13

C H A P T E R

Aggregate Planning

 Services are more customized than manufactured goods

D ISCUSSION QUESTIONS and can be offered in many different forms. This
1. Aggregate planning is concerned with the quantity and variability makes it difficult to allocate capacity. Units of
timing of production for the intermediate future; typically capacity may also be hard to define.
encompasses a time horizon of three to eighteen months.  Because most services cannot be transported, service
2. Aggregate means combining the appropriate products and capacity must be available at the appropriate place as well
resources into general, or overall, terms. as at the appropriate time.
3. Strategic objectives: minimize cost over the planning period,  Service capacity is generally altered by changes in labor,
smooth fluctuations in work force, drive down inventory levels for rather than by equipment or space, and labor is a highly
time-sensitive stock, and meet a high level of service regardless of flexible resource.
cost. Cost minimization is the most often treated quantitatively 11. The master production schedule (M PS) is produced by
and is generally the most important. disaggregating the aggregate plan.
4. With a chase strategy production rates or work force levels are 12. Graphical aggregate planning methods, while based on trial
adjusted to match demand requirements over the planning horizon. and error, are useful because they require only limited
5. A pure strategy is one that varies only one factor—for computations and usually lead to optimal solutions.
example, maintain a constant work force level or maintain a 13. Limitations of the transportation method include that it does
constant inventory. Trade-offs are ignored. not work well when one attempts to include the effect of hiring
6. Level scheduling is an aggregate plan in which daily capaci- and layoffs in the model.
ties are uniform from month to month. The underlying philosophy 14. Yield management adds another set of decisions to the
is that stable employment leads to better quality, less turnover, aggregate plan, to capacity planning, and to scheduling. However,
less absenteeism, and more employee commitment. of these yield management issues, the aggregate plan may be the
7. M ixed strategy is a planning approach in which two or more one least affected. Auto rental companies, airlines, and hotels now
options, such as overtime, subcontracting, hiring and layoff, etc., all vary “inventory” (autos, seats, rooms) and prices to reflect
are used. There are both inventory changes and work force and pro- ways to maximize their yield (profit). Lead time (vacationers price
duction rate changes over the planning horizon. Typically, mixed shop more and are willing to do so earlier), days of the week,
strategies are better (result in lower costs) than pure strategies. seasons, holidays, and conventions all impact the yield. In many
cases, the aggregate supply is the least affected.
8. The advantage of varying the size of the workforce as re-
quired to adjust production capacity is that one has a fundamental ETHICAL DILEMMA
ability to change production capacity in relatively small and
1. From the airline’s point of view, revenue (yield)
precise increments. The disadvantages are that a ready supply of
management is crucial. M oreover, many firms, includ-
skilled labor is not always available, newly hired personnel must
ing hotels, restaurants, and universities practice revenue
be trained, and layoffs undermine the morale of all employees and
management. A good class discussion can be generated
can lead to a widespread decrease in overall productivity.
by asking students to discuss how other organizations
9. M athematical models are not more widely used because they practice yield management without all of the publicity
tend to be relatively complex and are seldom understood by those (often adverse publicity) that airlines receive.
persons performing the aggregate planning activities. Hotels have various approaches, from weekend
10. Aggregate planning in services differs from aggregate specials, to “points,” to computerized pricing to adjust
planning in manufacturing in the following ways: to daily volume changes.
 M ost services are perishable and cannot be inventoried. Restaurants have coupons, early bird specials, and
It is virtually impossible to produce the service early in special prices on slow nights. Huge portions of restaurant
anticipation of higher demand at a later time. customers have some sort of discount. The authors have
 Demand for services is often difficult to predict. Demand seen one figure that as high as 30 percent of restaurant
variations may be more severe and more frequent. customers use coupons (the figure varies substantially
depending on the type of restaurant included.).
 CHAPTER 13 AG G R E G A T E P L A N N I N G 181

Universities have so many grants, scholarships, and in plans, or going to the restaurant early, or finding and
loans that in many universities most of the students have using those discount coupons. How much work do you
some sort of “deal”; this is revenue management for the want to do for a discount? It turns out that some people
university. will not do the work necessary to use the system to their
These yield management techniques are designed to advantage.
appeal to various market segments. And the pervasive-
ness of the techniques proves that it does work. ACTIVE M ODEL EXERCISE
From the customer’s perspective there is often
resentment at sitting next to someone on the airplane ACTIVE MODEL 13.1: Aggregate Planning
who has paid half as much for the same flight as you 1. Each worker makes five units per day. If the number of
paid—or going to a restaurant and having the customer workers is reduced from 10 to 9, dropping the daily capacity, what
who arrived 15 minutes earlier than you or who has a happens to the cost?
coupon, pay half the price for the same meal. A sense of The cost actually drops to $54,465. This is due to drops in
fairness suggests that something is wrong and some the amount of inventory that is maintained.
customers resent the difference.
2. What regular time level minimizes the total cost?
2. M ost customers have come to accept yield management 39 units
and take full advantage of the opportunities it affords.
3. How low can the regular daily capacity get before overtime
The multiple pricing of yield management by definition
will be required?
satisfies more customers (customers use the services)
At 22 units per day (4.4 workers), overtime is required.
and the firm utilizes resources more effectively.
4. How low can the regular daily capacity get before there will
3. M any customers do take exception to the variation in
not be enough capacity to meet the demand?
pricing—different prices for the same service seem
At 12 units per day (2.4 workers), demand cannot be met.
inherently wrong to many people and management need
to be prepared for the irate customer.
4. Some customers will manipulate the system by booking
END-OF-CHAPTER PROBLEMS
tickets on flights that have a stop over in a city they 13.1 Ne e de d
travel to, but which has a higher fare than the destination Production Forecast Production
flight. They exit the plane at the stopover city —saving Month Days Demand Each Day
money. For instance, if the flight from New York to Jan 22 1,000 45.5
Chicago is less than the flight to the stopover city —say Feb 18 1,100 61.1
Pittsburgh, a customer can book the flight to Chicago Mar 22 1,200 54.5
Apr 21 1,300 61.9
but get off in Pittsburgh. You might ask students to
May 22 1,350 61.4
discuss the ethics of this manipulation.
Jun 21 1,350 64.3
And, of course, customers use the system by July 21 1,300 61.9
finding the positions on the yield management curve Aug 22 1,200 54.5
that works for them. Sometimes this means shopping for Sep 21 1,100 52.4
tickets weeks in advance and taking the risk of a change Oct 22 1,100 50.0
Nov 20 1,050 52.5
Dec 20 900 45.0
252 13,950 55.4
(on average)
182 CHAPTER 13 AG G R E G A T E P L A N N I N G

