COMPUTE THE COST OF SCRAP FOR ZIMMER ORDER USING THE ATTACHED TEMPLATE

KomTek (C) BAB094 demand had become highly variable. In addition, customers were requiring order lead-times of less than two weeks. The Process KomTek's major global competitor was Thronton Forge, based in England. Thronton's process was different from KomTek's.Thronton used press forging while KomTek used stamp forging, which utilized specialized forging tools, that landed 15-20 blows per minute on the red- hot alloy with a 20,000-pound computer controlled air hammer. Stamping produced products with better physical properties and strength. The press forging process used by Thornton made it easier to have dimples and patterns (Exhibit 1) in the hip joint but the processing times were longer due to extensive re-heating. Dimples were small round nicks made just below the collar of the hip that created better grasp properties for the hip. KomTek received the raw material (12 foot rods of co-ch alloy) from its three suppliers When KomTek received an order from one of its bio-medical customers, the order was released on to the plant floor. Exhibit 2 briefly describes each of the steps, the setup and run times. The rods were cut to length and prepared for extrusion. The preparation involved grinding sharp edges and coating the piece with a ceramic glass lubricant. In extrusion, the rods were pushed through a special extrusion tool (with a hole), which brought the material to the correct thickness. The die set was then mounted between the base and the hammer on the stamping machine. The die set gave the hip joint its shape. The forging involved two distinct steps. The rods went into the furnace on a conveyor and as they came out of the furnace the operator removed the red-hot piece and placedt on the die set and the 20,000-pound hammer beat the piece into shape. The furnace along with the Banning Air Hammers were very expensive to operate, costing KomTek around S275 per hour. Next, the person assisting the Forge operation trimmed the excess material (flash) around the hammered piece and dropped it in the water for cooling. The flash was sent back to the supplier for recycling In order to prepare them for visual inspection, the pieces were then cleaned using a solution. Following the visual inspection parts were ground to check for parting line cracks. If any line cracks were found the hip was scrapped. Before the hot coin process the hips were all de burred. This de-burring removed any remnants of flash that might get imbedded into the hip during the subsequent hot coin process Next, the dimples were hammered in, using a coin that formed the dimples. After this stage, 2 pieces from a batch of 200 were randomly selected and shipped off to tensile testing. This was a destructive testing process, which KomTek outsourced. It took approximately a week for KomTek to receive tensile testing results. Meanwhile the batch continued along through the remaining stages of the process. Very rarely had there been a need to scrap an entire batch due to tensile strength failures. The hot coin was a hammering process. This might cause the centerline (Exhibit 1) to be off-center. Hence 100% of the batch was tested. Parts that failed the test went through the straightening process. The chemical polish and ultrasonic cleaning processes were also outsourced. The hip prosthetics were sent to Springfield, MA in batches of 200. The supplier took about a day to process each batch. Including transit, the polishing and cleaning process took about 3-4 days. On receipt, 100% of the parts went through non-destructive testing (NDT). Those that failed were KomTek (C) BAB094 reworked immediately at NDT. In the next stage, the hips were tested for acceptable quality level. It included testing results and certification. This was the final step before the hips were stamped, bubble bagged and boxed. Zimmer Zimmer was one of KomTek's primary co-ch prosthetic hip customers, accounting for nearly 40-50% of their total hip sales. Zimmer was one of KomTek's earliest hip