Atlantis Roves

Tender Evaluation

Designer name: Ben Loxton

Client: EMPACT

Project: Mars Lander/Rover

Date start: 04/10/2017

Date submitted: 08/10/2017

Revision: C
 Executive Summary
This document contains the review of tenders submitted to Atlantis Roves by Muller
International, M.R.E and C.K.O.S.E contracting companies. C.K.O.S.E was unable to submit
but has offered apologies. C.K.O.S.E will therefore not be summarised in this document.

The main body of this evaluation involves the response to the design package review
submitted by each company and the evaluation of company tenders.

Reponses to Design Package Review Summary:

Muller International was found to have the greatest understanding of design, accurately
describing how the design will look, work and how it will be constructed. The company
contractors pointed out 4 main concerns and suggested at least 1 solution for each concern.
The first concern involved the rigidity of the galvanised straps as part of the suspension. The
favoured solution suggested was to implement a sliding track to one side of each of the
galvanised straps to allow the suspension to contort horizontally. Atlantis Roves has agreed
with this solution given that it does not exceed the cost constraints provided by the client.

The second concern was that the designs wheels (grinding discs) would not be able to support
excessive force from impact upon landing; the solution suggested involved using several CDs
per wheel to remain cost effective. This concern was disregarded as grinding disks are
designed to experience excessive force, and the designers did not consider as the force that
will be applied in conditions of testing as excessive. CDs have also been explained to not
have a large enough radius to fully surround the design and support the design from all
angles.

The third concern was that the cargo was not covered by a lid and created an imbalance in the
distribution of weight in the design as it is positioned diagonally in the cargo compartment.
Muller Internationals solution to this was to secure a Velcro lid over the top of the egg,
which was evaluated as a feasible solution by the designers. The second solution was to
increase the length of the compartment by cutting out more of the base so that the bottle
could fit straight. This was agreed upon as long as the base did not have to be increased in
length, because that would mean that the diameter of the wheels would not be large enough to
absorb the force from impact. An alternative seat solution to straighten the bottle was
suggested as feasible by the designers. If a solution is to be agreed upon before construction it
is believed by Atlantis Roves that another meeting is essential.

The final concern presented is that the bottle has the possibility of crushing the egg on impact
after descent. This concern was agreed by the designer to be essential to resolve. The solution
suggested involved a wall of bubble wrap to be secured between the bottle and the egg. The
designers determined that bubble wrap may not be able to absorb enough of the impact to
protect the egg cargo, and that a wall of foam should also be implemented and securely for
maximum safety of the egg cargo.
The second company, M.R.E was found to have a satisfactory understanding of design. The
main flaw of their presented understanding is that it lacked an explanation of the purpose of
each component. For example, the only purpose of component included was that the bubble
wrap is used to cushion and protect the egg. Purpose of galvanised strapping and latex
balloon wheel coverage was not mentioned.

Two main concerns with design were suggested by M.R.E with at least one solution to both
concerns suggested.

The first concern is that M.R.E believes that there is nothing stopping from the bolt detaching
from the balsa wood block and therefore damaging the wheels. The solution suggested
involved making the wood block thinner so that the bolt can go the entire way through and a
nut can be fastened to the inside end of the bolt between the base and the block to ensure the
axles do not break on impact. This solution was approved by Atlantis Roves and is not seen
as a major change to the design. If M.R.E is chosen to contract for our company, a meeting
will certainly take place between M.R.E and Atlantis Roves to confirm the dimensions of the
block and the extra cost of this solution.

The second concern presented to us by M.R.E is that the actual cost greatly exceeds the
spreadsheet costs; however the design does meet the cost constraints presented by the client.
One solution to this is that instead of using balsa wood blocks, wood cut-offs should be used
to reduce cost. This solution is approved by Atlantis Roves. The second solution suggested
was that instead of using MDF that was expensive and had to be ordered a great deal of time
before construction dates, alternative materials should be sourced. Atlantis Roves believes
that if M.R.E is chosen to contract for our company, a meeting must be had to determine the
correct alternative material to be used to reduce cost and remain within the design constraints.

Evaluation of Company Tenders:

Company Name Score Given Preference #1-#3

Muller International 88/100 #1
M.R.E 81/100 #2
C.K.O.S.E Unavailable #3
Muller International has been evaluated as our companys first preference. This is because
they displayed the most evidence to their claims that they were unparalleled with reference to
the five main criteria; Punctuality, Organisation, Understanding the Design, Experience and
Teamwork. It is our recommendation that Muller International should be chosen to be
Atlantis Roves contracting company if the design is to be constructed closest to the clients
standards. The individual sub-criteria scores for the two evaluated companies are shown
below.

Company Punctuality Organisation Understanding Experience Teamwork Total

the Design Score
Muller 17/20 17/20 18/20 18/20 18/20 88
International
M.R.E 15/20 17/20 15/20 16/20 18/20 81
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction

This document contains the review of tenders submitted to Atlantis Roves for
evaluation.
This document contains:
- An evaluation of the understanding each company possesses about Atlantis
Roves design in the Understand of the Design section.
- Responses and solutions to the concerns raised in the submitted Design
Package Reponses from each company.
- A critical evaluation of each of the tendering companies against the original
design package criteria.
- Scores given to each company after being evaluated.

Disclaimer: All text that is italicized in grey should be recognised as belonging to part
of the relevant groups tender application. The original design package from our
company Atlantis Roves is Appendix A. Muller Internationals tender application can
be found in Appendix B and any reference to appendix 4.1 in their report should be
viewed as part of Appendix A. M.R.Es tender application can be found in Appendix
C. C.K.O.S.Es explanation for lack of tender application submission and available
meeting minutes can be found as part of Appendix A.6.3.
2.0 Response to Design Package Review

2.1 Design Package Review 1 - Muller International

2.1.1 Understanding the Design

The majority of tools that are required in order to construct the prototype are located
at Contractor Katelyns house and so this is where the construction will take place.
On their way to the construction site contractors Kyle and Harshil will collect the
materials required and bring any extra tools and necessary personal protective
equipment. Once all together, Contractor Katelyn will get to work on the main body
of the prototype with assistance from Contractor Harshil. Once each individual piece
of the Rover is constructed, quality assurance analysis will be conducted checking
that each piece is accurately cut to size without any splintering or weaknesses in the
MDF, before the suspension system is screwed in place. Meanwhile Contractor Kyle
will work on the container, carefully padding the cardboard box with bubble wrap
and then eventually attaching it to the body of the Rover. While the super glue is
drying, Contractor Kyle will also assemble the axles and wheels before finally
screwing them into place. Once the Rover is assembled, a final quality check will be
conducted by all three contractors and a completion email will be sent to Atlantis
Roves.

