Atlantis Roves

TENDER EVALUATION REPORT

Designer Name: Jackson Italiano
Client: EMPACT
Project: Mars Rover/Lander
Date: SEPTEMBER 13, 2017
Due Date: OCTOBER 2, 2017
Executive Summery
The following report is an evaluation of the tenders submitted to Atlantis Roves from Mars Rover
Engineering (M.R.E), Mller International and Cool Kids of Space Exploration (C.K.O.S.E.), for
the client EMPACT. The purpose of this evaluation is to determine which tendering construction
company would be contracted to build the Mars rover design Atlantis Roves proposed in the stage
one design package. To determine the most successful tender, the company with the highest rank
based on the criteria stated in the design package, will get the contract. The criteria includes:
Punctuality: attending meetings on time and responding to emails in a timely manner.
Organisation: displays an adequate ability of foresight.
Understanding the Design: demonstrates a considerable comprehension of the design.
Experience: the company displays knowledge, skills and abilities from previous projects.
Teamwork: the company displays communication, participation and respect amongst team
members.
Each of these criteria has a weighting of 20 and is marked between 1 to 20 based on the tender
evaluation criteria in the design package, as seen in Appendix A.2. This would make an overall
rank of 100 which each company is compared against.
The ranks granted to the companies can be influenced by the behaviour that each company portrays
during the meeting with Atlantis Roves. However, marks can only be awarded based on evidence
displayed in the tender. The final ranks of the three companies are exhibited in the table below.
Contracting Company Overall Rank
Mars Rover Engineering 59/100
Mller International 96/100
Cool Kids of Space Exploration 0/100
C.K.O.S.E was unable to provide a tender due to an unfortunate event. This event lead to the
neglection of completing the tender for Atlantis Roves, as seen in Appendix D.6. Hence there will be
no rank awarded to C.K.O.S.E even though they showed considerable behaviour in the meeting.
M.R.E shows some admirable traits that complements the criteria from the Atlantis Roves design
package, hence they were awarded a rank of 59/100. M.R.Es punctuality was only given a rank of
5/20 for providing false evidence that suggested they were timely in their response to emails,
however in reality this was not true. The criteria of organisation was ranked 18/20 for providing a
clear GANTT chart of the construction process they will undergo. Understanding the design was
ranked 13/20 for failing to provide a full description of Atlantis Roves design, missing vital
information in how the design is constructed. Experience was only provided rank of 5/20 for
indicating only minimal skills in the use of equipment required in the construction of this design.
Teamwork was ranked 18/20 for demonstrating M.R.E have a high level of participation within their
team.
Mller International clearly demonstrated that they have the abilities that Atlantis Roves requested
from a construction company as Mller International were presented with a rank of 96/100. Mller
International portrays a high standard of punctuality as they responded to emails within the arranged
time period of twelve hours. Organisation was also marked high with a rank of 18/20 for providing a
clear program for the construction processes. Understanding the design was ranked 19/20 for
providing several mechanical suggestions that require an innate understanding to recommend. Mller
International exhibit outstanding experience and were awarded a full rank for this criterion after
providing ample evidence from previous projects. Mller Internationals teamwork is also
outstanding and is awarded a rank of 20/20 as the evidence provide also establishes that they display
avid communication, participation and respect within their team. Hence Atlantis Roves applaud the
quality of Mller Internationals tender and will be Atlantis Roves first preference.

