We switched to purchasing job materials this week instead of purchasing to inventory. Our purchasing department noticed when entering in the job and material, that the unit price was being pulled from the average cost in the system and not the supplier price list like we had set up in the past.
Any ideas on how to get this to default back to the supplier price list?
When the part is entered in the job, its cost (estimated price) is pulled from the partcost (based on the cost method). This is nothing new to you.
When a mtl is purchase to job, it pulls the price from the est cost on the job.
Did you actually make the parts non-Qty Bearing, so the po line type is actually Buy for Job? Or are you just entering job info (job num, asy seq, and mtl seq) on the PO, while leaving it Buy for Stock? We saw odd behaviour when doing the latter.
That is a very odd way of handling job mtls. Pulling an estimated cost instead of the suppliers actual costs. Proposes a problem if you have multiple vendors for the same part or they ever change pricing.
The parts are qty bearing but are being purchased as job materials, not to inventory. Yes using jobnum mtlseq assemblyseq.
What other odd behavior did you notice? Wondering if I am missing anything else. If not I could just use a bpm to grab the cost from the vendor price list table.
To be clear, I’m guessing that is what is happening from what you described.
I don’t recall the details, but when a PO was entered for Buy to Stock (which it has to be for Qty Bearing parts), and we entered Job info (like it is a Buy To Job) or Order info (Like it is a buy to Order), it caused some confusion in the system.
Did a quick test:
What you’d need to do is make a BPM that changes the Unit cost of the Job Material, when the Purchase Direct flag changes. This might be tricky if there are more than one supplier for that part.
Yes your test is exactly what I see in my environment.
I think I am going to try to make a BPM on the PO, that way I can get around the whole vendor issue.