please answer this question in full with the tables provided.

Grainger: Reengineering the China/U.S. Supply Chain W. W. Gralinger, Inc, is a leading supplier of maintenance, repair, and operating (MRO) products to businesses and institutions in the United States, Canada, and Mexico, with an expanding presence in Japan, India, China, and Panama, The company works with more than 5,000 suppliers and runs an extensive website (www grainger.com) where Grainger offers nearly 1.5 million products, The products range from industrial adhesivos used in manufacturing, to hand tools, janitorial supplies, lighting equipment, and power tools. When something is needed by one of its customers, it is often needed quickly, so quick service and product availability are key drivers. to Grainger's success. Your assignment' involves studying U.S. distribution in Grainger's supply chain. Grainger works with over 250 suppliers in the China and Taiwan region. These suppliers produce products to Grainger's specifications and ship to the United States using ocean freight carriers from four major ports in China and Taiwan. From these ports, product is shipped to U.S, entry ports in either Seattle, Washington, or Los Angeles, California. After passing through customs, the 20-and 40 -foot containers are shipped by rail to Grainger's central distribution center in Kansas City, Kansas. The containers are unloaded and quality is checked in Kansas City, From there. individual items are sent to regional warehouses in nine U.S. locations, a Canada site, and Mexico. Grainger: U.S. Distribution In the United States approximately 40 percent of the containers enter in Seattle, Washington, and 60 percent at the Los Angeles, California, port. Containers on arrival at the port cities are inspected by federal agents and then loaded onto rail cars for movement to the Kansas Clity distribution center. Variable costs for processing at the port are $4.00 per cubic meter (CBM) in both Los Angeles and Seattie. The rate for shipping the containers to Kansas City is $0.002 per CBM per mile. In Kansas City the containers are unloaded and processed through a quality assurance check. This costs $2.00 per CBM processed. A very small percentage of the material is actually sent back to the supplier, but errors in quantity and package size are often found that tequire accounting adjustments. Items are stored in the Kansas City distribution center, which serves nine warehouses in the United States. Items are also sent to warehouses in Canada and Mexico, but for the purposes of this study we focus on the United States. The nine warehouses each place orders at the distribution center that contains all the items to be replenished. Kansas City picks each item on the order, consolidates the items onto paliets, and ships the items on 53 -foot trucks destined to each warehouse. Truck freight costs $0.022 per CBM per mile. The demand forecasts for the items purchased from China/Taiwan for next year in cubic meters and shipping distances are given in the following table. Although a high percentage of demand was from warehouses elther south or east of Kansas City, the question has surfaced concerning the 34,110 CBM (approximately 18 percent of the total volume) that will be shipped to Kansas City and then shipped back to the Los Angeles warehouse. This double-transportation could potentially be eliminated if a new distribution center were bulit in Los Angeles. The idea might be to ship material arriving at the Seattle port by rail to a new Los Angeles distribution center, which would be located at the current location of the Los Angeles warehouse. It is estimated that the Los Angeles facility could be upgraded at a one-time cost of $1,500,000 and then operated for $350,000 per yeor. In the new Los Angeles distribution center, containers would be unloaded and processed through a quality assurance check, just as is now done in Kansas City. The variable cost for doing this would be $4.00 per CBM processed, which includes the cost to move the containers from the Los Angeles port to the distribution center. After the material is processed in Los Angeles, the amount needed to replenish the Los Angeles warehouse (34,110 CBM per year on average) would be kept and the rest sent by rail to Kansas City. It would then be directly stocked in the Kansas City distribution center and used to replenish the warehouses. They expect that very little would need to be shipped back to the Los Angeles warehouse after the new system was operating for about six months. Grainger management feels thatlt may be possible to moke this change, but they are not sure if it would actuolly save any money and whether it would be a good strategic change. The data in this case have been developed for teaching purposes and do not represent the actual situation at Grainger. The data: though, are representative of an actual problem that Grainger and similar companies must address to efficiently run the supply chain. Relative to the U.S, distribution network, the cost associated with running the existing 5ystem is $5.245.631, Assume that 40 percent of Relative to the U.S. distribution network, the cost associated with funning the existing system is $5,245,631. Assume that 40 percent of the volume arrives in Seattle and 60 percent in Los Angeles and the port processing fee for foderal processing at both locations is $4.00 per CBM. Assume that everything is transferred to the Kansas City distribution center by rail, whore it is tinloaded and qualify checked. Assume that alf volume is then transfered by truck to the nine existing warehouses in the United States. Consider the idea of upgrading the Los Angeles warehouse to include a distribution center capable of processing all the volume Consider the idea of upgrading the Los Angeles warehouse to include a distribution center capabie of processing all the volume coming into the United States. Assume that containers coming into Seattle would be inspected by federal officials (this needs fo be done at all port locations) and then immediately shipped by rail in their original containers to Los. Angeles. All volume would be unloaded and quality checked in Los Angeles (the quality check costs $4.00 per CBM when done in Los Angeles). Assume 34.110 CBM would then be kept in Los. Angeles for distribution through that warehouse and the rest transshipped by rail to the Kansas. City warehouse. The cost to transship to Kansas. City would be $0.002 per CBM. The material sent to Kansas City would not need to go remaining volume would be transferred by truck to the eight remaining warehouses in the United States at a cost of $0.0220 per CBM Calculate the cost associated with running the new system (Leave no cells blank - be certain to enter "0" wherever required. Round your answers to the nearest whole number.) \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|} \hline \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{ K.C and L.A. Distribution Centers } \\ \hline & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{ Transshipment Costs to K.C. } \\ \hline & Volume & \\ \hline & CBM & L.A. to K.C. & Rail Cost \\ \hline Pct & & CBnce \\ \hline & % & & \\ \hline \end{tabular} \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|} \hline \multicolumn{4}{|c|}{ K.C and L.A. Distribution Centers } \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{|c|}{ K.C. DC to Warehouse Costs } \\ \hline \multirow[t]{2}{*}{ Warehouse } & \multirow[t]{2}{*}{ Demand } & \multirow[t]{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{l} Miles \\ from KC \end{tabular}} & \begin{tabular}{c} Truck Freight \\ Costs \end{tabular} \\ \hline & & & 0.0220 \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{|l|}{ Kansas City } \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{|l|}{ Cleveland } \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{|l|}{ Newark } \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{|l|}{ Jacksonvilie } \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{|l|}{ Chicago } \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{|l|}{ Greenville } \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{|l|}{ Memphis } \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{|l|}{ Dallas } \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{|l|}{ Los Angeles } \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{|l|}{ Total } \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{|c|}{ Total cost of new system } \\ \hline Annu: & savings of n & ew system & \\ \hline \end{tabular}