i
Content
............................................................................................................................................................. i
Executive Summery ............................................................................................................................. i
Content ................................................................................................................................................ 1
1.0 Disclaimer ..................................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1
3.0 Design Package Response............................................................................................................. 1
3.1 M.R.E. Review. ...................................................................................................................... 1
3.2 Muller International Review. .................................................................................................. 3
3.3 C.K.O.S.E. Review. ................................................................................................................ 5
4.0 Tender Evaluation ......................................................................................................................... 5
4.1 M.R.E. Evaluation. ................................................................................................................. 5
4.1.1 Punctuality ......................................................................................................................... 5
4.1.2 Organisation ....................................................................................................................... 6
4.1.3 Understanding the Design .................................................................................................. 7
4.1.4 Experience.......................................................................................................................... 7
4.1.5 Teamwork .......................................................................................................................... 8
4.2 Muller International Evaluation. ............................................................................................. 9
4.2.1 Punctuality ......................................................................................................................... 9
4.2.2 Organisation ..................................................................................................................... 10
4.2.3 Understanding the Design ................................................................................................ 11
4.2.4 Experience........................................................................................................................ 12
4.2.5 Teamwork ........................................................................................................................ 13
4.3 C.K.O.S.E. Evaluation. ......................................................................................................... 13
5.0 Appendix ..................................................................................................................................... 14
A.1 Atlantis Roves Design package. ......................................................................................... 14
A.2 Tender Evaluation Criteria................................................................................................... 15
A.3 Equipment list ...................................................................................................................... 19
B.1 M.R.E Tender....................................................................................................................... 20
B.2 M.R.E Actual cost Table ...................................................................................................... 20
C.1 Mller International Tender ................................................................................................. 20
C.2 Mller International Extract Section 2.1 Construction Plan ................................................ 21
C.3 Mller International Extract Section 2.3 Improvements ...................................................... 22
D.1 M.R.E Email Evidence ........................................................................................................ 23
D.2 M.R.E Required Tool Evidence ........................................................................................... 23
D.3 Galvanised Strapping Evidence ........................................................................................... 24
D.4 180 mm Grinder Disc Evidence........................................................................................... 24
D.5 Evidence of Missing Tender ................................................................................................ 25
D.6 C.K.O.S.E. Minutes ............................................................................................................. 26

2
1.0 Disclaimer
The following report contains extracts from two contracting companies that are tendering to
Atlantis Roves. These extracts are denoted by the text that is a lighter colour and italicized (i.e.
Sample Text).

2.0 Introduction
This report is to evaluate the tenders from the three selected companies that the client EMPACT
has selected for Atlantis Roves. The three contracting companies, Mars Rover Engineering
(M.R.E), Mller International and The Cool Kids of Space Exploration (C.K.O.S.E), received a
copy of Atlantis Roves design package (Appendix A.1) and based their tenders around the
proposed Mars rover design. These tenders were then reviewed against Atlantis Roves tender
criteria (Appendix A.2) and appointed a rank.
The tender criteria consist of five parts, punctuality, organisation, understanding the design,
experience, and teamwork. These five parts accumulate a rank of 100, with each criterion
having a maximum rank of 20. Atlantis Roves wish to ensure that the quality of their design is
up to a high standard hence the company with the highest rank will be awarded the tender.
After careful reading, the three tenders where given the ranks shown below in the table below.
Contracting Company Overall Rank
Mars Rover Engineering 59/100
Mller International 96/100
Cool Kids of Space Exploration 0/100
The score of 0 is awarded to C.K.O.S.E for not providing a tender, as evidenced in Appendix D.6,
hence they will not be Atlantis Roves first preference by default.

3.0 Design Package Response

3.1 M.R.E. Review.
There are two concerns that M.R.E portray about the design that Atlantis Roves submitted in the
stage one design package. The first concern is the rigidness of the four individual axle bolts in
the balsa wood vertical suspension bridge. The second concern is the overall cost of the design
as M.R.E have calculated that it would be over the budget that the client EMPACT sets for this
project. These concerns are both vailed and Atlantis Roves will improve their design because of
these suggestions.
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.
The concern M.R.E have related to the suspension and is located where the vertical balsa square
pole that bridges between the two galvanised straps meets the perpendicular axle bolt. M.R.E
suggests increasing the length of the bolt and thinning the width of the balsa wood so that the
bolt has more purchase and resist movement during testing. The instability could occur due to
the bolt, in the design package, only goes 20 mm into the side of the balsa wood hence there is
a possibility the bolt can move enough and fail from losing a wheel. This suggestion would
reduce that possibility and complies with EMPACTs requirement as it still resides with in the
dimension limits.

