CS PowerPoint- 2 Part Assignment

SELECTION OF A PRESSURE VESSEL MANUFACTURER

On August 1, the engineering department hand-carried a purchase requisition to Jack Toole,

supply manager, Oceanics, Inc. The requisition covered the purchase of one pressure vessel to

Oceanics’ specifications as outlined in the requisition. Immediately, Jack went to work. He

prepared a request for quotations asking twenty major pressure vessel manufacturers to have their

proposals in his hands no later than Wednesday, August 31. The response to Jack’s request for

quotations was amazing.

During the month of August, eighteen of the twenty companies hurriedly prepared their

proposals and submitted them to Jack within the allotted bidding time. As each proposal was

received on Jack’s desk, copies were forwarded to the engineer and manufacturing engineer for

preliminary evaluation. By September 5, Jack called a meeting in his office with the engineer, Mr.

Holpine, and the manufacturing engineer, Mr. Grinn.

During the course of the meeting, proposals were carefully screened and bidders were

eliminated one by one until two companies remained. It was a difficult decision for the group to

decide which of the two companies submitted the better proposal. The advantages and

disadvantages of each supplier appeared to be about equal. Jack pointed out that Atomic Products

Company submitted a lower estimated price, guaranteed the equipment, was more suitably

located, and would meet the required delivery date. Jack also pointed out to Grinn and Holpine

that Nuclear Vessels, Inc., offered Oceanics lower hourly and overhead rates, a minimum amount

of subcontracting, and excellent past experience in making similar vessels. Jack stated that a field

trip would be necessary to talk with both suppliers to determine which one was best qualified. At

this point, the meeting was adjourned and plans were made to visit both companies the following

week. (See Exhibits 1 and 2.)

In following through with supply management policy, Jack called the vice president of

Oceanics’ New York sales office and advised him of the potential trip. Jack learned that Atomic

Products was a potential customer for Oceanics’ products, but Oceanics’ sales representatives

were unable to get into the plant to meet key people responsible for procurement of major

equipment. The vice president of sales stated that a sales rep would be at the airport to meet

Oceanics’ representatives and take them to the Atomic Products Company first thing Monday

morning. Jack phoned the president, Mr. Wilcox, and advised him that representatives from

Oceanics would like to be at his plant Monday morning to review his plant facilities and meet the

responsible people. The president did not appear to be enthusiastic, but said that he would be

pleased to see them when they arrived.

EXHIBIT 1 Atomic Products Company, New York, N.Y.

We are pleased to submit a proposal in accordance with your request for the manufacture of one

pressure vessel in accordance with your sketch #835 and all referenced specifications pointed out

in your letter of August 2.

Price. Because of the potential changes pointed out in your invitation to bid, and in line with your

request, the work will be performed on a cost-plus-a-fixed-fee contract detailed as follows:

a. Total price: Estimated cost $1,120,000

Fixed fee 112,000

Total $1,232,000

b. Costing rate: Estimated shop rate $24/hour

Shop overhead 180%

Material Cost + 10% handling charge

Shop facilities. There are adequate facilities at our New York Plant to manufacture the vessel and

meet the specification to the fullest extent possible. We invite you and your associates to visit our

facilities.

Past experience. Our company has not made vessels of this size but does have the equipment and

know-how necessary to perform the work. Our experience has been in working with vessels up to

60” in length, I.D. 30” and 3” wall.

Subcontracting. We will be able to fabricate the entire vessel without exception in our shop.

Organization. A total of 2,000 employees is directly associated with our division.

Delivery. The pressure vessel will be shipped f.o.b. shipping point via rail in 6 months providing

there are no engineering changes.

Guarantee. We guarantee workmanship and materials to be in accordance with the specifications

that were supplied to us at the time of this proposal.

EXHIBIT 2 Nuclear Vessels, Inc., Houston, Texas

Reference is made to your invitation to bid dated August 2 to manufacture the pressure vessel in

accordance with your negative #835, and referenced specifications and any future changes

necessary.

Price. The work will be performed on a cost-plus-a-fixed-fee basis, broken down as follows:

a. Total price: Estimated cost $1,560,000

Fixed fee 1

Total $1,560,001

b. Costing rates: Estimated shop rate $16/hour

Shop overhead 160%

Material At cost

Shop facilities. We have adequate shop facilities to manufacture and deliver the vessel and would

be pleased to have representatives from your company visit our facilities at any time.

Past experience. The company has had extensive experience in manufacturing pressure vessels of

heavy plate. Vessels 80” I.D., 40’ long, 5” thick and many others have been handled by this

company.

