YMTC: did Team Blueabot cook the books?

[Richard Wallace]

(Apologies to Natchez for unauthorized use of the YMTC theme.)

Team Blueabot is one of 10 FRC teams receiving support from Blueasponsor Inc.

Blueasponsor produces large quantities of several popular robot-making materials and allocates some of its inventory to the teams they sponsor. These materials are also made by other companies, and are available from several distributors such as FW Grainger, McMaster-Carr, Ch33pstuff.com and others. The materials are LIGHTSTUFF, STRONGSTUFF, and COOLSTUFF.

All the distributors offer these materials in the same minimum order quantities. Ch33pstuff.com has the lowest distributor prices, which are as follows:

LIGHTSTUFF is available in one pound bags. A single bag costs $300. If you buy 10 or more bags then each bag costs $200.

STRONGSTUFF is available in 1/2" diameter x 36" long rods. A single rod costs $300. If you buy 10 or more rods then each rod costs $200.

COOLSTUFF is available in several sheet sizes, all of which are 3/8" thick. The smallest sheet available is 12" x 12" and costs $400 for a single sheet, or $250 each if you buy 10 or more sheets. A 24" x 24" sheet costs $1000 for a single sheet, or $600 each if you buy 10 or more sheets.

Blueasponsor sends each of its teams 5 bags of LIGHTSTUFF, 6 rods of STRONGSTUFF, and one 24" x 24" sheet of COOLSTUFF.

To build Blueabot, the team uses all of its LIGHTSTUFF, four rods of STRONGSTUFF, and two 5" diameter parts cut from COOLSTUFF, plus $499 worth of sprockets and chains that they buy with some of the money they raise by holding a car wash and a pancake breakfast. All other materials used to build Blueabot come from the 2005 FRC kit-of-parts.

At inspection, Team Blueabot presents a cost accounting sheet that looks like this:

LIGHTSTUFF 5 lb. x $200/bag = $1000
STRONGSTUFF 4 rods x $200/rod = $800
COOLSTUFF one 12"x12" sheet x $250/sheet = $250
Other stuff (chains and sprockets) $499
TOTAL cost of non-kit materials $2549

You are the robot inspector. Did Team Blueabot comply with the 2005 FRC cost accounting rules? Does Blueabot pass inspection?

Citing the appropriate rules, you make the call.

[Billfred]

I thought long and hard about this one, and had to comb through the rules to be sure. Here's the part I found:

Originally Posted by 5.3.4.4 (page 16)

The cost of items purchased in bulk or large quantities may be prorated on the basis of the smallest commonly available unit that satisfies the need for the item.

The way I read it, they needed five pounds of LIGHTSTUFF ($300 x 5 = $1500 at the smallest commonly available unit), four rods of STRONGSTUFF ($1200), and one 12"x12" (I believe the 24x24 mention was a typo, but it doesn't really matter) of COOLSTUFF ($400), and other stuff ($499). Mrs. Tyer in fourth grade taught me that this should total $3599. Denied.

[billbo911]

Man, this is like a MENSA test.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 5.3.4.4 (page 16)
The cost of items purchased in bulk or large quantities may be prorated on the basis of the smallest commonly available unit that satisfies the need for the item..

Let's pick the rule apart first.
It says "may" not must. So for the purposes this discussion, you can choose either the actual cost paid, or a prorated amount based on the amount used and base that amount on the cost needed to meet just the quantity required.
So.....

LIGHTSTUFF
1Lb-9LB @ $300/LB, 10Lbs @ $200/lb = $2000.
Needed 5Lb Therefore, 5LB would be $1500 period. They only received 5 Lbs.

STRONGSTUFF
1-9 Rods @ $300/rod, 10 Rods @ $200 = $2000.
Needed 4 Rods. Therefore, 4 Rods could be $1200 or $1800. They received 6.

COOLSTUFF
1-9 12" X 12" Sheet @ $400/sheet, 10+ sheets @ $400/sheet
1-9 24" X 24" Sheet @ $250/sheet, 10+ sheets @ $1000/sheet
Needed 1 12" X 12" sheet. Therefore, $400 or $1000, they received a 24" X 24".

Now lets consider which values make more sense to use. My thought is:
LIGHTSTUFF $1500
STRONGSTUFF $1200
COOLSTUFF $400
Additional stuff $499

Total $3599 C'Ya next year!

Sponsorship is great. Using their stuff is cool. Getting it free is better. Going over budget BITES!!!

Do Your Math!!!!

[Kris Verdeyen]

Here's a scenario to consider:

Greenateam, who is obviously not sponsored by Bluasponsor, found a great way to use 9 pounds of LIGHTSTUFF on their bot. They have $900 of other things on their machine, and weigh 119 pounds.

Greenateam's inspection sheet looks like this:
LIGHTSTUFF: 9 pounds at $300/ pound = $2700
Other stuff: $900

Total: $3600

"Oh crap!" says Bill Greena, leader of Greenateam, "What are we gonna do?"
They sit all day Thursday wondering how they're going to be able to get rid of 2 1/3 pounds of LIGHTSTUFF to make the pro-rated cost requirement.

