The screenshots have been inverted, but could you please provide help for question 9,10,11?

5 Question Beauville Furniture Corporation produces sofas, recliners, and lounge chairs. Beauville is located in a medium-sized community in the southeastern part of the United States. It is a major employer in the community. In fact, the economic well- being of the community is tied very strongly to Beauville. Beauville operates a sawmill, a fabric plant, and a furniture plant in the same community. The sawmill buys logs from independent producers. The sawmill then processes the logs into four grades of lumber: firsts and seconds, No. 1 common, No. 2 common, and No. 3 common. All costs incurred in the mill are common to the four grades of lumber. All four grades of lumber are used by the furniture plant. The mill transfers everything it produces to the furniture plant, and the grades are transferred at cost Trucks are used to move the lumber from the mill to the furniture plant. Although no outside sales exist, the mill could sell to external customers, and the selling prices of the four grades are known. The fabric plant is responsible for producing the fabric that is used by the furniture plant. To produce three totally different fabrics (identied by fabric ID codes FB60, FB 70, and FBSO, respectively), the plant has three separate production operations--one for each fabric. Thus, production of all three fabrics occurs at the same time in different locations in the plant. Each fabric's production operation has two processes: the weaving and pattern process and the coloring and bolting process. In the weaving and pattern process, yam is used to create yards of fabric with different designs. In the next process, the fabric is dyed, cut into 25-yard sections, and wrapped around cardboard rods to form 25-yard bolts. The bolts are transported by forklift to the furniture plant's Receiving Department. All of the output of the fabric plant is used by the furniture plant (to produce the sofas and chairs). For accounting purposes, the fabric is transferred at cost to the furniture plant. The furniture plant produces orders for customers on a special-order basis. The customers specify the quantity, style, fabric, lumber grade, and pattern. Typically, jobs are large (involving at least 500 units). The plant has two production departments: Cutting and Assembly. In the Cutting Department, the fabric and wooden frame components are sized and cut. Other components are purchased from external suppliers and are removed from stores as needed for assembly. After the fabric and wooden components are finished for the entire job, they are moved to the Assembly Department. The Assembly Department takes the individual components and assembles the sofas (or chairs). 9. Calculate the following overhead rates for the furniture plant (1) plantwide rate and (2) departmental rates. Use the direct method for assigning service costs to producing departments. 10. For each of the overhead rates computed in Requirement 9, calculate unit bid prices for Jobs A500 and 875. Assume that the company's aggressive bidding policy is unit cost plus 50 percent. Did departmental overhead rates have any effect on Beauville's winning or losing bids? What recommendation would you make? Explain. Now, adjust the costs and bids for departmental rare bids using the proposed standard costs for the Coloring and Bolting Department. Did this make a difference? What does this tell you? 11. Suppose that the fabric plant is set up as a prot center. Bolts of Fabric FB 70 se 11 for $400 (or can be bought for $400 from outside suppliers). The fabric plant and the lmiture plant both have excess capacity. Assume that Job A500 is a special order. The fabric and fumiture plants haw: sufcient excess capacity to satisfy the demands of Job A500. What is the minimum transfer price for a bolt of FB70? If the maximum transfer price is $400, by how much do the fabric plant's profits increase if the two profit centers negotiate a transfer price that splits the joint benefit? Beauville Furniture has been in business for over two decades and has a good reputation. However during the past ve years, Beauville experienced eroding prots and declining sales. Bids were increasingly lo st (even aggressive bids) on the more popular models. Yet, the company was winning bids on some of the more-difcultto-produce items. Lance Hays, the owner and manager, was frustrated. He simply couldn't understand how some of his competitors could sell for such low prices. On a common sofa job involving 500 units, Beauville's bids were running $25 per unit or $12,500 per job more than the winning bids (on average). Yet, on the more difcult items, Beauville's bids were running about $60 per unit less than the next closest bid. Gisela Berling, vice president of nance, was assigned the task of preparing a cost analysis of the company's product lines. Lance wanted to know if the company's costs were excessive. Perhaps the company was being wasteful, and it was simply costing more to produce fumiture than it was costing its competitors. Gisela prepared herself by reading recent literature on cost management and product costing and attending several conferences that explored the same issues. She then reviewed the costing procedures of the company's mill and two plants and did a preliminary assessment of their soundness. The production costs of the mill were common to all lumber grades and were assigned using the physical units method. Since the output and production costs were fairly uniform throughout the year, the mill used an actual costing system. Although Gisela had no difculty with actual costing, she decided to explore the effects of using the sales -value-at-split - off method. Thus, cost and production data for the mill were gathered so that an analysis