Final Eval Sub Stage 2-Min

2017
Semester 1
Designers Tender Evaluation

M.E.C.C.
JAMES COLASANTE
Contents
THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... 3
REFLECTION ON DESIGN PACKAGE REVIEWS ............................................................................................... 5
Overview ................................................................................................................................................... 5
Scope Engineering ..................................................................................................................................... 5
Red Planet Industries .................................................................................................................................... 6
Es.KHUBED ................................................................................................................................................ 8
EVAULATION OF TENDER APPLICATIONS...................................................................................................... 9
Overview ................................................................................................................................................... 9
Scope Engineering ................................................................................................................................... 10
Project Management .......................................................................................................................... 10
Communication ................................................................................................................................... 11
Time Management .............................................................................................................................. 12
Punctuality .......................................................................................................................................... 13
Safety Management ............................................................................................................................ 14
Experience ........................................................................................................................................... 15
Capability ............................................................................................................................................ 16
Overview ............................................................................................................................................. 17
Red Planet Industries .............................................................................................................................. 18
Communication ................................................................................................................................... 18
Time Management .............................................................................................................................. 19
Punctuality .......................................................................................................................................... 20
Experience ........................................................................................................................................... 21
Capability ............................................................................................................................................ 21
Overview ............................................................................................................................................. 22
Es.KHUBED .............................................................................................................................................. 23
Communication ................................................................................................................................... 23
Time Management .............................................................................................................................. 24
Punctuality .......................................................................................................................................... 24
Experience ........................................................................................................................................... 25
Capability ............................................................................................................................................ 25
Overview ............................................................................................................................................. 26
Appendices.................................................................................................................................................. 27
Appendix A Original M.E.C.C.C Stage 1 Design Package ...................................................................... 28
Appendix B Scope Engineering Tender Application ............................................................................. 61
Appendix C Red Planet Industries Tender Application ........................................................................ 27
Appendix D Es.KHUBED Tender Application ........................................................................................ 27
Appendix E Email Communication with Scope Engineering regarding Wheel design ......................... 27
Appendix F Late submission of Red Planet Industries to M.E.C.C. ...................................................... 27
Appendix G Meeting with Red Planet Industries Confirmation ........................................................... 27
THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This document contains the review of the tender applications submitted to M.E.C.C. on behalf
of EMPACT.
All three tenders have been reviewed against the Tender Evaluation Criteria, TEC, as
initially detailed in Stage 1 of M.E.C.C.s design submission. As detailed in the TEC, the winning
company will be the one that most fully satisfies the criteria. After reviewing all 3 tenders
M.E.C.C. has chosen Scope Engineering as the winning tender. The overall percentage marks for
the 3 tenders received are:
Tenderer Percentage Mark

Scope Engineering 82%
Red Planet Industries 53%
Es.KHUBED 22%
Scope Engineering is the clear winner by a margin of 29%, they had a complete and
thorough tender that was able to answer the TEC, leaving no ambiguity, as well as providing
sufficient evidence to back up their claims. Scope Engineering scored almost full marks
throughout the Project and Time management portions of the TEC. Scope Engineering have
particularly excelled in the Capability (equipment) requirements to complete the rover,
something which both other Companies struggled to do. In addition, their tender has
demonstrated an above average level of experience with construction, with above satisfactory
proof of work completed by each contractor. Despite losing marks in their formal qualifications
such as Certificates in High school metal and wood work, we have confidence that their
construction abilities are exceptional. They were also able to with reasoning justify each mark
they though they should be given, and were mature to deduct marks where they had not met
the criteria this shows great level of responsibility that Scope Engineering possess.
Red Planet Industries produced a clear, complete tender that made an attempt to
answer all of the criteria proposed by M.E.C.C. however due to possible misinterpreting of the
TEC may have lost some unneeded marks. Red Planet Industries demonstrated they have some
experience with construction supplying some suitable evidence. However, they were only able
to obtain half of the required tools to complete the Mars Rover, this is a major concern. They
scored well in the Project Management and Communication sections of the TEC, however they
scored poorly in the Time Management and this was also shown by the fact that they did not
make their tender application known to M.E.C.C. until a full 10 days after the deadline after
having to be asked.
Es.KHUBEDs submission was of a very poor standard. The formatting was inconsistent
with different spacings and font style, utilised poor grammar and ultimately failed to even
address some of the Evaluation Criteria. In addition, irrelevant evidence was provided that did
not apply to the criteria and did not include a copy of the Stage 1 design package as specified by
the marking rubric. However, they were the only company to score full marks for Punctuality in
the TEC with all 3 contractors present at our initial meeting. Despite this they still lacked in
many areas including not producing a GANTT chart to plan the construction of the rover and
perhaps the most concerning being the Capability portion of the TEC with Es.KHUBED only
having 2 of the required 14 tools.
After discussion between the designers at M.E.C.C. we believe that if Scope Engineering
is unable to be awarded the tender then the tender be rerun as Red Planet Industries is (based
on the quality of their tender) incapable of fabricating the mars rover to a suitable quality and
Es.KHUBED unable to produce a rover at all.
During Stages 3 and 4 we except the winning tender to be highly organised and effeicnt in
construction and testing of the rover. This will allow ample time should any changes need to be
made. As per the Tender Evaluation Criteria Scope Engineering and Red Planet Industries have
provided an outline in the form of a GANTT Chart to depict how this will happen.
REFLECTION ON DESIGN PACKAGE REVIEWS
Overview
The reflection on the design package review for each company can be found under their
respective subheadings in this section. As outlined in the Assignment Handbook the review
completed by the contractors should ideally be broken into 5 sections comprising of;
1. Understanding the Design Brief as detailed by EMPACT.

2. Understanding of the design produced by M.E.C.C..
3. Understanding of Construction Method
4. Addressing of Concerns with M.E.C.C.s Design.
5. Addressing of Concerns with M.E.C.C.s Construction Methods.
Some companies have merged these aspects, which is acceptable but separating and
individually addressing them shows a strong understanding of the design and method to
produce the Mars Rover. In a situation where an aspect has not been addressed this will be
noted at the end of each companies reflection subheading.
Scope Engineering (Appendix B)
Scope Engineering throughout their design package review have shown that they fully
understand the design and reasoning behind the choices made by M.E.C.C.. Their review is
broken up into 5 distinct sections.
In section 2.1 they confirm what their understanding of the design brief is, which
M.E.C.C. fully agrees with, this although a formality, is vital that both the design and contracting
company have the same set of final goals in mind and understand the specification that the
Mars Rover must comply with for the project to be successful.
In section 2.2 and section 2.3 Scope Engineering confirm their understanding for the
design and construction method created by M.E.C.C. which is completely correct. With the
extensive design and specification package provided in the Stage 1 design submission it is great
to see these translate into a confident contracting company that has no ambiguity about any
design or construction procedures.
In Section 2.4 Scope Engineering critically analyse both the design and design decisions
made by the M.E.C.C. design team. Scope Engineerings primary concern relates to the 3D
printing of the rims to be used on the rover. M.E.C.C. have had difficulties with the production
of the rims while using the Curtin University 3D printer, after 3 attempts the machine has been
unable to produce a rim, this was due to the machine itself failing, not the design of the rim.
This has led Scope Engineering and other companies to raise concerns over the possible delays
this may cause in the construction process. M.E.C.C. has assured Scope Engineering and others
that if the Curtin University 3D is still out of operation then the wheels will be sourced from an
external company. Despite this Scope Engineering have come up with an alternative wheel
design to mitigate any possible delay. There fix involves using a portion of a CD or plastic
takeaway container to glue to the side of the foam wheel with the axle running through the
hole in the CD or a drilled hole in the container. To further clarify this matter M.E.C.C.
communicated with Scope Engineering who quickly and fully replied to the questions posed
(Appendix E). To M.E.C.C.s understanding this would not provide a suitable fix, the plastic used
due to its thickness would most likely become caught in the thread of the axle and may cause
the wheel to jam and stop free movement. The plastic would most likely have to be layered in
order to increase the thickness and not get caught in the thread.
In section 2.5 Scope review the construction methods provided to them by M.E.C.C. in
the Stage 1 design package. We are happy to report that there were no concerns raised by
Scope Engineering and they thank M.E.C.C. for their clear and elaborate set of instructions for
each construction method. They also confirm the procedure if a quality control test is not met
as outlined in (Appendix A page 20), which is to edit the rover such that it can meet the
criteria. If further, more extensive modification is required they must contact M.E.C.C. to decide
the most suitable course of action to keep the project running on time and under budget.
Overall M.E.C.C. is very satisfied with the Design Review produced by Scope Engineering,
it has demonstrated their complete knowledge of the design and construction processes in
building the Mars Rover. We are confident that they fully understand the design presented in
Stage 1 design Submission.
Red Planet Industries

Red Planet Industries have provided a design package review that displays moderate
competence in understanding the design and construction methods of the Mars Rover designed
by M.E.C.C.. There review is broken up into 3 distinct sections
In section 2.1 they reiterate their understanding of the rover which is mostly correct,
however they have specifically stated a procedure which is wrong. The procedure for the order
in which the wheel/axle assembly is constructed is clearly explained Attach Wheel assembly
(Appendix A page 16). Red Planet Industries has failed to notice the initial nut that must be
screwed on the axle and be flush with the side of the frame. This may seem like a small
oversight, but this first nut is what keeps tension on the axle within the holes in the frame and
is crucial to having a stable wheel assembly. This nut is shown in <DWG#-2 Version 2> and <
DWG#-3 Version 2>, shown in the materials list in Procedure 3.e (Appendix A page 6, 7 and 19
respectively) and as stated above the process described in Attach Wheel assembly. Although an
easily rectified issue, attention to detail is crucial attribute for a contracting company to
possess.
In section 2.2 Red Planet Industries reviews the Client brief and the Rovers compliance
to the given specification. The remarks made by Red Planet Industries are consistent with those
in the Assignment handbook section 2.1 through 2.2.4. and M.E.C.C. agrees with these
statements .
In section 2.3 concerns and solutions are given with regards to the Mars Rover designed
by M.E.C.C.. Unfortunately, Red Planet Industries seems to have drastically misinterpreted the
drawings given in the Stage 1 Design submission. The appear to believe that the diameter of
the axles is design to be only 6.35mm whereas that of the wheels is 100mm, this is not the
case. The only 100mm measurement used regarding the Wheels and Rims is the total external
diameter of the foam wheels, this is shown in drawing <DWG#-7 Version 2> Titled TOP,
FRONT, AND SIDE VIEW OF WHEELS and stated in the Bill of Materials (Appendix A page 13
and 17 respectively). The foam wheels in fact have a hole in the middle with a diameter of
25mm, within this space the rim is placed which then has an axle hole of exactly 6.35mm.
Again, the lack of attention to detail to reading, and completely understanding the design
package is concerning. Red Planet Industries second concern relates to the size of the frame of
the Mars Rover. They suggest that there should be less clearance between the water bottle and
the frame to stop the water bottles flipping if the rubber bands cannot provide strong
enough friction and tension. M.E.C.C. does not see any possibility that the water bottle could
flip or that the 3 rubber bands at each of the 3 anchor points will be unable to produce enough
friction. At present the clearances are 20mm and 10mm to the width and length respectively.
Red Planet Industries suggest these should be made 0mm and have the bottle be touching the
side of the frame. This proposition is flawed for 2 main reasons. The water bottle acts as a
damper and should be allowed to have movement to help absorb the impact and dissipate the
energy efficiently but more importantly it is absolutely necessary to have clearance otherwise
to bottle cannot be put in or removed. The elastic bands must be put on before the wheels are
added as they are too tight to fit around the completed assembly with the wheels on.
Red Planet Industries make no references to a review of the construction method or

