This manual is for BUS-FPX3022 Assessment 2, start to submission. The middle deliverable in this course usually puts two or more suppliers in front of you and asks which one the firm should buy from, which means total landed cost rather than quoted price, a scorecard with weights you can defend, and payment terms priced as the short-term loan they actually are. The quote on the page is almost never the answer. Below is the sequence our tutors follow, a structure taken from the criteria, and an annotated excerpt. Prefer to pass it over? A premium original sample built against your own scoring guide returns inside 24 to 48 hours, with revisions free until it meets the guide. Your courseroom may print this as BUS FPX 3022 Assessment 2 or BUS3022 Assessment 2; it is the same deliverable, and BUS-FPX3022 Assessment 2 is what this manual walks through.
One honesty note before the manual: Capella revises courses and scoring guides over time, so always write to the exact scoring guide attached to your assessment in the courseroom. The course identity above is verified on capella.edu; the method and structure below are our tutors' approach to it, not Capella's official rubric text.
How BUS-FPX3022 Assessment 2 is scored
FlexPath resolves each criterion to one of four levels and never issues a letter grade. Treat the level wording as the specification:
| Level | What it means on a sourcing evaluation |
|---|---|
| Distinguished | Landed cost built line by line, weights justified against this firm's strategy, and the tradeoff the recommendation accepts named in dollars or days. Naming what gets worse is what earns the level. |
| Proficient | Costs compared correctly and a supplier chosen. Defensible, with the weights still unexplained and the tradeoff unstated. |
| Basic | Unit prices set side by side, or a scorecard whose weights arrived from an example rather than from the buying firm. |
| Non-performance | A cost element the criterion names is missing, or the scorecard totals do not follow from the scores shown. |
Put 60 percent of the weight on price and the scorecard picks one supplier; move that weight onto quality and reliability and it picks another, which is why the weights are the graded part and the addition is not. Write the sentence that ties each weight to something the business is trying to do.
The BUS-FPX3022 Assessment 2 method, step by step
-
Build the criteria into headings first
Read the guide, make every criterion a heading, and put its top-column sentence underneath while you draft. Sourcing prompts arrive with tempting arithmetic, and arithmetic performed outside a criterion earns nothing however carefully it is done.
-
List every cost element before you price any of them
Quoted price, inbound freight and drayage, duty and brokerage, inspection, packaging, payment terms, and the cost of goods sitting in transit. Write the list from the prompt and mark the elements the prompt left out, because a gap you have named reads as diligence and one you ignored reads as an error.
-
Price the pipeline, because most drafts do not
Goods in transit are financed inventory. Annual volume divided by 52, multiplied by weeks of transit, gives the units in the pipeline, and those units times landed cost times the firm's cost of capital gives the annual charge that long lead times quietly impose.
-
Turn the terms into an annual rate
A 2 percent discount for paying twenty days early is not a 2 percent saving. The discount divided by the amount still owed, multiplied by the number of twenty-day windows in a year, gives the annualized cost of declining it, and that figure often settles the question by itself.
-
Weight the scorecard from the strategy, not the template
Pick four or five measures, state each one's definition and denominator, then justify each weight by pointing at something the firm competes on. A roaster selling on consistency weights cup quality and delivery reliability; a firm selling on price does not, and saying so is the criterion.
-
Recommend, name the loss, then self-score
Give the decision, the dollar difference, and the thing that gets worse because of it. Then read the draft against each criterion, mark your own level, and revise anything short of the top column before submitting early in the week.
A structure that maps to the criteria
Section targets below are our tutors' planning figures for a sourcing evaluation, not Capella requirements. Expand whichever section your own criteria weight hardest.
| Section | What it must do | Guide |
|---|---|---|
| The decision | What is being bought, at what annual volume, and which suppliers are in the comparison. | ~150 words |
| Landed cost build-up | Every cost element per unit for each supplier, with the substitution and the source of each figure. | ~350 words |
| Terms and pipeline | Payment terms annualized, plus the financing cost of goods in transit for each option. | ~200 words |
| Supplier scorecard | Measures, definitions, weights, scores, and totals, with each weight tied to the firm's strategy. | ~250 words |
| Recommendation and tradeoff | The choice, the dollar difference, and what the firm gives up by making it. | ~200 words |
| References | Trade data, professional definitions, and peer-reviewed sources in current APA both ways. | as needed |
Annotated sample excerpt
Here is an original excerpt from our team, written for a coffee roaster comparing two green coffee suppliers, where the cheaper quote turns out to be the more expensive coffee.
The lower quote is the higher cost. Supplier A's $3.85 a pound at origin reaches Ember and Ash Coffee Roasters at $4.19 once ocean freight and drayage of $0.19, customs brokerage of $0.06, and arrival cupping of $0.04 are added, plus $0.05 a pound to finance seven weeks of beans in transit.1 Supplier B quotes $4.12 delivered on a two week lead time, so its pipeline charge is $0.014 and its landed cost is $4.13, roughly six cents a pound below Supplier A, or about $13,400 a year at 240,000 pounds.2 Supplier B also offers 2 percent off for payment within ten days on thirty day terms, and declining that discount costs about 37 percent annualized, which is far above the roastery's line of credit rate and settles how the invoices get paid.3
- 1Four words state the finding, then the build-up arrives element by element with the pipeline charge included, which is the line most drafts omit entirely.
- 2The comparison closes in the same unit it opened in, then scales to annual volume so a purchasing manager sees the size of the decision.
- 3Payment terms are priced as borrowing and compared against the firm's real alternative, which turns a footnote in the quote into a recommendation.
The full premium sample for your exact assessment, written fresh to your scoring guide and issue, is free to request. Study it, revise it into your own voice, and submit work you understand.
The five mistakes that cost Distinguished
- Unit prices compared as though they were costs. Freight, duty, inspection, and pipeline inventory decide more sourcing questions than the quote does.
- Lead time treated as a service issue only. Weeks in transit are financed units, and the financing carries an annual price you can compute.
- A discount read at face value. Two percent for twenty days is an annualized rate in the thirties, and a paper that misses that misses the recommendation.
- Weights copied from an example. The weights are the argument, and unexplained ones hand the evaluation criterion nothing to reward.
- A recommendation with no loss attached. Every sourcing choice buys one thing by giving up another, and the criteria want the sacrifice named.
Pre-submission checklist
- A cost element list written before any pricing, with gaps in the prompt flagged
- Landed cost per unit built line by line for every supplier compared
- Pipeline inventory priced from volume, transit weeks, and cost of capital
- Payment terms converted to an annualized rate
- Every scorecard weight tied to something the firm competes on
- The recommendation, the dollar difference, and the tradeoff accepted
Supplier comparison due?
Send the quotes, the volumes, and the criteria. We build the landed cost table line by line, annualize the terms, and weight the scorecard to the firm actually in front of us. Your opening premium sample is free.