Self Service Procurement

Get Involved. Join the Conversation.

Topic

    Steven Tokarski
    BPA Pricing is defaulting to Reqs/POs when no BPA is...
    Topic posted November 14, 2019 by Steven TokarskiBronze Medal: 1,250+ Points, tagged Create Requisition, Requisition Processing 
    75 Views, 19 Comments
    Title:
    BPA Pricing is defaulting to Reqs/POs when no BPA is referenced in FBDI Upload of purchasing data
    Summary:
    BPA Pricing is defaulting to Reqs/POs when no BPA is referenced in FBDI Upload of purchasing data, this is causing the wrong pricing to appear on Reqs and Orders
    Content:

    We use BPAs to manage pricing by project and dates and reference those BPAs in our FBDI uploads. If there is no BPA referenced in the BPA field, but a valid BPA exists for the item/supplier combination, Oracle is by default pulling that pricing into our Reqs and POs. This is not desired, we are expecting the system default list pricing to populate. We need the option to leave the BPA field blank and pull in the default pricing.

    Comment

    • Suman Guha

      Moved from Purchasing.

    • Ashok

      Steven

      Your observations are indeed valid. This has been designed specifically based on customer requirements that agreements are sacrosanct in many such cases and even if the FBDI did not provide one explicitly, the spirit is that the system tries to source the requisition to an agreement wherever feasible.

      From your details above I gather this is not a requirement for your business process. 

      I had one follow up question. Is this requirement a blanket one where if the FBDI template does not provide a BPA reference, then in every such case, you don't wish for it to be sourced from an agreement? I think the answer is yes but just wanted to be sure.

      I will review this use case internally and revert.

    • Steven Tokarski

      Ashok, you are correct that would be the requirement anytime the BPA field is left blank. If there was a flag or override field added to the FBDI template to indicate such and make that ignore any active BPAs, that would be a solution for us.

       

      Steven

    • Ashok

      Steven

      The FBDI Template has an attribute on the Requisition Lines template entitled: Autosource Flag. Have you tried setting it to N for the specific lines where you do not wish to autosource? This is the feature I said I would check internally on to revert. See attached screenshot.

    • Ashok

      It also bears mention that if you have already set this to the value N and observed that it still does not work, there is a bug 30515529 that we are tracking to fix that specific issue.

      Summary:

      Your requirement is met based on the Autosource Flag value setting as detailed above and the bug being fixed.

      Regards

      Ashok

    • Akash Verma

      Hi Ashok,

      Thanks for your response but when we are trying to open the bug to view further information on the bug, we are unable to open it. This even does not show up when we search this on oracle support metalink site.

      So, can you please provide us further information here as to how can we search for this bug?

      Also, we tested this scenario and found that even if we keep the autosource flag as 'N', the requisition which gets created does not have the BPA reference but the PO autocreated from the requisition has the BPA reference. Hence, setting this flag to 'N' also does not solve our issue.

      Can you please let us know if there are further inputs from you here?

      Thanks,

      Akash 

    • Ashok

      Akash

      As I pointed out earlier, the fact that you set the value to N and still see it autosourced is the issue that the bug I provided seeks to address. I am not sure how a customer sees these bugs.You should seek Support's assistance here and log an SR and provide them this bug reference to see if they are able to provide a window for you to view these details. I imagine without an SR you don't have a window into a bug or enhancement directly.

    • Akash Verma

      Hi Ashok,

      Thanks we have further asked on details on the bug via SR 3-21598474411 : 19C/PRD/PRC: Need details on the bug 30515529.

      Regards,

      Akash

    • Akash Verma

      Hi Ashok,

      We have got further details on the bug that it is an internal bug and hence this was not viewable to us.

      The current status of the bug is that it is still under initial screening by development team.

      We have also confirmed that the bug limited to the price on the requisition from FBDI file which we are able to get by setting the autosource flag to 'N' in FBDI (as suggested above) but we further face the issue of BPA getting referenced when a PO is made from the requisition imported. So, this bug may be applicable to us for some part but not completely.

      Kindly let us know your views on this.

      Thanks,

      Akash

    • Ashok

      Akash

      I think that specific aspect you are raising (about PO still referencing the agreement) is something that is handled by Purchasing. If I am not mistaken. I am given to understand that they are also fixing that part of it through their own bug. But this is something I will need to confirm with the Purchasing team. I will let you know. As of now, my response is tentative only.

    • Akash Verma

      Thanks Ashok, please let us know in case you find anything which can further help us out here.

    • Akash Verma

      Hi Team,

      Can you please let us know in case there is any further progress here?

      Thanks,

      Akash

    • Ashok

      Akash

      I will revert to you later this week.

    • Maithily Kohale

      Hi Akash,

      The bug 30515529 against Fusion Self Service Procurement will fix the issue where if the requisitions are imported with "AutoSource Flag" as N, then just as the sourcing is prevented on a requisition line, it will be prevented on the corresponding Purchase Order too. This should be available in a future release.

      Thanks,

      Maithily.

    • Akash Verma

      Hi Maithily,

      We checked this bug on metalink but cannot find it in the search results.

      Is this an internal Bug?

      Also, if you could please tell us the future version/timeline as to when it would come, then we could plan this with the client for further testing?

      Kindly let us know your views on this.

      Thanks,

      Akash