stipulated quality controls outlined in the Stage 1 design brief. Overall the design review has
significant issues with the technicalities of the design but displays an average level of
competence on all other aspects.
Es.KHUBED
Es.KHUBED has provided a poor tender review with poor syntax and a multitude of
grammatical errors. They are extremely brief in their statements of understanding the design
and construction methods as well as any concerns about the design. They have also not
attached the Stage 1 Design package to their Submission. They have broken their review into 3
sections
In section 2.1 they illustrate their understanding of the design, which in some instances
is wrong. They state, the high of the wood sheet is 100mm.. M.E.C.C. can also assume they
are referencing to the total height of the vehicle but do not understand what wood sheet
refers to as there are no wood sheets in the design. They also state The chassis of the vehicle is
connected by grooves and wood glue. The chassis is not connected by grooves but wood glue
and screws, as stated clearly in Gluing and Screwing the Frame (Appendix A page 13). It is
concerning that Es.KHUBED have such a weak understanding of the design and construction
methods used.
In section 2.2 they reiterate the testing method outlined in the Client Brief, with no
reference to specification requirements of the rover. Again, there are numerous errors in
syntax and grammar which make the review difficult to read and fully understand.
In section 2.3 titled Questions And Solution Es.KHUBED discuss the meeting held
between themselves and the M.E.C.C. design team stating that All contractors of Es.KHUBED
agreed that they understood M.E.C.C.s requirements and their tender criteria this section is
simply a review of the meetings minutes rather than clarifying or suggesting alternates to any
concerns they may have with the design. From this M.E.C.C. assumes Es.KHUBED is content
with the design and wishes to make no changes. This is concerning as both other tenders have
had at least 1 issue they have brought up whether it be regarding materials or construction, no
design is perfect and providing criticisms to the design team while coming up with valid
suggestions to the issues is the best way to prove that the contracting company is thinking
critically about the project.
Es.KHUBED makes no reference to reviewing the construction methods or stipulated

quality control measures and what process to follow if these are not met. Overall the tender
review is of a poor quality and raises major concerns if Es.KHUBED would be able to construct
the rover.
EVAULATION OF TENDER APPLICATIONS
Overview
The following section details M.E.C.C.s evaluation of the 3 companies Tender Applications
marking them against the Tender Evaluation Criteria (TEC) submitted in the Stage 1 Design
submission. No changes to the TEC were made subsequent to the initial submission. For ease
of understanding the companies response to each of the criterion has been inserted in italics
and greyed. A table summarising the marks awarded to each company relating to each
criterion can be found below. The justification for the marks is included in the evaluation itself.
The original TEC can be found in Appendix A under Tender Evaluation Criteria page 30. Please
note all Appendices that occur in the italicised sections refer to that respective companies
submission and can be found in their respective appendices at the end of the document.
Criteria Title Criteria Summary Scope Red Plant Es.KHUBED

Engineering Industries
Project Displays Chain of command 15/15 15/15 0/15
Management structure
Creates GANTT Chart for rover 20/20 10/20 0/20
construction
Communication Email timeliness 5/10 5/10 5/10
Email quality 15/15 15/15 15/15
Time Submission of GANTT Chart 15/15 5/15 0/15
Management
Punctuality Early and full arrival of all 10/15 6/15 15/15
contractors to meetings
Safety Completion of all risk 7/15 5/15 0/15
Management management plans during
stage 1
Experience Certification in a construction 3/15 5/15 0/15
related field 5/5 4/5 0/5
Evidence of completed
construction project
Capability Evidence of tools specified in 28/28 14/28 4/28
stage 1 design submission
Evidence of suitable working 5/5 0/5 0/5
area
Total 128/158 84/158 34/158
Percentage 81% 53% 22%
Scope Engineering
Project Management
Scope Engineering is comprised of two teams; the designing team and the contracting
team. Tapiwa Mapeto has been designated as the Lead Designer, and Michael Anderson as the
Lead Contractor (see Appendix B for proof of company hierarchy). By appointing leadership
positions for different company positions, Scope Engineering is well equipped to delegate duties
at any stage during a project, resulting in efficient company operation and ensuring the
timeliness of task completion. Scope Engineering has also completed a GANTT chart ahead of
time, planning the entirety of the project. This will assist Scope Engineering in providing the
most efficient working practices during the entirety of the company partnership, should M.E.C.C.
employ us to build their mars lander (see Appendix C for complete GANTT chart). Having a clear
chain of command results in Scope Engineering being an efficiently working company. We can
evenly delegate the project workload to each employee, resulting in the team effectively
harnessing all their available resources to achieve the completion of tasks on time. Completing a
GANTT chart over the projects duration shows the initiative Scope Engineering is willing to take
to ensure we can complete any given project under time constraints. Scope Engineering has
displayed excellent project management skills and is more than capable of delivering M.E.C.C. a
completed mars lander by the given deadline, thanks to our project planning and company
hierarchy. Scope Engineering designating a lead contractor corresponds with a mark of 15/15
for Chain of Command, and submitting a completed GANTT chart corresponds with a mark of
20/20 for Project Planning.
Scope have thoroughly addressed both criterion in Project management. They

adequately detail the chain of command with in their company and are able to see the
significance of having leadership positions to delegate tasks to other members to ensure
efficient completion of tasks. They have also completed a GANTT chart to visualise to M.E.C.C.
when they will schedule the construction and testing of the rover. In both cases, adequate
evidence is provided confirming a chain of command and submitting a GANTT chart to us. For
this section of the TEC Scope Engineering scores full marks 15/15 and 20/20.
Communication
Scope Engineering has employees that also hold part-time and full-time positions at
other establishments (see Appendix D). Through our work experience, we understand the
importance of effective communication. It is imperative to communicate effectively with
managers and other colleagues to ensure that the company is intelligently delegating work,
running efficiently, and not wasting time completing redundant tasks. Scope Engineering also
ensures that emails are responded to within the same day (see Appendix E). This ensures that
relevant information is provided to the other party as quickly as possible, so they can continue
with their schedule after their questions have been answered. Scope Engineering understands
that the timeliness of written responses is of high importance, to minimise downtime between
messages, so that both companies involved can continue working on their current projects. It is
also imperative that all questions are addressed, so that the questioning party receives the
information that they require, without waiting for a second response after asking the question
again. We have proven to M.E.C.C. that we are willing and able to respond to emails within the
same day, and address all questions presented within it. Constructing a mars rover to M.E.C.C.s
expected quality and timeliness will be greatly assisted by Scope Engineerings excellent
communication - being able to ask critical questions and provide meaningful responses within
the same day, as outlined by the Tender Evaluation Criteria. Being able to respond within the
day corresponds to a mark of 7/10 for Emails (as all replies were sent within twenty-four hours,
but not within ~6 hours), and a mark of 10/10 for Email Quality, as every reply answered all
questions fully.
Scope again have thoroughly addressed the criteria, showing their understanding of why
effective and timely communication is important in the context of this project, this is a notion
that M.E.C.C fully agrees with. All emails received from Scope fully addressed the questions
asked by M.E.C.C and they have provided suitable evidence to justify this that we can correlate
with our own records, as such they are awarded 15/15 for email quality. Although scope have
tried to reason that they should be given a mark of 7/10 as replies were sent within 24 hours,
however the TEC distinctly states that replies within the day shall be awarded 5 marks and
hence this will be the mark awarded.
Time Management
Because of our company hierarchy, Scope Engineering is excellent at delegating tasks