Subcontracting. It will not be necessary for the company to subcontract any of the forming,

welding, machining, or testing for this work. However, forgings will be purchased from a

competent supplier after he has satisfied the company’s metallurgist that his forgings will meet

the specifications.

Organization. The Supply, Expediting, Quality Control, Production and other departments will

each have one man assigned to follow this project from start to finish. Forms and records are

available for your review. Our organization is familiar with Oceanics requirements from

knowledge gained as a result of previous work accomplished for your division.

Delivery. The pressure vessel will be shipped f.o.b. shipping point, Houston, Texas, to your

Pittsburgh location within your required delivery time of six months or shortly thereafter.

Guarantee. This company will guarantee only workmanship. The rigid material specifications

make it difficult for our supplier to furnish plate without any inclusion of slag deposits. Oceanics

will have to stand the costs of any plate rejected or repaired after being tested by ultrasonic

methods. Such costs can be negotiated after such defects are found.

Another call was also made to Nuclear Vessels’ president, Mr. Winninghoff, who was

quite enthusiastic about the potential visit and asked if he could meet the group at the airport,

make hotel reservations, or perform other courtesies. Jack advised Mr. Winninghoff that these

matters were taken care of and that an Oceanics’ sales representative for the Houston, Texas, area

would accompany the group during the visit.

Monday morning, Messrs. Toole, Grinn, and Holpine took off from Pittsburgh and

arrived at Kennedy Airport in New York. Mr. Morgan, the sales manager of Oceanics’ New York

office, met the group and drove them to the main office of the Atomic Products Company. The

group registered, obtained passes, and went to the conference room. Shortly thereafter, the

manager of production, Mr. Strickland, entered, introduced himself, and stated that the president

was tied up but would see them later in the day. Jack Toole opened the meeting by stating that

Atomic Products’ proposal was among the top contenders for supplying the pressure vessel and it

was Oceanics’ desire to look over Atomic Products’ facilities and meet the people responsible for

the job. Jack Toole asked Holpine to explain in greater detail the use of the vessel in the reactor

system and to give Mr. Strickland some background on the engineering work relating to the

vessel. Mr. Grinn reviewed the manufacturing aspects of the vessel as required by the basic

specifications. Near the end of this discussion, Jack Toole asked Mr. Strickland if Holpine’s and

Grinn’s comments had the same meaning as Atomic Products’ interpretation of the specifications.

Mr. Strickland agreed, but was somewhat concerned over the rigid cleaning specification. As he

told the group, “It is difficult for a shop our size to construct a temporary building around the

pressure vessel, make such a building airtight, and compel our workmen to wear white coveralls

and gloves, and to adhere to surgical cleanliness requirements. I doubt if we can erect such a

building in our present shop area. Instead, we may add a lean-to to the outside of our existing

buildings.”

The meeting with the production manager lasted one hour; then the group commenced to

tour the shop. Grinn noted that most of the machines, such as the vertical boring mill, horizontal

mill planer, radial drills, and beam press, were comparatively new and well maintained.

Jack Toole wondered why Atomic Products’ estimated cost was lower than Nuclear

Vessels’, yet Atomic Products’ costing rates were somewhat higher. With this thought in mind,

he asked Mr. Strickland, “Do you consider your shop to be better equipped than your

competitors’?” Mr. Strickland replied that it was their management’s feeling that this shop was

the best equipped in the United States to handle such vessels, and that even though the shop rates

were higher than other shops, they would turn out more work in less time than any competitor.

Holpine asked Mr. Strickland why their past experience was limited to smaller-sized vessels, to

which Mr. Strickland replied that they could handle any size vessel up to and beyond the one

required by Oceanics, but had never received a contract for such vessels.

Atomic Products Company was a union shop that had had several major strikes during

the past few years. There were 2,000 people employed, and the plant covered approximately

470,000 square feet of floor area.

The general appearance of the shop was excellent. The group noticed that the aisles were

clean; that there was ample lighting, adequate ventilation, up-to-date laboratories, and good

inspection facilities; and that the overall appearance of the building was extremely neat and well

ordered.

The group pointed out several items in production and asked Mr. Strickland the ultimate

use of these products. They received a vague reply, such as, “These are a number of special jobs

we have in the shop that we can handle without any trouble.”

Mr. Strickland interrupted a group of employees standing in a corner and asked one of

them to show the group the inspection and quality control departments. Both departments were

well staffed and had up-to-date equipment.