Then, the little freshman Tiny Tim Greena looks up at his daddy and says, "What if we put one more pound of LIGHTSTUFF on?"

Bill reworks the numbers and comes up with:
LIGHTSTUFF: 10 pounds at $200/pound = $2000
Other stuff: $900
Total $2900

Hmmmmmmm.......

[billbo911]

Kris,
That's doing your math..................outside the box!!!!

Good call!!!!!!!!!

[Anthony]

We should also remember the fact that the FIRST Manual is not supposed to be enterpreted with lawyer speak. If so you could make it say many things.

Other than that, I am in agreement that this should be scored as an overage in funds usage.

Originally Posted by billbo911

Man, this is like a MENSA test.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 5.3.4.4 (page 16)
The cost of items purchased in bulk or large quantities may be prorated on the basis of the smallest commonly available unit that satisfies the need for the item..

Let's pick the rule apart first.
It says "may" not must. So for the purposes this discussion, you can choose either the actual cost paid, or a prorated amount based on the amount used and base that amount on the cost needed to meet just the quantity required.
So.....

[billbo911]

Originally Posted by Anthony

We should also remember the fact that the FIRST Manual is not supposed to be enterpreted with lawyer speak. If so you could make it say many things.

Other than that, I am in agreement that this should be scored as an overage in funds usage.

Anthony is right on the money.
My intent was and is not to pick these rules apart. That would be totally distracting from the entire goal of FIRST.
That said, I would like to point out that we live in a highly litigious society. People will always be looking for loopholes to use to twist things to make them work in their favor. That's why I love rules that are written with very little wiggle room. If it's clear what the rule is, without room for question, or interpretation then people will follow it correctly. But, if there is room for varying interpretations, believe me, there will be challenges to how the rule should be applied to different circumstances.

When FIRST establishes rules, they have to try to anticipate varying situations. The setup for this YMTC is a perfect example. I think it illustrates the ability to use differing interpretations of a rule to achieve an outcome that beneficial to the situation.

Again as Anthony said: "...you could make it say many things."

Trying to interpret a rule as it was intended may be more difficult than first glance would lead you to believe.

[Matt Reiland]

As an inspector, and as a volunteer, and as an engineer on a team, if there is a way to get a team to pass inspection and allow them to compete I would most likely do it. That is what our job is, as told to us by FIRST.
Our robot this year was cut from a sheet of 1/4" aluminum and left many small parts, I would not account for each part as a small piece of aluminum, only the large piece that we bought to make all of the smaller pieces since it is the cheapest. My interpretation of the rule is that it is there to help teams if they need it. If they buy a large sheet and it is cheaper than use that price, if they bought a large expensive sheet but only used a small amount and it is cheaper to account for it buy prorating the cost to a smaller amount I say go for it. I know there has to be some line, not like we are going to use the cost for 100 tons of aluminum then divide it up smaller.

There are many solutions to the above problem also, I could say I needed to buy that larger cheaper amount to account for scrap in the process of machining, laser cutting, or water jet cutting. After the processing on the parts the total amount used on the robot might only be half but due to the process you might always need to buy more even though you can't use it on the robot , or teams may have made doubles of everything for spares and the cost of the spares didn't need to be accounted for. (We have quite a few bad parts from the laser cutting experience through 1/4" Aluminum)

I think the Bill of Materials is pretty much a joke anyway, the cost of the materials on some of the robots is a very VERY tiny fraction of the cost to fabricate them, and this cost is magically ALWAYS covered by the team's sponsors on every BOM I have ever looked at. I can't even guess how much money the machining would have cost on some robots this year, if it were not being done by sponsors of the team.

So did Blueabot cook the books, maybe but I would still let them compete. As an inspector, how would I know if the $499 they say they spent on sprockets was really $700? or $1000, I have no reference in front of me for some of these items to know the real cost. Along the same lines how would I know what Strongstuff and Lightstuff really costs unless I used it on my own robot?? On a side note I don't think I saw a Bill of Materials for over $2800 at WMR.

[Kris Verdeyen]

Originally Posted by billbo911

Trying to interpret a rule as it was intended may be more difficult than first glance would lead you to believe.

This rule was intended simply to make it hard on teams that send parts out to be fabricated. It keeps a team from subcontracting out (or buying off-the-shelf) their robot (and for that matter, their student's inspiration).

The actual dollar value they used is arbitrary. $3500 isn't any better or worse than $4000 or $3000, but they needed a number, and that's the one we got. Furthermore, whether a specific item is worth $200 or $400 isn't important, as long as we all use the same way of pricing it. It seems silly to me that, in the situation I laid out above, a team could make their robot cheaper by adding a pound of stuff to it, but that's the rule as it's written.