between employees. Appendix F shows an example of work delegation that took place a week
before the Project One submission, facilitated by the Lead Designer and Lead Contractor,
Tapiwa Mapeto and Michael Anderson respectively. It details specifically what work is required
and by who, and was input from every employee was considered. A completed GANTT chart was
created and submitted to M.E.C.C. on the 16 April, 2017 (see Appendix M), as requested. It
showcases the work to be completed over the second stage of the project by every member of
the team, as well as external, nonengineering commitments that the team members must
schedule around. It should also be noted that the GANTT chart was submitted 3 days before the
deadline (19 April 2017) (see sent date shown in the email given in Appendix M), complying with
a score of 15/15 for the Time Management Criterion of the Tender Evaluation Criteria. Scope
Engineering understands that if work is divided evenly and to each team members strengths,
larger amounts of work can be completed in shorter amounts of time. The completion of explicit
work delegation sheets and an elaborate GANTT chart exhibits Scope Engineerings time
management skills and foresight into what working with M.E.C.C. might entail. By assessing all
scheduled events and commitments, the members of Scope Engineering can plan the
construction schedule of the mars lander efficiently, and ahead of time, ensuring that the
earliest possible construction sessions can be attended by all applicable employees. M.E.C.C. will
benefit from our time management skills because we have planned ahead and left ample time
before the completion deadline to address any unfinished work, should any unforeseen
circumstances halt the construction process. We will provide the greatest chance of ensuring
that your project will be completed by EMPACTs deadline, through our excellent time
management and extensive preparation. Submitting a completed GANTT chart three days
before the deadline corresponds with a mark of 15/15.
M.E.C.C. can confirm that Scope Engineering did in fact submit their completed GANTT
chart to us a full 3 days before the deadline (16th of April), a task which no other company was
able to complete. This is a testament to Scope Engineerings time management and showcases
their dedication to the project. The chart is detailed and describes the tasks that each team
member must complete until the end of the unit. They have also adequately planned the
construction of the rover to be fully operational prior to the official testing which will allow any
changes to the design to be made. Scope Engineering have fully satisfied the TEC for Time
management and are awarded 15/15.
Punctuality
Most of Scope Engineerings employees also hold jobs at other companies. These
include casual, part-time and full-time positions at various establishments, as mentioned in
section 3.2 (see Appendix D). It is imperative for team members to attend their shifts on-time,
to please their employer and avoid the termination of their contracts because of poor
punctuality. It is through this that the members of Scope Engineering prioritise punctuality to
their scheduled events, and make sure that they arrive on time. It should be noted that Michael
Anderson arrived early and Salim Al Alawi arrived on time for the first meeting between Scope
Engineering and M.E.C.C. on Thursday 6th April, as documented in the meeting minutes (see
Appendix G). Nicholas Stokes was unable to attend this meeting, but prior notice was given well
over 24 hours in advance by email (see Figure 2 of Appendix E). Being punctual minimises time
lost for both companies when attending meetings or scheduled activities, including
construction sessions within the contracting team of Scope Engineering. Scope Engineerings
excellent punctuality and professionalism in non-optimal circumstances for meeting in person
makes our company an ideal working partner for efficient project completion. Apologies were
made for a non-attending member in advance (5/15), a team member arrived on time (10/15)
and a team member arrived more than five minutes early (15/15). This makes scoring this
section quite difficult, so the median mark of 10/15 will be suggested.
Scope Engineering are able to demonstrate the need to take punctuality seriously as
most hold some form of external work at various establishments, and provide sufficient
evidence to back up this claim. M.E.C.C. can confirm that t Michael Anderson did arrive more
than 5 minutes prior to the meeting start time and Salim Al Alawi arrived on time.
Unfortunately the third member of the contracting company was unable to attend due to being
interstate, this was communicated to M.E.C.C. well before the meeting and is confirmed in the
emails between Scope Engineering and M.E.C.C.. M.E.C.C. had anticipated that some
contractors may not be able to attend meetings due to previous commitments and so decide to
include a criterion in the TEC to account for this, still awarding some marks where apologies
were made. Scope Engineering suggested a median mark of 10/15, M.E.C.C. agrees with this
and awards Scope Engineering 10/15 for the Punctuality section of the TEC.
Safety Management
To mitigate delay in the submission of the Stage 1 Design Package, Scope Engineering
maintained constant communication through a Facebook group chat (see Figure 2 of Appendix
N). Scope Engineering deals with uncertainty in situations by asking for opinions from every
team member. An example of this can be seen in Appendix F, where the work that was
delegated was given to team members based on the groups consensus. Every week at
11:00AM, all members of Scope Engineering were required to attend a group meeting, to
delegate tasks, answer and ask questions, and discuss ideas. Because of these set rules, the
company prioritises the sharing of information and the regular completion of delegated work,
to minimise the risk of a late Stage 1 Design Package submission.
Delegating all tasks extensively at every meeting is a high priority, and makes up most of the
weekly minutes (see Appendix F for an example of Scope Engineerings weekly minutes). Being
able to effectively delegate tasks will result in less wasted time and a clear project schedule.
Scope Engineering is excellent at delegating tasks to suit employees strengths, and has shown
project initiative by creating a OneDrive to facilitate instant file sharing and to allow the
assessment of employees completed work by the project leaders, to ensure that the project is
not falling behind schedule (see Figure 1 of Appendix N).
Scope Engineering ensures that meeting agendas are created before every group meeting. This
is so that the meetings follow a predetermined plan, and everything that needs to be discussed
is discussed, and time at meetings is not wasted because of tangential conversations.
Scope Engineering understands the importance of meeting deadlines and we will do everything
we can to make sure our submissions are made on time. Scope Engineering has excellent team
management skills, being able to delegate tasks to suit team members strengths and keep on
top of completed work. A set meeting schedule and following meeting agendas shows our
dedication to the project, and our ability to work efficiently with others. We have demonstrated
that we can follow risk mitigation plans, and suggest scoring Scope Engineering a mark of 12/15
for Safety Management (losing three marks due to the absence of a company ASANA page).
Throughout all 3 submissions there seems to be some confusion as what this TEC
required, all companies should have been easily able to 10/15 and well thought, reasonable out
risk management plans (RMP) obtaining 15/15. The TEC sates Completion of all risk
management plans during Stage 1 not Completion of risk management plan for stage 1. This is
what many of the companies seem to have responded to. In this TEC we were simply looking
for proof that RMP for stages 1,3 and 4 had been completed and to a high standard for full
marks. Scope Engineering have thoroughly detailed how they use certain forms of
communication that align with M.E.C.C. owns risk management plan and have detailed the
similarities in how their company operates in similarity to ours. In scoring this criterion some
sort of compromise must be made between what Scope Engineering have provided and the
marking guide, M.E.C.C. has decided to award Scope Engineering a 7/15, despite only providing
one stage of the RMP, they have in detail, described how their company utilise these processes
and we have no doubt should this question be posed to comment about their other 2 stages of
RMP they would provide a response and justification of use to a very high standard.
Experience
Scope Engineering has years of experience behind them, including the completion of
materials
technology classes at a secondary educational level and the undertaking of personal mechanical
projects (see Appendix H, Figures 2 and 3). The company has also successfully designed and
constructed its own mars lander prototype (see Appendix I). Most of the company has
completed EFDP to a more than satisfactory level, being a testament to their ability to perform
well with new teams of engineers and their ability to construct models (see Appendix J). Michael
Andersons EFDP groups prototype submission can be seen in Figure 4 of Appendix H. However,
no members of the contracting team have completed a construction related field to a Certificate
I, II, III or IV level. Having a broad expanse of experience with woodworking, metalworking and
other construction methods shows Scope Engineerings diversity in skill, and ability to work well
with other engineers. Scope Engineering will provide a high-quality mars lander from the given
specifications, as we use our wealth of experience in many construction methods and our
excellent teamworking. As a company, we are well suited to building M.E.C.C.s mars lander,
and giving M.E.C.C. the best chance of standing out from the other competing companies, and
obtaining EMPACTs work. Scope Engineering believes that a score of 8/20 for this section is
representative of our qualitative skill, due to a secondary educational pass grade for Materials
Technology and photographic evidence of a completed construction project. This score would be
higher if it was not required to have a Certificate I, II, III or IV to prove our expertise in
construction.
Scope Engineering have detailed their broad experience with previous construction
projects to great extent. They have also backed up these claims with appropriate evidence to
confirm this experience, however none of the contractors have completed any form of formal
qualification in this filed. Despite this it is evident that, in particular, Nicholas Stokes a member
of Scope Engineering has above average expertise with moving parts with evidence being
provided of him installing an engine into a custom car project, this would take intricate
knowledge of both the car and engine, something that must be rewarded in tendering for a
project such as this. M.E.C.C. does agree with the mark suggested by Scope Engineering with 5
marks being allocated towards a previous construction project and an additional 3 being given
for exceptional evidence of previous projects including those completed at Curtin University as
well as personally by the contractors of Scope Engineering. For this criterion, Scope Engineering
are awarded 8/20.
Capability
As can be seen in Appendix K, Scope Engineering has access to all of the required tools
listed in M.E.C.C.s Stage 1 Design Package. Acquiring all of the tools listed in M.E.C.C.s Design
Package is imperative for Scope Engineering to be able to construct the mars lander as M.E.C.C.
