when I mark all of my T&M jobs complete at year end, projected costs are built to match projected amounts/hrs to actual, which then generates a Provision for Loss for each of these jobs resulting in pages and pages of extra unnecessary lines.
Gail Wardell
| Company | Collins Electrical Company, Inc. |
| Job Title / Role | CFO |
| I need it... | Yesterday...Come on already |
Dear Viewpoint Suggestion Box contributor;
We at Viewpoint sincerely thank you for your contribution to Suggestion Box on how we can improve Viewpoint products. While we can’t do everything at once, we rely upon your feedback to help guide the prioritization of our product improvements, and Suggestion Box is a critical tool for us to understand and prioritize our customers’ needs.
Viewpoint reviews Suggestion Box regularly for all of our products and updates statuses, adds comments, and performs various house-keeping (including deleting) as needed to ensure that Suggestion Box is maintained as a productive environment for product enhancements requests.
© 2023 Trimble Inc. All Rights Reserved. Viewpoint®, Vista™, Spectrum®, ProContractor™, Jobpac Connect™, Viewpoint Team™, Viewpoint Analytics™, Viewpoint Field View™, Viewpoint Estimating™, Viewpoint For Projects™, Viewpoint HR Management™, Viewpoint Field Management™, Viewpoint Financial Controls™, Vista Field Service™, Spectrum Service Tech™, ViewpointOne™, ProjectSight® and Trimble Construction One™ are trademarks or registered trademarks of Trimble Inc. or its affiliates in the United States and other countries. Other names and brands may be claimed as the property of others.
We just ended up with 76 T+M jobs that were marked as complete, the system automatically created a projection, setting the project amt/hrs to actual, and then creating provision for loss for all 76 jobs.
Apparently the contract status report does nothing special for T+M or Cost plus jobs when calculating the provision for loss. It simply takes the revised contract value less the projected cost at completion.
This seems highly problematic. If you want to use the functionality to set the projected costs to actual when marking a job complete, you risk ALL of those T+M jobs showing a provision for loss on the WIP. Viewpoint indicates this is working as designed, but I think an enhancement is in order as there is truly NO loss occurring and these jobs should not be reflected with a provision for loss just because the system created a projected cost equal to the actual cost.