After a review of the above basic construction plan suggested by Muller International
(Muller from now on), our company believes that they have a sufficient understanding
of the design and its construction requirements. We also admire the attention to the
quality of the final design and look forward to receiving an email of completion from
the company we are given to contract for us. All steps are appropriate in this
construction plan, this displays vast knowledge of experience and teamwork and we
hope that Muller International is able to contract for our company.

The basic appeal of the finished product will resemble a rectangular cardboard box
with a wooden frame flush around it, attached to four thin, large diameter wheels
held on by nuts and bolts screwed into a suspension system. More specifically, the
cardboard box will be lined with multiple layers of bubble wrap held in by super glue.
The purpose of this compartment will be to house the water bottle and egg payloads,
with the bubble wrap acting as cushioning to ensure no damage is caused to the
cargo upon descent. The wooden frame will be the main body of the design, made of
robust MDF with four notches cut out of the long edges to house the suspension
system. The suspension will consist of two galvanised straps screwed parallel to the
long edge of the main body, covering each cut out. In the cavities created by the cut
outs and strapping, a smaller wooden block will be inserted vertically and screwed
onto the galvanised straps. The purpose of this system is to allow the wooden block
vertical movement so that when the Rover lands, the inertia of the Rover will dissipate
over a longer time, therefore exerting less of a force on the main body and hence
protecting the cargo from harm. The centre of the suspension block will have a 15mm
diameter hole drilled into it where the axial bolt will be inserted, once the wheel,
washer and nut has been threaded into place. The nut and bolt head will be threaded
either side of the wheels firmly enough to ensure no sidewards movement of the
grinding discs, but loosely enough to allow the wheel to spin freely as the Rover
makes its way down the testing ramp without external guidance or propulsion. Lastly,
the grinding discs that make up the wheels will be covered in strips of balloon latex
which will add traction to the prototype. The importance of this is that the wheels will
spin on their axles due to friction from the ramp surface, instead of the prototype
skidding down the ramp without control. The finished prototype will theoretically
meet all of the clients needs, provided that it does not flip or twist during descent.

Understanding the purpose of our designs characteristics is considered by our

company as being a very significant indicator of team competency. This competency
is exhibited by the in-depth description (provided by Muller) of every component of
our design. For example, Muller has recognised that the purpose of the galvanised
strapping suspension system is to disperse the power from impact over a larger area,
theoretically cushioning the blow and protecting the cargo. They have also recognised
the importance of the traction provided by the balloons covering the wheels and
explain that this offers the design more control during its descent down the ramp. No
obvious lack of understanding of our design can be found in Mullers design package
review; because of this we believe Muller International has suitable understanding
and competency to contract for the client.

2.1.2 Client Brief Compliance

The client, EMPACT, requires a Mars Rover prototype to be built such that it is able
to roll down a slope between 30-45 degrees for 2 metres and fall over a vertical drop
of 1 metre without damaging the Rover or its cargo an astronaut and payload
simulated by a raw egg and 600ml water bottle. EMPACT has also listed a number of
criteria that the Rover must meet, including conceptual, dimensional and material
constraints. Based on the design drawings and specifications in the Stage One Design
Package (Appendix 4.1), Atlantis Roves has satisfied all of the design criteria
specified by the client, provided that the design does not rotate or flip during testing.

Muller International has recognised that if our design does not rotate or flip during
testing, it will satisfy the design criteria provided by the client. This is further
evidenced by their accurate detailing of the conceptual, dimensional and material
constraints available in Appendix B.2.2
2.1.3 Concerns and Solutions
Although a suspension system is a fantastic, innovative way to protect the cargo, the
practicality of this particular design is questionable. Mller Internationals main
concerns are due to the fact that the galvanised metal straps will be quite rigid and
are firmly screwed in place, thereby allowing no movement of the straps themselves.
Rather than screwing both ends to the main MDF body, one screw for each strap
could be replaced with some sort of sliding track that could be cut into the MDF and
will allow one end of the galvanised strapping to extend and contract lengthwise. This
will allow the straps to bow and contort vertically, therefore giving the suspension
block more movement and making up for the rigidness of the galvanised strapping.

Atlantis Roves agrees that this concern presented by Muller is worth resolving, we
also consider the solution to this concern to be innovative and well thought out. We
fully support Mullers idea to implement a sliding track onto one side of each of the
galvanized straps, given that this remains inside the design cost constraints. This does
not appear to be a significant change to the design and we believe that it would be
approved by the client.

Alternatively, a material that is more elastic could be used instead of the galvanised
strapping. For example, strips of thick elastic bands could be stapled in place of the
straps as these would stretch more easily without needing motion at one end.

This solution is considered by Atlantis Roves to be a risk to the structural integrity of

the design. The idea to use a flexible material in place of rigid galvanized straps such
as thick rubber bands is a cost effective and feasible solution, however the strength of
the rubber bands can be seen by Atlantis Roves as unreliable. For the client to receive
the greatest results during test of our design we believe that the suspension system
should not incorporate this solution.

Another concern with Atlantis Roves conceptual design is the thickness of the wheels
and the resulting force that they will need to absorb upon landing. Mller
International understands that metal grinding discs were chosen for the wheels due to
their ideal dimensions and inflexible nature, however they are particularly thin (only
a few millimetres wide) and may be subject to shattering under excessive force.

This concern presented is thought by Atlantis Roves to be unrealistic; we do not

believe the conditions the rover is required to perform in will generate excessive
force onto the grinding discs, certainly not enough to shatter them. The provided
solution is cost effective, however if the depth of the container and length of the base
remaining how they are, the diameter of the average CD (120mm) will not be large
enough to come in contact with the ground at every part of our design. The distance
between the bolt and the end of the design base is 72mm while the radius of the CD
would be 60mm. These details of the design can be viewed on page 6 of Appendix A.
This creates the possibility that the design could land straight on the front of its base
and apply a significant enough force to damage the cargo.
Atlantis Roves current design does not have a lid on the box and the water bottle is to
be placed diagonally in the box with the egg next to it. The issues with this are that
the momentum of the egg and water bottle individually will be different to that of the
whole prototype and so it is possible that the cargo will come flying out during
testing. This will ultimately result in a dissatisfied client as the Rover will not have
met all criteria. If momentum proves not to be an issue with the design, then the
uneven distribution of weight will be a cause for concern. After the Rover leaves the
testing ramp, its 1m free fall will provide opportunity for rotation and twisting of the
prototype, and if this occurs then the Rover could land upside down and the cargo
would fall out, again leaving the client disappointed with the prototype. One
recommended solution to these concerns it to alter the size of the box so that the egg
and water bottle will fit lengthwise along the design (even if the box has to be made of
ply wood in order to be the correct dimensions).

