This is not any Question I need to rewrite this paragraph It

This is not any Question. I need to rewrite this paragraph. It\'s plagiarism so I need plagiarism free for this following paragraph. So you need to rewrite it just keeping the same meaning. (No Handwriting please)

The growth rate of various inputs (labor, COGS) is what makes me most uncomfortable, but we don\'t have historical data to compare. There is historical data of overall revenue and COGS, but we can\'t be sure the markup wasn\'t changing, versus the cost of the inputs themselves. Also, Tucker seems uncomfortable at the short, three year, contract period the large customer has offered. It seems probable that there will be at least a decline in growth, if not a decline in actual sales volume, after the three year period expires in 2012 However, these assumptions have a steady rate of growth, with no decline forecast whatsoever. The 5% growth assumption from 2009-2014 also doesn\'t track with historical growth which has been closer to 8%. Taken in aggregate the growth assumptions aren\'t entirely unsound, but they seem to be simplistic assumptions. Given that cash flows ultimately dictate solvency and survival, these estimates might want to include the likely ups and downs with more granularity to allow for better resource management. Also, it isn\'t clear what the historical labor costs have been. I\'d be happier with an impression that staffing levels -especially management staffing are being realistically estimated as output volume increases. It is likely that there is a straight line calculation of volume output to hourly labor, but this expansion may but proportionally greater, or materially different, demands on management labor. Examples of this include handling a busier loading dock, or the relationship of the new space to any pre-shipping storage space and the ease of moving things between.

Solution

The labour and COGS are expenses so if there is growth rate in it then it takes uncomfortable but we have not the data of past years by which we compare this data. We have a past years data of total of overall revenue or COGS but we are not confirm that the markup is charging in it either it is at cost or not with comparison to the cost of inputs.

Also the trucker found to be uncomfortable at the Little 3 years contract period that is offered by the large or big customer. there is also a probability that there is a decline in the growth rate of labour and COGS if there is no decline in actual sales value after 3 years in 2012. However there is a assumption of fixed growth rate .The assumption of growth rate of 2009-2014 of 5% is also proves incorrect as actual it is nearest to 8%..If we take a growth rate in aggregate then it can be unsound decision but this assumption is too simple It is clearly given that the cash flows can dictate solvency ultimately. For better management these estimates may be likely ups or downs

Also the actual labour cost is also not given. It makes happier that the staffing cost is correctly estimated as output volume increase. It may be happen that the straight line calculation of output volume to hourly labour but this proportionate may materially different . Examples of it include the ease of movement of things , the relationship between the pre shipping storage or new space, handling of a busier loading dock etc.