Machining Sponsorship for FRC Teams

[anchorlabs]

Hey Chief Delphi,

I'm a FRC Alum. I posted a thread a few weeks back about my new startup Anchor Labs (self-service CNC machining cloud) and we are happy to announce our FRC sponsorship program. We will machine CNC parts for FRC teams for just the cost of material + machining time * hourly rate (we waive all setup/teardown costs for FRC teams) and expedite all team orders. We ask that teams that participate put our logo on their robot and marketing materials.

For teams with limited access to machine shop facilities or only manual machines, Anchor Labs will allow you to get precision CNC parts made at an affordable price. We allow users to design the toolpath in Fusion 360 themselves (and get an instant quote) or submit a CAD file from Fusion or Solidworks (manually quoted).

If you are interested, signup on our site http://anchorlabs.io and fill out this sponsorship application: https://goo.gl/forms/EaI4Jjh5hmNiVYvt2.

Good Luck This Season!
Sam

[anchorlabs]

I forgot to mention that if anyone has any questions, feel free to reply to this post or email support@anchorlabs.io.

[jfitz0807]

So, if you officially sponsor a team, then the cost of your machining servic s does not count against the cost of the robot. Is that correct?

[Ari423]

Originally Posted by jfitz0807

So, if you officially sponsor a team, then the cost of your machining servic s does not count against the cost of the robot. Is that correct?

Correct. Please , then read it again, then ask a friend who read it twice before posting a rules question.

Originally Posted by R12

The CAW cost of each non-KOP item must be calculated based on the unit fair market value for the material and/or labor, except for labor provided by Team members (including sponsor employees who are members of the team), members of other Teams, event provided Machine Shops and shipping.
...
Example 5: A Team purchases steel bar stock for $10 USD and has it machined by a local machine shop that is a recognized Sponsor of the Team. If the machinists are considered members of the Team, their labor costs do not apply. The total applicable cost for the part would be $10 USD.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Ari423

Correct. Please RTFM, then read it again, then ask a friend who read it twice before posting a rules question.

I don't think this is a correct reading of R12.

If money exchanges hands for material costs you'd be fine, because it would be like you buying the material and handing it to them.

The moment money exchanges hands for labor I don't think you could call the party receiving the money a sponsor and not account for the fair market value of their labor on your BOM. The example in the blue box you quoted is meant to read that "their labor costs (the normal hourly rate Machine Shop XYZ would charge paying customers) do not apply (when work is done at no cost to the FRC team)".

Unless you get a different response via Q&A you would need to account for the full dollar amount you paid Anchorlabs...but you would be getting a discount on that amount compared to if you were a random guy walking in off the street.

[Ari423]

Originally Posted by Cory

I don't think this is a correct reading of R12.

If money exchanges hands for material costs you'd be fine, because it would be like you buying the material and handing it to them.

The moment money exchanges hands for labor I don't think you could call the party receiving the money a sponsor and not account for the fair market value of their labor on your BOM. The example in the blue box you quoted is meant to read that "their labor costs (the normal hourly rate Machine Shop XYZ would charge paying customers) do not apply (when work is done at no cost to the FRC team)".

Unless you get a different response via Q&A you would need to account for the full dollar amount you paid Anchorlabs...but you would be getting a discount on that amount compared to if you were a random guy walking in off the street.

I see how you could argue that, and I see how you could argue the other way. R12 states that " labor provided by Team members (including sponsor employees who are members of the team)" is exempt from being included on the BoM. It doesn't say it's only exempt if it's provided for free. Definitely a Q&A question.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Ari423

I see how you could argue that, and I see how you could argue the other way. R12 states that " labor provided by Team members (including sponsor employees who are members of the team)" is exempt from being included on the BoM. It doesn't say it's only exempt if it's provided for free. Definitely a Q&A question.

Example 4: A Team purchases steel bar stock for $10 USD and has it
machined by a local machine shop. The machine shop is not considered
a team Sponsor, but donates two (2) hours of expended labor anyway.
The Team must include the estimated normal cost of the labor as if it
were paid to the machine shop, and add it to the $10 USD.

Similarities between Ex 4 and Ex 5: no money changed hands, labor was donated by machine shop.

Differences between Ex 4 and Ex 5: Machine shop was listed as a sponsor in TIMS.

I don't see how you could read those two examples and think that Example 5 exists for any reason other than to say "if you did what you did in Example 4, but put the sponsor in your team name instead, you don't have to account for FMV of labor".

Like you said, Q&A will sort it out in short order though.

[anchorlabs]

Originally Posted by Cory

Similarities between Ex 4 and Ex 5: no money changed hands, labor was donated by machine shop.

Differences between Ex 4 and Ex 5: Machine shop was listed as a sponsor in TIMS.

I don't see how you could read those two examples and think that Example 5 exists for any reason other than to say "if you did what you did in Example 4, but put the sponsor in your team name instead, you don't have to account for FMV of labor".

Like you said, Q&A will sort it out in short order though.

Cory's interpretation is how I've always understood it but how I interpret it is unimportant. I second asking it in the Q&A if you are interested.

[anchorlabs]

Excited to announce that our website now supports direct Solidworks uploads. You now can just drag your .sldprt files to the add part screen and they will be automatically imported into the online Anchor Labs portal for quoting.

