Machining Sponsorship for FRC Teams

[FrankJ]

Originally Posted by Bob Steele

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.

The rule this year specifically allows other teams to donate labor so cost accounting is not required. The rule lawyer in me also observes that the rule doesn't address rather or not the sponsor's machinist is paid or by whom. Just rather or not he is considered a member of the team drives the requirement for cost accounting.

[Oblarg]

Originally Posted by Cory

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.

Okay, let's take this and run with it.

Money is fungible. Is it substantively different if said tech company donates $5000 to my team, and specifies that it is for machining, or if they donate $5000 without said specification and we spend it on machining? Even if the budget works out exactly the same regardless of said specification?

I think it's pretty silly to argue that these are somehow fundamentally different situations - in fact, if we say that they are, then anyone can get around this rule simply by going to sponsors who have donated money and asking those sponsors to specify (somewhat meaninglessly) that the money is to be used for machining. Which means that, if we follow this logic, any machining that is ultimately paid for by money that comes from a sponsor ought to not count towards the robot budget.

If this is indeed how the rule works: Great! The rule is effectively not there, and there's no problem.

But I doubt that this is how the rule works, and thus the rule seems utterly defective.

[Jon Stratis]

All this discussion... The rule and the blue box BOTH are pretty clear

except for labor provided by Team members (including sponsor
employees who are members of the team)

If the machinists are considered members of the Team, their labor
costs do not apply

It doesn't matter if the company is a sponsor or not. What matters is if the machinist is a member of the team. Most of the people discussing this probably don't even live within driving distance of Anchor Labs... are you seriously going to try to tell your inspector that a machinist you've never met, and maybe don't even know their name, who lives and works 1000 miles away and whose time you paid for is a member of your team?

Lets try to be realistic here. I've seen the rule stretched, but I can't really imagine trying to stretch it that far.

Don't get me wrong, what Anchor Labs is doing here is awesome for teams. Having an easily accessible machining resource for teams that don't have access to local sponsors that can do it is much needed.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Oblarg

Okay, let's take this and run with it.

Money is fungible. Is it substantively different if said tech company donates $5000 to my team, and specifies that it is for machining, or if they donate $5000 without said specification and we spend it on machining? Even if the budget works out exactly the same regardless of said specification?

I think it's pretty silly to argue that these are somehow fundamentally different situations - in fact, if we say that they are, then anyone can get around this rule simply by going to sponsors who have donated money and asking those sponsors to specify (somewhat meaninglessly) that the money is to be used for machining. Which means that, if we follow this logic, any machining that is ultimately paid for by money that comes from a sponsor ought to not count towards the robot budget.

If this is indeed how the rule works: Great! The rule is effectively not there, and there's no problem.

But I doubt that this is how the rule works, and thus the rule seems utterly defective.

I don't think either of those situations is different. Both would require you to account for the FMV on your CAW, in my (not official) opinion.

The situation I think is different is you go to company XYZ and say "Hey can you make us part ABC?". They say yes. They then either make it themselves or farm the work out to someone else and return a finished product to you.

I think in this case you could exclude the cost of their labor as they are donating those specific machined parts to you, not cash which you are allocating towards machining. Whether they fabricated those parts internally or externally is of no consequence to you because money did not flow from you to a vendor in exchange for fabricated parts.

That being said I think this is a stupid comparison because it's a lot easier to find a machine shop willing to donate (as a random example) $5000 of labor than it is to find a company willing to donate $5000 earmarked for use at a machine shop. Nor would $5,000 of your cold hard cash best be used paying a machine shop to make parts, regardless of whether it was legal.

[anchorlabs]

Hey Everyone!

As the season beings to wrap up we wanted to announce that this Saturday (Feb 11) will be the last day we are able to guarantee delivery before stop build date.

It's been really great working with so many teams this year and we are looking forward to continuing to collaborate during the offseason and into next year.

Best,
Sam