Issue 2: We have found that a price change on a direct job receipt to the work order is the reason that the JC-A itemized details do not amount to the work order Grand Total for "Material".  By printing JC-F, Outside Purchases, we found the po price change is included in work order material costs, with a qty shown of "0".  This price difference does now show in the material cost for the specific part number to which it relates in the itemized material list, but is reflected in the Grand Total at the bottom.  
 
JOB COST REPORT-DETAIL REPORT:
 
MATERIALS:
component #ABC    est cost $5220    actual $5220
component  #AAA   est cost $6000    actual $5625
....
 
JOB SUMMARY            Estimated           Actual
Labor
Setup
Outside Process
Fixed Overhead
Var. Overhead
Materials                   $11,220           $11.481.75  
 
(itemized details only total $10,845, difference of $636.75)
 
JC-F OUTSIDE PURCHASES:
Part#           qty rec'd        unit cost        extension
ABC                 1500               $3.48           $5220.00
ABC                       0                   .4245       $ 636.75
 
Is there a way to tie JC-F to JC-A so the itemized material costs will total to the Grand Total material costs???

Laura,
 
If it wasn't received, then WHY would you cost it against a job???? From a business process standpoint that doesn't make much sense to me.....

Laura,
 
I truly wasn't out to hurt anyone's feelings!!    My apologies!!  
 
In my own defense, your original post did not say "not received yet", just not received. I interpreted somewhat incorrectly. And since the original thread was about JC-A, which by definition structure is an after-the-fact report, I just continued on that same thought pattern. Again, my apologies.
 
As to JC-B, well.....personal feeling has long been that a "profit projection" report should not be on a Job Cost menu. Should be in the sales reporting. Job Costing per se, should, IMHO, be an after-the-fact activity, which would then line up with my comments about unreceived items.
 
As to the original point of this thread for issue #1, yeah, I saw that a couple of years ago. Don't think there IS a fix for it.
 
And Issue 2, I would say is something to do with the order in which the functions were executed. If it isn't done in the right order then costs won't show properly.
 
Oh, and Laura......THANKS for the sentiment at the end of your post! Very nice....