Exercises like this (YMTC) are great for seeing precisely where the lines will be drawn in practice, so that we all play by the same rules. They can help us see a side of a situation that we might not have considered (like Jack's post above). They're also useful to find situations like the one I outlined above, where the rule as it's written doesn't seem to make perfect sense.

[Don Wright]

This is INTERESTINGSTUFF...

They should not pass inspection.

From 5.3.4.4: "The fair market value of an item obtained at a discount or as a donation. Fair market value is that
price at which the item would be normally offered by the supplier to other customers."

For the parts that they used, and the fair market value based on the quantities used, the cost of the robot should have been:

LIGHTSTUFF: (5) * $300 = $1500
STRONGSTUFF: (4) * $300 = $1200
COOLSTUFF: (1) * $400 = $400
Other: $499

Total: $3599

From rule <R44>

"The total cost of all non-Kit items may not exceed $3,500.00 USD."

In my opinion, getting price discounts based on quantity buy buying in quantity but not using the quantity is getting around the rules.

[Biff]

Originally Posted by Don Wright

This is INTERESTINGSTUFF...

They should not pass inspection.

From 5.3.4.4: "The fair market value of an item obtained at a discount or as a donation. Fair market value is that
price at which the item would be normally offered by the supplier to other customers."

For the parts that they used, and the fair market value based on the quantities used, the cost of the robot should have been:

LIGHTSTUFF: (5) * $300 = $1500
STRONGSTUFF: (4) * $300 = $1200
COOLSTUFF: (1) * $400 = $400
Other: $499

Total: $3599

From rule <R44>

"The total cost of all non-Kit items may not exceed $3,500.00 USD."

In my opinion, getting price discounts based on quantity buy buying in quantity but not using the quantity is getting around the rules.

Close.. but they only used 39.25 sq inches of coolstuff (2.5 x 2.5x 3.14 x2), so 144 sq in at $400.00 is $2.77 per square in and 39.25 x 2.77 = $109.03 The total then is $3199 + $109.03 = $3308.03 under with a little to spare. I tend to agree that you should go with the non discount price. But If you are a team that builds two bots, or are buying in quantity for next year, a discount is a discount. Save the money but put the higher cost down as the "book" cost of the bot.

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by Biff

Close.. but they only used 39.25 sq inches of coolstuff (2.5 x 2.5x 3.14 x2), so 144 sq in at $400.00 is $2.77 per square in and 39.25 x 2.77 = $109.03

The applicable rule was cited above in this thread:

Originally Posted by Billfred

5.3.4.4 (page 16)
The cost of items purchased in bulk or large quantities may be prorated on the basis of the smallest commonly available unit that satisfies the need for the item.

In this case the smallest commonly available unit that satisfies the need for the item is one 12"x12" sheet of COOLSTUFF at $400. The actual quantity that ended up on the robot is irrelevant. So Don Wright is right.

[DevilDuckie1266]

ok everyone sounds so technical and down to the point. I'm not sure if you can do this, but we got a parent to offer to pay for some metal and i THINK ( not sur eon this one) that we counted it as a donation, and doesn't that make it "free" so then you don't go over? Correct me if i'm wrong tho, i'm not sure if you can/ if we did do that. Just somthign to think about?

[Jack Jones]

Originally Posted by Richard

(Apologies to Natchez for unauthorized use of the YMTC theme.)

Team Blueabot is one of 10 FRC teams receiving support from Blueasponsor Inc.

Blueasponsor produces large quantities of several popular robot-making materials and allocates some of its inventory to the teams they sponsor
....
LIGHTSTUFF is available in one pound bags. A single bag costs $300. If you buy 10 or more bags then each bag costs $200.
...

At inspection, Team Blueabot presents a cost accounting sheet that looks like this:

LIGHTSTUFF 5 lb. x $200/bag = $1000
STRONGSTUFF 4 rods x $200/rod = $800
COOLSTUFF one 12"x12" sheet x $250/sheet = $250
Other stuff (chains and sprockets) $499
TOTAL cost of non-kit materials $2549

You are the robot inspector. Did Team Blueabot comply with the 2005 FRC cost accounting rules? Does Blueabot pass inspection?

Citing the appropriate rules, you make the call.

Answers to questions:

Did Team Blueabot comply with the 2005 FRC cost accounting rules?: NO
Does Blueabot pass inspection? YES

The mitigating issue is that all the other STUFFs must have been produced from LIGHTSTUFF. Therefore, all the labor performed by Bluasponsor to get from LIGHTSTUFF to the others does not figure into the equation. Assuming that all of the STUFFs, added together and rounded up, weight less than fifteen pounds, then I would have Blueateam revise the bill of materials to show the cost to be (#-of-lbs. x $200.00/lb).


Blueasponsor surley must by the raw LIGHTSTUFF in bulk, so it's OK to use the prorated amount. The extra costs to Blueasponsor, natural gas etc., would be negligable compared to the labor. More yet, the internal costs and accounting procedures at Bluessponsor are NONE of FIRST's BUSINESS! I would let them pass.