1
Atlantis Roves does admire M.R.Es suggestion, however Atlantis Roves have devised a better
solution that requires less changes to the design. This solution is to apply the adhesive, used in
constructing the container, into the 20 mm drilled hole in the balsa wood then insert the bolt
and allow it to set. This would greatly reduce the movement of the bolt without changing the
dimension of the design. Hence Atlantis Roves as heard the concern but will follow with their
own improvement.
Our second concern is that the actual cost to construct the rover is considerably higher than the
spreadsheet cost 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 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.
The second concern that M.R.E portrays is the actual cost of Atlantis Roves design. M.R.E
provides a compassion table in their tender which demonstrates the true price of the materials
required for Atlantis Roves design (see Appendix B.2 for the table). The initial cost that
Atlantis Roves proposed came to $29.36 below the $30 budget that EMPACT set. However, the
cost that M.R.E propose is $101.99 well over the budget and is due to the discrepancy in the
cost of medium-density fibreboard (MDF), grinder discs and balsa wood. After studying these
proposed costs Atlantis Roves determined that some of these prices were greatly exaggerated in
the compassion table (Appendix B.2). For example, M.R.E ascertained that the galvanised
strapping comes to a cost of $7.90 with no evidence to support that claim. Where Atlantis
Roves had determined that the strapping cost is $5.40 as evident by the Bunnings Warehouse
online store in Appendix D.4. Hence M.R.Es compassion table would require more study and
cannot be fully trusted.
M.R.E suggests using other materials for example stacked thin layers of MDF sheets or extruded
polystyrene (XPS) for either the chassis of the design or vertical square 25 mm poles. To find
four grinder disc that are similar in diameter and were previously used. These suggestions
would offer cheaper solutions to the previous materials used in the design package. However,
the likelihood of coming across four used grinder discs that still have a dimeter of 180 mm,
which is required by the design package, is very unlikely. Hence Atlantis Roves acknowledge
that the list of materials would have to change however an alternative method has been derived.
Atlantis Roves would like to recycle as much of the materials as possible to reduce the overall
price. They wish to recycle the chassis, vertical square poles, the cardboard box, super glue and
remove the washers. Replacing the recycled goods with a pallet timber for the chassis and the
vertical square pole, an old Tupper Ware container with the cardboard box and use super glue
or hot glue from previous projects. This also includes a sheet of recycled clear acrylic for the lid
of the container which Mller International suggest in their concerns. Making these changes
and using the Bunnings Warehouse price of galvanised strapping seen in Appendix D.5, the
overall cost would now come to $28.8 under the set budget.

2
 3.2 Muller International Review.
Mller International portrays three concerns with Atlantis Roves design package submitted in
stage one. The first concern is that the galvanised strapping in the designs suspension system is
too unyielding and wouldnt offer much flexibility to reduce the impact of the ground. The
second concern is to do with the thin width that the grinder discs have as it may result in failure
in the structure of these discs on impact. The final concern Mller International realised is
about the orientation of the cargo in the container and how the lack of a lid can cause the cargo
to become lost and exit the design. The first and second concern do have some merit in a non-
test scenario however it would not be implemented into Atlantis Roves final design unlike the
third concern.
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. 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.
The first concern that Mller International conveys is the stiffness of galvanised strapping
reducing the suspension ability in the design. The concept of the suspension system in the
design is to increase the time the wheel is in contact with the ground by causing flexion in the
strapping and ultimately reduce the amount of force acting on the chassis. The concern that
Mller International demonstrate is that the galvanised steel strapping would not effectively
flex enough, hence they have suggested alternative methods that would. One of these methods
is to replace one of the screws that holds the galvanised strapping to the chassis with a roller
joint so that there is an increase of flex. However, for this method to work Mller International
would have to install a spring in the roller so that it resists flex and increase the time of contact.
Mller International would have to recycle these parts as with these extra materials the balance
of the design might exceed EMPACTs set budget.
Atlantis Roves does admire this solution but would require an alternative method as this would
reduce the simplicity of the design and would increase the chance of mechanic failure. Mller
International has also suggested the use of more elastic material other than the galvanised
straps, however as the straps are the only points that connect to the chassis they have to offer
some inflexibility that thick strips of elastic bands would not provide. The concern does have
virtue if the design does go on to be a complete rover, however as the deigns is only for a
prototype, in test conditions, Atlantis Roves have decided not to implement Mller
International suggestions.
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 One method to overcome this issue would be to
use multiple discs per wheel, however this would exceed the $30 material constraint and
possibly make the prototype to large also. Hence the best solution that Mller International can
suggest is to use multiple CDs per wheel (still with the balloon latex around them) and to make
the main body out of a narrower block of plywood in order to reduce the weight of the design