intended. Scope Engineering also has a suitable working area, as described as one square metre
of free space. The working area that we have designated is more than the minimum outline in
the Tender Evaluation Criteria it is a ventilated, shaded area, with more than five square
metres of surrounding free space, and access to wall power outlets and running water (should
water be needed to clean, extinguish fires, etc.) (see Appendix L). Scope Engineering
understands the importance of a free working space, and has prioritised its availability for
constructing a mars lander. Scope Engineering has obtained all the tools and cleared an
exemplary working space, as outlined in the Tender Evaluation Criteria (see above). Making
these available exhibits our ability to construct M.E.C.C.s mars lander as their specification
describes, and Scope Engineerings dedication to obtaining anything necessary to construct a
high-quality mars lander. Scope Engineering has proved to be more than capable of constructing
M.E.C.C.s mars lander with the given tools and facilities, and is willing to source extra tools,
should they be requested. Photographs of every tool required and a suitable working place have
been provided in Appendices K and L, corresponding with a mark of 7/7 for this section.
Scope have exceeded expectation in this section with having each of the required 14
tools need to complete the Mars Rover, this is something neither of the other companies were
able to achieve. They have also provided exemplary evidence of this including a photo of each
of the required tools with Michael Anderson, a contractor for Scope Engineers name badge in
the photo to confirm that the tools are in fact his, or another members from the company. They
also write and show with photographic evidence that there working area exceeds the required
one square meter minimum and goes on the add the additional features of the area in terms of
safety and functionality, well ventilated with access to water and power points respectively.
While M.E.C.C. agrees with Scopes suggestion of full marks, due to some slight misreading
Scope is to be awarded 2 marks per tool giving them a total of 28/28 for the first criterion and
5/5 for the second criterion relating to the suitable working area. This gives Scope a total of
33/33 for this section.
Overview
This gives scope a combined score of 128/158, the highest of the 3 tenders. Throughout
the tender application, they have fully answered each criterion, and explained in detail how
they are the best company for the job. They are to be commended on their effort and are
recommended by M.E.C.C. as the best Contracting Company to build the Mars Rover.
Red Planet Industries
Project Management
Red Planet Industries is a company that has a well-structured contracting team. Inside
the contracting team are 3 members, Dazhi, Hoi Yan and Amjad. As a leader, Dazhi is in charge
of the project and the other 2 contractors submit him a project progress report every week to
ensure that the project is on track. He can be contacted on +61 405 052 453. Red Planet
Industries has a leader and clear chain of command. In addition, Red Planet Industries also has a
completed project plan. In Appendix 1.A, a GNATT Chart on this project has been provided by
Red Planet Industries. According to the GNATT Chart, the contracting company starts gathering
material during Week 8, followed by wheel assembly and cutting axles. Later on, the main body
of prototype is to be delivered within Week 9 prior to testing every component as instructed by
M.E.C.C. This timeline ensures the vehicle can be constructed by Week 9 which is 1 week before
the handovers and 2 weeks before prototype testing. Hence there is substantial time remaining
for any modifications in Week 10. What is more, every week a project progress report will be
generated and analysed.
Red Planet Industries have addressed the Project Management Criteria to a moderate
standard. They have displayed have their company functions with a leader and 2 contractors
who are required to submit a progress report each week, a contact number is also included
should this need any clarification. The second part of the Project Management criteria requires
the contract company to complete a GANTT Chart that will outline when the construction of the
Mars Rover will occur. Red Planet Industries have included a table that lists when parts of the
Mars Rover construction will occur, however this is not delivered in the requested format. The
table itself does include all the needed information regarding the project in a condensed form
and does not continue right through to the end of the semester, that is the competition of the
project. Taking these factors into account M.E.C.C. has decided to award Red Planet Industries
15/15 for the Chain of Command criterion but has deducted marks for the GANTT Chart
provided as it was not requested form or fully complete, awarding 10/20 for this section and as
such a total of 25/35.
Communication
Red Planet Industries has replied every email within the day and answered every
question thoroughly in case of miscommunication and keeping information upto-date. For
example, Red Planet Industries received an email at 9.09am from M.E.C.C that suggested a
meeting be arranged. And Red Planet has replied unambiguously this invitation tomorrow at
8.00 am with the time and location of the meeting. This assures M.E.C.C that Red Planet
Industries is a communicative and active contracting company. Quick and informative
communication is the key to successful project. Hence, Red Planet Industries performs well in
terms of communication, a positive factor to the success of a project. M.E.C.C are the witnesses.
M.E.C.C. can confirm that all emails sent to Red Planet industries was responded to
within the day and as such for email timeliness is awarded a 5/10. Red Planet emphasise the
importance of good communication between the design and contracting companies to produce
a successful product, something M.E.C.C. fully agrees with. All of Red Planet Industries emails
fully answered any quires we had and were timely in their detailed responses for any follow up
questions we had, this awards them a score of 15/15 for email quality.
Time Management
Red Planet Industries takes time management seriously since a bad time management
plan leads to more cost from which neither party is benefiting. The GANTT Chart as mentioned
above is to be submitted with this document as an appendix on 19th of April whereas the tender
evaluation will be started on 24th of April. Hence, it is obvious that there are more than 3 days
from the submission and deadline. After this document is submitted, the date of submission will
be displayed on Oasis, proving that Red Planet Industries meets this criterion.
Red Planet Industries have been able to provide a form of GANTT Chart in their
submission however the deadline referred to in the TEC is the 19th of April when the Stage 2
contractor submissions were due. M.E.C.C. accepts the fact that there may have been some
ambiguity in the TEC similar stating the deadline not the Stage 2 Contractors' Submission
deadline, however no such concerns were raised at the meeting between M.E.C.C. and Red
Planet Industries nor emails or any other form of communication to clarify this. We are also
unsure of where the statement that the tender evaluation will be started on 24th of April. Is
drawn from. The Designers submission could have begun as early as the 20 th of April if they
decided to do so. Unfortunately, this would not have been possible with Red Planet Industries
as they failed to submit their tender to M.E.C.C. for 10 days after the deadline, and only did so
after contact from M.E.C.C. (Appendix F) The file was not uploaded to their companies wikis
nor Weebly portfolios until asked to do so. We assume that the submission was not late and as
such have awarded 5/15 marks for the GANTT Chart being submitted on time.
Punctuality
The reason why Red Planet Industries is punctual can be explained by our actions. Red
Planet Industries arranged a meeting with M.E.C.C at 4.pm, 6th of April. The two contractors
from Red Planet Industries were in the meeting room 10 minutes early. More importantly the
meeting was not rescheduled and ran at 4.10 pm as planned. As a result, the meeting has been
successful and both parties have achieved the goals that they expected to achieve. This was
witnessed by M.E.C.C..
M.E.C.C. can confirm that 2 contractors were present for the meeting however disagree
about the meeting commencement and punctuality of members, however the third contactor
was not present nor a reason presented in writing beforehand for his absence. Red plane in
state The two contractors from Red Planet Industries were in the meeting room 10 minutes
early. This is incorrect, one contractor from Red planet was there 10 mins early however the
other did not arrive for an additional 20 minutes which led to the meeting commencing at
4:12pm. This was not the scheduled start time. AS Red Planet Industries say, arranged a
meeting with M.E.C.C at 4.pm, 6th of April however this is later contradicted stating ran at
4.10 pm as planned included in Appendix G is the email confirming the timing and room
booking for the meeting to commence at 4:00 pm of the 6th of April. As such M.E.C.C. has
decided to award Red Planet Industries 6/15 for one member being on time and one being late
and one unaccounted for.
Safety Management
As can be seen in Appendix 1.B, Red Planet Industries provides its own completed risk
management plan during Stage 1. The hazards range from Corruption of project files or loss of
physical media to Unclear design package with corresponding mitigations given. In addition, the
likelihood, severity, risks and residual risk are also provided. Following the risk management
plan, the risks related to data loss, no meeting the deadline and disagreement on design
package due to misunderstanding are effectively alleviated by backing up, making contingency
plan and review from peers out of Red Planet Industries respectively so that the project can be
executed under protection against unexpected things happening.
Again, this TEC has been misinterpreted with Red Planet Industries only providing
evidence of their stage 1 risk management plan (RMP) not Completion of all risk management
plans during Stage 1 as stated. Despite this the stage 1 RMP is to a high standard and includes
all the necessary information about each risk and its associated hazard as well as mitigation
strategies in how to overcome these issues. However due to the evidence shown, only 1 of the
3 needed RMPs a score of 5/15 will be awarded.
Experience
Red Planet Industries is a company with experienced contractors. One of the contractors,
Dazhi, in 2016, has finished Certificate IV degree of Engineering in Curtin College with high
distinction more than 80% overall. The transcript can be attached in Appendix 2.a. A certificate
in engineering field contributes to the credential that Red Planet Industries has the ability to
handle the construction as an experienced company since the contractor had an academic
engineering experience. This is beneficial to the construction of Mars Lander/Rover regarding
any practical procedures. In terms of a completed construction project, Dazhi also has built up a
pottery kennel of Snoopys as shown in Appendix 2.B.(1) and 2.B.(2). When constructing the
kennel, he shaped the frame, Snoopy on top of the roof first and then some Chinese characters,
followed by painting. The processes took him one week of time to finish. It is indicated that Red
Planet Industries not only shows its commitment to handwork, but also experience. In
conclusion, Red Planet Industries has former experience to conduct handwork.
Red Planet Industries has shown evidence of the completion of a formal