customers. In their 8-year relationship, KomTek had improved its process significantly due to Zimmer's product design expertise. Lately, Zimmer had been facing stiff competition from hip-kit suppliers and a year ago Zimmer introduced the distal tip modification to their hip prosthetic. The distal tip wasa protrusion at the base of the hip. According to Zimmer, the distal tip gave the hip better anchoring capabilities and improved overall flexibility of the new hip joint. KomTek incorporated this change into their process quite easily. The change appeared to had an insignificant impact on the die set material and labor costs. Even though KomTek had not reached its usual p-c ratio of 1.33 for this product, the ratio was around 1.15 for the previous two orders and showing signs of improvement The Screaming Eagles Meeting The Screaming Eagles quality improvement team was in-charge of the prosthetic hip product line. They met every Tuesday at 1:30 to review the previous week's work orders. The team consisted of the following members: Member Paul Keisling Art Briggs Designation Team Leader, VP Operations Accountant Comments 14 years at Kom Tek Tracks costs and maintains the system Bob Burke Quality Control Keith Vickers John Daly Scott Myers Bill Simmons Forge shop supervisor Extrusion Straightening lineman Die shop assistant Internal QC and coordinates with suppliers 17 years at KomTek 2 years at KomTek 11 years at Kom Tek 4 years with the Die-Casting department The last three members of the team were USWA members. In one of their recent meetings, as usual, Art accessed the previous week's work order review (Exhibit 3) on the computer and printed a copy for each of the team members. Their focus was serious, as was the mood in the room. This was a team that was used to exploring problems, so they could do so without being defensive. There was no finger pointing. There were no interruptions. Each person listened intently. No one changed the subject. An outside observer couldn'te who was management and who was labor. Paul served as the leader when he was present, but functioned more like a facilitator. He didn't tell people what to do; he explores issues with them. On this day KomTek (C) BAB094 almost instantly, the team's attention turned to the Zimmer order (work order number 811073- Exhibit 3) and the following conversation ensued. Paul: I cannot believe the price to cost ratio on the Zimmer order. We somehow missed the fact that we were performing poorly on this order. I didn't expect to reach our p-c target of 1.33 for this product, but 1.08 is unacceptable. At this rate we will lose our shirts if all of our customers begin asking for the distal tip. Do we know where our problems are occurring? Bob This was an unusually large order. Paul: But we handled larger orders in the past. Bob: Not with the distal tip. Art: The average distal tip order sizes have been between 200 and 400 Paul: So why should the cost per piece be affected by the batch size? Keith: Well, Zimmer did place a rush on the 811073 order. Paul: Anyway, Art, can you pull up the material review for this work order? Art turned to his computer and printed the material review (Exhibit 4).] What is the average scrap level for this product? Paul: Bob: It is usually between 2% and 6% without the distal tip but it is above 10% for this order Scrap at the straightening, non-destructive testing and quality control areas appear to be well above normal levels, Art: Mind you, the data (Exhibit 2) does not include the usual tensile testing sample that is sent out after the hot coin. This was a large order and we had to send out 10 Pau: Looks like there has been a lot of rework at straightening as well. The labor and overhead costs are much higher than the standard [Keith pointed to the labor and overhead costs for straightening in the Zimmer order (Exhibit 5).1 Keith: Seems as though we have been straightening almost 50% of them. I have a feeling that the distal tip is not handling the hot coin hammering so well Scot That should really not affect the