3
 (and therefore the force on the wheels during landing) and still meet the dimensional
constraints.
This concern involves the grinder disc wheels and how they may fracture during contact with the
surface. Mller International theorised that the width and composition of the disc is too thin and
brittle and can cause fracturing on impact. This is as the grinder discs are made of a rough
surface that could be fractured under great pressure and only has a width of 2.5 mm (seen in
Appendix D.5). Mller International have suggested several methods to overcome this issue,
one of these suggestion include securing two grinder discs together through some type of
adhesive which would essential double the surface area that is in contact with the ground, hence
reducing the pressure on the disc. However, this would not comply with EMPACTs
requirements as purchasing an extra set of grinder disc would greatly exceed the budget.
The other adjustment Mller International suggested is to use recycled CDs that are layered
together to reduce the price and increase the width. Atlantis Roves discussed this in the meeting
with Mller International that the diameter of the wheel cannot deviate from 180 mm, as the
container must reside within that diameter to keep the cargo safe. Hence this method cannot be
implemented as it would require major changes to the scaling of the design.
Atlantis Roves have determined that this concern is not as relevant as other concerns Mller
International have suggested. This would be as the concern would only affect the design on a
larger scale and in a non-test scenario. Atlantis Roves have resolved that the integrity of the
grinder disc would not be overwhelmed during the test as the rover is landing on a soft surface
that has no turbulent terrain and the mass of the cargo, the chassis and four grinder discs would
not be the cause of damage to the discs. The latex that is placed along the edge of the grinder
disc as this would add a small degree of elasticity to the wheels reducing the force of the
impact. Hence Atlantis Roves will have to reject Mller Internationals suggestions and
continue with the initial concept from the design package.
The final adjustment that Mller International would like to suggest is in regards to the cardboard
box that will hold the water bottle and egg during testing. 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 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). 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.
The final concern that Mller International have with Atlantis Roves design is extremely valid as
they indicate that the orientation of the cargo would not be correct for transport and there was
no description of a lid in the design package. The inclusion of a lid was in the original
conceptual design however Atlantis Roves failed to translate it into the design package. The
design package also suggested that the water bottle cargo should be placed on a diagonal so that
it would fit in the container, however this was not discussed amongst Atlantis Roves and hence
would explain the confusion of Mller International to believe in these changes. In
consideration the concerns do pose a hazard to the design and Atlantis Roves are grateful for
illuminating the issue. Mller International go on to suggest that Atlantis Roves add a lid and
change the dimensions of the container so that it can fit the cargo but not exceed the
dimensional limits set by EMPACT.
Atlantis Roves has understood that the dimensions of that container may have to change depending
on the cargo that as to be transported. That is, they were ready to increase the length of the

4
 container as this would only require a similar increase in the length of the chassis. Hence
Atlantis Roves agree with Mller Internationals proposed suggestions to install a lid and
change the containers size so the cargo fits lengthwise. Mller International also suggests that
Atlantis Roves use the babble warp as more of a divider, to which Atlantis Roves would
complement that and install a wooden divider that separates the two cargo compartments.
However Mller Internationals suggestion for a lid that includes Velcro which would be an
extra cost to the design and may cause the design to surpass the budget. Hence why Atlantis
Roves would then recycle left over duct tape form previous projects to secure the lid during
testing.

3.3 C.K.O.S.E. Review.

Unfortunately, due to the missing tender from C.K.O.S.E (as seen in Appendix D.6) and no
suggestions were discussed during the meeting (See Appendix D.7), C.K.O.S.E have nothing to
add to Atlantis Roves design.

4.0 Tender Evaluation

4.1 M.R.E. Evaluation.

Criteria Title Criteria Details Rank

Showing up on time
Punctuality Responding promptly 5/20

Being able plan for the

Organisation future 18/20
Able to explain how the
design should look, work
Understanding the design and be constructed 13/20

Knowledge and
previous use of tools
Experience related to construction 5/20

Communication,
participation and respect
Teamwork between team members 18/20

Total 59/100
4.1.1 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.

