Instead of 0.29 the standard cost shows 99.214 and...
# manufacturing
s
Instead of 0.29 the standard cost shows 99.214 and support is saying it’s because one of subassembly has 20,000 as standard cost but I cannot find which one they are referring to
d
Do you have 'Production Units' setup on the subassembly different from 'Stock Units' ?
s
production unit? you mean consumption unit? Yes
d
Ohh yes, consumption units they are a newer field. If that is different from your stocking or purchase units, it could be the reason your roll-up is creating the inflated valuation.
Depending on your supply type in the location in can cause the roll-up logic to evaluate differently. I'm not sure if the newer consumption unit field is included in the are cost regal process since it's new
s
I am not sure either and NS Support is not willing to look more in detail, I still haven’t given up the hope but I am not holding my breath either.
d
If you check the effective cost revaluation transaction for that assembly/location you can check the expected qty that it used. I'd expect to see a factor equal to the UOM
s
I see it, but NetSuite is unwilling to accept, I even did the calculation and showed them but they are saying one the component is incorrect, I sent them the screenshot of that component showing the value which was correct but we don’t have premium support so I cannot call them, I have to wait for their email, which sometimes comes in 24 hours and sometimes takes forever
d
You can see the component(s) that have a greater quantity in the cost revaluation transaction? What is the supply type for that component in the same location as the reval?
s
Components have normal quantities of .1 or .001 or 1 each, Source is stock, ns support was saying standard cost for one the component is high and that is the reason why parent item is pricing higher which is not the case. I am not sure of the expertise level of the rep that emailed me, I understand new features can be buggy but they need to look deeper in order to evaluate that.
d
you'll have to lay it out pretty definitively if you want the support case to get escalated or go further, I would double check the component cost quantities being populated in the Cost Reval transaction and provide them the math showing where it is incorrect. For NS to qualify this as a true defect, it has to be concrete