Nicholas had been with War-Eagle Machine Company a year since finishing a BS in industrial engineering (IE). War-Eagle had been in business for over 50 years, but the company had only recently moved from Detroit to Gainesville, Georgia. The public reason for the move was the economics of the old facility. Privately, based on comments he had heard, Nicholas believed a shift to nonunion labor was a larger motive. Nicholas's boss is the production supervisor, Mr. Hill. Because the plant and the workforce are new, Nicholas has been conducting time-and-motion studies to establish new production standards. While these were clearly needed, Nicholas was impatient to apply other IE tools he had studied. One Friday, Mr. Hill asked Nicholas to attend a 11 a.m. meeting on Monday. Monday morning, Nicholas was surprised to join not only Mr. Hill and John Blackburn, the head of manufacturing engineering, but also Mr. Simkins, the head of marketing and several others from sales and marketing. Most surprising was the attendance of the company's CEO, Mr. Brewer, Jr. The meeting's purpose was to consider a request for proposal (RFP). As Mr. Simkins quickly pointed out, the request came from one of Brewer's most significant customers. The problem, and the reason for the special meeting, was that a successful bid would exceed current production capabilities. Mr. Simkins, in summarizing, said, "Fortunately Mr. Brewer was farsighted enough to have our new facility built with room for expansion." Mr. Hill agreed: "I see no reason why we should not bid on this proposal. Of course, as John pointed out, we will need new production capability. While this RFP calls for a four-year delivery plan, the total number of parts has not been specified. Since Simkins believes the data will be available before the final proposal deadline, I suggest that we examine the economics of the various manufacturing alternatives. To that end, I intend to have Nicholas here start that study immediately." Mr. Brewer ended the meeting with, "I'm sure that not bidding won't hurt our other business with them, but they have been a steady customer since my father started the company and I really would like to help them. Besides, whenever we have added new manufacturing capacity, Simkins has managed to sell it to someone. So, whatever you do, Hill, don't let Nicholas be too pessimistic. Let's get on with it. I expect a preliminary evaluation in a week. By the way, John, don't forget about all that extra equipment we have stored from the old plant. You may find something there that will help keep the cost down." During the next several days, Nicholas met several times with Mr. Hill and John Blackburn. John, who had joined the company after it moved, drove to a warehouse in Atlanta to inspect the stored equipment. In a meeting Wednesday, John said that only a new engine lathe would be required. Hill said, If that's all we need to bid this job, Mr. Brewer will be very pleased. After all, what will it cost, 15 or 20 thousand?" "We can probably find one in that price range, Mr. Hill," John said, "but if we are going to consider this as a long-term investment that Mr. Simkins will market for us, I think we should seriously consider one of the automated systems that have become available in the past few years. Remember, this type of equipment usually lasts a long time. I am sure that it will still be serviceable long after we complete this contract.' "OK, John, your point is well made," Mr. Hill replied. "Nicholas see what you can find that will do the job. Check with John on the specs but take a close look at the economics for us." During the next few days, Nicholas found that there were basically 3 different possible machine types that would do the job ranging from the traditional manual engine lathe to a computer- controlled lathe. From the manufacturers, he obtained the information contained in Table 1. Machine Type A. Manual B. Semiautomatic C. Automatic Table 1. Cost Data Purchase Cost $25,000 $28,500 $36,000 Annual Maintenance Cost $1,250 $2,340 $4,230 Machine A would require a full-time operator. A single operator could service two of Machine B, and Machine C would require no operator at all. In other words, half time of the Machine B is required for the labor work to operate Machine B. After consulting with John about the skill level required, Nicholas checked with accounting and found that an operator would be paid at $13 an hour. Accounting had indicated that they would try to classify the equipment in the 5-year life category for tax depreciation purposes. Mr. Hill, John, and Nicholas decided that the analysis should be based on production runs of 3,200 pieces for the first year with 4% increase every year thereafter until the end of the project. When Nicholas checks with accounting, he finds that they can make the analysis based on 4 years and effective income tax rate is 22%. They estimate that each machine will have a salvage value of 18% of initial purchase cost at the end of four years. Marketing tells him that the sales price per piece is expected to be $9.3. Nicholas noted that each of the machines has a different production rate and he decided to ignore