5
The rank of 5/20 was presented to M.R.E. This mark is for failing to respond to emails on time and
not having all members of the construction team present at the meeting. This shows an absence
of punctuality and Atlantis Roves would expect that they show a greater level of enthusiasm
before being considered for this construction project.
M.R.E failed to respond to the first and second proposal of a meeting time. It took five days after
the email was sent and two after the second proposed meeting times for a response, these
emails are shown in Appendix D.1. This demonstrates a distinct lack of punctuality and can
hinder the construction of Atlantis Roves design due to the evidenced lack of enthusiasm.
Hence M.R.E would not be receiving any marks for this section.
After the meeting was arrange, there was only two out of the three members of M.R.E present at
the meeting, evidence in Appendix A.3 apart of Appendix B.1. This is marked down as the
criterion states that the whole contracting team must be present during the meeting. However
M.R.E did show a level of enthusiasm during the meeting as they were engaged in the
discussion of the design and asking questions about the concept, hence M.R.E are awarded five
marks.
4.1.2 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.
The rank of 18/20 was presented to M.R.E. This is for successfully providing a GANTT chart with
the program of the construction period. M.R.E have also shown that they will provide periodic
reports on their progress. Atlantis Roves would expect that M.R.E can maintain these examples
of good time management during the construction period. This is to follow the GANTT chart
provided by M.R.E with diligence and include a timetable when updates on the design is issued
to Atlantis Roves.
The GANTT chart provided in Appendix C.1 through Appendix B.1 is evidence of a detailed plan
of construction. This fulfils most of the criterion as it demonstrates a clear and detailed program
for the construction period and is evidence of organisational skills along with the minutes and
week progress reports (WPR) in Appendix B.2-3 and Appendix B.1 as seen in Appendix B.1,
respectively. Hence full marks are provided for this section.
M.R.E has shown that they have been able to keep in contact with Atlantis Roves during the
construction period. M.R.E have also shown that they can be misleading in hastiness in
replying to emails and do not present a set period of time that of the periodic reports will be
provided which shows a lack of foresight organisation. Hence a three-quarter mark is award for
this section.

6
 4.1.3 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.
The rank of 13/20 is presented to M.R.E in the criterion of understanding the Atlantis Roves
design. This is for providing sufficient evidence to support their recommendations and
strengths. Full marks where not award as they failed to explain the design to full detail, missing
several vital parts of the design. Atlantis Roves would expect that the M.R.E would show a
higher level of understanding before beginning the construction phase.
M.R.Es recommendation and approval are evidenced in the Appendix A.3 as seen in Appendix
B.1. The recommendation proposed by M.R.E contractor Hannah OBrien was to replace the
grinder discs with a less expensive material which was not stated in the minutes. However, this
proposal was advised against by the Atlantis Roves Designer Jackson Italiano as the reduced
diameter of this material would jeopardise the damage the cargo. The strength was suggested
by M.R.E contractor Kara Plummer include the design of the cargo container and how it resides
inside the diameter of the wheels so that the impact of the ground would be absorbed by the
wheel not the cargo holder. These outlined recommendations and strengths demonstrate that
M.R.E had a satisfactory idea of the design; hence they are awarded full marks for this section
of the criterion.
Where M.R.E showed a lack of understanding in their description of the design in their tender
provide to Atlantis Roves. They failed to mention how the galvanised strapping is secured to
the chassis which is a crucial point discussed in the design package. For not showing this
understanding they were marked down and only received half marks for this section of the
criterion.
4.1.4 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

7
 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 rank of 5/20 is present to M.R.E in the criterion of experience. This is for failing to provide
evidence of experience with equipment relative to the construction of Atlantis Roves design.
M.R.E only presented academic experience when this criterion was evaluating practical
experience. Atlantis Roves presumes that M.R.E would gain greater skills with the required tool
before beginning of construction.
M.R.E demonstrates experience with simple equipment however the construction of Atlantis
Roves design requires more complicated equipment. M.R.E demonstrates that they have
experience with drills, screwdrivers and measuring tapes, however they failed to demonstrate
experience using a jigsaw, circular saw, sawhorse, straight edge, spanner, large scissors and
utility knife which was stated in the design package Appendix D.3. M.R.E explain that they
have experience of basic equipment however they do not outline what their definition of basic
equipment includes nor have any evidence of these basic equipment in use, hence these
experiences in Appendix D.2 as seen in Appendix B.1 cannot be awarded marks. This leaves
only a very small amount of evidence to mark the experience criterion on and hence would only
be awarded partly marks for this section.
The other evidence provided is only academic experience which is not required in this criterion.
The evidence in Appendix E.1-2 as seen in Appendix B.1 shows an understanding but not
experience. Hence M.R.E will only be receiving partial marks for this section due to the lack of
viable evidence.
4.1.5 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.
The rank of 18/20 is presented to M.R.E in the criterion of teamwork. This is for providing
excellent evidence of high level teamwork skills in the way of team sports and part-time jobs.