This concern is completely understandable and it is agreed by Atlantis Roves that a

solution should be resolved in order to satisfy the client. Lengthening the box and
therefore the centre compartment of the base of the design is seen by our company to
be a viable solution; this is as long as the length of the bottle does not exceed the
length of the base. If the bottle does not fit inside the base and the solution results in
the length of the base having to be increased, the wheel diameter will likely not be
large enough to support the back of the design if it were to flip during testing and
come in contact with the ground.

Another solution to the uneven diagonal distribution of weight is to secure a sort of

holster for the bottle in a straight line instead of diagonal. For example, half of a paper
towel roll could be glued or secured in some way to the front of the bottles
compartment and the other end could be secured straight on top of the back end of the
compartment to act as a seat for the bottle. The bottle would then sit vertically
diagonal instead of horizontally diagonal and this would even the distribution of
weight. We consider this solution to be feasible if a foam wall is implemented in-
between the base of the bottle and the bubble-wrapped egg to protect the egg, as well
as a Velcro seat belt around the bottle and the cardboard half-roll to prevent the
bottle from falling forwards during descent. The foam wall, if secured correctly,
would transfer the force created by the base of the bottle on impact through the design
and to the suspension system. Although if the foam wall is not secured correctly there
is a possibility that it could break away from the box due to the force applied by the
bottle and could damage the egg.

Using an easily removable lid lined with bubble wrap would also be essential. The lid
would have to fit well enough that if the design landed upside down, the force of the
egg and water bottle would not be enough to displace it, or Velcro (or some similar
adhesive) may be required to hold the lid in place. Placing bubble wrap between the
egg and bottle may also be a good idea to prevent the bottle from crushing the egg.
These adjustments will improve the designs compliance with the design brief.
Atlantis Roves believe that this solution is essential to protect the egg and satisfy the
client. We fully support the idea to implement a removable lid over the egg to avoid
cargo damage to account for flipping during testing. As stated above, there is
definitely a risk that the bottle will crush the egg on impact and so we believe that a
tightly secured wall of foam should be included between the egg and the bottle as
suggested in the previous paragraph. Bubble wrap may not be able to absorb enough
of the force applied from impact, though we recognise that the intent behind this
solution is to protect the cargo to satisfy the client.

Atlantis Roves deeply appreciate all concerns and well thought-out solutions
presented to us by Muller International; the contractors have demonstrated a large
amount of enthusiasm and dedication to the success of this prototype.
2.2 Design Package Review 2 - M.R.E

2.2.1 Understanding the Design

Atlantis Roves design consists of a main rectangular body of 50mm thick Medium
Density Fibreboard (MDF). This body has a central rectangular cut out to fit a
cardboard box designed to carry the cargo. The cardboard box is internally lined
with bubble wrap to act as insulation for the egg. The box is secured into the central
cut out with superglue.

Although the initial overall summary of the design above is simplistic, this description
provided by M.R.E is accurate as it explains the purpose of the design is to protect the
payload with bubble wrap.

The main body also has four small rectangular cut outs; one close to each corner.
This is to allow for the wheel suspension; which consists of balsa wood blocks and
galvanized punched strapping. The four balsa wood blocks have a hole drilled
through the middle to allow for the axle. Each balsa wood block is not directly
attached to the main body, it is supported in place by the punched galvanized
strapping above and below. The punched galvanized strapping is attached to the main
body and balsa wood block by screw. Each strip will have two screws into the main
body and a central screw into the wooden block, so in total there will be eight strips
of galvanized strapping with 24 screws.

M.R.E displays a sufficient understanding of how the design will be constructed,

though they lack an understanding of the purpose of the galvanised strapping as part
of the suspension system. There is no explanation as to why the balsa wood block is
not directly attached to the main body, this displays that M.R.E lacks understanding of
how the design theoretically performs to protect the cargo using the suspension
system along with the bubble wrap.

For the wheels Atlantis Roves have used metal grinding discs covered with balloons
for extra grip. Each wheel has an individual axle which has been threaded onto a bolt
and secured by a nut and washer then attached to the rover through the hole in the
balsa wood block. This inner nut can then be adjusted for best performance.

M.R.E have not elaborated as to what they consider to be the best performance of
the wheels is, and so this suggests that M.R.E may not possess a complete
understanding of functionality of the designs wheels. Overall, from their submitted
understanding, Atlantis Roves believes that M.R.E should attempt to show a greater
understanding of the purpose of components of our design if they wish to be
considered for the top 2 of our contracting preferences. This may seem harsh,
however it can be said that M.R.E have a sufficient enough understanding to
accurately construct our design if they were to contract for our company.
2.2.2 Client Brief Compliance
The client brief states that conceptually the prototype must travel straight for 2 metres
down a 30 to 45-degree slope then be subjected to a 1 metre verticle drop and must
land and finish on its wheels. Atlantis Roves design complies to this as the wheels are
free to move on the axle, which will allow the rover to roll down the slope on its own
without any additional force. In the design the wheels are larger than the body;
overhanging on all edges and corners. This shows that after the 1 metre drop no
matter what angle the rover lands in, it will still finish on its wheels, therefore
complies to the conceptual constraints of the client brief.

We appreciate that M.R.E recognizes that the wheels of our design allow our rover to
land on its wheels and therefore meet the conceptual constraints of the client brief.
They have however failed to mention that there is a possibility that the rover may
finish the journey along the ground on its side. This would therefore not be in
compliance of the client brief and has not been acknowledged by M.R.E as a
possibility in the above section of Appendix C.2.2. From this section, M.R.E states
that our design follows each of the constraints provided by the client brief.

2.2.3 Concerns and Solutions

For each individual axle there is nothing stopping the bolt from slipping out from the
block of balsa wood. Although there will be friction between the bolt and the wood the
rover has to be able to take considerable impact; therefore, we believe there needs to
be a solution. We suggest that if a thinner piece of Balsa wood is used (e.g. 15mm x
25mm x 110mm) and a longer bolt (e.g. 60mm x 15mm) then there will be enough
room to secure the bolt with a nut in between the block of balsa wood and the MDF
body.

