This paper evaluates a make-or-buy decision involving specialized HVAC pipes. The analysis weighs two primary factors: cost and quality. On the cost side, in-house production is calculated at approximately $5.77 per linear foot — rising to at most $6.39 when pipe-joining labor is included — compared to a supplier's offer of $18.10 per linear foot. On the quality side, the supplier can provide perfectly round, twenty-foot pipes, while in-house production is limited to eight-foot sections requiring welded joints. Despite the supplier's quality advantages, the paper concludes that the substantial cost differential, combined with the ability to control in-house quality, justifies choosing to make the pipe rather than buy it.
The central question is whether to buy pipe from an outside supplier or to manufacture it in-house. To make this decision responsibly, several criteria must be evaluated. The vice president's inquiry focused on outsourcing from a cost perspective; however, this task is highly specialized, and errors in an HVAC system could have disastrous consequences. Cost alone, therefore, is an insufficient basis for the decision — quality and risk must also be weighed.
Two main safety considerations are relevant. First, the supplier is able to provide perfectly round pipes, something that cannot be guaranteed with in-house production. Perfectly round pipes reduce the risk of leaks at welds, meaning that an in-house solution carries a higher inherent risk in this respect. That said, this is a known and quantifiable risk.
Second, the supplier's quality can only be taken on faith until a business relationship is established. If the supplier's pipes do not meet the standard as advertised, the cost of remediation will likely fall on the buyer. It should raise concern that this supplier is willing to offer pipe at $18.10 per linear foot when other market estimates run $5 to $10 higher. Such a significant undercut suggests one of two things: either the supplier's processes are substantially inferior to those of competitors, or the supplier has a meaningful source of competitive advantage — such as economies of scale — that enables the abnormally low price. Without more information, it is impossible to know which explanation applies.
In addition, the supplier can deliver pipes in twenty-foot lengths, whereas in-house production is limited to eight-foot sections. Extending pipe runs in-house would require welded joints. If the supplier's quality claims can be verified, the combination of greater length and perfect roundness gives the supplier a meaningful quality edge.
The supplier is offering pipe at $18.10 per linear foot. The in-house cost structure breaks down as follows:
Labor cost per foot is calculated by dividing the total labor cost of $32.60 by the eight feet in a single pipe, yielding $4.075 per foot. Welding gas costs $0.031 per foot, welding wire costs $0.156 per foot, and steel costs $4.50 per foot. These sum to a total variable cost of approximately $5.77 per linear foot.
Overhead costs are intentionally excluded from this calculation because they are not incremental cash flows. Only costs that change as a result of the decision are relevant. Whether the pipes are made in-house or purchased externally, allocated overhead will eventually be absorbed into the company's fixed cost structure; including it at this stage would distort the analysis. Arbitrary overhead allocations are irrelevant to a properly constructed make-or-buy comparison.
"Additional labor cost from welding pipe joints"
"Final recommendation favoring in-house production"
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.