MT453 Unit 9 Two-Option Sales Proposal Example

From Pilot Results to Dated Signatures: An MT453 Unit 9 Sales Proposal Recommending Both Lines

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

MT453: Professional Selling

Unit 9 Sales Proposal

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

Pellston Hygiene, Salado Creek Foods, every person and every figure are composite; the sources cited are real.

Cover Letter

Dear Mr. Treviño: This proposal follows the sixty-day pilot on line 1 that your team agreed to in March and ran from April 20 to June 19. The results met every criterion your quality manager signed before the pilot began. We propose extending the program to both lines for thirty-six months, and we have included a second, smaller option for line 1 alone. A signature page is attached for your review. Dale Kessler and I can walk you through any section in person before you decide.

Executive Summary

In March your plant manager, Dale Kessler, described the problem in one sentence: "Line 1 is sold out, and we lose half a shift every time we switch to the dairy-free run." The pilot answered it. Average allergen changeover time on line 1 fell by about an hour and a half, first-pass swab results reached 96 percent and no procedure was changed before the spring audit. We recommend option B, both lines for thirty-six months at $10,800 a month, equipment included.

Pilot Results

This section answers the plant manager's question: did it work on line 1? Across 24 allergen changeovers during the pilot, the average duration was 4 hours 2 minutes, against 5 hours 31 minutes across the 12 changeovers recorded before it. The range ran from 3 hours 41 minutes to 4 hours 36 minutes, so even the slowest pilot changeover beat the previous average. First-pass swab results rose from 81 percent to 96 percent, and re-cleans fell from about one every two changeovers to one in the whole pilot. Chemical use per changeover fell by about 9 percent, because foam held on vertical surfaces and less product was rinsed away. Hot water recovery no longer delayed the rinse; the new dosing equipment draws water at a rate the existing heater can sustain.

Even the slowest changeover in the pilot finished faster than the plant's previous average.

Validation and Audit

This section answers the quality manager's question: is it safe for the audit and beyond? Nadia Ochoa wrote the validation plan with Pellston before the pilot started, and every changeover was verified with her sampling plan. Line 2 would follow the same steps: a written validation plan approved by quality, two weeks of parallel verification and a swab verification schedule reviewed with her monthly. No procedure on line 2 would change until she signs the plan, and the line 2 start date is set after the plant's next third-party audit window.

Two Options

This section answers everyone's question: what are the choices? Two options are offered because a single take-it-or-leave-it price asks the buyer to accept or reject the whole proposal, while two let the plant choose its level of commitment.

Option A covers line 1 only: $6,900 a month on a twelve-month term with a one-time equipment charge of $17,000, chemistry, training and swab verification included.

Option B covers both lines: $10,800 a month on a thirty-six-month term, with all equipment included at no separate charge, plus quarterly reviews of changeover data with the plant manager and quality manager. Option B is recommended, because it costs less per line than option A, includes the equipment and gives line 2's night crew the same shorter changeovers that line 1 has had since April.

The Investment

This section answers the purchasing manager's question: how does it compare with what we spend now? The comparison is built on annual cost difference, not price per gallon. Salado Creek spends about $71,000 a year on sanitation chemicals across both lines. Option B costs $129,600 a year, an increase of $58,600. On line 1 alone, the pilot's saving of about 1.48 hours on each of about 150 changeovers returns about 222 line hours a year, worth about $421,800 at the controller's $1,900 of contribution per running hour. Line 2 is not sold out, so its benefit is counted only as reduced overtime for the night crew, which your sanitation supervisor estimates at about $46,000 a year. The total measured and estimated benefit is about $468,000 a year against the added cost of $58,600.

Implementation

Line 2 equipment would be installed in the week of August 17 during a scheduled maintenance shutdown. Pellston would train the sanitation crew on both shifts in two sessions, and Pellston's technician would attend the first six line 2 changeovers. Line 1 would continue on the pilot program without interruption. The crew that ran the pilot would help train the line 2 crew, since the night sanitation team works both lines on alternate weeks and already knows the sequence.

Service Commitments

Pellston commits to a four-hour response for any equipment failure that delays a changeover, a monthly visit by the territory representative and the technician, quarterly reviews of changeover time and swab results against the pilot's criteria and replacement of chemistry within two business days.

Terms

Option B runs thirty-six months from signature. If average changeover time on line 1 exceeds 4 hours 15 minutes, or first-pass swab results fall below 95 percent, for two consecutive quarters, Salado Creek may end the agreement on ninety days' notice with no penalty. Prices are fixed for the first twelve months and may rise by no more than 3 percent a year after that.

Next Steps

The next-steps table assigns each action an owner and a date: owner signature by July 24 (Ramón Treviño); line 2 validation plan approved by August 7 (Nadia Ochoa with Pellston); supplier setup completed by August 7 (Lorena Vega); installation the week of August 17 (Pellston with Gary Holt, maintenance); first line 2 changeover under the program by August 24 (Tomás Reyes).

Why This Proposal Is Organized This Way

Every section answers a question someone in the buying center asked during the sale, and the proposal labels whose question it is. Webster and Wind (1972) showed that a company purchase passes through several people, each judging it by their own duties, so a proposal written only for the person who signs leaves everyone else's objections standing. Anderson et al. (2006) recommend that value be shown in the customer's own figures, which is why the investment section uses the plant's records and the pilot's measurements. Rackham (1988) warns that proposals often fail when they introduce new claims at the end of a sale; this one introduces none, only the results of a test the buyer designed.

References

Anderson, J. C., Narus, J. A., & van Rossum, W. (2006). Customer value propositions in business markets. Harvard Business Review, 84(3), 90-99.

Rackham, N. (1988). SPIN selling. McGraw-Hill.

Webster, F. E., & Wind, Y. (1972). A general model for understanding organizational buying behavior. Journal of Marketing, 36(2), 12-19. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224297203600204