13.2 (a) Plan 5

Expected Production Demand Expected Production
Month Demand Days Per Day Month Demand (@ 35/day) Subcontract

Jan 900 22 41 Jan 900 770 130

Feb 700 18 39 Feb 700 630 70
Mar 800 21 38 Mar 800 735 65
Apr 1,200 21 57 Apr 1,200 735 465
May 1,500 22 68 May 1,500 770 730
Jun 1,100 20 55 Jun 1,100 700 400
6,200 124 1,860

Plan 6 Cost analysis:

6,200 Regular production:
Average daily production requirement 
124
CR  7 persons  $80  124  $69,440
= 50 units/day
Subcontracting:
Constant workforce of 6 persons; subcontract to meet
extra demand: Subcontract cost = $20/unit CSC  1,860 units  $20  $37,200
Total cost:
Hours/day
Production rate/day  Persons  CT  69,440  37,200 = $106,640
Hours/unit
8 Plan 2 is still preferable, but Plan 6 has lower cost than Plan 5.
6  30 units/day
1.6 Comparing:

Expected Production Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Plan 5 Plan 6

Month Demand (@ 30/day) Subcontract Carrying
Jan 900 660 240 cost 9,250 0 0 400 0 0
Feb 700 540 160 Reg. time 99,200 75,392 99,200 79,360 59,520 69,440
Mar 800 630 170 Overtime 0 0 0 33,728 49,600 0
Apr 1,200 630 570 Subcont. 0 29,870 0 0 0 37,200
May 1,500 660 840 Hire 0 0 9,000 0 0 0
Jun 1,100 600 500 Layoff 0 0 9,600 0 0 0
2,480 T otal cost 108,450 105,152 117,800 113,488 109,120 106,640

Plan 5 Cost analysis: Based simply upon total cost, Plan 2 is preferable. From a pract i-
Regular production: cal viewpoint, Plans 1, 5, and 6 will likely have equivalent costs.
Practical implementation of Plan 2 may, for example, require the
CR  6 persons  $80  124  $59,520 employment of eight full-time employees, rather than seven full-
Subcontract cost @ $10/unit: time and one part-time employee. When several plans have
roughly equivalent costs, other parameters gain importance—such
CSC  2,480 units  $20 / unit  $49,600
as the amount of control one would have over production and ex-
Total cost: cess wear on equipment and personnel. Plan 3 should be avoided.
CT  $59,520  $49,600  $109,120 (not preferable
to Plan 2 at $105,152, but preferable to Plan 4 at $113,488). 13.3 Period Expected Demand

(b) Plan 6 Constant workforce of 7 persons; subcontract 1 1,400

2 1,600
to meet extra demand: Labor  1.6 hours/unit
3 1,800
Hours /day
Production rate /day = Persons  4 1,800
Hours /unit 5 2,200
8 6 2,200
 7  35 units / day 7 1,800
1.6
8 1,400
14,200
 CHAPTER 13 AG G R E G A T E P L A N N I N G 183

13.3 (cont’d)
Plan A
Production
(Result of
Previous Inventory Stockout Hire Layoff Personnel
Pe riod Demand Month) (Units) (Units) (Units) (Units) Cost
1 (Jan) 1,400 1,600 400 200 $15,000 (cost to go from 1,600 in Jan to 1,400 in Feb)
2 (Feb) 1,600 1,400 200 200 10,000 (cost to go from 1,400 in Feb to 1,600 in Mar)
3 (Mar) 1,800 1,600 200 10,000
4 (Apr) 1,800 1,800 —
5 (May) 2,200 1,800 400 400 20,000
6 (June) 2,200 2,200 —
7 (July) 1,800 2,200 400 400 30,000
8 (Aug) 1,400 1,800 800 400 30,000 (cost to go from 1,800 in August to 1,400 in Sept)
1,800 $400 T otal $115,000
@ $20 @ $100 Personnel Cost:
=$36,000 =$40,000

Note: December demand was 1,600, and because our strategy is chasing prior-period demand, our January production is 1,600. So 200 units remain in
inventory, and January production adds 200 units to this inventory, for a total of 400 units. Inventory units: Jan. 400 + Feb. 200 + July 400 + Aug. 800
(400 from July and 400 from August) = 1,800 units at $20 = $36,000. Stockout units: May 400 units at $100 = $40,000. Hiring and layoff costs =
$115,000. T otal costs = $36,000 + $40,000 + $115,000 = $191,000.

13.4 Plan B
Pe riod Demand Production Ending Inv. Subcon (Units) Extra Cost
0 200
1 1,400 1,400 200 — $4,000
2 1,600 1,400 0 — —
3 1,800 1,400 0 400 30,000
4 1,800 1,400 0 400 30,000
5 2,200 1,400 0 800 60,000
6 2,200 1,400 0 800 60,000
7 1,800 1,400 0 400 30,000
8 1,400 1,400 0 —
T otal Extra Cost: $214,000

13.5 (a)
Plan C
Pe riod Demand Production* Ending Inv. Stockouts (Units) Extra Cost
0 200
1 1,400 1,775 575 $11,500
2 1,600 1,775 750 15,000
3 1,800 1,775 725 14,500
4 1,800 1,775 700 14,000
5 2,200 1,775 275 5,500
6 2,200 1,775 0 150 15,000
7 1,800 1,775 0 25 2,500
8 1,400 1,775 375 7,500
T otal Extra Cost: $85,500

*(14,200/8) = 1,775 average. All other things being

equal, it would appear that Plan C, with a cost of
$85,500 and stockout costs ignored, should be recom-
mended over Plan A (cost = $224,000) or Plan B
(cost = $214,000).
184 CHAPTER 13 AG G R E G A T E P L A N N I N G

(b) Graph of Plan C

13.6 (a) Plan D: M aximum units in overtime = 0.20  1,600 = 320

Plan D
Reg. O .T. End Inv. Stockouts Extra
Pe riod Demand (Units) (Units) (Units) (Units) Cost
0 200
1 1,400 1,600 — 400 $8,000
2 1,600 1,600 — 400 8,000
3 1,800 1,600 — 200 4,000
4 1,800 1,600 — — 0
5 2,200 1,600 320 — 280 44,000
6 2,200 1,600 320 — 280 44,000
7 1,800 1,600 200 — 10,000
8 1,400 1,600 — 200 4,000
T otal Extra Cost: $122,000

