As a manufacturing businesses, we repair goods sent to us on RMA and then return the goods to the customer. Under government mandated reports as per Federal Acquisition Regulation FAR 52.204-14, I have to report “services” revenue.
From the RMA list, the “resale” price shown reflects the RMA Line Item price. The value should be the value of rework orders, not the original sales prices. However, the original sales price is often displayed.
When we create an RMA from a Source Invoice, the serialized item is pulled through with COGS and Resale pricing from the original purchase order. The RMA line item COGS and Resale pricing information in the RMA is not editable.
When we create an RMA for a Customer (not using source invoice), I can then create an RMA line item for a part number and add a serial number. This method lets me retain the ability to edit RMA line item COGS and Resale pricing information but breaks traceability for the serial number, which the US Government also wants.
Regardless of how we open the RMA, we open a receiving PO at $0 (since the customer is retaining title and we do not want to goods affecting our inventory valuations). We open a rework order so that we can consume the goods received against the receiving PO as well as itemize out all the items required for the repair (to consume inventory as well as quote/bill the customer).
I don’t see a way to report on “rework Orders” so the question remains–how do we use or modify the
features in Cetec in such as way as to satisfy FAR 42.204-14 while preserving serial number traceability?
What would happen if you “issue Credit” to zero out the base cost of the unit when you create the RMA from a source invoice? This is what we do. This allows us to capture the traceability of the sold unit when it comes back to us for repair. We create the receiving PO, receive it into a quarantine location. then create re-work PO in which I set a custom work order type (see below). If services are needed, we add it to this order…
Then, regarding the reporting of “Rework orders”, I created a Bonus Column field called “Work Order Type” within the “Quote” page. (…/bonuscolumns/Quote/edit)
It allows us to define the type of Sales invoice that is being generated so that we can filter them out at a later date. I believe that when you generate the rework order in the RMA, you can select it as a “RMA/repair” work order type and then use this filter when doing invoice reports.
Bonus columns–good idea. we’ve generally avoided adding customizations and tried to stay ‘off the shelf’ configuration wise, but will look into this @cetecerp13 doesn’t have another suggestion for reporting on Rework Orders
Credit Memo–i’m not sure what this approach would do to the books. I don’t want to create a bunch of credits on the accounting books that aren’t real and have to be journal entried or otherwise voided off the books to keep them balanced as that creates a totally different headache.
@Greg I’m not familiar with those specific requirements, but we’re happy to do anything we can to make sure you’re able to provide whatever reporting needed accurately.
As far as resale on the RMAs, I think the idea is that the RMA itself is what you would issue to your customer to acknowledge/authorize the return/repair/etc., and so we pull the resale from the invoice line to represent the original resale value of the items being sent. In fact, the RMA itself carries no ledger impact, it just serves as the hub to tie everything together. When you create the rework order, typically that would be where you’d enter any resale related to your repair by editing the order and updating the line resale/s.
As for reporting, @regisphilbin’s suggestion is sound, using a bonus column is a great way to track data like that where it may not be default in the system, but is either important or nice to have for your company specifically. We’ve got more info about creating and maintaining those here: How To Create Your Own Custom Fields
All we really have right now that would show specifically rework orders is to use the RMA list itself, and look at the rework order column to find the links to those orders.
RMAs are, by their very nature, a vast and complex topic. There are tons of different possible scenarios, and even more unique processes for how a company might handle them. If you’d like some dedicated time to talk with one of our consultants one-on-one and discuss the particulars of your situation, as well as what other options/processes are available to help meet those requirements, you can reach out to firstname.lastname@example.org and they can help get that set up and scheduled for you.
Thank you @regisphilbin and @cetecerp13 Will have a go at the bonus columns.
Regarding the data displayed in RMA resale column, the data displayed are not-intuitive, require a detailed understanding of Cetec and can lead to bad interpretations. When the RMA is created from an original invoice, the original sale price displays. When the RMA is created without linking the original invoice, the Rework order sales price displays.
For example, RMA 97 is linked to the original invoice 750.1 and the “resale” column shows the original sales price. RMA 96 and 95 were created as standalone RMAs and the “resale” column shows the Rework Order price.
I expected the resale column display the rework order sale price for all the RMAs. That would be the most intuitive interpretation of that column displays and offer a consistent data set.
Having a mix of rework order resale price and original resale price displayed in that column is very confusing.