Atlantis Roves is impressed that M.R.E has managed to discover this axle flaw that
our company has somehow overlooked. We agree that this is a significant concern and
design flaw pointed out in Appendix C.2.3 and also agree with the suggested solution.
This involves altering the thickness of the vertical wood block, lengthening the bolt
and securing a nut on the inside of the suspension. This solution is highly feasible and
will undoubtedly increase the theoretical reliability of our design.

Our second concern is that the actual cost to construct the rover is considerably
higher than the spreadsheet cost. As shown in Table 1, to construct the rover using all
the current materials is very unrealistic for a budget of $30.

It was discussed in a meeting between ourselves and Atlantis Roves that metal
grinding discs of that size are not easy to source as a recycled material and are costly
to buy new. Atlantis Roves are however set on using this material for their wheels and
have a source to obtain these. from. So this concern will be resolved as long as the
metal grinding discs are provided. When looking at actual costing we also came
across that the pricing of Balsa wood and MDF blocks is considerably higher than
what is in the spreadsheet costing. Our solution to the Balsa wood blocks being over
budget would be to use wood cut-offs as recycled wood of these dimensions is easily
attained and cost is negligible. To obtain an MDF block of the listed dimensions a
special order would need to be placed which is unrealistic in the time restraints to
build the rover. It is also considerably higher in cost than budgeted. Our solution to
this would be to use an alternative material. For example, thinner sheets of wood
could be glued together in layers to create a laminating effect. Another alternative
would be to use a solid block of foam such as XPS.

This table mentioned is available for inspection in Appendix C.2.3. Atlantis Roves
agrees with this concern, apologies are expressed as the location of the grinding disk
price is not specified.

Our company believes that this solution to cost by using recycled grinding discs is
feasible, as long as it is taken into consideration that recycled disks may not have
completely symmetrical diameters due to wear from previous use. This issue may be
resolved by smoothing hot glue over any uneven surfaces of the grinding discs that
are going to be in contact with the balloon cover.

With reference to the second solution to this cost concern, Atlantis Roves supports
M.R.Es suggestion to use wood cut-offs as the vertical suspension block. The
material density of this component would have negligible effect on the distribution of
weighting during the rovers descent and would likely not cause problems with in-air
rotation. We also approve of using different materials for the base if this improves the
cost effectiveness of our design, although if this includes lamination of sheets of wood
then this may be considered as a major change to the design from the perspective of
the client. Also, lamination of wood sheets takes several days for the glue between
sheets to harden and will require several other instruments to weigh down and clamp
the sheets together. We recommend that obtaining recycled grinding discs, wood cut-
offs and alternative cheaper materials are the most feasible solutions suggested by
M.R.E to solve this cost concern.

2.3 Design Package Review 3 - C.K.O.S.E

A late withdrawal of a member from the C.K.O.S.E team has left the group unable to
submit a tender for our company to evaluate. C.K.O.S.E has offered apologies and a
valid explanation as to why their tender has not been submitted; in this apology they
make the point that they are still very interested in contracting for Atlantis Roves and
hope that we will consider them in our tender evaluation(s). Evidence of this is
provided in Appendix A.6.3.1.
3.0 Evaluation of Company Tenders

3.1 Tender Review Summary

The following table, Table 1, is a summary of the marking for the three submitted tenders.

Table 1: Review mark summary

Criteria Title Criteria Details Muller M.R.E C.K.O.S.E

International
Punctuality Shows up to 17/20 15/20 Unavailable/20
meetings on time
Replies to emails
within 12 hours
Group meets
deadlines early
Provides evidence of
punctuality from
WPR and minutes
Organisation Provide detailed plan 17/20 17/20 Unavailable/20
of construction
Provide evidence of
organisation
Evidence includes
WPR, meeting
minutes and GANTT
chart
Understanding Able to explain in detail: 18/20 15/20 Unavailable/20
the Design How design would
look
How design works
How design will be
constructed
Can answer
designer's questions
At least one strength,
recommendation or
possible flaw
Experience All contractors have 18/20 16/20 Unavailable/20
evidence of
satisfactory level
experience with
equipment
At least one
contractor has
evidence of trade
work
Teamwork Show great 18/20 18/20 Unavailable/20
 teamwork during
meetings
Can provide evidence
of teamwork using
WPR, minutes and
peer feedback
assessment
Total 88/100 81/100 Unavailable/100

3.2 Muller International Tender Review

3.2.1 Punctuality
Each of the five team members meet up on a weekly basis to discuss their progress and
upcoming deadlines to minimised the risk of delayed submission.

Every member submitted their work to the group for critiquing over 48 hours before the
Stage 1 Design Package was due. Editing was then completed and the package was
submitted no less than 2.5 hours before the deadline as seen in Appendix 4.5.3.

No contractor nor designer has arrived late to any of the team meetings nor committed any
unexplained absences yet, and this is verified by Mller Internationals meeting minutes
which are always completed and approved on the same day as the meeting (see Appendix
4.3.3).

Furthermore the contractors have responded to Atlantis Roves emails within 12 hours as
seen in Appendix 4.3.1.

The following evaluation of Muller Internationals punctuality is scored against the tender
evaluation criteria. There are four parts to the criteria, each worth 5 score out of a total of 20.

The first paragraph from Mullers criteria compliance does not however dedicate any score;
this is included as it is rewarded with admiration from Atlantis Roves as dedication is
apparent in this statement. The second quote from Muller is attempting to evidence that the
criteria of Group meets deadlines early is met, by stating that the stage 1 assessment was
submitted to their company 48 hours before the due date, this is however lacking evidence.
Due to a lack of evidence, our company cannot allocate more than 3/5 for this criteria, this is
justified by the fact that 1 score is given for the claim that Muller makes and 1 score is given
as it is the designers professional opinion that this statement is true. Finally, 1 extra score is
added as proof is provided that submission was early as seen in Appendix B.4.5.3

The criteria Shows up to meetings on time has been followed and met by Muller
International as explained in the third quote above. A full score of 5 is therefore awarded for
the criteria. This evidence provided is viewable in Appendix B.4.3.3.
To satisfy the final criteria Muller have provided evidence that they have in fact responded
to every email from the designers within 12 hours. This evidence is correct as it corresponds
with the timestamps of our emails available for inspection in Appendix A.6.1.1

It is the belief of Atlantis Roves that punctuality will hold importance if the construction
plan proposed by Muller has potential to work. Muller has attended all meetings on time as
evidenced in A.6.1.2 and so the designers have recognised the punctuality the company
possesses first-hand. It is our predication that Muller International will encounter no
problems with punctuality during the construction process. Atlantis Roves therefore believes
Muller International has overall proven that their team is punctual and follows the criteria
concerning punctuality available in Appendix A.3.3.1. The team is awarded a score of 17/20
for punctuality.