[SamM]

Originally Posted by Cory

I don't see how you could read those two examples and think that Example 5 exists for any reason other than to say "if you did what you did in Example 4, but put the sponsor in your team name instead, you don't have to account for FMV of labor".

Like you said, Q&A will sort it out in short order though.

We attempted to ask the question, but I'm not sure the response answers the question any better than the manual currently does.

https://frc-qa.firstinspires.org/qa/327

It seems it is up to the team to determine if the employees doing the work are 'members' of the team, so in theory you could pay full cost for the machining but not include it in the CAW as long as you consider the workers members of the team.

I wonder how this works for companies that sponsor multiple teams; can employees be members of multiple teams?

[Oblarg]

Originally Posted by Cory

I don't think this is a correct reading of R12.

If money exchanges hands for material costs you'd be fine, because it would be like you buying the material and handing it to them.

The moment money exchanges hands for labor I don't think you could call the party receiving the money a sponsor and not account for the fair market value of their labor on your BOM. The example in the blue box you quoted is meant to read that "their labor costs (the normal hourly rate Machine Shop XYZ would charge paying customers) do not apply (when work is done at no cost to the FRC team)".

Unless you get a different response via Q&A you would need to account for the full dollar amount you paid Anchorlabs...but you would be getting a discount on that amount compared to if you were a random guy walking in off the street.

At the risk of derailing the thread, I am going to opine that this is a particularly deranged rule that results in many teams having robots that other teams could not legally field even if they were able to raise the money to get the machining done, and I'd love to see it changed so that all non-COTS parts that are not manufactured in-house must include fair market price for the labor. This might necessitate raising the budget cap, but it would be far more equitable.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by SamM

We attempted to ask the question, but I'm not sure the response answers the question any better than the manual currently does.

https://frc-qa.firstinspires.org/qa/327

It seems it is up to the team to determine if the employees doing the work are 'members' of the team, so in theory you could pay full cost for the machining but not include it in the CAW as long as you consider the workers members of the team.

I wonder how this works for companies that sponsor multiple teams; can employees be members of multiple teams?

You didn't ask the correct question. What you asked does not even tangentially cover the situation outlined above as far as I can tell.

What should have been asked is "R12 states that 'labor provided by Team members (including sponsor employees who are members of the team)' is exempt from being included on the CAW. Is this still true if Company A is listed as a sponsor of our team, but we pay company A for both material costs and the fair market value cost of their labor to fabricate us parts?"

Originally Posted by Oblarg

At the risk of derailing the thread, I am going to opine that this is a particularly deranged rule that results in many teams having robots that other teams could not legally field even if they were able to raise the money to get the machining done, and I'd love to see it changed so that all non-COTS parts that are not manufactured in-house must include fair market price for the labor. This might necessitate raising the budget cap, but it would be far more equitable.

The entire point of the rule is clearly to encourage teams to develop ties with local businesses so they can leverage resources they otherwise wouldn't have access to.

Some regions may not have the density of machine shops that others do, but nothing is ever 100% fair.

[Oblarg]

Originally Posted by Cory

The entire point of the rule is clearly to encourage teams to develop ties with local businesses so they can leverage resources they otherwise wouldn't have access to.

Some regions may not have the density of machine shops that others do, but nothing is ever 100% fair.

How is developing ties with a machine shop that offers to donate machining time ostensibly more consistent with the mission of FIRST than, say, developing ties with a tech company that offers to pay for said machining?

Why should one of these allow you to have a robot whose true cost is not reflected in the stated budget, but not the other?

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Oblarg

How is developing ties with a machine shop that offers to donate machining time ostensibly more consistent with the mission of FIRST than, say, developing ties with a tech company that offers to pay for said machining?

Why should one of these allow you to have a robot whose true cost is not reflected in the stated budget, but not the other?

If a tech company offers to pay for the machining I see no difference between that and a machine shop donating the labor directly. It's just the tech company donating the service in that case. I would argue parts made in either scenario could be used without accounting for FMV of the labor.

[Bob Steele]

Originally Posted by Oblarg

How is developing ties with a machine shop that offers to donate machining time ostensibly more consistent with the mission of FIRST than, say, developing ties with a tech company that offers to pay for said machining?

Why should one of these allow you to have a robot whose true cost is not reflected in the stated budget, but not the other?

i have to agree with Cory on this one. We are not talking about the mission of FIRST We are speaking about the rules. If I had a mentor that offered to purchase something for me.... or a sponsor.... that does not diminish the cost of the item for the BOM, donated items must still be accounted for even if the donor gives them to you freely (unless they are in the KOP,etc)

With this argument, a team could list McMaster Carr as a sponsor and not have to list any of the items they purchase from them on the BOM. This is not the intent of the rules for BOM.

I believe the rule as stated just indicates that "DONATED" labor does not have to included.... If you are paying for the labor (or machine time or whatever it is described as..) it is not donated.... so that cost should be included.

We have great relationships with a number of industrial companies, some of which are SPONSORS for us and some are just sources of mentors or demos or field trips. If I purchased something from them I would have to put it in the BOM. (with the caveat of the KOP, etc).

Our team cut parts for well over 10 teams last year and wlll continue to do this for any team that needs the help. I don't think that (with only one exception) any of them asked us for our machine time cost estimates or considered us a sponsor. I am NOT asking to be a sponsor, but I do wonder how many teams really understand this rule.