Pricing not Picked up in Billing for one of the BOM items

[Former Member]

Hello SAPians,

I have an issue.

A Standard Charge Estimate was created from Service Order.

Invoicing was done on the same day of the Standard charge Estimate. The issue is

There 3 Materials (BOM)-LUMF. The price at

10. Service item Rs 0.00 TAP- (No price)

20. Service Item Rs 184.00 TAD (Priced)

30. Service item Rs 266.00 TAD (Priced)

total order value Rs 450/. Total Billing amount Rs 266.00 and NOT Rs 450/.

The error is item at 20 not picked pricing in Invoicing. Pricing analysis in Invoicing shows "Condition record exists, but has not been set" Message 108.

The possibility of User Manually deleting the Condition Type in Billing is reuled out.

Your guidance and suggestions are appreciated

Thanks in Advance

[Former Member]

Hi,

From your initial message it seems that for It.No.10 Item category selected as TAP, which means this item is Main Item and BOM Items will be next to this item.

It.Cat. TAP is having Statistical Value activated and Pricing is not activated.

Hence, Price is not picked from condition record.

Hope, this will solve the problem.

Regards,

Dilip Shende

[Former Member]

Hi,

Please read the below details of the message 108 and carry out new pricing in the invoice, this will solve your problem:

Condition record exists, but has not been set

This message tells you that the condition record exists, but has not been set in the document. If pricing was carried out again for the document item, then the condition would be set.

There are different reasons for this:

1. The condition was deleted manually in the item condition screen.

2. The condition record was created later. Please note that order processing and pricing have buffer mechanisms. This means that a newly added condition record might only be found after order processing has been left completely and then started again.

If the condition type is used for subsequent settlement (rebate), there may be subsequent updating of business volume (the agreement is is created retrospectively). The document conditions do not contain the condition record, as the condition record was not created when pricing was carried out. Updating of business volume is carried out using special functions for subsequent settlement.

3. When an item was added, the condition record was accessed with key fields other than change time. This could lead to different results in the requirements check at the time of adding and the change time. This can occur when modifications are made.

4. In billing (or when copying orders): Certain condition types were not determined in the source document (this is usually controlled by the pricing requirements). When creating the document, the document flow (TVCPF,TVCPA) is processed using a pricing type that does not redetermine these condition types, although they are supposed to be called via the requirements.

Hrishikesh

[Former Member]

Hello Hrishikesh,

I read this message. The material is a BOM item and prices were picked in Order , but the price in Billing was not picked for line item 20.

But, is there any solution?

Thanks

Sreenivas

[Former Member]

Hello,

This is a service order done in previous Fin. year. A new pricing record were maintained for Material in April . The old pricing of material is copied into the Order. But, always there is a problem of copying prices of the Material at Item 20.

The concept of retrobilling was in practice , but I do not know how?

Could any one who is facing a similar problem suggest?

Thanks in advance.

[Former Member]

Check your condition records, looks like it was set for deletion or something. Also check if the condition record is maitained properly with no exclusion

[Former Member]

Condition Records have been maintained and there is no exclusion indicator set. More over the Std. Charge Estimate and the Invoice are of the same date.

[Former Member]

HI,

Go to invoice and In item level of the faulty material select conditons tab and do "carry out new pricng" may it will solves ur problem.

Regards,

kishore.