3.2.2 Organisation
Furthermore Mller International is so organised that they have already devised how the
prototype will be constructed as seen in section 2.1 above.

With the construction plan taken into consideration, Mller International predicts that
assembly of the Rover will take no more than one business day, and so the contractors will
endeavour to send progress emails to Atlantis Roves at the beginning, half way through and
on completion of construction (unless any unforeseen issues arise in which case additional
emails will be sent). Any more than this may be a cause for distraction, thereby delaying the
process and potentially jeopardising the safety and quality of construction. Hence Mller
International have agreed that three progress reports during construction will be sufficient
communication to earn them this tender.

Mller International understands the nature of manually constructing prototypes and how
the use of power tools allows potential for serious personal harm. Regardless of their 6
years combined experience and the fact that the contractors will be devoting their full care
and attention to the assembly of the Rover, Mller International will have a first aid kit
(Appendix 4.2) on hand at all stages of construction.

The following attempts to evaluate the score that is to be given to Muller International for
their compliance to the criteria of Organisation. This criteria is focused on two main points
that must be met, these include that a detailed plan of construction must be provided and
evidence of organisation must be shown using WPRs, meeting of minutes and a company
GANTT chart. If these terms are followed each sections will be worth 10 score out of a total
of 20.

The first statement created by Muller International claims that they have created a
construction plan and that this is a demonstration of their superior organisational skills. The
construction plan created is correct and the response to this construction plan is available in
section 2.2.1 above, while the construction plan is available in Appendix B.2.1. This part
however can only be awarded a score of 8/10 as the detailed plan of construction is
provided, but the plan lacks dates and tools used for each step of the construction process.
This results in a score of 2 being deducted from the sections score of 10 as it seems entirely
possible for dates and tools to be included in the construction plan.

For the second part of this criterion, proof of organisation in the form of WPR, meeting
minutes and GANTT chat must be provided for a full score of 10. Muller claims that they
have 6 years combined experience, the evidence of 6 years combined experience is not
referenced and cannot be used as proof to support this criterion. However, evidence of
organisational skills has been displayed due to the fact that Muller has included a first aid kit
in their construction process. This section lacks reference to minutes of meeting, and so it
seems necessary to deduct a score of 1 and award the company with a sectional score of 9
out of 10.

The overall score of this criteria is therefore 17/20. Atlantis Roves believes that from this
evaluation Muller International appear to be a well organised company and we are unable to
foresee any future difficulties relating between the construction process and the organisation
of this company. However, if a difficulty does occur during construction, Muller
International has stated that immediate communication will be made with Atlantis Roves. It
is our opinion that we believe Muller International to be a highly organised group and
should certainly be considered by the client to contract for our company.

3.2.3 Understanding the Design

Mller Internationals knowledge not only covers the steps required to build the prototype
(as illustrated by their construction plan in section 2.1), but also what the finished product
will look like, the physics behind each aspect of the design and how the prototype could be
improved to further meet the clients needs (refer to section 2.3 above).

Mller International demonstrated their knowledge of the design during section 2.0 of this
application as well as in the initial meeting with the designers of Atlantis Roves (see
Appendix 4.3.3 for meeting minutes from this consultation).

This criterion is considered to be extremely important if the design is to be constructed well

and satisfy the client, and so it is made up of 5 sub-criteria. These sub-criteria can be viewed
in the Table 3.1 above. The sub-scores of these criteria are 5,5,6,2 and 2 respectively,
resulting in a total score of 20 for understanding the design.

It is our belief that from the evidence provided in the first statement above, Muller
international has an exceptional understanding of how the design will look, how the design
will work and how the design will be constructed. Appendix B.2.3 shows that all
components are explained, B.2.1 paragraph 3 contains evidence that Muller completely
understands how the design will look, and every aspect of design is detailed. As stated in the
previous criterion evaluation, the construction plan in Appendix B.2.1 lacks dates and tools
used for each component of the design. Therefore Atlantis Roves is unable to award full
marks for How it will be constructed and must deduct 2 score from this total of 6. Muller
International has fully explained how the design will look and how the design works and so
they are awarded with a full score of 5 for both of these sub-criteria.

This is of the professional opinion of Atlantis Roves designers that Muller International
contractors were able to answer at least 3 of the questions asked at the first meeting
accurately and with ease. No evidence can be provided of this; however the meeting minutes
are available for review of topics of discussion in Appendix B.4.3.3 or Appendix A.6.1.2.
Atlantis Roves therefore awards Muller International with a score of 2 out of 2 for the sub-
criterion Can answer designers questions.

For the final sub-criterion, it is shown in Appendix B.2.3 that Muller Internationals
concerns and solutions contain 3 possible flaws indicated by Muller and at least 1 solution is
provided for each, the evaluation of these solutions is available in section 2.1.3. Due to this
in-depth evaluation of our design, our company believes that it is necessary to award
Mullers contractors with a sub-criterion score of 2 out of 2 for 3 flaws and 3 solutions
identified.

In conclusion, an overall score awarded to Muller International for the criteria of

Understanding the Design is 18 out of 20. The only recommendation from Atlantis Roves
towards Muller International is that they may need to review section 2.4 of the original
design package available in Appendix A.2.4 as no evidence of their knowledge of specific
tools to be used in the construction process is outlined in their tender submission. From this
recommendation our company can deduce that the only possible difficulty that Muller
International will discover during the construction process is a lack of time management if
they need to consistently refer to the construction plan throughout. That being said, Atlantis
Roves are very impressed by the vast knowledge and understanding of design that Muller
International possesses, we believe that it is unlikely that any difficulties will occur during
the construction process and that the contractors will be able to perfectly construct the
design in accordance to their construction plan. This in-depth knowledge is evidenced by
their ability to solve problems with the design outlined in Appendix B.2.0

3.2.4 Experience
Contractor Kyle built a bird house (Appendix 4.7.8), Contractor Harshil built a go-kart for
the EV Go Kart Challenge in 2014 (Appendix 4.7.2) and completed a Cert. II in Engineering
in year 11 and 12 of high school (certificate of completion can be viewed in Appendix 4.7.1),
and Contractor Katelyn has constructed a jewellery box and free standing pet shelter
(Appendix 4.7.5 and 4.7.6) as well as 3D printing an elephant in her high school C.A.D.
class (see Appendix 4.7.4 for illustration). Furthermore each contractor assisted in the
construction of a prototype for the 2017 EWB Challenge, which included a water filtration
system, transportable water barrel and copra drying system (as seen in Appendix 4.7.10,
4.7.11 and 4.7.12).