8
 However, M.R.E showed only sufficient levels of teamwork during the meeting. Atlantis Roves
believe that M.R.E would continue the high level of participation and team work.
M.R.E provided quite outstanding levels of teamwork especially in the way of team sports.
Contractors OBrien and Plummer both provided evidence of a team sport that they excel in,
which is basketball (Appendix E.6 seen in Appendix B.1) and netball (Appendix E.5 seen in
Appendix B.1), respectively. Both these team sports require a high amount of communication,
listening and participation which are all excellent teamwork skills. Contractor Plummer also
works pert-time at Kidz n Sport which is evidence by the roster in Appendix E.4 which is apart
id Appendix B.1. Plummer part-time work also demonstrates a high level of communication,
comprehension, respect and effectiveness which are required by Atlantis Roves. Hence M.R.E
receives full marks for this section of the criterion.
During the meetings they only showed sufficient levels of teamwork as communication was lost
between M.R.Es contracting team. This is evidenced in Appendix A.3 seen in Appendix B.1 as
M.R.E contractor Khee Shon was not present with no reason for non-attebdance. However, the
rest of the meeting was promising and showed good signs of effective teamwork skills. Hence
M.R.E receives practically full marks for this section of the criterion.

4.2 Muller International Evaluation.

Criteria Title Criteria Details Rank

Showing up on time
Punctuality Responding promptly 19/20
Being able plan for the
Organisation future 18/20
Able to explain how the
design should look, work
Understanding the design and be constructed 19/20

Knowledge and
previous use of tools
Experience related to construction 20/20

Communication,
participation and respect
Teamwork between team members 20/20

Total 96/100
4.2.1 Punctuality
Mller International is a company that strongly values 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 submissions, and 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. Hence Mller international believe that their time management skills are

9
 most favourable for this tender and will allow them to produce the prototype efficiently and
effectively.
The rank of 19/20 is presented to Mller International in the criterion of Punctuality. This is for
providing sufficient evidence to support all members attending the meeting, replying to email
within twelve hours, meeting deadlines were met and having consistent minutes. However, the
criterion stated that it requires multiple WPR from Mller International, which they failed to
provide. Atlantis Roves believes that Mller International can continue this punctual behaviour
beyond the closure of this project.
The evidence provided is very conclusive and cannot be disputed or argued against. Mller
International proved that all member of their contracting team were present at the meeting
Atlantis Roves organised, supported by Appendix 4.3.3 seen in Appendix C.1. The other
evidence provided in Appendix 4.3.1 and 4.5.3 seen in Appendix C.1 prove that they replied to
emails with in the stated time of twelve hours and they beat the deadline of stage one by two
and a half hours, respectively. This evidence is sound and support each section of this criterion
hence full marks are awarded for these sections.
Even though they provided ample evidence, Mller International did not fulfil the complete
criterion as there was only one WPR and one set of minutes presented. The punctuality criteria
states provide evidence of consistent punctuality from WPRs and minutes hence the criterion
required multiple WPRs and minutes to demonstrate consistency. Therefore a mark is
deducted from this section of the criterion as their remaining evidence does show punctuality.
4.2.2 Organisation
The contractors at Mller International believe organisation is the key to success, and this is why
the initiation email between contractors and designers was sent less than 24 hours after the
Tender Allocation List was published on Monday 28th August (validated by Appendix 4.3.2).
However Mller Internationals organisation skills extend beyond day to day activities their
contractors plan weeks in advance in order to have a clear mindset of what needs to be done
and when, and this is achieved using Weekly Progress Reports like Appendix 4.6 and Gantt
charts such as Appendix 4.5.1, which was awarded a high distinction in Mller Internationals
Stage One Design Package (see Appendix 4.5.2 as proof). 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.
Finally, 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. This shows not only their dedication to safety but
also their preparedness for the task ahead, should they be contracted to build Atlantis Roves
design.

