Quota arrangement ignored, subcontracting receipt short of components
Material 5001 has two approved suppliers in plant 1010: V-100 with quota 60 and V-200 with quota 40, both quota arrangements valid today. A planning run created ten purchase requisitions, all for V-100. Material master: MRP data shows the 'quota arrangement usage' field blank; purchasing data shows the source list requirement indicator set. The source list for plant 1010 contains V-100 (MRP-relevant, not blocked) and does not contain V-200. In a second area, a subcontracting purchase order for assembly 9000 to vendor V-300 requires 20 PC of component 5001 per 10 PC of assembly. The goods receipt of 10 PC fails with a message about a deficit in the stock of the vendor.
1. Give the full reason the quota arrangement was ignored and the concrete customizing/master data changes needed so that MRP splits 60/40.
Read the worked answer
Two independent gates must be open for MRP to use a quota arrangement:
- The material master MRP data field 'quota arrangement usage' must be maintained. It is blank here, so the quota arrangement is simply not read - this alone explains the result.
- The source list must not contradict it. With the source list requirement indicator set for the material, MRP takes its sources from the source list of the plant. V-200 is not in the source list, so even with the quota usage maintained, MRP could not propose V-200.
Changes: maintain quota arrangement usage in the material master (MM02, MRP data); add V-200 to the source list for plant 1010 with the MRP-relevant indicator and a validity period covering the planning horizon; check the quota arrangement item validity dates, the quota values, and any minimum/maximum quantity fields (a maximum quantity already consumed will take the source out of the rotation silently). Then re-run MRP for the affected materials and check the resulting requisitions rather than assuming the split.
Also check the quota arrangement's 'quota rating' logic if the business wants price-weighted allocation, and confirm the relevant plants are all in scope - a quota arrangement maintained for plant 1011 does nothing for 1010.
2. For the subcontracting receipt: explain why the receipt failed, what stock the system was looking for, and how you would clear it - including what would have happened if the component had simply been issued with movement type 261.
Read the worked answer
In subcontracting, the components are provided to the vendor and sit in special stock O (stock provided to vendor) at the vendor's location. The goods receipt of the assembly (101) explodes the BOM and consumes the components from that special stock at the moment of receipt. The system found less than the required 20 PC of 5001 in the vendor's provision stock and refused the whole receipt - a receipt that cannot consume its components is not posted partially.
Checks: display the vendor's provision stock (MBLB or the special stock line in MMBE) for V-300; verify the PO item is really a subcontracting item (item category L) with the correct BOM exploded; compare required quantity with the provision stock.
Clear it by transferring components into the vendor's provision stock with movement type 541 (transfer posting plant stock to stock provided to vendor). If the shortage is structural, let MRP generate the provision: the material master of the assembly needs the subcontracting special procurement type so the dependent requirement for 5001 is planned as a provision and not as an ordinary reservation.
Using 261 instead would be wrong: it issues the component to a consumption account for an order or cost center, removes it from your valuated stock, and still leaves provision stock at zero - the receipt would fail again and the component would be expensed twice over the life of the subcontract order.
3. After the fix, the buyer wants to protect the arrangement contractually. Which master data would you use for price and which for volume split, and why not one for both?
Read the worked answer
Use each object for what it is designed to control:
- Contract (outline agreement, quantity or value contract) for the price and terms with each supplier, with release orders drawn against it. It fixes the commercial conditions but says nothing about how much goes to whom.
- Quota arrangement for the volume split, because it is the only object MRP reads when allocating requisitions across several valid sources.
- Source list as the gatekeeper: it defines which sources are allowed at all, and its MRP-relevant and blocked indicators can override both of the above. That is precisely why an incomplete source list silently defeated the 60/40 split.
Why not one object for both: a contract is per supplier and per validity period and carries conditions; a quota arrangement is per material and plant and carries allocation logic. Forcing the split into contracts means maintaining quantities by hand, which MRP will not honour once an unlisted source is added to the source list. Keep the three consistent, and review the quota arrangement whenever a contract is renewed or a supplier is added.