Additionally, the images of the tools that will be used (Appendix 4.2) to construct Atlantis
Roves prototype show that the equipment is not brand new and has therefore previously
been used.
The experience criterion holds importance in the construction of the prototype, the client
wishes the prototype to be as close as possible to the idealised design. Atlantis Roves has
evaluated this criterion using the sub-criteria available in Table 3.1 above.

All the evidence of experience provided above by Muller International is correct and
available to review in appendix B.4.7. This company has proven -from the perspective of
Atlantis Roves- that all group members have satisfactory experience with basic construction
equipment, abiding by the sub-criterion of All contractors have evidence of satisfactory
experience with equipment. Furthermore, the second paragraph reinforces this by stating
that construction of a prototype of our companys design suggests that they have obtained
recent experience and familiarity with the design. For this section of the score, this company
has therefore been awarded with a full score of 10.

In their tender submission, no trade work experience is proven or stated; therefore as it is

part of the secondary sub-criterion of At least one contractor has evidence of trade work,
our company will have to deduct 2 marks out of 10. This score is 2 as a lack of evidence of
trade work is not significant enough to conclude that the company has minimal experience.
If more score was deducted, this would appear to our company as unfair as most group
members are quite young and have not have the chance to work in a trade. The deducted
score of 2 is also minimal as Muller has gone the extra step of actually creating a prototype
of our design. We take favour to the initiative that the members of Muller International have
displayed to follow our experience criteria, and so they will be rewarded with a total score of
18/20 for the experience criteria.

From the experience presented, Atlantis Roves believes that Muller International has the
ability to handle the construction process of the final prototype with ease and we find it
practically impossible to predict any difficulties that Muller could encounter. Also, our
company believes that from the professionalism displayed, Muller will inform Atlantis
Roves if difficulties were to occur if they are chosen to contract for us, and our company
would perform at our best to attempt to resolve these difficulties.

3.2.5 Teamwork
Cohesion, respect, cooperation and participation are all essential for excellent teamwork
skills, and these traits are part of everyday life for the contractors and designers at Mller
International. These traits are the result of years of team sports, high school leadership
roles and more recently group EFDP projects. For example, Contractor Katelyn has been
playing netball since 2007 as well as being cricket team captain in 2015 and a key player in
her softball team from 2011 to 2014 (refer to Appendix 4.4 for more information and
Appendix 4.7.7 for proof). Contractor Kyle competed in national swimming championships
both representing a team and as part of team relays from 2011 to 2015 (see Appendix 4.7.9)
and this year has been promoted to volleyball team captain. Meanwhile Contractor Harshil
was part of a cricket team in 2013/14 and was a student leader in high school from 2012 to
2016 (as shown in Appendix 4.7.3).
 Each of these experiences taught the contractors valuable lessons about commitment,
communication and cooperation that has been and will continue to be of great use to Mller
International.

Furthermore, the designers of Atlantis Roves would have noted how Mller International
demonstrated their teamwork skills during the meeting, as each contractor complimented the
others in terms of the questions they asked, were respectful and listened to one another, did
not talk over each other and the contractors displayed a great sense of cohesion without
losing professionalism or straying from the task at hand.

Teamwork is an essential criterion of successful projects, the sub-criteria of teamwork can

again be viewed in Table 3.1 above. The evaluation of this criterion is slightly different from
previous evaluations as there is difficulty separating the total score of 20 into the sub-
criterion, and so marks will be deducted from the overall score instead of the scores of the
sub-criteria.

The first paragraph from B.3.5 is fully evidenced by Appendix B.4.7. The teamwork that is
displayed by Muller International is impressive; it is the designers personal belief that
company members must have been very busy during their late years of high school. Due to
evidence of teamwork being clearly shown for every group member this appeases the sub-
criterion described as Can provide evidence of teamwork and so this initial TEC is
therefore awarded 20/20. The possibility of score being deducted is the result of whether or
not Muller International have referred to their WPR, minutes of meeting and peer
assessment feedback as evidence of teamwork.

In the final paragraph above, a meeting between companies has been mentioned by Muller
International although minutes of meeting have not been referenced. This can be forgiven as
the meeting minutes have been mentioned in almost every other section of their criteria
compliance in Appendix B.3.0. The meeting minutes can be found at B.4.3.3, although this
document does not support the claims of Muller, it is my professional opinion that the claim
that Muller International displayed teamwork skills at the company meeting is true, as
evidence is difficult to produce in meeting minutes.

Unfortunately for Muller, no evidence is provided in terms of WPR or peer feedback review,
therefore to abide by the sub-criteria Can provide evidence of teamwork using WPR,
minutes and peer feedback assessment, 2 marks must be deducted from the total score
previously stated as 20.

The overall score for the teamwork criteria is concluded as 18/20

The teamwork skills of Muller International is believed by Atlantis Roves to be more than
satisfactory, we also are unable to foresee any difficulties connecting to teamwork that the
company could create or encounter. The company seems prepared and professional and so
we look forward to working with these contractors if the client chooses them to contract for
our company.
 3.3 M.R.E Tender Review

3.3.1 Punctuality
At M.R.E punctuality is also very important to us as we like to get things done on time
ensuring we have enough time to review and adjust projects to our highest standard. We
always show up to arranged meetings on time, this can be shown in Appendix A.1, when
Hannah arranged a meeting with Atlantis Roves and from Appendix A.2 and A.3 the minutes
from that meeting at the arranged time of Wednesday 1:30pm As a group we are also
consistent at checking our emails regularly and replying to them as soon as possible, as
shown in Appendix A.1.

At M.R.E we are consistent at meeting deadlines earlier than the due date; planning ahead to
ensure everything is completed to a high standard. This can be shown from our Weekly
Progress Reports in Appendix B.1 and minutes in Appendix B.2. Our Stage 1 Submission was
due on 27/08/2017 however as displayed in the documents we planned ahead to complete our
allocated tasks before the due date ensuring enough time to put the project together and
revise it to give the best result.

Atlantis Roves values punctuality as an important part of team composition, M.R.E has
overall scored a 15/20 for the punctuality criterion. The above text is available in Appendix
C.3.1.

The Appendices A.6.3.2a and A.6.3.2b disprove the statement that we always show up to
arranged meetings on time, as no explanation for the absence of company member Khee
Shon is included in the meetings minutes. Therefore Atlantis Roves believe that the score to
be given to M.R.E for the sub-criterion Shows up to meetings on time is 4 out of 5 as 1
score is deducted for the unexplained absence.

