(0) In January 2011, The ABC Company received a contract form the Army for 175 electronic devices. The contract was a firm fixed price contract at a unit price of $115,000, and a total price of $20,125,000. The price included a 12% profit. The delivery schedule called for 25 a month commencing in May 2011, with delivery completed by December 2011. In July, a change order was made by the Army in several of the components. At the time of the change the contractor had completed 75 but had no shipped any of the items. Another 50 units were partially completed. The components affected by the change were completed on 40 of the 50 items. Ten of the work-in progress items were not affected by the change. The contractor submitted the following cost proposal: COMPLETED UNITS AFFECTED BY THE CHANGE: Labor Removing changed work 90 hrs New work 140hrs 230hrs @$30 (Labor estimated in the original contract @27.50/hr) $ 6,900.00 overhead @180%(overhead original contract @110%) $12,420.00 MATERIAL manufacturing cost $22,570.00 G&A @15% (original contract G&A 6%) $3,385.50 Total $25,955.50 Profit @12% $3,114.60 Total cost of change per unit $29,070.10 Number of units affected by the changes (75+40) x115 $3,343,061.50 UNITS ON WHICH CHAGNED WORK HAD NOT BEEN PERFORMED Labor new work 140hrs less estimated cost of old work 40 hrs (this portion originally estimated 70hrs) 100 hrs @$30 $3,000.00 overhead @180% $3,250.00 $5,400.00 Material $3,250.00 Less old material $2,650.00 $600.00 Manufacturing cost $9,000.00 G&A 15% $1,350.00 total cost $10,350.00 profit @12% 1,242.00 unit cost of change $11,592.00 x 60 units on which none of the work affected by the change had been performed (x60) $695,520.00 Total cost of change ($3,343,061.50 +$695,520.) $4,038,581.50 Mr. Stinson, who was assigned the responsibility of negotiating the change, requested that an analysis be made of the proposal. Mr. Foster who was the analyst disclosed the following points of difference. REMOVING CHANGED WORK Contractor's Proposal 90 hrs @$30/hr Army 60 hrs @$27.50/hr Mr. Stinson was of the opinion that the company had overestimated the amount of time required to remove the work affected by the change which had already been performed. His opinion was strengthened by the fact that the contractor estimated the time required to install the work at only 40 hrs elsewhere in his proposal. The contractor informed him that there was no relation between the time required to install new work and the cost of removing the old work; that in this case a considerable amount of the changed work involved terminal block locations and wiring which was inaccessible without removing other work already installed. Mr. Foster also suggested that since the contractor had estimated labor at $27.50 per hour in the original contract, the same figure should be applied to the labor for removing the changed work. NEW WORK REQUIRED BY THE CHANGE Contractor Air Force 140 hrs@ $30.00 95 hrs@ $27.50 Mr. Foster was of the opinion that 95 hours is a liberal amount for this part of the estimate as the terminal block locations and wiring schematic of leads in the respective consoles were changed only slightly due to the change order and the balance of the assembly time was directly applicable to attaching subcontracted harnesses following almost the same routine as the original system. The contractor stated that Mr. Foster was not considering all of the costs of the change since he had included in the 140 hours for new work the labor costs associated with the three days during which his assemblers had to sit around with nothing to do while waiting for new wiring diagrams to be prepared and the materials required by the change secured. Mr. Foster replied that the contractor should have been able to use the personnel on other work. The contractor replied that the production of this item had been shut down for a total of 11 days and that he had been able to economically use the personnel affected on other work for 8 days, but could find nothing for them to do for the remaining 3 days. The contractor further stated that Mr. Foster ignored the affect of the change on the learning of his employees. That, in calculating the cost of the new work, he had applied an appropriate learning curve and that he had also calculated the affect of the change on the rate of improvement on the 60 units on which none of the work affected by the change had been performed, plus an allowance for the affect of the change on the improvement rate of the unchanged portion of the work.

QUESTIONS: 8. Should a learning curve be applied to work affected by the change?