engineering/construction qualification, something that was not achieved by any other
company. In addition the high mark achieved is to be congratulated, showing Dazhis
commitment to the course, a valuable quality to possess in the project. Although excellent the
pottery kennel is somewhat different to the type of construction skills needed to construct the
rover. There is no other evidence provided by the other 2 the other contractors with regards to
their experience in the construction field or any personal project. This is concerning as the
contracting company must work as a team to complete the Mars rover not leave everything to
a single contractor. For the Certificate IV, Red planet are awarded 5/15 and for their evidence
of construction a 4/5.
Capability
Red Planet Industries has access to the majority of tools which are displayed in Appendix
3. A. (1) (8) to conduct the project. One contractor, Dazhi, is able to borrow handheld power
drill, screwdriver (Philips and Flathead), tape measure, safety glasses, ruler, hacksaw and pencil
from his former homestay. With these tools the project is capable of being carried out. In terms
of the working area, as shown in Appendix 3. B, there is a small backyard with area of more
than 1m^2 that ensures Red Planet Industries provides a safe, spacious and quiet environment
for the project. To summarise, Red Planet Industries not only has the tools but also provides an
appropriate working area for the project.
Unfortunately, Red Planet Industries only has access to half of the required tools, this is
of major concern as each of the tools used is absolutely necessary to ensure a high-quality cart
that passes the strict quality requirement tests as outlined in the Stage 1 design submission.
With points awarded at 2 per tool this gives Red Planet Industries a score of 14/28 for this
section. Despite Red Planet Industries claiming they have a suitable square meter area the
linked appendix does not exist in the document and the photographic evidence of the tools only
shows an area of floor, something M.E.C.C. deems not a suitable working area for construction
of the project as per the TEC. As such Red Planet Industries cannot be awarded any marks for a
suitable area as the have failed to provide any evidence of such.
Overview
This gives Red Planet Industries a combined score of 84/158, the second highest of the 3
tenders. Overall Red plant have provided a complete tender application, making effort to
answer all of the needed criteria in full. However, their poor Time management and lack of
Capability lead M.E.C.C. to believe they are a poor candidate to construct the Rover, with such
strict quality controls on the Rover we are doubtful they will be able to construct the rover to
such standard.
Es.KHUBED
NOTE: Es.KHUBED Have failed to directly answer some of the posed Tender Evaluation Criteria
at all and have done so in a manner that is difficult to decipher which portion the are
responding to. In evaluating this tender M.E.C.C. have taken what we believe to be the
appropriate section for each criterion and marked it based on their response. There responses
have been divided into professionalism and Under each section will be Es.KHUBEDs deemed
response to each of the criterion in italics followed by M.E.C.C.s review
Project Management
*Nowhere in the tender is Chain of Command of the Contractors mentioned*
*No GANTT Chart is included in the tender as requested by the TEC*
M.E.C.C. is disappointed in the lack of attempt to even directly answer the Project
management criterion, the closest reference that could be found was under the subhead of
Teamwork stating Teamwork is essential for two company. The 3.1 introduce communication
way by contractors and designers. And where 3.1 states the need for meetings between the 2
companies and what to discuss at these meetings. As no direct reference is made to the
criterion Es.KHUBED is awarded no marks.
Communication
Es.KHUBED and MECC need to submit weekly progress report on time. This report need
to include what has been complete during this week, how much time has been spent, and write
down what will be finish on next week. The important thing that each company need to reply
message and email on time, as quick as possible within 3 hours. Es.KHUBED company already
use Whatapp for communication, and every group member reply on time.
Es.KHUBED have again failed to address the criterion regarding communication which
entails email timeliness and quality. They have not attached or made any reference to their
timeliness or quality of emails. Despite this M.E.C.C.s records do show that all emails were
replied to with in the day and to a high quality will all the necessary information to any
questions M.E.C.C. asked. However they have provided screenshots of internal company
communication that are of little relevance to Designer-Contractor communication M.E.C.C. is
disappointed to see no reference to the criteria in this section, but as they have satisfied what
the TEC asks for are awarded marks appropriately scoring 20/25.
Time Management
*Nowhere in the Tender is Time Management mentioned*
*No GANTT Chart was submitted at all*
Es.KHUBED have failed to address the criterion regarding time management which asks
for the GANTT Chart to be submitted before the deadline. As no GANTT Chart was submitted at
all this corresponds to a mark of 0 Does not submit in GANTT Chart in timeframe.
Punctuality
During the stage 2 of course. Es.KHUBED and MECC need to have two or more meeting
for construct the Mars Rover. Meeting will discuss the ways to construct the project and clearly
follow the design package of MECC.
Es.KHUBED were the only Company to score full marks in this criterion with all 3
contractors early and present at the meeting. However once again no refence is made to this in
the tender. The only possible reference to time management in the tender is shown above and
was found under the sub heading of Meeting Attendance. As they have fulfilled the TEC rubric
Es.KHUBED is awarded 15/15 marks for this section.
Safety Management
Before the beginning of build the Mars Rover vehicle, all of Es.KHUBED contractors
understand the hazards for work environment and know ways to preventing it. All of Es.KHUBED
contractors have person protection requirement, such as safety boots, safety glasses and long
sleeve shirts and pants.
Es.KHUBED again have failed to address the Criteria with asks for Completion of all risk
management plans during Stage 1, nowhere in the tender makes reference to any Risk
management plans (RMP) nor have they been attached in the appendices. Es.KHUBED have
made some general comments about the seriousness of safety and how they plan to mitigate
these risks by wearing personal protection equipment, but this is not in the form of a RMP as
requested by the TEC. As such they are awarded 0 marks for this section.
Experience
Experience is a good way to prove the contractors has construction qualification.
Furthermore, it is clearly that understanding all of contractors and designers work skill level.
Example of woodwork, metal work or build some project before.
The obtaining of a relevant quality accreditation indicates to the client, MECC, that the tenderer
holds quality, responsibility and repeatability in high regard. According to course standard,
every tenderer already pass the stage 1 course, such as Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry.
Furthermore, all of Es.KHUBED contractors sign in the Engineer of Australia Es.KHUBED must
show they have sufficient, suitably trained staff to complete the project. And Es.KHUBED has
much experience in the build the vehicle. Such as wood work.
M.E.C.C. is unsure of what this response means, it seems to be read as some sort of
draft of what the company must include in their final tender Example of woodwork, metal
work or build some project before. And Es.KHUBED must show they have sufficient, suitably
trained staff to complete the project. Nevertheless, this was the Final Tender submitted to
M.E.C.C. and must be marked. Above they discuss what experience would be necessary for this
project but fail to make any claims that are relevant to what is required in the TEC, nor provide
any evidence photographic or otherwise. In this circumstance, it is possible some marks may
have been awarded towards the completion of physics and mathematics at a high school level
but no evidence is supplied. Again, referring to the TEC, Certifications in construction and
previous projects are awarded marks but Es.KHUBED provide neither of these and as such are
awarded 0 marks.
Capability
*No direct written response is made regarding the needed tools and a suitable
working area, however some photographs are provided of some tools*
Again, no direct reference is made in the Tender to the Capability section of the TEC. In
Appendix 4.0.3 of Es.KHUBEDs Tender Application, not referenced in the tender itself at any
point, 3 photographs are shown. The first shows a cordless tool box, which we have given
benefit of the doubt to Es.KHUBED that it actually contains the drill, and a box containing a
screwdriver and a pair of pliers, only one of which is a needed tool. The second photo contains
a pair of safety boots again not stated in the list of tools (Appendix A page . The third and final
photo shows a pair of shoes, M.E.C.C. does not understand the significance of this photograph
and can only assume that this is another pair of safety shoes, again not required. In total
Es.KHUBED has 2 of the required 14 tools, with each tool being awarded 2 marks they score
4/28. No reference to a suitable working area is provided in the tender nor any photographic
evidence and so no marks are awarded.
Overview
This gives Es.KHUBED a combined score of 34/158, the lowest score of the 3 tenders.
Overall Es.KHUBED have provided a poor tender which fails to address a number of key
elements. Es.KHUBED excelled in Punctuality and Communication but scored poorly in all other
criterions. Most concerning was the number of sections with 0 marks as the criteria wasnt
addressed at all. M.E.C.C. to believe they are a poor candidate to construct the Rover, with such
strict quality controls on the Rover and lack of tools available we are doubtful they will be able
to construct the rover.
Appendices
Appendix A Original M.E.C.C.C Stage 1 Design Package
Appendix B Scope Engineering Tender Application
Appendix C Red Planet Industries Tender Application
Appendix D Es.KHUBED Tender Application
Appendix E Email Communication with Scope Engineering regarding Wheel
design
Appendix F Late submission of Red Planet Industries to M.E.C.C.
Appendix G Meeting with Red Planet Industries Confirmation
M.E.C.C
Stage One Design Package
Mars Rover
April 2017
Austin Newman | Ben Roche | Dylan Lafitte | James Colasante | Josh Renshaw
Contents
Foreword ....................................................................................................................................................... 4
Drawings ....................................................................................................................................................... 5
Construction Techniques ............................................................................................................................ 13
Sawing ..................................................................................................................................................... 13
Pilot Hole Drilling .................................................................................................................................... 13
Gluing and Screwing the Frame .............................................................................................................. 13
Creating channels in the side of the frame ............................................................................................. 14
Countersinking ........................................................................................................................................ 14
Cutting Foam Pool Noodle ...................................................................................................................... 15
Gluing Foam Pool Noodle to 3D printed Rim .......................................................................................... 15
Cutting Threaded Rod ............................................................................................................................. 15
Screw Threaded Rod into frame ............................................................................................................. 16
Attach Wheel assembly .......................................................................................................................... 16
Bill of Materials (Table 1.a) ......................................................................................................................... 17
Tool Requirements (Table 1.b) ................................................................................................................... 18
Procedure.................................................................................................................................................... 18
1. Frame Construction ........................................................................................................................ 18
2. Wheel Construction ........................................................................................................................ 18
3. Axle and Wheel Installation ............................................................................................................ 19
4. Water bottle installation ................................................................................................................. 19
Performance Testing ................................................................................................................................... 20
Frame Construction ................................................................................................................................ 20
Distance Measurements (Figure 1.a) .................................................................................................. 20
Strength tests (Figure 1.b and 1.c) ...................................................................................................... 21
Wheel Construction ................................................................................................................................ 22
Visual Inspection (Figure 2.a) .............................................................................................................. 22
Strength tests ...................................................................................................................................... 22
Axle and Wheel installation .................................................................................................................... 22
Distance measurements (Figure 3.a) .................................................................................................. 22
Strength tests ...................................................................................................................................... 23
Risk Management Plan ............................................................................................................................... 25
2|Page
Stage 1: Company Registration ............................................................................................................... 25
Stage 3: Construction and Testing of the Prototype............................................................................... 27
Stage 4: Testing ....................................................................................................................................... 29
Tender Evaluation Criteria .......................................................................................................................... 30
Project management .............................................................................................................................. 30
Chain of command .............................................................................................................................. 30
Project planning .................................................................................................................................. 30
Communication ....................................................................................................................................... 30
Emails .................................................................................................................................................. 30
Email quality........................................................................................................................................ 30
Time management .................................................................................................................................. 31
Punctuality .............................................................................................................................................. 31
Safety management ................................................................................................................................ 31
Experience............................................................................................................................................... 32
Capability ................................................................................................................................................ 32
GANTT Chart ............................................................................................................................................... 33
3|Page
Foreword
Outlined in this document is M.E.C.C.s Stage One Design Package, it details the Drawings,
Specification, Risk Management Plan, Tender Evaluation Criteria and Gantt chart for use by
designers and contractors from M.E.C.C. and other companies. The drawings include all views
stipulated by the rubric. The Specification contains all necessary information on how to
construct the Mars Rover designed by M.E.C.C.. The section should be read in full before
beginning construction ensuring the correct materials are obtained and to the best of the
contractors abilities the preferred tools used. Each step in the procedure will refer to several
sections throughout the document. In general materials and tools will be listed, drawings
referred to using <drawing_code>, and construction techniques referred to using [tech_code],
view the contents page to find the location of each of these components. The Risk Management
Plan details three realistic risks and associated hazards for each stage along with appropriate
mitigation strategies to be employed by both designers and contractors throughout the projects
length. The Tender Evaluation Criteria demonstrates the rubric of grading to be used by M.E.C.C.
in order to determine the most suitable contractors to build our rover. Finally, the Gantt Chart is
a visual representation of tasks to be completed throughout the projects length, in addition
containing other tasks outside the unit and by whom these will be completed by.
4|Page
JOB TITLE: M.E.C.C ROVER DRAWING TITLE: ISOMETRIC VIEW DRAWN - JOSH RENSHAW DWG # - 1 VERSION - 2
EVALUATION MODEL OF WHOLE MODEL STUD. # - 19133241
DATE - 26/03/2017
Material List
M1 - Wood
M2 - Washer
M3 - Nut
M4 - Plastic Hub
M5 - Pool Noodle
M6 - Axle
JOB TITLE: M.E.C.C ROVER DRAWING TITLE: EXPLODED VIEW DRAWN - JOSH RENSHAW DWG # - 2 VERSION - 2
EVALUATION MODEL OF WHOLE MODEL STUD. # - 19133241
DATE - 26/03/2017
TOP FRONT
SIDE
Measurements
3A - 395 3F - 100
3B - 230
3C - 100
3D - 250
3E - 395
JOB TITLE: M.E.C.C ROVER DRAWING TITLE: TOP, FRONT, AND SIDE VIEW DRAWN - JOSH RENSHAW DWG # - 3 VERSION - 2
EVALUATION MODEL OF WHOLE MODEL STUD. # - 19133241 All measurements in mm
DATE - 26/03/2017
TOP/FRONT
SIDE
Measurements
4A - 250
4B - 6.35
EVALUATION MODEL OF AXLE STUD. # - 19133241 All measurements in mm
DATE - 26/03/2017
TOP FRONT
SIDE
Measurements
5A - 335 5L - 20
5B - 92.5 5M - 15
5C - 10 5N - 7
5D - 60
5E - 30
5F - 215
5G - 90
5H - 150
5I - 5
5J - 30
EVALUATION MODEL OF MAIN BODY STUD. # - 19133241 All measurements in mm
DATE - 26/03/2017
SIDE
Measurement
6A - 50 6E - 25 TOP/FRONT
6B - 5 6F - 50
6C - 10 6G - 6.35
6D - 30 6H - 30
EVALUATION MODEL OF RIMS STUD. # - 19133241 All measurements in mm
DATE - 26/03/2017
TOP/FRONT SIDE
Measurements
7A - 25
7B - 100
7C - 30
EVALUATION MODEL OF TIRES STUD. # - 19133241 All measurements in mm
DATE - 26/03/2017
Construction Techniques
Sawing
Code in Procedure: [tech_sawwood]
1. Secure wood to a work bench using a clamp or firmly grasp with a hand when cutting
2. Using a measuring tape to find the correct distance, mark the line to be cut with a pencil and a
square to confirm a straight line, this line should be on at least two sides of the wood to ensure
a straight cut.
3. Place to saw slightly off the line and to the side such that the length of wood will be longer than
needed, this must be done as the saw itself cuts a path of approximately 2 mm, this must be
accounted for to ensure an accurate cut.
4. Gripping the saw by the handle and placing the blade onto the wood such that it is 45 to the
ground with the end of the saw blade facing the ground, slowly begin to move the blade back
and forth and apply pressure.
5. Continue the sawing motion through the wood until you near the end of the cut, while sawing
you should continuously check to see that you are following the pencil line.
6. Slow down sawing at the end of the cut, and place something underneath to the wood to
support it so it does not break off and splinter the wood.
Pilot Hole Drilling