Noting that the additional cost of a stockout is much

greater than the sum of the additional costs for overtime
plus inventory storage, one might “look ahead” and
schedule overtime where possible. The resulting
aggregate plan would be:

Reg. O .T. End Inv. Stockouts Extra

Pe riod Demand (Units) (Units) (Units) (Units) Cost
0 200
1 1,400 1,600 — 400 $8,000
2 1,600 1,600 — 400 8,000
3 1,800 1,600 80 280 9,600
4 1,800 1,600 320 400 24,000
5 2,200 1,600 320 120 18,400
6 2,200 1,600 320 — 160 32,000
7 1,800 1,600 200 — 10,000
8 1,400 1,600 — 200 4,000
T otal Extra Cost: $114,000
 CHAPTER 13 AG G R E G A T E P L A N N I N G 185

(b) Plan E
Pe riod Demand Production Subcont (Units) Ending Inv. Extra Cost
0 200
1 1,400 1,600 400 $8,000
2 1,600 1,600 400 8,000
3 1,800 1,600 200 4,000
4 1,800 1,600 0
5 2,200 1,600 600 45,000
6 2,200 1,600 600 45,000
7 1,800 1,600 200 15,000
8 1,400 1,600 200 4,000
T otal Extra Cost: $129,000
All other things being equal, it would appear that Plan D,
with a cost of $122,000, should be recommended over
Plan E (cost = $129,000).
Note that of all the plans discussed, it would appear
that Plan C, with a cost of $85,500, should be recom-
mended over all others.
13.7 Month Expected Demand
Jul 400
Aug 500
Sep 550
Oct 700
Nov 800
Dec 700
Production per person per day: 8 hr/person  4 hours/dis k
Therefore, each person can produce 2 disks per day,
or 40 disks per month.
(a) Aggregate plan, hiring/layoff only:

Beg. Personnel
Inventory Hours Required Production Costs
Unit O ver Units Required at 20 days Personnel Units O ver Layoff Hire : 40
Pe riod Demand (or Short) Required at 4 each at 8 hrs on staff Produced (or Short) Hire $40 $80 Layoff: 80
Jun 150 8
Jul 400 150 250 1,000 6.25 6 240 –10 2 $160
Aug 500 –10 510 2,040 12.75 13 520 10* 7 $280
Sep 550 10 540 2,160 13.50 14 560 20* 1 $40
Oct 700 20 680 2,720 17.00 17 680 0 3 $120
Nov 800 0 800 3,200 20.00 20 800 0 3 $120
Dec 700 0 700 2,800 17.50 17 680 –20 3 $240
T otal Cost: $960
* Inventory (August = 10 and Sept. = 20) = 30 × 8 = $240
Inventory Cost = 30 × 8 = $240
Hiring/Layoff Cost = 960
$1,200
Note: In computing cost, we assumed that, if the capacity of a fraction of a worker was needed (was excess), one worker was hired
(layed off). Solution by POM for Windows, in which the increase cost is $1 per unit and the decrease cost is $2 per unit, yields a
similar result, with a total extra cost of $890.
(b) Aggregate plan, overtime only:
Production Production Ending Inventory Holding Cost
Pe riod Demand (Regular) (O vertime) Inv. @ $8/unit/month
Jun 150
Jul 400 320 70 560
Aug 500 320 110
Sep 550 320 230
Oct 700 320 380
Nov 800 320 480
Dec 700 320 380
T otal 1,580 $560
1,580  ($72 – $48) = $37,920 = Extra total (OT) cost  $560 holding cost = $38,480
   
Units made on $72 = 4 hr $48 = 4 hr
overtime (OT ) each  $18 each  $12
186 CHAPTER 13 AG G R E G A T E P L A N N I N G

13.8 Calculating added costs for various planning options to

complement Problem 13.7:
 Holding: $8/unit /month
 Subcontracting: $80/unit
 Overtime: $24/unit ($18/hour over 8 hours:
$72 – $48 = $24)
 Hiring: $1/unit
 Layoff: $2/unit
Your strategy is one that involves hiring 5 workers in
August and 5 more in October, as follows:

Beg. Personnel Costs

Inventory Hours Required Production Inventory = $8
Unit O ver Units Required at 20 days Personnel Units O ver Hire Layoff Hire : 40
Pe riod De mand (or Short) Required at 4 each at 8 hrs on staff Produced (or Short) $40 $80 Layoff: 80
Jun 150 8
Jul 400 150 250 1,000 8.00 8 320 70 0 $560 = (70  8)
Aug 500 70 430 1,720 13.00 13 520 90 5 $920 = (90  8) + 200
Sep 550 90 460 1,840 13.00 13 520 60 0 $480 = (60  8)
Oct 700 60 640 2,560 18.00 18 720 80 5 $840 = (80  8) + 200
Nov 800 80 720 2,880 18.00 18 720 0 0 —
Dec 700 0 700 2,800 18.00 18 720 20 0 0 $160 = (20  8)
T otal Extra Cost: $2,960

Students should be encouraged to consider the long-range

implications of any aggregate planning strategy involving
planned hiring/firing with respect to the development of an
appropriate labor pool, etc.

13.9 Month Expected Demand

Jul 1,000
Aug 1,200
Sep 1,400
Oct 1,800
Nov 1,800
Dec 1,600

(a) Plan A: M inimum rate of 1,000/month, subcontract for

additional.

Plan A
Pe riod Demand Production Ending Inv. Subcont. (Units) Extra Cost
Jul 1,000 1,000 0 — 0
Aug 1,200 1,000 0 200 12,000
Sep 1,400 1,000 0 400 24,000
Oct 1,800 1,000 0 800 48,000
Nov 1,800 1,000 0 800 48,000
Dec 1,600 1,000 0 600 36,000
T otal Extra Cost: $168,000
 CHAPTER 13 AG G R E G A T E P L A N N I N G 187

Plan B: Vary workforce.

Plan B
Pe riod Demand Production (Existing) Hire (Units) Layoffs (Units) Extra Cost
Jul 1,000 1,300 — 300 $18,000
Aug 1,200 1,000 200 6,000
Sep 1,400 1,200 200 6,000
Oct 1,800 1,400 400 12,000
Nov 1,800 1,800 — —
Dec 1,600 1,800 — 200 12,000
T otal Extra Cost: $54,000

(b) Plan B is best because of cost. But note that production is only 8,500 units.