could be conducted. The two plants used normal costing systems. The fabric plant used process costing, and the furniture plant used job-order co sting. Both plants used plantwide overhead rates based on direct labor hours. Based on her initial reviews, she concluded that the costing procedures for the fabric plant were satisfactory. Essentially, there was no evidence of product diversity. A statistical analysis revealed that about 90 percent of the variability in the plant's overhead cost could be explained by direct labor hours. Thus, the use of a plantwide overhead rate based on direct labor hours seemed justied. What did concern her, though, was the material waste that she observed in the plant. Maybe a standard cost system would be useful for increasing the overall cost efciency of the plant. Consequently, as part of her report to Lance, she decided to include a description of the fabric plant's costing procedures-at least for one of the fabric types. She also decided to develop a standard cost sheet for the chosen fabric. The furniture plant. however, was a more difcult matter. Product diversity was present and could be causing some distortions in product costs. Furthermore, statistical analysis revealed that only about 40 percent of the variability in overhead cost was explained by the direct labor hours. She decided that additional analysis was needed so that a sound product costing method could be reconrmended. One possibility would be to increase the number of overhead rates. Thus, she decided to include departmental data so that the effect of moving to departmental rate 5 could be assessed. Finally, she also wanted to explore the possibility of converting the sawmill and fabric plant into prot centers and changing the existing transfer pricing policy. With the cooperation of the cost accounting manager for the mill and each plant's controller, she gathered the following data for last year. Sawmill: Joint manufacturing costs: $900,000 Quantity Produced Price at Split-Off Grade (board feet) (per 1,000 board foot) Firsts and seconds 1,500,000 $300 No. 1 common 3,000,000 225 No. 2 common 1,875,000 140 No. 3 common 1,125,000 100 Total 7,500,000 Fabric Plant: Budgeted overhead: $1,200,000 (50% fixed) Practical volume (direct labor hours): 120,000 hours Actual overhead: $1, 150,000 (50% fixed) Actual hours worked: Weaving and Coloring and Pattern Bolting Total Fabric FB60 20,000 12,000 32,000 Fabric FB70 28,000 14,000 42,000 Fabric FB80 26,000 18,000 44,000 Total 74,000 44,000 1 18,000Departmental data on Fabric FB70 (actual costs and actual outcomes): Weaving and Coloring and Pattern Bolting Beginning inventories: Units* 20 ,000 400 Costs: Transferred in $0 $100,000 Weaving and Pattern Materials $80,000 labor $1 8,000 Overhead $22,000 Current production: Units started 80,000 Units transferred out 80,000 Costs: Transferred in $0 Materials $320,000 Labor $208,000 Overhead '? Percentage completion: Beginning inventory 30% Ending inventory 40% *Units are measured in yards for the Weaving and Pattern Department and in bolts for the Coloring and Bolting Department. Note: With the exception of the cardboard bolt rods, materials are added at the beginning of each process. The cost of the rods is relatively insignicant and is included in overhead. Coloring and Bolting $8,000 $6,600 $9,000 3,200 $82,000 $99,400 40% 50% Proposed standard cost sheet for Fabric FB 70 (for the Coloring and Bolting Department only): Transferred-in materials (25 yards@ $10) 5525000 Other materials (100 ounces @ $0.20) 2000 Labor (3.1 hours @ $8) 24.80 Fixed overhead (3.1 hours @ $5) 15-50 Variable overhead (3 .1 hours@ $5) 15- 50 Standard cost per unit $325.80 Furniture Plant: Departmental data (budgeted): Service Departments Producing Departments General Receiving Power Maintenance Cutting Assembly Factory Overhead $450,000 $600,000 $300,000 $525,000 $750,000 $3 75,000 Machine hours 60,000 1, 5 000 Receiving orders 13 ,5 00 9,000 Square feet 1:000 53000 4,000 15,000 10,000 Direct labor hours 50,000 200,000 after some discussion with the furniture plant controller, Gisela decided to use machine hours to calculate he overhead rate for the Cutting Department and direct labor hours for the Assembly Department rate (the Cutting Department was more automated than the Assembly Department). As part of her report, she wanted 0 compare the effects of plantwide rates and departmental rates on the cost of jobs. She wanted to know f overhead costing could be the source of the pricing problems the company was experiencing- Fo assess the effect of the different overhead assignment procedures, Gisela decided to examine two prospective obs. One job, Job A500, could produce 500 sofas, using a frequently requested style and Fabric FB70. Bids )n this type of job were being lost more frequently to competitors. The second job, Job B75, would produce 75 specially designed recliners. This job involved a new design and was more difcult for the workers to build. It nvolved some special cutting requirements and an unfamiliar assembly. Recently, the company seemed to be Winning more bids on jobs of this type. To compute the costs of the two jobs, Gisela assembled the following nformation on the two jobs: JobA500: JobB755: Direct materials: Fabric FB 70 Lumber (No. 1 common) Other components Direct labor: Cutting Department Assembly Department Machine time: 180 bolts @ $350 20,000 board feet@ $0.12 $26,600 400 hours@ $10 1,600 hours@ $8.75 Cutting Department 350 machine hours Assembly Department 50 machine hours Direct materials: Fabric FB70 26 yards @ $350 Lumber (rst and seconds) 2,200 board feet @ $0. 12 Other components Direct labor: Cutting Department Assembly Department Machine time: Cutting Department Assembly Department $3,236 70 hours@ $10 240 hours@ $8.75 90 machine hours 15 machine hours