Construction Job Costing

Job costing construction contractors can act on while the job is still open.

We encode your cost rules into the systems you already run, so the WIP tells the truth before the job closes, not after.

  • AI implementation services
  • Committed vs. actual, continuously
  • Your cost rules, encoded
  • Exception-only review

Built with the leading AI platforms

NVIDIAAnthropic
Peter Enestrom, founder of Zaigo

Led by Peter Enestrom and the Zaigo AI & engineering team

YaleColumbia UniversityMicrosoft

The broken Friday

The month-end WIP tells you what you already lost.

From controllers and owners we have sat with: GCs, subs, and equipment-heavy field-services contractors between $10M and $100M, on a construction accounting suite already — and still drowning in month-end variance.

  • Receipts that never make it to the job

    Receipt scanning with job attribution is completely manual: receipts sit in truck cabs until month-end, then get keyed to whatever job someone remembers. High-value jobs absorb the guesswork.

  • Owned vs. rented, told apart by a code nobody trusts

    The only flag is a resource code an accountant types into the job planning lines; filtering on it means trusting every keystroke. Rental cost bleeds into owned-equipment rates.

  • The job site and the equipment live in different systems

    The job site address lives in a different system than the equipment — cost and location never visible together. Machines move between jobs; costs move when someone remembers.

  • The estimate-to-actual handoff, fragile at the worst time

    Estimating just moved from sales to engineering and the team is getting its sea legs, so every downstream variance inherits the fragile handoff.

  • Field approvals that never reach the forecast

    Change orders get a verbal yes in the field and never enter the projection. Unlogged approvals corrupt the job-cost forecast — discovered at month-end, with the job already over.

What manual costs

Margin fade surfaces at the month-end WIP — after the window to act has closed.

The scale of the contractor organizations this manual work is holding together. Your numbers will differ — the variance audit of one job puts figures on yours before anything gets built.

~1,000Tracked assets at a field-services contractor capturing job expenses by hand
~800Fleet units at an equipment-heavy contractor, owned vs. rented distinguished by a typed code
$100M+Specialty contractor whose estimate-to-actual handoff just moved teams

From anonymized engagements — field services, equipment-heavy and specialty contracting

How it works

We encode your cost rules.

No new system for your team to learn. The rules your best job-cost person carries in their head become the checks the ledger runs under.

  1. 01

    Audit the variance on one job

    We map one job: where actuals diverged from the estimate, and when anyone could have known. The gap between divergence and discovery is what we close first.

    First job
  2. 02

    Encode the rules

    Cost-code map, committed-cost capture at the PO and field ticket, owned-vs-rented flags, receipt-to-job attribution — run inside your accounting suite. What breaks a rule lands in an exception queue.

    The rule set
  3. 03

    Review exceptions only

    Your team sees only the jobs whose rules tripped, while there is still time to act. The WIP tells the truth before the job closes.

    Every open job
Not another tool

The software holds the ledger. It doesn’t hold your rules.

Construction accounting suites — the Sage 300 CRE, Foundation, Viewpoint, and Procore financials class — hold the job-cost ledger. They don’t hold your rules: cost-code discipline, committed-vs-actual tracking, owned-vs-rented flags, receipt-to-job attribution, the estimate-to-actual handoff.

Your jobs run on exceptions: the cost code this owner bills differently, the machine crossing three jobs, the receipt arriving after the pay app. We encode your rules into the systems you already run; our AI reads every receipt and field ticket against them.

Peter Enestrom, founder of Zaigo
Who builds it

Led by Peter Enestrom.

Co-Founder — leads AI & Engineering

Pete Enestrom

Every engagement is led personally by Pete, working with the Zaigo AI & engineering team from the two-week audit through the production handover. The person who scopes the work is the person who builds it.

Education
Yale & ColumbiaGraduate
Background
Microsoft & IntelFormer
Experience
Exited FounderVenture-Backed

Background

Questions

Asked by controllers and owners.

The straight answers, before you book anything.

What’s holding your business back?

A workflow ready for automation. An AI product you want to build. A problem that has sat on the roadmap for years. Let’s talk about what it would take to solve it.

Talk to Zaigo