13.10 (a) Plan C

Pe riod Demand Production (Units) Subcont. (Units) Ending Inv. Extra Cost
Jun 300
Jul 1,000 1,300 600 $15,000
Aug 1,200 1,300 700 17,500
Sep 1,400 1,300 600 15,000
Oct 1,800 1,300 100 2,500
Nov 1,800 1,300 400 0 24,000
Dec 1,600 1,300 300 0 18,000
T otal Extra Cost: $92,000

(b) Plan D: M aximum units in overtime = 0.20  1,300 = 260

Plan D
Subcont. Idle Time
Month Demand Reg. (Units) O .T. (Units) End Inv. Units (Units) Extra Cost
Jul 1,000 1,300 180 120 $11,700
Aug 1,200 1,300 180 100 10,500
Sep 1,400 1,300 80 2,000
Oct 1,800 1,300 260 0 160 20,000
Nov 1,800 1,300 260 0 240 24,800
Dec 1,600 1,300 260 0 40 12,800
T otal Extra Cost: $81,800

If our object in comparing the plans is to identify  Hiring: $30/unit

the elements of an optimal plan, we must consider the  Layoff: $60/unit
following:  Subcontracting: $60/unit
Plans A, B, and D begin with zero initial inventory,  Stockout: $100/unit
Plan C begins with an initial inventory of 300 units. It 13.11 Initial data:
is therefore inappropriate to compare directly the
results of Plan C with those of Plans A, B, and D. Costs (per unit) Initial inventory = 0
In addition, we can assume that the warehouse Units last period = 1,500
Reg T ime = $ 30
constraint introduced in Plan D would have affected Overtime = $ 15 extra per unit
the costs of Plan A and Plan C had it been in effect in Subcontract = not available
those plans. Holding = 10
What one can say is that the aggregate planning Stockout = 50
options should be utilized as available, in the Hiring = 40
following order: Layoffs = 80
 Carryover of inventory: $25/unit
 Overtime: $40/unit
188 CHAPTER 13 AG G R E G A T E P L A N N I N G

(a) The Chase plan:

Reg. Time
Pe riod Demand Production Change Hiring Layoffs
Quarter 1 1,400 1,400 –100 0 100
Quarter 2 1,200 1,200 –200 0 200
Quarter 3 1,500 1,500 300 300 0
Quarter 4 1,300 1,300 –200 0 200
T otal 5,400 5,400 300 500
@$30/unit @$40/unit @$80/unit
Cost $162,000 $12,000 $40,000
T otal Cost: $214,000

Overtime production = $0
Subcontract = $0 and
Inventory holding and shortage cost = $0
(b) The Level plan:

Reg. Time
Pe riod Demand Production Inventory Holding Shortage Change Hiring Layoffs
Quarter 1 1,400 1,350 –50 0 50 –150 0 150
Quarter 2 1,200 1,350 100 100 0 0 0 0
Quarter 3 1,500 1,350 –50 0 50 0 0 0
Quarter 4 1,300 1,350 0 0 0 0 0
T otal 5,400 * 5,400 100 100 0 150
Cost $162,000 $1,000 $5,000 $0 $12,000
T otal Cost: $180,000
* (5,400/4) = 1,350 = average demand.
(c) A Level plan will cost $180,000, while a Chase plan
will cost $214,000.
13.12 Initial data:

Costs (pe r case) Initial inventory = 0 Q uarter Forecast Demand

Reg time = $30 Production last period = 1300 1 1,800 cases
Overtime = 45 2 1,100 cases
Subcontract = 60 3 1,600 cases
Holding = 40 4 900 cases
Stockout = 150
Hiring = 40
Layoff = 80

(a) Plan A: Chase plan

Reg. Time Hiring Layoffs

Pe riod Demand Production Change (Increase) (Decrease)
Quarter 1 1,800 1,800 500 500 0
Quarter 2 1,100 1,100 –700 0 700
Quarter 3 1,600 1,600 500 500 0
Quarter 4 900 900 –700 0 700
T otal 5,400 5,400 1,000 1,400
Cost $162,000 $40,000 $112,000
T otal Cost: $314,000
 CHAPTER 13 AG G R E G A T E P L A N N I N G 189

(b) Plan B: Level Strategy of 1,350 cases

Reg. Time Hiring Layoffs

Pe riod Forecast Production Inventory Holding Shortage Change (Increase) (Decre ase )
Quarter 1 1,800 1,350 –450 0 450 50 50 0
Quarter 2 1,100 1,350 –200 0 200 0 0 0
Quarter 3 1,600 1,350 –450 0 450 0 0 0
Quarter 4 900 1,350 0 0 0 0 0 0
T otal 5,400 5,400 0 1,100 50 0
Cost $162,000 $0 $165,000 $2,000 $0
T otal Cost: $329,000

An alternative way of viewing this problem assigns

the same costs to regular time production and to hiring
(i.e., $162,000 and $2,000) but places holding cost at
$28,000 and shortage cost at $67,500. Total cost is
then $259,500.
(c) Plan C: Level Strategy at 1200, plus subcontracting:

Reg. Time O vertime Subcontract Hiring Layoffs

Pe riod Forecast Production Production Production Inventory Holding Change (Increase) (De cre ase )
Quarter 1 1,800 1,200 600 0 0 –100 0 100
Quarter 2 1,100 1,200 100 100 0 0 0
Quarter 3 1,600 1,200 300 0 0 0 0 0
Quarter 4 900 1,200 300 300 0 0 0
T otal 5,400 4,800 0 900 400 0 100
Cost $144,000 $0 $54,000 $16,000 $0 $8,000
T otal Cost: $222,000

(d, e) The boss implements Plan C because it is not only

the lowest cost, but has the added advantage of
providing steady employment for the employees
after the initial first quarter layoff.
13.13 Assuming that back orders are not permitted, the solution is:

Total cost = $11,790

190 CHAPTER 13 AG G R E G A T E P L A N N I N G

13.14 Assuming that back orders are not permitted, the solution is:

Total cost = $1,186,810

13.15 Assuming that back orders are not permitted, the solution is:

Total cost = $627,100

 CHAPTER 13 AG G R E G A T E P L A N N I N G 191

An alternative solution is:

Total cost = $627,100

13.16 Assuming that back orders are not permitted, the solution is:

Total cost = $100,750

192 CHAPTER 13 AG G R E G A T E P L A N N I N G

13.17 (a) The cost matrix and the optimal plan are shown below:

Cost Matrix: Q uarter 1 Q uarter 2 Q uarter 3 Q uarter 4 Ending Inv. Supply

Beg. inv. 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 250
Reg. time 1 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 400
Overtime 1 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3 80
Subcontract 1 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 100
Reg. time 2 1.5 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 400
Overtime 2 2 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 80
Subcontract 2 2.5 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 100
Reg. time 3 2 1.5 1 1.2 1.4 800
Overtime 3 2.5 2 1.5 1.7 1.9 160
Subcontract 3 3 2.5 2 2.2 2.4 100
Reg. time 4 2.5 2 1.5 1 1.2 400
Overtime 4 3 2.5 2 1.5 1.7 80
Subcontract 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 2.2 100
Demand 500 750 900 450 2600/3050

O ptimal Plan: Q uarter 1 Q uarter 2 Q uarter 3 Q uarter 4 Ending Inv. Dummy

Beg. inv. 100 150
Reg. time 1 400
Overtime 1 80
Subcontract 1 100
Reg. time 2 400
Overtime 2 80
Subcontract 2 100
Reg. time 3 800
Overtime 3 40 100 20
Subcontract 3 100
Reg. time 4 400
Overtime 4 50 30
Subcontract 4 100
500 750 900 450
Optimal cost = $2,641

(b) The cost of the optimal plan is $2,641. Alternate opti-

mal solutions are possible.
(c) All regular time is used.
(d) 40 units are backordered in Quarter 2 and produced on
overtime in Quarter 3 at a cost of $.50 each for a total
cost of $20.
 CHAPTER 13 AG G R E G A T E P L A N N I N G 193

13.18 Assuming that back orders are not permitted, one solution,
of multiple optional solutions, is:

Total cost = $90,850

Note: Ending inventory of 20 units held to period 6
each require the additional carrying cost of $3 if produced
on regular or overtime. Because they are optimally pro-
duced by subcontracting (which is available, at any time),
no additional carrying cost is incurred.

13.19 (a) Me thod  Produce to demand (let workforce vary)

Shortages: Lost sales — Shortages not carried from month to month
All months  $1,000 $1,300 $1,800 $200 $0 $0 $0
Capacities Units
Month Demnd Regtm O vrtm Subcon Regtm O vrtm Subcon Holdng Shortg Increase De cre ase
Init 0 0 0 0
Jan 255 235 20 12 235 20 0 0 0 0 0
Feb 294 255 24 16 255 24 15 0 0 20 0
Mar 321 290 26 15 290 26 5 0 0 35
Apr 301 300 24 17 300 1 0 0 0 10 0
May 330 300 30 17 300 30 0 0 0 0 0
June 320 290 28 19 290 28 2 0 0 0 10
July 345 300 30 19 300 30 15 0 0 10 0
Aug 340 290 30 20 290 30 20 0 0 0 10
T ot 2,506 2,260 212 135 2,260 189 57 0 0 75 20
Subtotal Costs 2,260,000 245,700 102,600 0 0 0 0
194 CHAPTER 13 AG G R E G A T E P L A N N I N G

Summary Table
Type Units Cost
Regtm 2,260 $2,260,000
Ovrtm 189 $245,700
Subcon 57 $102,600
Holdng 0 $0
Shortg 0 $0
Increase 75 $0
Decrease 20 $0
T otal cost = $2,608,300

(b) Me thod  Produce to demand (let workforce vary)

Shortages: Lost sales — Shortages not carried from month to month
All pds  $1,000 $1,300 $1,800 $200 $0 $0 $0
Capacities Units
Month Demnd Regtm O vrtm Subcon Regtm O vrtm Subcon Holdng Shortg Increase De cre ase
Init 0 0 0 0
Jan 255 275 20 12 255 0 0 0 0 0 0
Feb 294 275 24 16 275 19 0 0 0 20 0
Mar 321 275 26 15 275 26 15 0 5 0 0
Apr 301 275 24 17 275 24 2 0 0 0 0
May 330 275 30 17 275 30 17 0 8 0 0
June 320 275 28 19 275 28 17 0 0 0 0
July 345 275 30 19 275 30 19 0 21 0 0
Aug 340 275 30 20 275 30 20 0 15 0 0
T ot 2,506 2,200 212 135 2,180 187 90 0 49 20 0
Subtotal Costs 2,180,000 243,100 162,000 0 0 0 0

Summary Table
Type Units Cost
Regtm 2,180 $2,180,000
Ovrtm 187 $243,100
Subcon 90 $162,000
Holdng 0 $0
Shortg 49 $0
Increase 20 $0
Decrease 0 $0
T otal cost = $2,585,100, or about $50,000 savings

(c) Me thod  Produce to demand (let workforce vary)

Shortages: Lost sales — Shortages not carried from month to month
All months  $1,000 $1,400 $1,800 $200 $0 $0 $0
Capacities Units
Month Demnd Regtm O vrtm Subcon Regtm O vrtm Subcon Holdng Shortg Increase De cre ase
Init 0 0 0 0
Jan 255 235 20 12 235 20 0 0 0 0 0
Feb 294 255 24 16 255 24 15 0 0 20 0
Mar 321 290 26 15 290 26 5 0 0 35 0
Apr 301 300 24 17 300 1 0 0 0 10 0
May 330 300 30 17 300 30 0 0 0 0 0
June 320 290 28 19 290 28 2 0 0 0 10
July 345 300 30 19 300 30 15 0 0 10 0
Aug 340 290 30 20 290 30 20 0 0 0 10
T ot 2,506 2,260 212 135 2,260 189 57 0 0 75 20
Subtotal Costs 2,260,000 264,600 102,600 0 0 0 0
 CHAPTER 13 AG G R E G A T E P L A N N I N G 195

Summary Table —O vertime Costs: $1400

Type Units Cost
Regtm 2,260 $2,260,000
Ovrtm 189 $264,600
Subcon 57 $102,600
Holdng 0 $0
Shortg 0 $0
Increase 75 $0
Decrease 20 $0
T otal cost = $2,627,200