distal tip; the dimples are being hammered in at the opposite end of the distal tip How is the part handled, during the hot coin process? Art: Keith: It is held along the c-c and b-b, to minimize straightening operations. We have been using this instrument for years. Paul: Keith: Scott: Does it have proper clearance for the distal tip? I will have to check on that We started having a lot of rework and scrap towards the end of the order. So, we had to release more pieces to the shop floor. What was the total number of pieces released? Paul: KomTek (C) BAB094 Bob 1200 Paul: Was the die set changed as well? Art: The computer indicates that only one die set was used Bil Well, these die sets can handle up to 1000 hammer blows. This was an order for 1025 and we did not think t was necessary to change. Moreover, I was told this was a rush order and we did not have time to wait for another die set. Paul: Have there been any problems incorporating the distal tip into the die set? Bill: We had warned the forging shop about our problems with the die set re-enforcement around the distal tip. We recommended they use the medium hammer. Keith: We have been using the heavy hammer ever since we had the dimple problems with the last two orders. Apparently, they were not cosmetically acceptable. Some of the dimples were not deep enough Scott In addition to the hammering, I have a feeling that the de-burring operation is affecting the distal tip as well. Granted this is a trimming operation, but it migh require considerable force, which can easily bend the distal tip off the centerline. As I recall, a number of pieces were beyond the point where they could be straightened. So, I had to scrap them. Paul: Scott, could you please bring us the data for the straightening check process? [Scott leaves the room to go down to the shop floor to pick up the previous week's straightening-check data.) Bob: Well that only accounts for the shape. We still have to consider the scrap due to line cracks and laps Is there anyway that we can check for the cracks and laps before it goes out for polishing and cleaning? If we can do that, it will be great. For one thing, we can start working on the extra pieces needed to cover the order earlier, which might even save us some money Don't get carried away Paul. It is going to cost us some money to do a check before going in for polishing so the savings may be minimal. Paul: Art: Paul: Art: Paul: Won't we save in terms of labor at processes 150 (Quality Control) and 160 (Final Prep)? You are right. Oh Boy! We have a bunch of issues to address. Bob, can you please start a fishbone diagram on the blackboard? I w get a cup of coffee while Scott is getting the straightening check data (Exhibit 6) [As Paul was pouring his coffee, he couldn't help wondering how they did on their lead time target. KomTek (C) BAB094 Exhibit 2 The Process Operation No. Description Comments Run Time (mins)(mins) Setup Time 0.3 1.002 1.002 0.402 0.6 Kitup Release work order to floor 10 Abrasive Cutting Cut bars to length 15 Grind Slugs 20 30 Coat Slugs 40 50 60 Forge 65 Helper 18 Grind off sharp edge of bar Clean bars before coating Coat slugs for extrusion Wheelabrate 120 Wheelabrate 0.402 Clean before forging Forge in tolerance per print Help hammerman in lubrication, 150 150 flash removal Cleaning process Parts waiting for inspection 100% inspection 80 Alox 90 90 Staging for 0.3 100 103 | Parting line sample 105 Deburr 110 111 Tensile testing 115 Straighten Visual 1.002 Grind sample (10%) of parts for 120 line cracks Rework marked indications HC parts into tol. per print Test 2 pieces per heat for tensile Check straightness per print, 4.998 Hot Coin 120 2.4 120 Chem Polish 130 140 NDT Facility 150 Quality Control 160 Final Prep 100% Outside service Outside service Non destructive testing 100% Acceptable Quality Level (AQL) Package and Ship Cleaning 4.998 120 0.6 KomTek (C) BAB094 Exhibit 3 Work Order Review (for week ending 8/29/97) Work Order Ex PWA Delavan EDO Corp. ted Cost Actual CostSelling Price PC Ratio Reason