setup cost for each machine. John pointed out that the machines B and C use the same cutting technique, which implies that the tool and material costs should be about the same. However, machine A has different cutting technique. Nicholas summarized this in Table 2. Table 2. Production Data Machine Type Production Rate (Pieces/Hour) Material + Tool Cost/Piece $1.7 B. 11 $2.8 $2.8 32 In previous economic studies of capital purchases, Nicholas has been told to use a MARR of 14%. He believes that he should do the same here. Accounting had indicated that that the War-Eagle Bank had offered a loan of up to $14,000 and they would use $14,000 loan for any machine with APR of 7.5% and repayment would be made in 3 equal annual payments. Friday afternoon Nicholas sits down to begin his analysis. He knows that everyone at the meeting next Monday will expect him to have an answer and that it is very likely that his report will determine whether Brewer responds to the RFP. Assume that you work in the same position that Nicholas has and answer the following questions. Explain all your calculations and answers in a single word document and include it in your zip file. Questions 1. Perform a spreadsheet analysis that shows after tax cash flows over a 4-year period and find the net present worth (NPW) for each machine option. According to the NPW criterion, what would be your decision? 50 pts Decision is 2. Evaluate the annual equivalency of after-tax cash flows. According to the annual equivalency criterion, what would be your decision? 5 pts Decision is 3. Find the IRR for each machine option. According to the IRR criterion, what would be your decision? Show your analysis on spreadsheet. 8 pts Decision is 4. Nicholas wants to show how changes on annual maintenance cost, demand, operator cost and sales price can affect the NPW for Machine A. Perform a sensitivity analysis varying annual maintenance cost, demand, operator cost and sales price. Assume that each of these variables can deviate from its base-case expected value by +10%, +20%, and +30%. Make a table showing all your NPWs for each change and the base case scenario. 17 pts 5. Plot the sensitivity diagram showing the NPWs of each change on annual maintenance cost, demand, operator cost and sales price in the table that you make in question 4 above for A. 10 pts 6. Nicholas wants to know how many pieces of demand for the RFP can make the "Machine A" economically NOT attractive. Find the break-even point that makes the Machine A's NPW of "O" assuming all other variables stay same. Explain your procedure shortly. 10 pts Nicholas had been with War-Eagle Machine Company a year since finishing a BS in industrial engineering (IE). War-Eagle had been in business for over 50 years, but the company had only recently moved from Detroit to Gainesville, Georgia. The public reason for the move was the economics of the old facility. Privately, based on comments he had heard, Nicholas believed a shift to nonunion labor was a larger motive. Nicholas's boss is the production supervisor, Mr. Hill. Because the plant and the workforce are new, Nicholas has been conducting time-and-motion studies to establish new production standards. While these were clearly needed, Nicholas was impatient to apply other IE tools he had studied. One Friday, Mr. Hill asked Nicholas to attend a 11 a.m. meeting on Monday. Monday morning, Nicholas was surprised to join not only Mr. Hill and John Blackburn, the head of manufacturing engineering, but also Mr. Simkins, the head of marketing and several others from sales and marketing. Most surprising was the attendance of the company's CEO, Mr. Brewer, Jr. The meeting's purpose was to consider a request for proposal (RFP). As Mr. Simkins quickly pointed out, the request came from one of Brewer's most significant customers. The problem, and the reason for the special meeting, was that a successful bid would exceed current production capabilities. Mr. Simkins, in summarizing, said, "Fortunately Mr. Brewer was farsighted enough to have our new facility built with room for expansion." Mr. Hill agreed: "I see no reason why we should not bid on this proposal. Of course, as John pointed out, we will need new production capability. While this RFP calls for a four-year delivery plan, the total number of parts has not been specified. Since Simkins believes the data will be available before the final proposal deadline, I suggest that we examine the economics of the various manufacturing alternatives. To that end, I intend to have Nicholas here start that study immediately." Mr. Brewer ended the meeting with, "I'm sure that not bidding won't hurt our other business with them, but they have been a steady customer since my father started the company and I really would like to help them. Besides, whenever we have added new manufacturing capacity, Simkins has managed to sell it to someone. So, whatever you do, Hill, don't let Nicholas be too pessimistic. Let's get on with it. I expect a preliminary evaluation in a week. By the way, John, don't forget about all that extra equipment we have stored from the old plant. You may find something there that will help keep the cost down." During