Code in Procedure: [tech_pilot]
1. Secure wood to a work bench using a clamp or firmly grasp with a hand when drilling.
2. Mark the point to be drilled, using a measuring tape to find the distances as stated in the
drawing, the point should be shown by two lines intersecting at a point which is the point to be
cut.
3. Ensuring the correct sized drill bit as detailed in the Specification is on the drill, place the drill bit
on top of the point and engage the drill.
4. Lightly apply pressure to the drill, slowly moving it straight down through the wood.
5. Once the drill bit has exited the other side of the wood, keeping the throttle engaged pull the
drill back out.
Gluing and Screwing the Frame

Code in Procedure: [tech_gluescrew]
Note, this process should be done one piece at a time, i.e. the end face of the short piece of
wood should be applied with glue and then subsequently screwed into the side of the long
piece, then the opposing end face can be glued and then screwed into the other long piece.
1. Apply glue evenly to the end face of the shorter crossbeam of wood, approximately 2-3 ml of
glue should be applied to each end, enough so that when the pieces are joined beads of glue
seep out of the join.
13 | P a g e
2. Align the wood according to the given plan and press together ensuring that the top and side
faces are flush with each other.
3. Secure wood to a work bench using a clamp or firmly grasp with a hand when screwing.
4. Set the screw into the hole hand screwing it in until it is able to stand by itself.
5. Ensure Philips head drill bit is on the drill, and place it on top of the screw.
6. Slowly engage the drill applying pressure downwards.
7. Continue until the head of the screw is flush with the face of the wood.
8. Repeat this process according to Step 1. for the following 3 joins.
Creating channels in the side of the frame

Code in Procedure: [tech_kerf]
1. Secure wood to a work bench using a clamp or firmly grasp with a hand when screwing
2. Using a measuring tape to find the correct distance, mark the lines to be cut with a pencil and a
square to confirm a straight line, this line should be on at least two sides of the wood to ensure
a straight cut, additionally mark a 5mm point of each side of the cutting edge.
3. Place the saw slightly off the line and to the side, such that the blade is on the inside of the
channel to be created.
4. Gripping the saw by the handle and placing the blade onto the wood such that it is 45 to the
5. Once the cut has reached 5mm on each face remove the saw and make another cut 10mm away
to create the two main channel cuts.
6. Then at 5mm, midway between the 2 previous cuts, make another cut following procedure from
2 to 4 and again at 2.5 and 7.5 mm
7. After these cuts have been made 4 thin fins of wood are created, taking the chisel wedge it in
between the fins and move side to side such that the fins break at the base
8. After all the fins are removed take the chisel and remove any small pieces of wood that are still
at the base of the channel
9. Finally take the wood file to remove any smaller imperfections in the channel.
Countersinking
Code in Procedure: [tech_counter]
1. Secure wood to a work bench using a clamp or firmly grasp with a hand when drilling.
2. Ensure countersinking drill bit is the same diameter as the head of the screw.
3. Place the drill bit on top of the pilot hole that has been drilled, engage the drill and slowly apply
pressure.
4. The drill bit will stop once is has reached the needed diameter, keeping the drill engaged
remove the countersinking drill bit from the hole.
14 | P a g e
Cutting Foam Pool Noodle
Code in Procedure: [tech_cutfoam]
1. Secure foam to a work bench using a clamp or firmly grasp with a hand when cutting.
2. Using a measuring tape to find the correct distance, mark the line to be cut with a pen, make
multiple marks around the circumference of the foam to ensure a straight cut.
3. Gripping the saw by the handle and placing the blade onto the noodle such that it is 45 to the
4. Continue the sawing motion through the foam until you near the end of the cut, while sawing
you should continuously check to see that you are following the marked distance.
5. Slow down sawing at the end of the cut, and place something underneath to the foam to
support it so it does not break off and rip the foam.
Gluing Foam Pool Noodle to 3D printed Rim

Code in Procedure: [tech_joinfoam]
1. Apply General Purpose Glue using the spatula, 5ml of glue should be evenly applied to each rims
outer surface parallel to the axle hole.
2. Slide the foam Pool noodle over the rim ensuring it is pressed up against the lip at the end of the
rim.
3. Allow to dry.
Cutting Threaded Rod

Code in Procedure: [tech_cutrod]
1. Secure rod to a work bench using a clamp when cutting.

2. Using a measuring tape to find the correct distance, mark the line to be cut with a pen, due to
the thread it may be difficult to accurately mark the point, a nut can be screwed and the face of
the nut used as a marker.
3. Place to saw slightly off the line and to the side such that the length of wood will be longer than
needed, this must be done as the saw itself cuts a path of approximately 2 mm, this must be
accounted for to ensure an accurate cut.
4. Gripping the saw by the handle and placing the blade onto the rob such that it is 45 to the
5. Continue the sawing motion through the rod until you near the end of the cut, while sawing you
should continuously check to see that you are following the indicated pen line.
6. After the rod has been cut use a file to remove any burrs at the end of the cut.
15 | P a g e
Screw Threaded Rod into frame
Code in Procedure: [tech_screwrod]
1. Taking a cut piece of rod and the frame, screw the rod into the hole drilled.
2. Screw the rod through both long sides of the rover until even amounts of rod are shown, in
accordance with the dimensions specified in the drawing.
3. In screwing the rod there will be some resistance, this is to ensure that the axle doesnt rotate
and is fixed in the frame.
Attach Wheel assembly

Code in Procedure: [tech_attach]
1. With the axle surcure in the frame screw 1 nut (M3) on each side such that it is flush with the
side of the rover, then place 1 washer (M2), followed by a assembled wheel, followed by 1
washer.
2. Place 1-2 drops of General Purpose Glue (M10) onto the thread where the final nut will be
placed, i.e. next to the washer.
3. Screw the final nut (M3) on and tighten such that the wheel is still able to freely rotate, but not
so loose such that significant lateral movement is evident. Ideally there should be a 1 mm gap
between the washer and nut when the washers are flush against the sides of the rim.
16 | P a g e
Bill of Materials (Table 1.a)
Material Material Dimensions/Quantity Spreadsheet Actual incurred cost
Code cost
M1 Wood (Pine) 30*30*850 $0.77 $3.25 (Bunnings) 30
x 30 x 1200mm
M2 Washers inch (8 Qty) $0.04 each, $0.10 each

$0.32 (Bunnings) 1/4" Zinc
Plated
M3 Nuts inch (8 Qty) $0.07 each, $0.10 each
$0.56 (Bunnings) 1/4" Zinc
Plated
M4 Rims (3D) printed <M.E.C.C._Rims_Vers_3.stl> $0.03 per Unknown at date of
(4 Qty) gram submission
M5 Foam Pool Noodle 50mm radius*120mm $1.84 Recycled (50% of
height spreadsheet cost)
$0.92
M6 Axle (threaded) inch * 500mm $1.08 $2.10 (Bunnings)
Inch x 500mm
M7 Rubber Bands 20cm circumference x 8mm $0.10 each Recycled (50% of
wide (6 Qty) >5mm, $0.60 spreadsheet cost)
$0.30
M8 Timber Screws 10g x 50mm (4 Qty) $0.18 each, Recycled (50% of
$0.72 spreadsheet cost)
$0.36
M9 Wood Glue 10ml $1.50 (10g) Recycled (50% of
spreadsheet cost)
$0.75
M10 General Purpose Glue 12ml $3 (12g) Recycled (50% of
spreadsheet cost)
$1.50
17 | P a g e
Tool Requirements (Table 1.b)
Tool Tool Required Alternate Tool
Code
T1 Wood Saw Jigsaw
T2 Handheld power drill Screwdriver(Philips)
T3 Chisel Screwdriver (Flathead)
T4 Glue Spreader/spatula Finger
T5 Countersinking drill bit 10mm -
T6 Tape Measure Ruler
T7 Safety Glasses N/A
T8 Square Ruler
T9 Pilot hole drill bit 3.5mm -
T10 Wood Clamp -
T11 Wood File Sandpaper
T12 Pencil Pen
T13 Drill bit 6mm -
T14 Hacksaw Angle Grinder
Procedure
Throughout the entire construction process Safety glasses (T7) should be worn at all times.
1. Frame Construction
a. Using T1 cut M1 to the dimensions as specified in <DWG#-5 Version 2>, and as
instructed in [tech_saw].
b. Drill the pilot holes in M1 using T2 and T5 according to <DWG#-5 Version 2> and as
instructed [tech_pilot].
c. Countersink holes in M1 using T2 and T5 as instructed in [tech_counter].
d. Join M1 according to <DWG#-5 Version 2> as instructed in [tech_gluescrew].
e. Cut M1 using T2 and T3 according to < DWG#-5 Version 2> as instructed in [tech_kerf].
f. This process creates {Frame}.
g. Complete Performance Testing: Frame Construction.
2. Wheel Construction
a. Using T1 cut M5 to the dimensions specified in < DWG#-7 Version 2> and as instructed
in [tech_cutfoam].
b. Using M10 and T4 join M4 and M5 together as shown in < DWG#-2 Version 2> and as
instructed in [tech_joinfoam]. Repeat this step a further 3 times to complete all 4
wheels.
c. This process creates {Wheel} (Qty 4).
d. Complete Performance Testing: Wheel Construction.
18 | P a g e
3. Axle and Wheel Installation
a. Obtain materials {Frame}, 4x {Wheel}.

