need help on case study homework

need help on case study homework purchasing & Vender 

BACKBAY UNIVERSITY

Back Bay University is a large private university with a distinguished faculty. Enrollment at Back
Bay currently is 12,000 students, of whom 6,200 are enrolled in the university’s five outstanding
graduate schools.

Ms. Sharon Davis has been the director of Back Bay’s supply department for six years.
Her department consists of twenty-two employees and is responsible for the procurement of
supplies, services, and equipment that total $36 million. On one of her recent tours of the campus,
Ms. Davis noticed a janitor outside the dental school loading used x-ray film, some fairly heavy
small cartons, and some floor sweepings into a trash container.

Ms. Davis decided to conduct an informal survey into how the university disposed of its

surplus material. In talking with the machine shop foreman, she learned he was selling the shop’s
scrap metal to a salvage firm. He used the proceeds for the annual shop picnic.

Administrative services disposed of surplus furniture by selling it to interested members

of the Back Bay staff on an informal basis. The proceeds were donated to the woman’s auxiliary
at the university hospital. Surplus scientific and research equipment was either stored in a larger
barn or sold to interested faculty. The proceeds were used to procure research supplies.

1. What arguments are there in favor of a formal salvage program at Back Bay
University?

2. What arguments are there in opposition to such a program?

3. Assume that a salvage program is to be implemented. Which department at the

university should be responsible for it? Why?

4. Develop an implementation plan for such a salvage program.

HYDROSUB’S UNFLOATABLE AMPHIBIOUS ASSAULT VEHICLE

Kathleen Johnson started her new job as chief buyer at Hydrosub in San Francisco. Her day was without
incident until she received the following telephone call.

Voice on phone: Good afternoon, Ms. Johnson. I am Burt Lauderas, project supervisor at Bolger
Shipyards in Tacoma. The design changes for the A.A.V. are not part of our current contract. We need to
renegotiate the contract before instituting the changes. Completion of the A.A.V. will be delayed an
additional four weeks.

Kathleen Johnson (mildly concerned): Is it really necessary to renegotiate the current contract before
beginning the work?

Voice on phone: Yes, Ms. Johnson, the contract states that every design change must be renegotiated.

Kathleen Johnson (more concerned): Why will it take four additional weeks to complete the project?

Voice on phone: It will take time to renegotiate the contract and hire replacement welders, and
approximately two weeks to do the rework.

Kathleen Johnson (completely bewildered): Thank you for calling, Mr. Lauderas. I’ll contact you
tomorrow.

After recovering her composure, she opened the A.A.V. file and started the formation of her first
ulcer. Status reports showed that progress toward completion had been slow. The last chief buyer had
been “retired” when costs exceeded the original estimate of $9 million. Revised cost estimates revealed
expected expenditures to exceed $23 million. Particularly despairing was the fact that the completion date
had already been revised four times and the current completion date was listed as “unknown.

After hours of reviewing the A.A.V. project file, Kathleen understood Burt Lauderas’s concerns.
The project involved building a prototype amphibious assault vehicle for the U.S. government. It had
been Hydrosub’s intent to build a premium product, without concern for cost. If Hydrosub received the
subsequent production contract, the company’s financial stability would be greatly enhanced. However,
due to in-house capacity problems, Bolger Shipyards had been contracted to build the prototype.

Hydrosub engineers designed the prints and specifications for the prototype. These specifications
incorporated the latest in high tech design and utilized the best materials available. Design specifications
had changed innumerable times over the project’s life. Continual rework and time delays had hampered
progress. Bolger had reported design errors that necessitated the refitting of complex equipment and
rework of the aluminum welding.

Materials requirements included the use of welded aluminum. Bolger normally employed only
steel welders; aluminum welders were in short supply and impatient during work stoppages.

On the A.A.V. project, Bolger Shipyards currently employed 150 people on two shifts. Often
Bolger required overtime work. The Bolger contract was cost-based plus a fixed fee.

A particularly disturbing problem was Bolger’s cost reporting system. Bolger contract negotiators
waited for up to three weeks for cost data. Weekly time cards, bimonthly reporting, and periodic analysis
greatly hindered preparation for the contract talks.

As Kathleen Johnson reflected on the facts, her phone rang again.

Voice on phone: Hello, Ms. Johnson, welcome to Hydrosub. This is George Rope, president of
Hydrosub.

Kathleen Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Rope.

205

George Rope: Mr. Johnson, I feel uneasy burdening you with the Bolger Shipyards problem, but I
haven’t any other choice. Your hiring was based on your tremendous qualifications. We had hoped to
acclimate you to your responsibilities; unfortunately, there is no time. The A.A.V. project must be
concluded soon. Over 100 Hydrosub employees are currently working on this project; they are
discouraged. The government is very anxious, and we are competing for the future sales of this product.
Utilize all your expertise and finish the prototype.

1. Who is responsible for the poor performance of the Bolger contract?

2. What caused the production delays and cost miscalculations?

3. What can Kathleen Johnson do now to ensure completion of the project and prevent further
problems?

4. How should Hydrosub’s staff have prepared for negotiations with suppliers on this contract?

206

Unit 5: Discussion – Case Studies

4

Directions

Case Study Discussion – Ch. 16-17 

Read the 

“Case Study:  Hydrosub’s Unfloatable Amphibious Assault Vehicle” 

and 

“Back Bay University”

 case studies. Select two questions per case and post answers in 100 or more words to the selected case study questions in the discussion area below (do not attach a separate document).

Make sure you do BOTH case study discussions. In addition, read your peers’ answers and provide three substantial comments in the discussion area below. You only need three peer comments, NOT three per case study.

Your case study questions are worth 30 points total and the peer comments are worth 30 points total (10 points each).

See the Assignment and Grading page in the Course Information Module for more information on grading and discussion expectations.