The statement from above, checking our emails regularly and replying to them as soon as
possible is also disproved by evidence, in Appendix A.6.2.1 it is apparent that it takes over
24hours for M.R.E to respond to the first email sent by designer Jackson Italiano. Therefore,
no evidence provided is credible or reliable enough to award M.R.E with a higher sub-
criterion score than 2 out of 5 for Group replies or views messages within 12 hours.

In the second paragraph, M.R.E has provided satisfactory evidence to suggest that they are
able to meet deadlines early. This evidence is available for review in Appendix C.8 and C.7
in the form of WPRs and minutes of meeting. It appears that from Appendix C.7, that most of
the work due 10 days in advance was completed. Atlantis Roves therefore gives M.R.E a
score of 5 out of 5 for the sub-criterion Meets deadlines early.

The final sub-criterion, Provides evidence of punctuality from WPR and Minutes, is
awarded a score of 4 out of 5. As previously stated, M.R.E lack an explanation for the
absence of one of their members in Appendix A.6.3.2a and A.6.3.2b, and so Atlantis Roves
unfortunately are unable to award M.R.E with a full score of 5.
To summarise the punctuality of M.R.E, Atlantis Roves believes there is potential for
M.R.Es punctuality to create difficulty during the construction process of our design. The
client will expect the prototype to be constructed before the deadline and as close to the
design idealised in the design package. If the design is to meet the expectations of the client,
our solution to improving punctuality would be to recommend M.R.E creates a contribution
table with appropriate deadlines and the amount of time they expect the construction process
to take up.

3.3.2 Organisation
Organisation is such an important aspect to project management and all our members at
M.R.E are highly organised and motivated. As shown from Appendix C.1 we have developed
a schedule that we would follow to construct Atlantis Roves prototype. This shows the key
events in the construction process including purchase of materials,
preparation/cutting/drilling of materials and assembly. We have left adequate time before
handover to carry out performance testing to make any adjustments or improvements. Our
plan would be to give regular updates to Atlantis Roves at each stage of this process and of
course respond punctually to any questions or queries Atlantis Roves has during this period.

As a company we have a great sense of organisation and this continual commitment can be
shown through WPRs in Appendix B.1 as well as minutes in Appendix B.2 Appendix B.3
shows our Companys Gantt chart from Stage 2 onwards. This gives an insight to how we
have organised to work as a group and individually to complete all future stages. This past
and future evidence shows our continual commitment to being organised as a Company.

Organisation is a key element of demonstrating effective teamwork and company reliability,

this trait of organisation is evaluated by focusing on two main sub-criteria that are divided
into separate scores of 10 and make up an overall evaluated score of 20. Below is the
evaluation of M.R.Es organisational skills displayed in the paragraphs above taken from
Appendix C.3.2. Sub-Criteria are available for review in Table 3.1 above.

The schedule referred to by M.R.E is available in Appendix C.10.1 and is an appreciated

addition to the construction plan. Although, when compared to other companies construction
plans such as Muller Internationals in Appendix B.2.1, M.R.Es construction plan in
Appendix C.2.1 lacks detail such as explanations of every component of the design.
However, because deadlines have been included in the schedule created by M.R.E, for the
sub-criterion Provide a detailed plan of constructing the design M.R.E has been evaluated
to receive 7/10. 3 points have been deducted due to details being left out, along with locations
and roles of company members.

With reference to the second sub-criterion that must be followed and met, in the second
paragraph above M.R.E have produced evidence of organisation though their WPR, Minutes
and GANTT chart. This sub-criterion is described as having to Provide evidence of
organisation from WPR, Minutes and GANTT chart, which M.R.E has completed
successfully. Therefore Atlantis Roves are glad to reward M.R.E for their organisation with a
second score of 10/10.

The overall score of the organisation criterion is therefore evaluated to be 17/20. Atlantis
Roves believes that the prototype should be as close to the design as possible after
construction and would like to recommend that M.R.E create a step-by-step construction plan
with locations, dates, timeframes and tools for each component included to avoid any
possible difficulties that may occur.

3.3.3 Understanding the Design

In the meeting between M.R.E contractors and Atlantis Roves designer the design was fully
explained by Atlantis Roves and queries on understanding the design were answered. This
can be shown by the minutes of meeting in Appendix A.2 and A.3. Atlantis Roves designers
then asked M.R.E questions about their design to ensure that we had a full understanding.

M.R.E has understood the design to consist of a main rectangular body of MDF with a
central rectangular cut out to fit the cargo carrying cardboard box internally lined with
bubble wrap. Each corner of the main body has its own axle and suspension for the wheels.
The wheels to be used are metal grinding discs covered in balloons for grip. The suspension
consists of a balsa wood block connected to the main body by galvanized punched strapping
and the axle is a bolt which secures the wheels to the suspension with nuts and a washer. The
materials, measurements and quantities have all been understood as shown by the Appendix
C.2 which shows a table of the actual cost to build the rover. This shows that M.R.E has
considered different material options and understood the dimensions and quantities of each
material.

In this meeting with Atlantis Roves, Appendix A.2 and A.3 Kara identified that the cargo
storage box with bubble wrap to protect the egg was a great idea. Hannah made a suggestion
of using an alternative material for the wheels, however this query was answered by the
designers. Kara also queried the construction method. This shows that as a company M.R.E
was inquisitive in asking questions to understand the design in full detail and offering
suggestions for improvement and identifying strengths.

As mentioned in the previous Understanding of Design (3.2.3), this criterion is considered to

be extremely important if the design is to be constructed well and satisfy the client,
Understanding of Design is therefore made up of 5 sub-criteria. These 5 sub-criteria can be
viewed in the Table 3.1 above. The sub-scores of these sub-criteria are 5,5,6,2 and 2
respectively, resulting in a total score of 20.

As evidenced by M.R.E above (Appendix C.3.3), it is believed by Atlantis Roves that the
contractors have a full understanding of how the prototype will look. This therefore
completely abides with the first sub-criteria in Table 3.1 that has a value of 5 out of the total
score of 20. We have therefore given M.R.E a score of 5 out of 5 for this first sub-criterion.
Understanding how the design looks is essential to assuring accurate assembly of design and
is also the second sub-criterion worth a score of 5. Above, M.R.E has accurately described
each component of the design, although they however lack the purpose of each component.
For example, M.R.E has stated that the purpose of the bubble wrap is to protect the egg, but
have not stated the purpose of any other components. Atlantis Roves therefore have decided
that a score of 3 out of 5 should be given to M.R.E for this sub-criterion as anything less
would seem too harsh. This is because from the meeting minutes in Appendix A.6.2.2, M.R.E
has questioned the design and demonstrated an understanding of the design that has not been
evidenced in their tender application.