10
The rank of 18/20 is presented to Mller International for the criterion of organisation. This is for
providing an adequate plan of the assembly of Atlantis Roves design and providing only one
WPR when Mller International were required to present several WPRs. Atlantis Roves expect
that Mller International can maintain the propose construction program.
The construction plan that Mller International suggests does demonstrate a complete view of the
assembly prosses but does require more details. Appendix C.2 is an extract of Mller
International tender and describes the assembly process in full down to contacting Atlantis
Roves once completed. However, this plan could show a bit more detail as this section of the
criterion requires as detailed plan of construction. The terminology in this plan was very
broad and there were no time constraints set for each task only an overall expiration time of a
day. Hence Mller International receives a deduction of one mark of this section.
The lack of evidence for the WPR section is similar to the issue in the punctuality criterion. Mller
International was required by the organisation criterion to provide WPRs from previous weeks.
The criterion states evidence of organisation will be from WPRs and minutes from previous
weeks however the Appendix 4.6 seen in Appendix C.1 only presents one WPR. A mark is
deducted of this section of the criterion for not providing adequate evidence.
4.2.3 Understanding the Design
Understanding Atlantis Roves design is perhaps the most important attribute that this team
possesses when it comes to building the prototype. 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). This understanding has developed as a result of extensive analysis of
Atlantis Roves Stage One Design Package and multiple discussions between contractors with
their respective background knowledge and experience in design and construction. 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). If necessary, Mller International is willing to meet
with Atlantis Roves again in order to answer any further questions that the designers may have
and to reinforce the fact that Mller Internationals understanding of the design is unmatched
by any other team.
The rank of 19/20 is presented to Mller International for the criterion of understanding the design.
This is for providing several suggestions of improvement to Atlantis Roves design and for
providing a broad comprehension of the final design. Establishing these points show a
respectable understanding of the design.
The suggestions provided by Mller International are competent propositions as they would
improve the quality of the design. Mller International proposed improvements are in Appendix
C.3 which is an extract of their tender with the improvements highlighted. These suggestions
demonstrate a significant understanding of Atlantis Roves design and therefor Mller
International receives full marks for this section.
The description that Mller International provided for the final design stand true but does require
specific dimensions. The criterion states explain in detail how our design would look if
constructed this would suggest that Atlantis Roves requires dimensions of the final design as
the proof that Mller International interpreted the drawings correctly. Appendix C.2 validates
the lack of dimension as Mller International only mention dimension in this extract. Hence a
point is deducted from the full mark in this section.

11
 4.2.4 Experience
Mller Internationals contractors have a wealth of knowledge and experience in using
construction equipment considering their age, and so they are confident that the prototype they
produce will be of the highest possible standard, thereby pleasing Atlantis Roves and the client.
Being only in their teenage years, the contractors of Mller International may not have decades
of experience on their resume (attached as Appendix 4.4), but nonetheless they have had ample
exposure to wood work, metal work and similar design and construction techniques through
high school studies, home D.I.Y. projects and last semesters EFDP unit. Some of their
previous creations include:
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).
These experiences provided the contractors with the knowledge to be able to abide by
occupational health and safety standards, encourage environmental sustainability and use
power tools, computing technology, welding machines, soldering and fabrication equipment.
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. Hence Mller International believe that they have sufficient experience to confidently
produce Atlantis Roves Rover to the highest quality and should therefore be highly considered
for this tender.
The rank of 20/20 is presented to Mller International for the criterion of experience. This is for
providing ample evidence of previous projects and the skill required to complete those projects
and for providing imagery of the equipment that Mller International have experience with.
Hence showing that Mller International have exceptional experience for this design. Atlantis
Roves expect that Mller Internationals contractors can used their expertise in the construction
of the design.
The previous projects the individual Mller International contractors worked on show a great deal
of experience equipment similar to those required in constructing Atlantis Roves design.
Mller International contactor Kyle Mller demonstrates superior wood work ability as seen in
Appendix 4.7.8 and 4.7.10 in Appendix C.1, which are final products of a bird house and a
water filtration system, respectively. Contractor Harshil Patel demonstrates outstanding
comprehension of mechanics and metal work shown in Appendix 4.7.1 and 4.7.2 as seen
Appendix C.1, which are Patels tertiary education certification in engineering and a go-kart
project that Patel worked on, respectively. Contractor Katelyn Flegg demonstrates craftsman
ship and ingenuity in Appendix 4.7.4-4.7.6 as seen in Appendix C.1 as the first evidence is a
3D printed elephant sculpture, then a well-crafted jewellery box and final a free standing
outdoor shelter, respectively. This evidence shows outstanding experience for a project of this
magnitude. Hence Mller International receives full marks for this section.
Mller International shows experience with several types of utility equipment that would be
functional for the construction of Atlantis Roves design. The equipment Mller International
have available complement the list of equipment Atlantis Roves suggest in the design package
(see appendix A.3 for the list of suggested equipment). There is a slight discrepancy as they
dont show they have a same equipment, like a straightedge, however the equipment they do