Visual 1 43.14 26.82 1.32 1.33 62.23 81.91 26.48 36.36 86091F 52.72 54.55 05.16 19.69 142.16 61.88 119.70 38.02 153.00 1.13 1.14 1.93 .08 Saw, Rework Visual In 92150F 101.25 21.87 133.18 UAP Zimmer Rework Exhibit 4 Material Review Order # Date Received Operation antity Reject Reason Status 811073 8/15/97 8/15/97 8/15/97 8/22/97 8/22/97 100 103 115 (Straighten 140 150 Cracks Crack Bent Crack Crack Line 19 65 27 17 Scra Exhibit 5 Standard Costs and Zimmer Order Costs Standard Costs OH Cost Outside Tot LaborOH Cost Outside Total Zimmer work order 811073 Costs Cost (S/pc) ost ost (S/pe) (S/pc) 10 Abrasive Cutti 83 1.16 0.83 rate 30 Coat Slugs 42 78 6.29 8.05 96 12.63 3.59 1.05 3.74 14.79 1.83 37 .06 0.42 80 Alox 90 .43 38 for Inspection 100 Visual 103 Parting line sample .18 72 16 3.09 10 ot Coin 5 Strai 69 1.69 2.38 1.14 3.40 7,00 7.00 130 1.00 1.00 96 1.19 58 .00 1.00 1.44 40 NDT Facili 150 ality Control 49 160 Final 16 .51 35.48 8.0053.00 .9 43.4 42 14 total Costs Material, Die and Tooling Costs Material Labor ide Total Material c0-Base Rd,Med S5.20 Die, For Extrusion Tooli 1.80 2.88 0.04 01 0.83 5.83 Subtotal Costs 27 Dic, Forge, and Extrusion Tooling costs are based on 1000 pieces Tensile Testing Costs $250 for 2 pieces Process Cost of Scrap Komtek Cost of Scrap Estimate Team Names: Work Order- 811073 (1025 pieces) OutsideTotal (S/pe) OH Cost Cost pc) Opr. Description Cost (S/ pc Cost (S/ 1 Kitup Die +Material 10 Abrasive Cutting 15 Grind Sl 20 Wheelabrate 30 Coat Slu 40 Extrude 50 Wheelabrate 60 65 Hel 80 Alox 90 90 Staging for Ins 100 Visual 103 Parting line 105 Deburr 110 Hot Coin 1Tensile Testin 115 120 Chem Polish 130 Cleanin 140 NDT Facilit so Quality Control 160 Final P 62.27 62.27 .32 0.29 0.22 0.17 0.91 0.21 1.05 1.07 0.46 0.83 0.99 0.22 0.59 8.0S 0.21 14.79 45 1.83 0.44 1.24 1.01 4.25 .93 0.97 0.21 0.59 7.07 0.21 3.59 0.70 0.42 13.74 1.38 0.44 0.90 0.72 3.09 1.43 0.42 0.33 0.28 4.83 0.72 0.93 2.38 3.40 4.54 7.00 1.00 9.73 1.41 0.48 125.57 1.00 1.00 4.96 2.72 0.49 0.14 11.89 7.01 0.92 0.34 43.42 0.58 Subtotal Costs 115.27 8.00 KomTek (C) BAB094 demand had become highly variable. In addition, customers were requiring order lead-times of less than two weeks. The Process KomTek's major global competitor was Thronton Forge, based in England. Thronton's process was different from KomTek's.Thronton used press forging while KomTek used stamp forging, which utilized specialized forging tools, that landed 15-20 blows per minute on the red- hot alloy with a 20,000-pound computer controlled air hammer. Stamping produced products with better physical properties and strength. The press forging process used by Thornton made it easier to have dimples and patterns (Exhibit 1) in the hip joint but the processing times were longer due to extensive re-heating. Dimples were small round nicks made just below the collar of the hip that created better grasp properties for the hip. KomTek received the raw material (12 foot rods of co-ch alloy) from its three suppliers When KomTek received an order from one of its bio-medical customers, the order was released on to the plant floor. Exhibit 2 briefly describes each of the steps, the setup and run times. The rods were cut to length and prepared for extrusion. The preparation involved grinding sharp edges and coating the piece with a ceramic glass lubricant. In extrusion, the rods were pushed through a special extrusion tool (with a hole), which brought the material to the correct thickness. The die set was then mounted between the base and the hammer on the stamping machine. The die set gave the hip joint its shape. The forging involved two distinct steps. The rods went into the furnace on a conveyor and as they came out of the furnace the operator removed the red-hot piece and placedt on the die set and the 20,000-pound hammer beat the piece into shape. The furnace along with the Banning Air Hammers were very expensive to operate, costing KomTek around S275 per hour. Next, the person assisting the Forge operation trimmed the excess material (flash) around the