How Did Zeta Affect The Cost Of Construction

In the above extract, the vice president contemplates whether to use Alpha or Zeta as the construction company for a new building project. Information from the past suggests that using Alpha would result in lower construction costs and using Zeta would result in lower maintenance and energy costs in the long run. The conclusion is therefore drawn that Zeta would be the better option based on the current evidence, however further evidence would need to be furnished, in order to determine how apt the conclusion which has been drawn is. The buildings that were constructed by the two companies were erected in two different locations, this may have affected a number of factors regarding the cost of construction, maintenance and energy costs. It therefore needs to be shown to what degree these factors affected costs.
Firstly, it was stated that the building constructed by Zeta cost 30% more to build than the building erected by Alpha, this can be attributed to a number of factors. It is possible that the cost of construction material was higher in the region in which Zeta was in operation. This would explain the higher costs of construction, however this may not be the case and Zeta may have just been less efficient than Alpha in regards to the use of money. Evidence therefore needs …show more content…
Evidence needs to be furnished to show why there was such a disparity in the maintenance costs of the two buildings. The weather conditions in the two regions may be very different, leading to one building undergoing more wear and tear due to the elements. There is also the possibility that the Alpha building may have been vandalized, leading to more needing to be spent on maintenance. Hence the various costs relating to maintenance needs to be investigated in order to uncover evidence which will outline why it cost more to maintain one