There is no change in the solution other than higher

cost.
Me thod  Produce to demand (let workforce vary)
Shortages: Lost sales — Shortages not carried from month to month
All months  $1,000 $1,200 $1,800 $200 $0 $0 $0
Capacities Units
Month Demnd Regtm O vrtm Subcon Regtm O vrtm Subcon Holdng Shortg Increase De cre ase
Init 0 0 0 0
Jan 255 235 20 12 235 20 0 0 0 0 0
Feb 294 255 24 16 255 24 15 0 0 20 0
Mar 321 290 26 15 290 26 5 0 0 35 0
Apr 301 300 24 17 300 1 0 0 0 10 0
May 330 300 30 17 300 30 0 0 0 0 0
June 320 290 28 19 290 28 2 0 0 0 10
July 345 300 30 19 300 30 15 0 0 10 0
Aug 340 290 30 20 290 30 20 0 0 0 10
T ot 2,506 2,260 212 135 2,260 189 57 0 0 75 20
Subtotal Costs $2,260,000 $226,800 $102,600 0 0 0 0

Summary Table —O vertime Costs: $1,200

Type Units Cost
Regtm 2,260 $2,260,000
Ovrtm 189 $226,800
Subcon 57 $102,600
Holdng 0 $0
Shortg 0 $0
Increase 75 $0
Decrease 20 $0
T otal cost = $2,589,400

Again there is no change in the solution other than

a lower cost.

13.20 (a, b) Aggregate plan and its costs

Estimated Reg. time

Billable billable Reg. Time “O vertime” O vertime Forrester Forre ste r
Month hours CPAs hours cost hours cost hours cost
Jan 600 4 640 $20,000 0 $0 0 0
Feb 500 4 640 $20,000 0 $0 0 $0
Mar 1,000 4 640 $20,000 320 $20,000 40 $5,000
Apr 1,200 4 640 $20,000 320 $20,000 240 $30,000
May 650 4 640 $20,000 10 $625 0 $0
June 590 4 640 $20,000 0 $0 0 $0
$120,000 650 $40,625 280 $35,000

Total cost = $120,000 + $40,625 + $35,000 = $195,625

196 CHAPTER 13 AG G R E G A T E P L A N N I N G

(c) The accounting business, as everyone recognizes, has

one extremely busy season (during M arch and April
tax preparation time), and several less hectic but still
very active months (such as when quarterly payments
are due). Could another CPA be justified at $60,000
per year in salary? Based solely on savings in overtime
costs and the cost of Forrester, it would appear to be
unclear, as savings total only $30,625. On the other
hand, current employees are drawing overtime pay of
$40,000 (averaging $10,000 each) during M arch and
April, and may be very unhappy over the loss of
income. We would have to carefully examine the other
6 months to see if hiring is merited.
13.21 (a) Estimated Reg. Time
Billable Billable Reg. Time O ve rtime O vertime Forrester Forre ste r
Month hours CPAs Hours Cost Hours Cost Hours Cost
Jan 660 5 800 $25,000 0 $0 0 $0
Feb 550 5 800 $25,000 0 $0 0 $0
Mar 1,100 5 800 $25,000 300 $18,750 0 $0
Apr 1,320 5 800 $25,000 400 $25,000 120 $15,000
May 715 5 800 $25,000 0 $0 0 $0
June 649 5 800 $25,000 0 $0 0 $0
$150,000 700 $43,750 120 $15,000
T otal cost = $150,000 + $43,750 + $15,000 = $208,750

(b) With the increase in business, 5 accountants appear to

be necessary. There is still a need for overtime during
the tax season (about the same as in Problem 13.20),
but there is a big savings in Forrester’s pay (which
is double that of overtime for a regular employee).
What Cohen needs to do is find additional accounting
activities that his staff can work on during the
“off-peak” season.
13.22 (a) Current model—Single price at Southeastern Airlines

Sales  80 passengers  (Net price / seat)

= 80  ($140  25)  $9,200
(b) Proposed model—two price points

Sales  65 passengers  ($80  $25)  35 passengers  ($190  $25)

 (65)($55)  (35)($165)
 $3,575  $5,775
 $9,350

The new approach is only slightly better in

terms of sales but provides a more compli-
cated ticketing system. The issue of fairness is
always paramount.
 CHAPTER 13 AG G R E G A T E P L A N N I N G 197

ADDITIONAL HOMEWORK PROBLEMS

Here are solutions to additional homework problems
(13.23–13.26) that appear on our Web site, at
www.myomlab.com.
13.23 The intent of the authors is that this problem be solved
using the transportation problem format. Assuming that back
orders are not permitted, the solution is:

Total cost = $20,400

13.24 Assuming that back orders are not permitted, the solution is:

Total cost = $874,320

198 CHAPTER 13 AG G R E G A T E P L A N N I N G

13.25 Even though back orders are permitted, note they are not
used. One of the multiple optimal solutions is:

Total cost = $308,125

Note: Ending inventory of 3 units held to period 5 each
require the additional carrying cost of $200. You may
wish to convey this hint to students when assigning the
problem.
13.26 Costs (per refrigerator) Forecast Demand Initial inventory 250
Units last period 320
Reg time = $48 = 4 hr  $12/hr. Jan 400
Overtime = 72 = 4 hr  $18/hr. Feb 500
Subcontract = 80 Mar 550
Holding = 8 Apr 700
Stockout = 0 May 800
Hiring = 40 June 700
Layoff = 80

(a) Re g Time
Pe riod Demand Production Inventory Holding Shortage Change Increase De cre ase
Jan 400 400 250 250 0 80 80 0
Feb 500 500 250 250 0 100 100 0
Mar 550 550 250 250 0 50 50 0
Apr 700 700 250 250 0 150 150 0
May 800 800 250 250 0 100 100 0
June 700 700 250 250 0 –100 0 100
T otal 3650 3650 1500 0 480 100
Cost $175,200 $12,000 $0 $19,200 $8,000
T otal Cost $214,400
 CHAPTER 13 AG G R E G A T E P L A N N I N G 199