b. Using T14 cut M6 to the dimensions specified in <DWG#-4 Version 2> and as instructed
in [tech_cutrod]
c. Using T2 and T13 drill axle holes in {Frame} to the dimensions specified in < DWG#-5
Version 2> and as instructed by [tech_pilot]
d. Screw M6 into the holes drilled as instructed in [tech_screwrod]
e. Using M10, add M2, M3 and {Wheel} as shown in <DWG#-2 Version 2> and < DWG#-3
Version 2> and as instructed in [tech_attach].
f. This process creates {Rover}.
g. Complete Performance Testing: Axle and Wheel Installation.
4. Water bottle installation
a. Obtain materials {Rover}

b. Stretch M7 over {Rover} such that they sit in the channel created in step 1.e. this is done
for each of the three channels created
c. Lift the rubber bands such that the water bottle can fit in-between the upper and lower
portions of each set of rubber bands. The water bottle should be secure utilising the
tension and friction of the rubber bands to hold it in place.
d. Complete Performance Testing: Water Bottle Installation.
e. End.
19 | P a g e
Performance Testing
Several tests can be completed by the contractors to ensure the rover has been built to the expected
specification, these are detailed below.
Frame Construction
After the completion of Step 1. Frame Construction the following measurements and tests can be
taken of the rover to ensure correct construction; visual representations of these measurements
and tests are also provided below.
Distance Measurements (Figure 1.a)

o Taking distances from the furthest separated point on the cart, these are the top
outside corner of the long piece and the opposite end and opposite long piece, this
distance should be 3673 mm.
o Taking distances diagonally of the internal rectangle formed by the cross beams, the
distance should be 2333mm.
o The external width of the rover should be 1502 mm at all points along the length of
the rover.
Figure 1.a
20 | P a g e
Strength tests (Figure 1.b and 1.c)
o The rover once the glue has dried should be able to hold at minimum a 5kg mass on
long edge when standing up. Figure 1.b.
o In addition, the cross beam (short piece should also be able to hold at minimum a
5kg when stood up. Figure 1.c.
5kg
UUP
P
Force
Figure 1.b
5kg
UUP
P
Force
Figure 1.c
21 | P a g e
Wheel Construction
After the Completion of Step 2. Wheel Construction the following tests can be conducted
Visual Inspection (Figure 2.a)

o Ensure that the edge of the pool noodle foam is flush with the side of the wheel as
shown below

Figure 2.a
Strength tests
o Holding the rim with one hand and foam with the other there should be no
movement between the two at the rim, the glue should have bonded them such
that they are one unit.
Axle and Wheel installation

After the completion of 3. Axle and Wheel Installation the following measurements and tests can
be taken of the rover to ensure correct construction; visual representations of these measurements
and tests are also provided below.
Distance measurements (Figure 3.a)

o Measuring from the front and rear ends of the front set and rear set of wheels
respectively, this distance should be 3958 mm. Under no circumstances can this
measurement be greater than 410mm.
o Measuring from the center of the ends of each axle on one side of the rover, front
and rear, this distance should be 2953 mm.
22 | P a g e
Figure 3.a
Strength tests
o The rover now with the wheels attached should be able to hold a weight of 5kg on
its top, slight deformation of the foam tires is expected (Figure 3.b). In addition, the
rover should be dropped from a height of 1 meter, parallel to the floor and remain
undamaged.
23 | P a g e
UP
5kg
Force
Figure 3.b
24 | P a g e
Risk Management Plan
Stage 1: Company Registration
Risk Hazard Likelihood Severity Mitigation Residual Risk
Delay in the projects Not enough Possible Critical Administrative control: Rare:
submission communication between As any new group, If problems are not 1. Make sure that there is Most circumstances that would
team members. there will not be solved at the constant contact between cause delay in the projects
Disagreement on ideas much beginning of the group members using submission have been controlled.
or methods within the communication and group project, the ASANA and a Facebook However, there are still some rare
group. there will be quite a submission of the group chat. cases (e.g. Sickness) that would
Team members not few arguments as project is inevitable. 2. If there are any cause delay, however with ASANA
completing their set task. group members do Not being able to disagreements, the and Facebook, those cases are
Group not able to focus not know each submit the project on outcome will be chosen by very unlikely.
during the group other which is why time will reduce the most votes. Result:
meetings. it is likely that there maximum amount of 3. ASANA helps us view what Extreme High
will be delay in the marks received and tasks group members have
projects submission could end in a failure. or have not completed.
4. Have a meeting agenda and
a set time for the meeting
so that group members
know what to focus on
during the meeting.
25 | P a g e
Not able to complete Miscommunication Likely: Major Administrative control: Rare:
future tasks as between group As we do not know Not all tasks require a 1. Explain in detail who has As the ASANA task list allows us to
previous tasks not yet members. each other, we do previous task to be what task to complete and see what has been completed and
completed Group members not not also know how completed to start set a task list on ASANA to the Google drive allows us to see
following up on each fast each of the which is why this is remind group members said work. Being able to see this
others work. members work only considered major what they have to do. work on a computer allows group
Not able to submit work which is why getting and not critical. 2. Setting up the ASANA task members to continue further work
to the group in person caught up in other However, it is always list allows group members if the submitted work was
units may cause helpful to complete to see what other group necessary.
delay in this project set tasks on time so members have or have not However, there is still a chance
and thus delay in that other tasks that completed. that the Google drive may
the ability to do require completed 3. Setting up a Google drive malfunction or the
complete future tasks may start. will allow group members formatting/conversion may have
tasks. so submit work from their gone wrong. This has a very low
computers and allows chance of happening though.
everyone in the group to Result:
see and edit that work. Extreme High
False sense of security Not focusing on the set Likely Major Administrative control: Rare:
that work has been task during meetings. It is likely that A false sense of 1. Keeping a meeting agenda A false sense of security that work
completed without a plan and security will make will allow group members has been completed happens
the fact that no one group members think to know what to talk about when group members have a
in the group knows that work has been and not talk about anything meeting, talk a lot about ideas that
each other that the completed which can unrelated. are unrelated to the project and
meetings will go off affect the group in the finish the meeting thinking that
topic. last processes as work they discussed a lot about the
will have to be rushed project.
and could lead to a This should rarely happen if a
decrease in marks. meeting agenda is put in place to
not change the conversation topic.
Result:
Extreme High
26 | P a g e
Stage 3: Construction and Testing of the Prototype
Physical injury whether it Misuse of cutting tools Likely: Critical: Administrative Control: Rare:
be from chemicals or tools Misuse of chemical As this is the construction A physical injury is critical Specify each There is still a chance that
tools of a small-scale project it at this stage as it protective equipment the contractors could get
Not wearing enough is likely that contractors will/could indefinitely and what it protects injured, however the
protective gear will not think much about impact the contractor if the contractor for. severity could be
Clothes may get safety the injury is serious and Make sure that every mitigated by making sure
caught or stuck in cause trouble for the piece is listed at the that at any time there is
equipment group. beginning to make always someone
sure that everything is supervising in case an
ready for use when injury happens.
constructing. Result:
Extreme High
Project not finished by due Instructions not Possible: Major: Administrative Control: Rare:
date specific enough. As a few tasks have Not completing the To make sure that the There is still a chance that
Measurements too already been completed as project on time would contractors the contractors might not
specific and not a group, it is less likely that mean a reduction of marks understand the complete it due to
humanly measurable. the project would not be which the highest amount instructions and procrastination or human
Contractor injured finished on time. of marks is the main goal. measurements, they nature. This can be
due to bad However, it is still possible should meet with the countered by checking up
instructions on safety. that problems could arise. designers to talk on the contractors or by
Miscommunication about any issues and having them send in a
between designers to make sure that they progress report every so
and/or contractors understand as the often.
designers want them Result:
to. Extreme High
Before submitting the
design, have someone
that is not part of the
group read it and see
if they understand it.
Set up a group chat
between contractors
and designers.
27 | P a g e
Prototype not built Instructions not Likely: Moderate: Administrative Control: Rare:
properly. specific enough or Because of human It is still possible to have To make sure that all If there is constant
humanly impossible to inaccuracy, it is likely that the project work even the designs are communication between
measure. there would be slight though there are some possible, contractors contractors and designers,
No meetings between changes between the mistakes in the and designers should there should not be any
contractors and drawings and the final measurements which is meet before the mistakes in the prototype.
designers to make project. why it is not critical. actual construction to However, there is still a
sure that everyone is However, huge changes agree on how it chance that the
certain of what they might not make it work. should be built. contractors do not build it
are doing. If there is any doubt properly.
about the Result:
construction the High Moderate
contractors should
immediately ask the
designers instead of
building without being
certain.
28 | P a g e
Stage 4: Testing
Not able to submit Bottle is not able to be Unlikely: Critical: Administrative Control: Rare:
prototype as valid inserted easily The designers would have Marks will be Make sure that the bottle There is still a chance that the
Height and/or width made sure that the design deducted if the can be inserted easily by bottle might not fit in the
greater than the fits in the requirements, project does not fit talking to the designers. prototype due to small badly
maximum allowed however, there is still a within the Make sure that the measured parts which is why
chance that the contractor requirements design includes sizes that it should be completed a few
does not build the project fit within the maximum days before testing to make
properly dimensions sure that it fits the criteria.
Result:
Extreme High
Physical injury Prototype not properly Likely: Moderate: Administrative Control: Rare:
sustained. tested As it is the stage at which The injury will not be Make sure that only one There is still a chance that the
Prototype not built all the work will be marked critical but in the end person is testing the prototype could roll off
properly on, it is likely that an injury will still prototype (while wearing trajectory. However, if the
contractors will get excited affect the person and protective shoes/gear) person testing it is wearing
for the testing and want to what they will be able while the other members protective equipment, there
test it out themselves. to do afterwards. are watching from a should not be much of an
distance injury.
Make sure with the Result:
designers that the High Moderate
prototype is properly
built before the testing.
Project not able to be Small adjustments Likely: Critical: Administrative Control: Rare:
submitted on time needed to be made last It is likely that without any Not being able to Make sure and check The contractors might delay
minute contact with the designers, submit the project on with the designers that the projects finish date which
Prototype not fully the designers will want time because of small the project is completed is why moving the due date a
completed by testing small adjustments from the adjustments will mean well before the testing few days before testing to
date contractors in the end. a deduction of marks. date to change or add check the project will allow
anything if needed designers to make sure that
there is enough time to finish
off anything if needed.
Result:
High Moderate
29 | P a g e
Tender Evaluation Criteria
Project management
The ability to manage a project and operate efficiently is valued highly here at M.E.C.C. Hence
we expect our contractor to be able to prove their company has a clear order of command and a
predetermined plan to complete the project.
Chain of command
0 15
Shows no evidence of chain of command Has a project manager and chain of command
Project planning
0 5 10 15 20
Shows no Shows a 25% Shows a 50% Shows a 75% Shows a

preparation or completed completed completed completed
plan for project GANTT Chart GANTT Chart GANTT Chart GANTT Chart
Communication
In all forms of business communication is crucial. As you would expect, it is no different here at
M.E.C.C. as we value communication highly. Quick and efficient communication can be
extremely beneficial to the construction and planning phases of a project. At M.E.C.C. we
appreciate fast communication but the quality of the response is valued higher.
Emails
0 5 10
Takes longer than a day Replies within the day Replies within the hour
Email quality
0 5 15
Does not respond or responds but Responds but does not Responds and addresses
does not address the question address the question fully the question fully
30 | P a g e
Time management
Meeting deadlines is a must at M.E.C.C and hence the reason why we take time management so
seriously. Poor time management can lead to an excessive cost which is in no way benefiting the
company. Therefore we are looking for companies with extraordinary time allocation skills to
maximise what M.E.C.C gets out of this project.
0 5 8 11 15
Does not submit Submits in Submits in Submits GANTT Submits GANTT

in GANTT Chart GANTT Chart GANTT Chart 1 Chart 2 days Chart 3 days
in timeframe on deadline day before before deadline before deadline
day deadline day
Punctuality
Punctuality to meetings is extremely important as wasting each others time is of no benefit to

the project. However, we also understand that in some circumstances the company may not be
able to attend, as such in the following criteria marks are given on the professionalism of the
company's behaviours.
0 5 10 15
Does not attend meeting, Is unable to attend but Arrives at Arrives at

and provides no provides apologies and an meeting on meeting 5
reason/apology for alternate time to reschedule time. minutes early
absence. meeting
Safety management
Safety is of the utmost concern at M.E.C.C.. The ability to manage safety and eliminate or reduce
risk is valued highly at M.E.C.C..
0 15
No completion of risk management plans Completion of all risk management plans

during Stage 1 during Stage 1
31 | P a g e
Experience
M.E.C.C. appreciates experience and the ability to achieve to a high construction standard.
Experience is also beneficial to safety management.
Marks awarded for;

