The case study mentions attacks in the Suez Canal and the effect of climate change on the Panama Canal. This has influenced global shipping routes. In the aftermath of recent attacks in the Red Sea, vessels are opting to bypass the Suez Canal and navigate around South Africa's Cape of Good Hope. This shift has disrupted the crucial global shipping routes, compelling ships to add another $15$ days to their journeys, accompanied by increased costs. These cargo delays and increased delivery times will influence supplier selection and assessment. Look at figure $5\mathrm{.}2$ in the prescribed book. Due to the above scenario the evaluation criteria change as follows:

On$-$time delivery $(15)$

Fill$-$rate $(0)$

Cost reduction materials $(5)$

Cost reduction transport $(20)$

Question: Comparing the cost totals and delivery totals of the respective suppliers after adapting the weights, how has the scenario changed? $($This question only relates to the cost and delivery weights and totals.$)$

Supplier B remains the best choice in terms of both cost and delivery, based on the same total for both cost and delivery before and after the weights have changed.

Supplier A remained in third position in terms of cost$,$ both before and after the weights changed.

Supplier C now shares his first position in terms of delivery with Supplier B$.$

Supplier B remained in his previous second position in terms of cost$.$