method

Cooking Packaging and Freezing

Machine hours 0.6667 0.3333

Kilowatt-hours 0.5556 0.4444

Maintenance:

(0.6667 ( $340,000) $226,678

(0.3333 ( $340,000) $113,322

Power:

(0.5556 ( $200,000) 111,120

(0.4444 ( $200,000) 88,880

Direct costs 75,000 55,000

$412,798 $257,202

Cooking: $412,798/40,000 = $10.32*/MHr

Packaging and freezing: $257,202/30,000 = $8.57*/DLH

Prime costs $16.00

Cooking ($10.32 ( 2) 20.64

Pack./Freez. ($8.57 ( 0.5) 4.29*

Total cost $40.93

Markup (20%) 8.19*

Bid price $49.12

*Rounded

6–25 Continued

b. Sequential method:

Maint. Power Cooking Pack./Freez.

Machine hours — 0.4000 0.4000 0.2000

Kilowatt-hours — — 0.5556 0.4444

Direct costs $ 340,000 $ 200,000 $ 75,000 $ 55,000

Maintenance:

(0.4 ( $340,000) (136,000) 136,000

(0.4 ( $340,000) (136,000) 136,000

(0.2 ( $340,000) (68,000) 68,000

Power:

(0.5556 ( $336,000) (186,682) 186,682

(0.4444 ( $336,000) (149,318) 149,318

$ 0 $ 0 $ 397,682 $272,318

Cooking: $397,682/40,000 = $9.94*/MHr

Pack. and Freez.: $272,318/30,000 = $9.08*/DLH

Prime costs $16.00

Cooking ($9.94 ( 2) 19.88

Pack./Freez. ($9.08 ( 0.5) 4.54

Total cost $40.42

Markup (20%) 8.08

Bid price $48.50

*Rounded

6–25 Continued

c. Reciprocal method:

Maint. Power Cooking Pack./Freez.

Machine hours — 0.4 0.4 0.2

Kilowatt-hours 0.1 — 0.5 0.4

M = $340,000 + 0.1P P = $200,000 + 0.4M

M = $340,000 + 0.1($200,000 + 0.4M) P = $200,000 + 0.4($375,000)

M = $340,000 + $20,000 + 0.04M P = $200,000 + $150,000

0.96M = $360,000 P = $350,000

M = $375,000

Total Cooking Pack./Freez.

From:

Maintenance: $375,000

(0.4 ( $375,000) $150,000

(0.2 ( $375,000) $ 75,000

Power: 350,000

(0.5 ( $350,000) 175,000

(0.4 ( $350,000) 140,000

Direct costs 75,000 55,000

$400,000 $270,000

Cooking: $400,000/40,000 = $10/MHr

Pack. and Freez.: $270,000/30,000 = $9/DLH

Prime cost $16.00

Cooking ($10 ( 2) 20.00

Pack./Freez. ($9 ( 0.5) 4.50

Total cost $40.50

Markup (20%) 8.10

Bid price $48.60

6–25 Concluded

2. No, the direct method did not produce a winning bid. The direct method fails to consider the interrelationships of the support centers, and, as a consequence, assigns too much of the support center costs to the Cooking Department. Since the job spends more time in the Cooking Department than in the Packaging and Freezing Department, it receives too much overhead and is overpriced. The reciprocal method is the most accurate as it takes into account the use of support departments by other support departments.

cyber research case

6–26

Answers will vary.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download