the next several days, Nicholas met several times with Mr. Hill and John Blackburn. John, who had joined the company after it moved, drove to a warehouse in Atlanta to inspect the stored equipment. In a meeting Wednesday, John said that only a new engine lathe would be required. Hill said, If that's all we need to bid this job, Mr. Brewer will be very pleased. After all, what will it cost, 15 or 20 thousand?" "We can probably find one in that price range, Mr. Hill," John said, "but if we are going to consider this as a long-term investment that Mr. Simkins will market for us, I think we should seriously consider one of the automated systems that have become available in the past few years. Remember, this type of equipment usually lasts a long time. I am sure that it will still be serviceable long after we complete this contract.' "OK, John, your point is well made," Mr. Hill replied. "Nicholas see what you can find that will do the job. Check with John on the specs but take a close look at the economics for us." During the next few days, Nicholas found that there were basically 3 different possible machine types that would do the job ranging from the traditional manual engine lathe to a computer- controlled lathe. From the manufacturers, he obtained the information contained in Table 1. Machine Type A. Manual B. Semiautomatic C. Automatic Table 1. Cost Data Purchase Cost $25,000 $28,500 $36,000 Annual Maintenance Cost $1,250 $2,340 $4,230 Machine A would require a full-time operator. A single operator could service two of Machine B, and Machine C would require no operator at all. In other words, half time of the Machine B is required for the labor work to operate Machine B. After consulting with John about the skill level required, Nicholas checked with accounting and found that an operator would be paid at $13 an hour. Accounting had indicated that they would try to classify the equipment in the 5-year life category for tax depreciation purposes. Mr. Hill, John, and Nicholas decided that the analysis should be based on production runs of 3,200 pieces for the first year with 4% increase every year thereafter until the end of the project. When Nicholas checks with accounting, he finds that they can make the analysis based on 4 years and effective income tax rate is 22%. They estimate that each machine will have a salvage value of 18% of initial purchase cost at the end of four years. Marketing tells him that the sales price per piece is expected to be $9.3. Nicholas noted that each of the machines has a different production rate and he decided to ignore setup cost for each machine. John pointed out that the machines B and C use the same cutting technique, which implies that the tool and material costs should be about the same. However, machine A has different cutting technique. Nicholas summarized this in Table 2. Table 2. Production Data Machine Type Production Rate (Pieces/Hour) Material + Tool Cost/Piece $1.7 B. 11 $2.8 $2.8 32 In previous economic studies of capital purchases, Nicholas has been told to use a MARR of 14%. He believes that he should do the same here. Accounting had indicated that that the War-Eagle Bank had offered a loan of up to $14,000 and they would use $14,000 loan for any machine with APR of 7.5% and repayment would be made in 3 equal annual payments. Friday afternoon Nicholas sits down to begin his analysis. He knows that everyone at the meeting next Monday will expect him to have an answer and that it is very likely that his report will determine whether Brewer responds to the RFP. Assume that you work in the same position that Nicholas has and answer the following questions. Explain all your calculations and answers in a single word document and include it in your zip file. Questions 1. Perform a spreadsheet analysis that shows after tax cash flows over a 4-year period and find the net present worth (NPW) for each machine option. According to the NPW criterion, what would be your decision? 50 pts Decision is 2. Evaluate the annual equivalency of after-tax cash flows. According to the annual equivalency criterion, what would be your decision? 5 pts Decision is 3. Find the IRR for each machine option. According to the IRR criterion, what would be your decision? Show your analysis on spreadsheet. 8 pts Decision is 4. Nicholas wants to show how changes on annual maintenance cost, demand, operator cost and sales price can affect the NPW for Machine A. Perform a sensitivity analysis varying annual maintenance cost, demand, operator cost and sales price. Assume that each of these variables can deviate from its base-case expected value by +10%, +20%, and +30%. Make a table showing all your NPWs for each change and the base case scenario. 17 pts 5. Plot the sensitivity diagram showing the NPWs of each change on annual maintenance cost, demand, operator cost and sales price in the table that you make in question 4 above for A. 10 pts 6. Nicholas wants to know how many pieces of demand for the RFP can make the "Machine A" economically NOT attractive. Find the break-even point that makes the Machine A's NPW of "O" assuming all other variables stay same. Explain your procedure shortly. 10 pts