hammered piece and dropped it in the water for cooling. The flash was sent back to the supplier for recycling In order to prepare them for visual inspection, the pieces were then cleaned using a solution. Following the visual inspection parts were ground to check for parting line cracks. If any line cracks were found the hip was scrapped. Before the hot coin process the hips were all de burred. This de-burring removed any remnants of flash that might get imbedded into the hip during the subsequent hot coin process Next, the dimples were hammered in, using a coin that formed the dimples. After this stage, 2 pieces from a batch of 200 were randomly selected and shipped off to tensile testing. This was a destructive testing process, which KomTek outsourced. It took approximately a week for KomTek to receive tensile testing results. Meanwhile the batch continued along through the remaining stages of the process. Very rarely had there been a need to scrap an entire batch due to tensile strength failures. The hot coin was a hammering process. This might cause the centerline (Exhibit 1) to be off-center. Hence 100% of the batch was tested. Parts that failed the test went through the straightening process. The chemical polish and ultrasonic cleaning processes were also outsourced. The hip prosthetics were sent to Springfield, MA in batches of 200. The supplier took about a day to process each batch. Including transit, the polishing and cleaning process took about 3-4 days. On receipt, 100% of the parts went through non-destructive testing (NDT). Those that failed were KomTek (C) BAB094 reworked immediately at NDT. In the next stage, the hips were tested for acceptable quality level. It included testing results and certification. This was the final step before the hips were stamped, bubble bagged and boxed. Zimmer Zimmer was one of KomTek's primary co-ch prosthetic hip customers, accounting for nearly 40-50% of their total hip sales. Zimmer was one of KomTek's earliest hip customers. In their 8-year relationship, KomTek had improved its process significantly due to Zimmer's product design expertise. Lately, Zimmer had been facing stiff competition from hip-kit suppliers and a year ago Zimmer introduced the distal tip modification to their hip prosthetic. The distal tip wasa protrusion at the base of the hip. According to Zimmer, the distal tip gave the hip better anchoring capabilities and improved overall flexibility of the new hip joint. KomTek incorporated this change into their process quite easily. The change appeared to had an insignificant impact on the die set material and labor costs. Even though KomTek had not reached its usual p-c ratio of 1.33 for this product, the ratio was around 1.15 for the previous two orders and showing signs of improvement The Screaming Eagles Meeting The Screaming Eagles quality improvement team was in-charge of the prosthetic hip product line. They met every Tuesday at 1:30 to review the previous week's work orders. The team consisted of the following members: Member Paul Keisling Art Briggs Designation Team Leader, VP Operations Accountant Comments 14 years at Kom Tek Tracks costs and maintains the system Bob Burke Quality Control Keith Vickers John Daly Scott Myers Bill Simmons Forge shop supervisor Extrusion Straightening lineman Die shop assistant Internal QC and coordinates with suppliers 17 years at KomTek 2 years at KomTek 11 years at Kom Tek 4 years with the Die-Casting department The last three members of the team were USWA members. In one of their recent meetings, as usual, Art accessed the previous week's work order review (Exhibit 3) on the computer and printed a copy for each of the team members. Their focus was serious, as was the mood in the room. This was a team that was used to exploring problems, so they could do so without being defensive. There was no finger pointing. There were no interruptions. Each person listened intently. No one changed the subject. An outside observer couldn'te who was management and who was labor. Paul served as the leader when