(b) Each employee produces 2 units per day. So,

2  10 employees  20 days = 400 units per period

Forecast Reg Time

Pe riod Demand Production Inventory Holding Shortage Change Increase De cre ase
Jan 400 400 250 250 0 80 80 0
Feb 500 400 150 150 0 0 0 0
Mar 550 400 0 0 0 0 0 0
Apr 700 400 –300 0 300 0 0 0
May 800 400 –700 0 700 0 0 0
June 700 400 –1000 0 1000 0 0 0
T otal 3650 2400 400 2000 80 0
Cost $115,200 $3,200 $0 $3,200 $0
T otal Cost $121,600
(c) Plan B is certainly less expensive, but over the six
months Bell Refrigeration has a shortage of 2000 Normal workload during fall and spring semesters:
refrigerators . . . about half of its sales. The loss
Weekday Weekend 7-day Ave rage
suggests this is not a good plan
1st shift 5 4 4.7
2nd shift 5 6 5.3
CASE STUDIES 3rd shift 6 8 6.6
16.6
1 SOUTHWESTERN UNIVERS ITY: G
Number of 24-hour positions each week = 16.6/3 = 5.5
This case provides the student with quantitative information to
develop an aggregate capacity plan, but, as often occurs in Number of persons required = 5.5 positions
services, demand is so variable that there are not many viable  5 persons/position
staffing alternatives. Students may also be frustrated by the lack = 27.6 persons
of detailed data on the nature of service demand and the resources Normal workload during the summer:
required to meet demand. Even with these drawbacks, the student
Weekday Weekend 7-day Ave rage
should be able to gain insight into the aggregate planning problem
and help the chief justify his personnel requests. Students may 1st shift 2.5 2 2.4
want to talk with the police department at their own university to 2nd shift 2.5 3 2.7
3rd shift 3 4 3.3
see how it handles similar problems.
8.4
1. Which variations in demand for police services should be con-
sidered in an aggregate plan for resources? Which variations
Number of 24-hour positions each week = 8.4/3 = 2.8
can be handled with short-term scheduling adjustments?
An aggregate plan should set full-time staffing levels; esti- Number of persons required = 2.8 positions  5 persons/position
mate part-time and overtime needs for budget purposes; = 14 persons
determine times of the year for training, vacations, and other Twenty-six officers is more than enough to handle the normal
nonessential duties; and establish an agreed-upon level of workload during the three summer months. However, during the
police services for the university community (i.e., What role remaining nine months of the year, the police department is al-
is the police officer to play? What response time to calls for most two persons short. Obviously, some overtime is currently
service is appropriate? What services should be provided?). being used to meet the demands of the normal workweek.
Short-term scheduling adjustments can be made for different 3. What would be the additional cost of the chief’s proposal?
days of the week, shifts, and special events. How would you suggest that the chief justify his request?
2. Evaluate the current staffing plan. What does it cost? Are Salary: 4 officers  $28,000 per year = $112,000
26 officers sufficient to handle the normal workload? Overtime: no additional cost, as subcontracting and over-
Cost of current staffing plan: time costs are the same.
To justify his proposal, the chief should point out that two
Salaries: positions (representing $56,000) are needed to pursue the uni-
26 officers  $28,000 per year = $728,000 versity’s request for more crime prevention, safety, and health
Overtime: programs. The other two positions could save up to $18,720 in
2,400 hours per year  $18 per hour = $43,200 overtime premiums (total OT of 2,400 hours minus football
Subcontractors: game OT of 1,360 hours times $18 per hour) and are needed
40 officers  9 hours  $18 per hour  to maintain the desired level of police services. On a per hour
5 football games per year = $32,400 basis, the salaried services are more cost effective than using
25 part-timers  9 hours  $9 per hour 
overtime or subcontracting (@ $18/hour).
5 football games per year = $10,125
$813,725
200 CHAPTER 13 AG G R E G A T E P L A N N I N G