The third sub-criterion requires the constructors to accurately outline how the prototype will
be constructed. The total score for this sub-criterion is a 6 because Atlantis Roves regards the
construction process to be the most crucial determinate of the contracting companys ability
to construct the design to the standards required by the client. Atlantis Roves has evaluated
that a 5 out of 6 should be awarded to M.R.E. As shown above, the construction process is
outlined without mistakes and involves every component of the design. Time of construction
is available in Appendix C.10.1. Our company has determined that the only noticeable
aspects of the construction plan that are missing is specific tools used for some of the
components and the location to be used for construction. Because of this, 1 mark has been
deducted from the total of 6.

A score of 0 out of 2 has unfortunately been given to M.R.E for the fourth sub-criterion Can
answer designers questions. This is because no evidence for this sub-criterion is provided in
the above paragraphs.

The final sub-criterion - At least one strength, recommendation or possible flaw identified -
has been evaluated to be scored as 2 out of 2 for the contractors at M.R.E. This is because in
the concerns and solutions from their tender application (available in Appendix C.2.3) they
have recognised 2 flaws with the design and have responded with at least one solution to each
flaw. This is accompanied by the statement in the last paragraph, referring to Hannahs idea
to change the material of the wheels.

In conclusion, Atlantis Roves have evaluated the score for M.R.Es understanding of design
as 15/20. This may present difficulties with the construction process if the contractors
understanding of design is incomplete. A recommendation from Atlantis Roves is that M.R.E
contractors should study the design package and attempt to identify/memorise the purpose of
every component of the design if they wish to construct the prototype with no flaws and to
the clients standards.

3.3.4 Experience
At M.R.E all of our contractors have at least some experience of using simple tools and
building a project. As shown in Appendix D.1 Hannah has built a wooden bench, using skills
including drilling, sawing and measuring. Kara has demonstrated being able to follow
instructions for a construction method and using simple tools through building flat packs
shown in Appendix D.2.
As well as this experience Hannah has completed Wood work classes throughout high school.
Godfrey studied Engineering studies in school as shown in Appendix E.1 and Kara has
studied a unit in engineering at University of Western Australia as shown in Appendix E.2.
All three of these studies involved the use of tools and teamwork at some stage to complete a
project.
As a company we understand Health and Safety procedures. From our teams risk
management plan it shows we have an understanding of the risks involved in construction
and how to mitigate these risks through the use of a safe, clean working environment, using
personal protective gear and taking extra care when dealing with tools. In the rare case
anything did happen Kara has her First Aid including CPR certificate as shown in Appendix
E.3.

The criterion of experience must be sufficiently met if the contracting company wishes to
construct out design to the standards of the client. Atlantis Roves has evaluated this criterion
using the sub-criteria available in Table 3.1 above. All evidence referred to in the above
paragraphs is available from Appendix C.12 - C.20.

Although the above information is correctly evidenced, for the sub-criterion All contractors
have evidence of satisfactory level experience with equipment, the contractor Godfrey has
unfortunately not provided evidence of their experience with construction equipment. This
forces Atlantis Roves to deduct a minimum of 2 score from the total of this sub-criterion,
resulting in a score of 8 out of 10.

For the second sub-criterion At least one contractor has evidence of trade work, 2 score
from the total of 10 will also have to be deducted. This score of 2 is evaluated to be the
necessary amount of score to subtract as is explained in section 3.2.4 paragraph 3 above.

The final score for the criterion of experience is evaluated by Atlantis Roves to be 16/20.
This score may not demonstrate that M.R.E has complete experience with construction tools,
but we believe that the construction process should not offer any difficulties to the contractors
as the majority possess sufficient knowledge of how to use basic construction tools. Atlantis
Roves therefore believes that it is entirely possible and likely for M.R.E to construct the
prototype to the clients standard if they are chosen to contract for our company.

3.3.5 Teamwork
All members of M.R.E have exceptional teamwork skills which have been developed through
team sports, part-time jobs and school and university projects.

Kara and Hannah are both involved in team sports and have been for many years, as shown
by Appendix E.5 and E.6. Godfrey studied Engineering studies in high school as shown by
Appendix E.1 and Kara has studied an engineering unit at University of Western Australia as
shown in appendix E.2; both of these studies involved a project which required working in a
team. In addition, all members have part-time jobs which involve working in a team
environment. One example is shown in appendix E.4 which shows that Kara worked in a
team for a company named Kidz n Sport.

Through these experiences members have developed excellent communication skills,

knowing how to listen to others, ask questions and pass on information. We understand that
everyone needs to pull their weight and participate, helping each other when needed and
showing respect to each other in doing so.

Due to these developed skills M.R.E works very well as a team which can be backed up by our
peer feedback assessment strengths in Appendix F.1 and our weekly progress reports in
Appendix B.1, which show that we all contribute.

Teamwork is essential for the success of any group and any construction project. Atlantis
Roves have divided this criterion into 3 sub-criteria; Group shows great teamwork during
meeting, can provide evidence of teamwork, evidence includes WPR, minutes and peer
feedback review. The total of this criterions score is 20. If evidence is not provided for all 3
of the above WPR, minutes and peer feedback review a maximum of 3 marks will be
deducted from the final score after the first two sub-criteria have been assessed out of 10
each. All sub-criteria are available to view with ease in Table 3.1 above.

For the first criteria stated in the paragraph above, there is no reference to teamwork during
the meeting between companies presented by M.R.E. However, in the last sentence of the
above section the company has referenced both their peer feedback assessment and WPRs
available in Appendices C.20 and C.7 respectively. Atlantis Roves has therefore decided to
only deduct 2 points from the score of this sub-criterion, resulting in sub-score of 8/10.

As for the second criteria, in the main body paragraph above M.R.E has referenced situations
that teamwork occurs in their lives. This includes team sports, previous projects and part-time
jobs. These references available in Appendices C.14 to C.19. Atlantis Roves are glad to say
that M.R.E has produced satisfactory evidence that their companys teamwork skills are
adequate for our construction project. Therefore a full sub-criterion score of 10 will be given.

The overall score awarded to M.R.E for their teamwork skills is 18/20. Atlantis Roves has no
recommendation as to how to improve their teamwork skills other than to create the
previously stated contribution table for the construction process if M.R.E is chosen to
contract for our company.
Appendices
4.0 Appendix A - Atlantis Roves Stage 1 Design Package
5.0 Appendix B - Muller International Tender Submission
6.0 Appendix C - M.R.E Tender Submission