0.20 Activity-based job costing, unit cost comparisons. The Tracy Corpora tion has a machining facility specializing in jobs for the aircraft component market. The prior job costing system had two direct cost categories (dires materials and direct manufacturing labour) and a single indirect cost po (manufacturing overhead, allocated using direct labour-hours). The indire cost allocation rate of the prior system for 19_8 would have been $115 p! direct manufacturing labour-hour. Recently, a team with members from product design, manufacturin and accounting used an activity-based approach to refine its job costing sy tem. The two direct cost categories were retained. The team decided to place the single indirect cost pool with five indirect cost pools. These fi cost pools represent five activity areas at the facility, each with its own supe visor and budget responsibility. Pertinent data are as follows: Cost Driver Used Cost Allocation Activity Area as Allocation Base Rate Materials-handling Parts $ 0.40 Lathe work Turns Milling Machine-hours 20.00 Grinding Parts 0.80 Testing Units tested 15.00 Information-gathering technology has advanced to the point where all data necessary for budgeting in these five activity areas are automatic collected. Two representative jobs processed under the new system at the faci in the most recent period had the following characteristics: Job 410 Job 411 Direct materials cost per job 5 9,700 $59,900 Direct manufacturing labour cost per job S 750 $11,250 Direct manufacturing labour-hours per job 25 Parts per job 500 2,000 Turns per job 20,000 60,000 Machine-hours per job 150 1,050 Units per job REQUIRED 1. Compute the per unit manufacturing costs of each job under the previous job costing system. 2. Compute the per unit manufacturing costs of each job under the activity based job costing system. 375 10 200