4. How much does it currently cost the university to provide rather complex set of transportation problems. Four different
police services for football games? What would be the pros configurations of operating plants have to be tested. The solutions,
and cons of subcontracting this work completely to outside although requiring relatively few iterations to optimality, involve
law enforcement agencies? degeneracy if solved manually.
Cost of police officers for football games: The costs are:
18 officers work 8 hours overtime @ $18/hr
Total Total Total
8 officers work 16 hours overtime @ $18/hr Configuration Variable Cost Fixed Cost Cost
40 outside officers work 9 hours @ $18/hr
All plants operating $179,730 $41,000 $220,730
25 part-timers work 9 hours @ $9/hr 1 & 2 operating, 3 closed 188,930 33,500 222,430
5 football games per year 1 & 3 operating, 2 closed 183,430 34,000 217,430
2 & 3 operating, 1 closed 188,360 33,000 221,360
Cost  [(18  8  18)  (8  16  18)  (40  9  18)
 (25  9  9)]  5
The lowest weekly total cost, operating plants 1 and 3 with 2
 [2,592  2,304  6,480  2,025]  5 closed, is $217,430. This is $3,300 per week ($171,600 per year)
 [13,401]  5  $67,005 or 1.5% less than the next most economical solution, operating all
3 plants. Closing a plant without expanding capacity of the
Subcontracting security for football games would relieve the
remaining plants means unemployment. The optimum solution,
weary campus police and allow them to perform their normal
using plants 1 and 3, indicates overtime production of 4,000 units
duties more effectively. However, football security is highly
at 3 and 0 overtime at 1. The all-plant optima have no use of
visible, and the absence of campus police may hurt their
overtime and include substantial idle regular time capacity:
image in the university community and rob them of the
11,000 units (55%) in plant 2 and either 5,000 units in 1 (19% of
opportunity to work closely with law enforcement personnel
capacity) or 5,000 in 3 (20% of capacity). The idled capacity
from agencies in a noncrisis situation. It may also be difficult
versus unemployment question is an interesting, nonquantitative
for the university to maintain the same level of control over
aspect of the case and could lead to discussion of the forecasts for
subcontracted work, especially in terms of discretionary
the housing market and thus the plant’s product.
treatment of students and alumni.
The optimum producing and shipping pattern is:
In terms of cost, it is doubtful that the work could be
subcontracted as cheaply as it is currently performed because From To (Amount)
the cost of supervisory and managerial personnel would have Plant 1 (R.T .) W2 (13,000); W4 (14,000)
to be included in the package (and currently no supervisors or Plant 3 (R.T .) W1 (5,000); W3 (11,000); W4 (1,000); W5 (8,000)
managers are paid overtime for their work). Plant 3 (O.T .) W1 (4,000)
5. Can you propose any other alternatives?
There are three alternative optimal producing and shipping
M any of the innovative suggestions for handling the
patterns.
variability in demand for services involve using part-time
Getting the solution manually should not be attempted.
workers. Police officers require extensive training, so this
It will take eight tableaux to do the “All Plants” configuration,
alternative usually means hiring off-duty police officers from
with degeneracy appearing in the seventh tableau; the “1 & 2”
other agencies. Under these circumstances, the hours that off-
configuration takes five tableaux, etc. It is strongly suggested that
duty officers can moonlight are limited, and, except for
POM for Windows, Excel, or other software be used.
football Saturdays, may be hard to schedule (i.e., all part-time
agencies are busy at the same time). Another way to handle
part-time or seasonal requirements for work is to find ADDITIONAL CASE STUDY*
complementary work for the full-time employees that follows
CORNWELL GLASS
a different demand pattern. In this case, the nonpeak period
for police services falls during the summer months. What Entering the data provided into software, then toggling the pure
other university services increase during those months? strategies and trying them yields the following costs:
Perhaps the idled officers could be used as campus guides Plan 1 (smooth production): $849,077
during summer orientation, as aides for the summer camps Plan 2 (meet demand exactly): $104,575
and other summer programs held on campus, or as part of the Plan 3 (produce 1,900 as base, then use
grounds crew. At least one small private college utilizes its OT and subcontracting): $82,858
police officers in this expanded fashion. It certainly increases At this point, the question is, can we do better with trial and
the officers’ involvement with the university community. error? A better solution follows.
2 ANDREW-CARTER, INC. * T his case is found on our Companion Web site,
www.pearsonhighered.com/heizer.
This case presents some of the basic concepts of aggregate
planning by the transportation method. The case involves solving a
Note: December
demand was
1,600, and
because our
strategy is CHAPTER 13 A G G R E G A T E P L A N N I N G 201
chasing prior-
period demand,
our January Aggregate Planning
production is Time periods 52
1,6000. So 200Shortages: Back orders—Carry shortages from period to pe riod
units remain inAll pds  1,900 0 0 $0 $8.00 $10 $0.12 $20.0 $5.63 $15.73
inventory, and Schedule Units
January Pd Demnd Regtm O vrtm Subcon Regtm O vrtm Subcon Holdng Shortg Incre s De cre s
production addsInit 73 1,900 0 0
200 units to thisApril 15 1,829 1,900 250 0 1,900 250 0 394 0 0 0
inventory, for a 22 1,820 1,900 250 0 1,900 250 0 724 0 0 0
total of 400 units. 29 1,887 1,900 250 0 1,900 250 0 987 0 0 0
Inventory unitsMay 6 1,958 1,900 250 0 1,900 250 0 1,179 0 0 0
(Jan. 400 + Feb. 13 2,011 1,900 250 0 1,900 250 0 1,318 0 0 0
200 + July 400 + 20 2,063 1,900 250 0 1,900 250 0 1,405 0 0 0
27 2,104 1,900 250 0 1,900 250 0 1,451 0 0 0
Aug. 800 (400
June 3 2,161 1,900 250 0 1,900 250 0 1,440 0 0 0
from July and
10 2,258 1,900 250 0 1,900 250 0 1,332 0 0 0
400 from 17 2,307 1,900 250 0 1,900 250 0 1,175 0 0 0
August) = 1,800 24 2,389 1,900 250 0 1,900 250 0 936 0 0 0
units at $20. =July 1 2,434 1,900 250 0 1,900 250 0 652 0 0 0
$36,000. 8 2,402 1,900 250 0 1,900 250 0 400 0 0 0
Stockout units: 15 2,385 1,900 250 0 1,900 250 0 165 0 0 0
May 400 units at 22 2,330 1,900 250 15 1,900 250 15 0 0 0 0
$100 = $40,000. 29 2,323 1,900 250 173 1,900 250 173 0 0 0 0
Hiring and layoffAug. 5 2,317 1,900 250 167 1,900 250 167 0 0 0 0
12 2,222 1,900 250 72 1,900 250 72 0 0 0 0
costs - $115,000.
19 2,134 1,900 234 0 1,900 234 0 0 0 0 0
T otal costs =
26 2,065 1,900 165 0 1,900 165 0 0 0 0 0
$36,000 +Sept. 2 1,973 1,900 73 0 1,900 73 0 0 0 0 0
$40,000 + 9 1,912 1,900 12 0 1,900 12 0 0 0 0 0
$115,000 = 16 1,854 1,900 0 0 1,900 0 0 46 0 0 0
$191,000. 23 1,763 1,900 0 0 1,900 0 0 183 0 0 0
30 1,699 1,900 0 0 1,900 0 0 384 0 0 0
Oct. 7 1,620 1,900 0 0 1,900 0 0 664 0 0 0
14 1,689 1,900 0 0 1,900 0 0 875 0 0 0
21 1,754 1,900 0 0 1,900 0 0 1,021 0 0 0
28 1,800 1,900 207 0 1,900 207 0 1,328 0 0 0
Nov. 4 1,864 1,900 250 0 1,900 250 0 1,614 0 0 0
11 1,989 1,900 250 0 1,900 250 0 1,775 0 0 0
18 2,098 1,900 250 0 1,900 250 0 1,827 0 0 0
25 2,244 1,900 250 0 1,900 250 0 1,733 0 0 0
Dec. 2 2,357 1,900 250 0 1,900 250 0 1,526 0 0 0
9 2,368 1,900 250 0 1,900 250 0 1,308 0 0 0
16 2,387 1,900 250 0 1,900 250 0 1,071 0 0 0
23 2,402 1,900 250 0 1,900 250 0 819 0 0 0
30 2,418 1,900 250 0 1,900 250 0 551 0 0 0
Jan. 6 2,417 1,900 250 0 1,900 250 0 284 0 0 0
13 2,324 1,900 250 0 1,900 250 0 110 0 0 0
20 2,204 1,900 250 0 1,900 250 0 56 0 0 0
27 2,188 1,900 250 0 1,900 250 0 18 0 0 0
Feb. 3 2,168 1,900 250 0 1,900 250 0 0 0 0 0
10 2,086 1,900 186 0 1,900 186 0 0 0 0 0
17 1,954 1,900 54 0 1,900 54 0 0 0 0 0
24 1,877 1,900 0 0 1,900 0 0 23 0 0 0
Mar. 3 1,822 1,900 0 0 1,900 0 0 101 0 0 0
10 1,803 1,900 0 0 1,900 0 0 198 0 0 0
17 1,777 1,900 0 0 1,900 0 0 321 0 0 0
24 1,799 1,900 0 0 1,900 0 0 422 0 0 0
31 1,803 1,900 0 0 1,900 0 0 519 0 0 0
Apr. 7 1,805 1,900 0 0 1,900 0 0 614 0 0 0
T otal 107,544 98,800 8,931 427 98,800 8,931 427 32,949 0 0 0
Subtotal Costs  0 71,448 4,270 3,953.9 0 0 0
T otal cost = $79,671.88