he was present, but functioned more like a facilitator. He didn't tell people what to do; he explores issues with them. On this day KomTek (C) BAB094 almost instantly, the team's attention turned to the Zimmer order (work order number 811073- Exhibit 3) and the following conversation ensued. Paul: I cannot believe the price to cost ratio on the Zimmer order. We somehow missed the fact that we were performing poorly on this order. I didn't expect to reach our p-c target of 1.33 for this product, but 1.08 is unacceptable. At this rate we will lose our shirts if all of our customers begin asking for the distal tip. Do we know where our problems are occurring? Bob This was an unusually large order. Paul: But we handled larger orders in the past. Bob: Not with the distal tip. Art: The average distal tip order sizes have been between 200 and 400 Paul: So why should the cost per piece be affected by the batch size? Keith: Well, Zimmer did place a rush on the 811073 order. Paul: Anyway, Art, can you pull up the material review for this work order? Art turned to his computer and printed the material review (Exhibit 4).] What is the average scrap level for this product? Paul: Bob: It is usually between 2% and 6% without the distal tip but it is above 10% for this order Scrap at the straightening, non-destructive testing and quality control areas appear to be well above normal levels, Art: Mind you, the data (Exhibit 2) does not include the usual tensile testing sample that is sent out after the hot coin. This was a large order and we had to send out 10 Pau: Looks like there has been a lot of rework at straightening as well. The labor and overhead costs are much higher than the standard [Keith pointed to the labor and overhead costs for straightening in the Zimmer order (Exhibit 5).1 Keith: Seems as though we have been straightening almost 50% of them. I have a feeling that the distal tip is not handling the hot coin hammering so well Scot That should really not affect the distal tip; the dimples are being hammered in at the opposite end of the distal tip How is the part handled, during the hot coin process? Art: Keith: It is held along the c-c and b-b, to minimize straightening operations. We have been using this instrument for years. Paul: Keith: Scott: Does it have proper clearance for the distal tip? I will have to check on that We started having a lot of rework and scrap towards the end of the order. So, we had to release more pieces to the shop floor. What was the total number of pieces released? Paul: KomTek (C) BAB094 Bob 1200 Paul: Was the die set changed as well? Art: The computer indicates that only one die set was used Bil Well, these die sets can handle up to 1000 hammer blows. This was an order for 1025 and we did not think t was necessary to change. Moreover, I was told this was a rush order and we did not have time to wait for another die set. Paul: Have there been any problems incorporating the distal tip into the die set? Bill: We had warned the forging shop about our problems with the die set re-enforcement around the distal tip. We recommended they use the medium hammer. Keith: We have been using the heavy hammer ever since we had the dimple problems with the last two orders. Apparently, they were not cosmetically acceptable. Some of the dimples were not deep enough Scott In addition to the hammering, I have a feeling that the de-burring operation is affecting the distal tip as well. Granted this is a trimming operation, but it migh require considerable force, which can easily bend the distal tip off the centerline. As I recall, a number of pieces were beyond the point where they could be straightened. So, I had to scrap them. Paul: Scott, could you please bring us the data for the straightening check process? [Scott leaves the room to go down to the shop floor to pick up the previous week's straightening-check data.) Bob: Well that only accounts for the shape. We still have to consider the scrap due to line cracks and laps Is there anyway that we can check for the cracks and laps before