12
 have replace the those that are missing, such as tape measure can replace the straightedge.
Hence Mller International would receive full marks for this section.
4.2.5 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. Should there be another meeting held
between the two teams, the contractors are more than willing to display their teamwork skills in
any challenge put to them to by Atlantis Roves.
The rank of 20/20 is presented to Mller International for the criterion of teamwork. This if for
showing outstanding evidence of cohesive work and ethics. This is evidenced by the material
provided to Atlantis Roves and during the meeting between the Atlantis Roves designer and
Mller International contractors.
In the material provided, Mller International show outstanding skills of cooperative team work.
The materials demonstrate that all contractors exhibit good communication, understanding of
the task, work ethic (completing their part of the task) and leadership as seen in Mller
Internationals group CV (Appendix 4.4 as seen in Appendix C.1). These traits complement the
skills of teamwork and hence Mller International would receive full marks for this section.
During the meeting the Mller International construction team reinforced these traits as spoken by
the Atlantis Roves designers. The contractors showed this by listening to what each of
contractors and designers had to say and reciprocated with a question of their own to
understand the design fully. This proves that there is outstanding cohesion within Mller
Internationals contracting team; hence they would receive full marks for this section.

4.3 C.K.O.S.E. Evaluation.

Unfortunately, due to the missing tender from C.K.O.S.E (as seen in Appendix D.6) they cannot
my evaluated and a rank of 0/100 must be awarded for their tender evaluation. However, if they
were to provide one, they most likely would have exhibited a majority of the criteria based on
C.K.O.S.Es display during the meeting with Atlantis Roves.

13
5.0 Appendix
A.1 Atlantis Roves Design package.

14
A.2 Tender Evaluation Criteria

15
16
17
18
A.3 Equipment list

19
B.1 M.R.E Tender

B.2 M.R.E Actual cost Table

C.1 Mller International Tender

20
 C.2 Mller International Extract Section 2.1 Construction Plan
Mller International believes that they have a thorough and comprehensive understanding of Atlantis
Roves proposed design, which will allow the contractors to construct it efficiently and to the highest
standard. The contractors at Mller International have already discussed how they are going to work
together to build the Rover prototype, including who is sourcing materials and tools and who will be
in charge of assembling each part of the design. Their construction plan is as follows:
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.
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.
From this construction plan and description of the final product that will be produced by Mller
International should they be contracted, the contractors believe that their understanding of the project
is aligned with Atlantis Roves envisioned design, and so the contractors look forward to the
construction stage of this project.

21
C.3 Mller International Extract Section 2.3 Improvements

22
D.1 M.R.E Email Evidence

D.2 M.R.E Required Tool Evidence

23
D.3 Galvanised Strapping Evidence

D.4 180 mm Grinder Disc Evidence

24
D.5 Evidence of Missing Tender

25
 D.6 C.K.O.S.E. Minutes

Agenda & Meeting Minutes

Date: 30-8-2017

Venue: Building 204, EFY Studio

Meeting Attendees: Preston Kelly, Thomas Akindapo, Jackson Italiano
Apologies for Absence: Ben Loxton Family matters, Filip Riccio Conflicting class times.
Agenda:
Meet
Discuss design
Contractors abilities.
Minutes:
Discussed design and answered questions on the design from
C.K.O.S.E..
o The galvanised strapping
o The components of the container (a divider 52 cm from one end
of the container, bubble wrap stuffed onto each side of the
divider, the egg in the smaller compartment and water bottle in
the other, with bubble wrap on top and the lid ducted taped over
the container).
o Grinder disks as the diameter must be 180 mm.
o Bolt acts as axle and does not go into the MDF base.
Discussed Thomass previous experience in the electrical sector
demonstrating knowledge on safety and craftsmanship.
Discussed that C.K.O.S.E. has the required equipment for construction
of the design (Gig saws and Electric drills).
Discussed C.K.O.S.E. preference to set a single time to start and
complete construction.
Actions Arising: No Actions were directly discussed during meeting

Actions Arising Person Responsible Deadline

Tender completion C.K.O.S.E. Contracting team 18 9 17
Tender Evaluation Atlantis Roves Designer team 2 10 17
Approved for Accuracy:
Company Chairmans Name Signature
Atlantis Roves Jackson Italiano
C.K.O.S.E. Thomas Akindapo akins

26