The group asked Mr. Strickland to show them control of incoming materials vital to

potential Oceanics’ work. Wrong material that might possibly get into such a pressure vessel

would contaminate the entire nuclear system. Mr. Strickland did not offer the group any evidence

of materials control, but stated that they had produced hundreds of smaller vessels and had no

trouble in the segregation of materials.

The metallurgical and chemical laboratories were well staffed and could provide

Oceanics with adequate test specimens required by the specifications.

At the end of the tour, the group met with the president, who asked, “Do you think that

our facilities are adequate to do the job?” Jack Toole replied that the facilities were impressive,

but that the final selection of the supplier would be determined by many factors and that facilities

were only part of the total evaluation. The president then replied, “If you want us to do the work,

let us know and we will commence contract negotiations.”

Several days later, Messrs. Toole, Grinn, and Holpine left New York and flew to Houston,

Texas, for a visit to Nuclear Vessels, Inc. When the group registered in the hotel at 5 p.m., they

found a call waiting for them from Mr. Winninghoff, president of Nuclear Vessels. Mr.

Winninghoff asked the group to meet that evening at the Houston Country Club for dinner and

business discussions. At 1:30 a.m., the group returned to the hotel.

The following morning, the Nuclear Vessels’ chauffeur met Oceanics’ team and the

representative from Oceanics’ sales office at the hotel and took them to Mr. Winninghoff’s office.

In the office, Mr. Winninghoff was waiting with the vice president of engineering, vice president

of marketing, vice president of manufacturing, and other key figures in the organization. Jack

Toole opened the meeting in much the same manner as was done at Atomic Products Company.

After the Oceanics’ people had gone into detail on the vessel, Jack Toole asked Mr. Winninghoff

if they had any questions concerning the specifications. There were no comments, so the entire

group commended to tour the shop.

Mr. Grinn immediately noticed that the company’s machines were of considerable age

and not of large capacity, but adequate for the job. Some outside subcontracting work for the

close machining tolerances would be required. Mr. Winninghoff stated: “True, we may not have

all the necessary machines here, but there are ample machines available at other divisions, such as

the large vertical boring mill at our El Paso, Texas, subsidiary plant. The schedule is such that we

can move work into other divisions without delay.” It was noted that general working conditions

such as heating, lighting, ventilation, and cleanliness were not as adequate as Atomic Products’.

Jack Toole noted that the higher estimated cost resulted from more man-hours required to make

the vessel because of less adequate machines.

Mr. Winninghoff stopped by one of the shop foremen and asked, “Say, Sam, how about

giving these gentlemen from Oceanics an idea of what your group will be doing in the forming

and rolling of the pressure vessel?” Sam had several of his men stop work to show the equipment

available and its intended use. Mr. Winninghoff mentioned to the group that their plant had been

on a profit-sharing plan since it was organized. The employees never organized a union.

There appeared to be effective control between management and the shop. For instance,

to carry out the work fully, one member each from supply, expediting, quality control, and

scheduling was assigned to a task force headed by a project engineer. It was the responsibility of

this task force to follow the entire project through the shop and keep the project engineer

informed on a day-to-day basis.

Nuclear Vessels had constructed one vessel considerably larger than the vessel required

by Oceanics. Mr. Winninghoff claimed that they ran into numerous problems at the beginning of

manufacturing and that the experience gained in the production of such a large vessel made them

change their organization for closer follow-up. They also changed the type of paperwork and

records for better control of material. The group noticed that each piece of material in the shop

was marked for the project of its intended use. The metallurgical and chemical laboratories were

very large, but much of their equipment was old. They appeared to have adequate room for the

location of a cleaning room.

On Friday of the same week, Toole called a meeting of Holpine and Grinn to evaluate the

two companies being considered. Holpine argued strongly that Nuclear Vessels should be given a

contract because of their extreme enthusiasm to carry out the job, their past experience in

manufacturing pressure vessels of equal size, and their previous Oceanics experience. Said

Holpine, “Atomic Products has not had experience with our rigid specifications and the price and

delivery will probably slip.” Grinn argued that Atomic Products should be the company selected

because of their adequate shop and laboratory facilities, location, ability to meet delivery date,

and ability to guarantee the vessel.

Neither Holpine nor Grinn took into consideration the cost, the company’s organization,

guarantees, and other business considerations. It was Jack Toole’s responsibility to evaluate both

of these companies and show which company should be given the contract.

1. What specific areas and activities should the Oceanics group have investigated on its

two visits?

2. Evaluate each supplier on each of the above items using information obtained on the

field visits.

3. Based on the face value of the written proposals, which company appeared to submit

the better offer?

4. Based on the proposal plus information obtained from the case history, which

company is likely to be the better supplier?

5. What do you recommend?