it goes out for polishing and cleaning? If we can do that, it will be great. For one thing, we can start working on the extra pieces needed to cover the order earlier, which might even save us some money Don't get carried away Paul. It is going to cost us some money to do a check before going in for polishing so the savings may be minimal. Paul: Art: Paul: Art: Paul: Won't we save in terms of labor at processes 150 (Quality Control) and 160 (Final Prep)? You are right. Oh Boy! We have a bunch of issues to address. Bob, can you please start a fishbone diagram on the blackboard? I w get a cup of coffee while Scott is getting the straightening check data (Exhibit 6) [As Paul was pouring his coffee, he couldn't help wondering how they did on their lead time target. KomTek (C) BAB094 Exhibit 2 The Process Operation No. Description Comments Run Time (mins)(mins) Setup Time 0.3 1.002 1.002 0.402 0.6 Kitup Release work order to floor 10 Abrasive Cutting Cut bars to length 15 Grind Slugs 20 30 Coat Slugs 40 50 60 Forge 65 Helper 18 Grind off sharp edge of bar Clean bars before coating Coat slugs for extrusion Wheelabrate 120 Wheelabrate 0.402 Clean before forging Forge in tolerance per print Help hammerman in lubrication, 150 150 flash removal Cleaning process Parts waiting for inspection 100% inspection 80 Alox 90 90 Staging for 0.3 100 103 | Parting line sample 105 Deburr 110 111 Tensile testing 115 Straighten Visual 1.002 Grind sample (10%) of parts for 120 line cracks Rework marked indications HC parts into tol. per print Test 2 pieces per heat for tensile Check straightness per print, 4.998 Hot Coin 120 2.4 120 Chem Polish 130 140 NDT Facility 150 Quality Control 160 Final Prep 100% Outside service Outside service Non destructive testing 100% Acceptable Quality Level (AQL) Package and Ship Cleaning 4.998 120 0.6 KomTek (C) BAB094 Exhibit 3 Work Order Review (for week ending 8/29/97) Work Order Ex PWA Delavan EDO Corp. ted Cost Actual CostSelling Price PC Ratio Reason Visual 1 43.14 26.82 1.32 1.33 62.23 81.91 26.48 36.36 86091F 52.72 54.55 05.16 19.69 142.16 61.88 119.70 38.02 153.00 1.13 1.14 1.93 .08 Saw, Rework Visual In 92150F 101.25 21.87 133.18 UAP Zimmer Rework Exhibit 4 Material Review Order # Date Received Operation antity Reject Reason Status 811073 8/15/97 8/15/97 8/15/97 8/22/97 8/22/97 100 103 115 (Straighten 140 150 Cracks Crack Bent Crack Crack Line 19 65 27 17 Scra Exhibit 5 Standard Costs and Zimmer Order Costs Standard Costs OH Cost Outside Tot LaborOH Cost Outside Total Zimmer work order 811073 Costs Cost (S/pc) ost ost (S/pe) (S/pc) 10 Abrasive Cutti 83 1.16 0.83 rate 30 Coat Slugs 42 78 6.29 8.05 96 12.63 3.59 1.05 3.74 14.79 1.83 37 .06 0.42 80 Alox 90 .43 38 for Inspection 100 Visual 103 Parting line sample .18 72 16 3.09 10 ot Coin 5 Strai 69 1.69 2.38 1.14 3.40 7,00 7.00 130 1.00 1.00 96 1.19 58 .00 1.00 1.44 40 NDT Facili 150 ality Control 49 160 Final 16 .51 35.48 8.0053.00 .9 43.4 42 14 total Costs Material, Die and Tooling Costs Material Labor ide Total Material c0-Base Rd,Med S5.20 Die, For Extrusion Tooli 1.80 2.88 0.04 01 0.83 5.83 Subtotal Costs 27 Dic, Forge, and Extrusion Tooling costs are based on 1000 pieces Tensile Testing Costs $250 for 2 pieces Process Cost of Scrap Komtek Cost of Scrap Estimate Team Names: Work Order- 811073 (1025 pieces) OutsideTotal (S/pe) OH Cost Cost pc) Opr. Description Cost (S/ pc Cost (S/ 1 Kitup Die +Material 10 Abrasive Cutting 15 Grind Sl 20 Wheelabrate 30 Coat Slu 40 Extrude 50 Wheelabrate 60 65 Hel 80 Alox 90 90 Staging for Ins 100 Visual 103 Parting line 105 Deburr 110 Hot Coin 1Tensile Testin 115 120 Chem Polish 130 Cleanin 140 NDT Facilit so Quality Control 160 Final P 62.27 62.27 .32 0.29 0.22 0.17 0.91 0.21 1.05 1.07 0.46 0.83 0.99 0.22 0.59 8.0S 0.21 14.79 45 1.83 0.44 1.24 1.01 4.25 .93 0.97 0.21 0.59 7.07 0.21 3.59 0.70 0.42 13.74 1.38 0.44 0.90 0.72 3.09 1.43 0.42 0.33 0.28 4.83 0.72 0.93 2.38 3.40 4.54 7.00 1.00 9.73 1.41 0.48 125.57 1.00 1.00 4.96 2.72 0.49 0.14 11.89 7.01 0.92 0.34 43.42 0.58 Subtotal Costs 115.27 8.00