Certificate I, II, III or IV in a construction related field (School earned certificates count)
(5 marks each up to a value of 15)
Proven record of a completed construction project (Photographic evidence is
satisfactory) (5 marks)
Capability
M.E.C.C. is looking for a constructor with the correct tools and facilities to construct our rover to
the highest standard.
Marks awarded for;

Photographic evidence of tools required in specifications
(2 marks each)
Photographic evidence of a suitable working area for construction of the project. Suitable
working area in this instance is defined as an area with at least 1m^2 working area
(5 marks)
Tender Evaluation Criteria Marks
Project management
Communication
Time management
Punctuality
Safety management
Experience
Capability
Total
32 | P a g e
GANTT Chart
33 | P a g e
M.E.C.C Gantt Chart
ACTIVITY Who
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
3-Apr 4-Apr 5-Apr 6-Apr 7-Apr 10-Apr 11-Apr 12-Apr 13-Apr 14-Apr 17-Apr 18-Apr 19-Apr 20-Apr 21-Apr 24-Apr 25-Apr 26-Apr 27-Apr 28-Apr 1-May 2-May 3-May 4-May 5-May 8-May 9-May 10-May 11-May 12-May 15-May 16-May 17-May 18-May 19-May 22-May 23-May 24-May 25-May 26-May 29-May 30-May 31-May 1-Jun 2-Jun
Week 6 Tuition Free Tuition Free Week 7 Week 8 Week 9 Week 10 Week 11 Week 12
Other EFY Subjects
Calculus for Engineers Mid Sem Individual
Mechanics Lab 2 Individual
Calculus Workshop Assesment 3 Individual
Programming Quiz 2 Individual
Calculus Workshop Assesment 4 Individual
Programming Mid Sem Individual
Mechanics Lab 3 Individual
Calculus Lab Assesment Individual

Stage 2
CTA Design Package Review Contractors
CTA Executive Summary Contractors
DTE Executive Summary Designers
DTE Reflection of Design Package Designers
Evaluation of Tender Applications Designers

Stage 3
Weekly Progress Reports Josh
Handovers Group
Stage 4
Engineering Identity Reflection Group
Peer Presentation Feedback Individual
Prototype Testing Individual
Oral Presentation Individual
Final Reflection Individual

Submission Made by Michael Anderson
(19037770)
SCOPE Engineering
Tender Submission
To M.E.C.C.
Design Company: M.E.C.C
Client: EMPACT
Project: Mars Lander
Due Date: 19/04/2017
Executive Summary
The following tender submission is in response to M.E.C.C.s Stage 1 Design Package, and their
desire to work with their client, EMPACT, in producing a successful, cost-effective mars lander. The
mars lander must travel two metres down a thirty-degree slope, drop one metre and land on its
wheels, without losing the cargo or sustain significant damage. This document aims to share Scope
Engineerings firm understanding of M.E.C.C.s design and construction methods, and directly
addresses the Tender Evaluation Criteria given in M.E.C.C.s Stage 1 Design Package to prove that
Scope Engineering is the most suitable construction team to ensure the greatest likelihood that
M.E.C.C. will obtain the EMPACTs work.
Scope Engineering has invested time into ensuring that our company has a solid
understanding of M.E.C.C.s mars lander design. The mars lander is comprised of of a single-layered
wooden frame, using four recycled pool noodle segments as wheels at each corner, and rubber bands
as the cargo-holding mechanism. The lander has inherent shock absorbing qualities, which are a result
of the elasticity of the pool noodle wheels, and the rubber bands. The design has been well thought
out, as the lander can be inverted at any point in the drop or landing and still land on its wheels,
complying with the clients requirements specified in the project brief. However, Scope Engineering
would like to express their concern on the availability of the 3D printed rims, and would like to propose
that sections of takeaway container or CD may be a suitable replacement to mitigate the risk of any
delays in construction.
Scope Engineering is comprised of two teams, of which Michael Anderson leads the
contracting team. Having a clear chain of command facilitates efficient company operation, with tasks
being delegated evenly among employees and a driving leadership force that ensures that work is
being completed as the project schedule dictates. The company has also completed a GANTT chart
over the prospective project timeframe, showcasing our diligence, foresight and project planning
abilities as a company. This GANTT chart was also submitted to M.E.C.C. three days before the
deadline of this tender submission, providing further evidence of our outstanding time management
as a company.
Our company understands the importance of effective communication, due to our years of
experience with employment at other companies. Effective and timely communication minimises
wasted time and facilitates efficient working between companies. Scope Engineering has proven to
M.E.C.C. that we can consistently respond to emails within the same day, ask critical questions and
adequately answer every aspect of any questions asked in the emails we receive.
The team at Scope Engineering has shown their punctuality throughout their email responses
and their timeliness at the meetings between our contracting team and M.E.C.C. It is most important
to be punctual to minimise lost time, and the irritation of the other parties. Apologies were also made
more than a day in advance for team members who could not attend a meeting. Scope Engineering
understands the importance of punctuality for efficient project completion and the mitigation of time
loss through the prioritisation of scheduling and attending events.
Risk mitigation plans have been implemented during Scope Engineerings own design phase,
to ensure that the project is submitted by the deadline, and to exceptional quality. Our companys
ability to identify and minimise risks is a highly demanded quality and facilitates smooth project
completion without delay due to injury, unsafe working conditions, etc.
Scope Engineering has years of experience behind them, completing materials technology
classes at secondary educational levels and personal mechanical projects. The company also has
2
completed their own mars lander prototype and had further prototyping experience with Engineering
Foundations: Design and Processes. Having a contracting team with small scale construction
experience will give M.E.C.C. an edge in producing a high-quality mars lander as your design
specifications dictate. Our company has also proven that we have all the tools required available to
use, as well as an exemplary working space with access to power, running water, ventilation and more
than five square metres of free space that can be used to construct a mars lander unit.
Scope Engineering has proved that we are capable of successfully managing projects and
deadlines, effectively communicating with other parties and within our own company, safely
managing risks concerning a projects completion and have the experience needed to construct a
working mars lander for EMPACT through M.E.C.C.s Stage 1 Design Package. Scope Engineering is the
best suited company for M.E.C.C. if they wish to produce a successful and cost-effective mars lander,
and obtain a future working relationship with EMPACT.
3
Contents
1.0 | Introduction.................................................................................................................................... 5
2.0 | Design Package Review .................................................................................................................. 5
2.1 | Understanding of the Design Brief ............................................................................................. 5
2.2 | Understanding of M.E.C.C.s Design........................................................................................... 6
2.3 | Understanding of Construction Method .................................................................................... 7
2.4 | Addressing of Concerns with M.E.C.C.s Design ......................................................................... 7
2.5 | Addressing of Concerns with M.E.C.C.s Construction Methods ............................................... 8
3.0 | Addressing of Tender Evaluation ................................................................................................... 9
3.1 | Project Management.................................................................................................................. 9
3.2 | Communication ........................................................................................................................ 10
3.3 | Time Management ................................................................................................................... 11
3.4 | Punctuality................................................................................................................................ 12
3.5 | Safety Management ................................................................................................................. 13
3.6 | Experience ................................................................................................................................ 14
3.6 | Capability .................................................................................................................................. 15
Appendix A | M.E.C.C. Stage 1 Design Package .................................................................................... 16
Appendix B | Meeting Minutes............................................................................................................. 48
Appendix C | GANNT Chart ................................................................................................................... 49
Appendix D | Proof of Employment ..................................................................................................... 50
Appendix E | Communication with M.E.C.C. ........................................................................................ 51
Appendix F | Task Delegation ............................................................................................................... 52
Appendix G | Meeting Minutes for Meeting Between Scope Engineering and M.E.C.C. ..................... 53
Appendix H | Proof of Experience ........................................................................................................ 54
Appendix I | Scope Engineerings Prototype ........................................................................................ 57
Appendix J | Proof of EFDP Competency .............................................................................................. 58
Appendix K | Proof of Required Tools .................................................................................................. 60
Appendix L | Proof of Working Space ................................................................................................... 63
Appendix M | Proof of GANTT Submission ........................................................................................... 64
Appendix N | Scope Engineerings Internal Communication ............................................................... 65
4
1.0 | Introduction
This document envelops the entirety of Scope Engineerings tender submission to M.E.C.C.
Scope Engineerings contracting team is adamant in believing that they are well suited to assist
M.E.C.C. in constructing a quality mars lander for EMPACT. This has been collectively decided by the
members of the company after reviewing M.E.C.C.s Stage 1 design package, and in particular, the
Tender Evaluation Criteria. The contracting team consists of Salim Al Alawi, Nicholas Stokes, and the
Lead Contractor, Michael Anderson.
2.0 | Design Package Review

This section of the tender aims to demonstrate Scope Engineerings understanding of
M.E.C.C.s mars lander design, and to express any concerns or improvements that could be made to
the design to ensure that it performs at its maximum potential. All measurements given in this section
have been sourced from M.E.C.C.s Design Package (see Appendix A), unless otherwise stated.
2.1 | Understanding of the Design Brief

Before undertaking any designing or construction of a mars lander, it is imperative that the
design brief, as outlaid by the client, EMPACT, is understood. The mars lander must comply with the
clients constraints for it to be considered as a feasible solution to the clients needs. Scope
Engineering has invested time into discussing and elucidating the given brief as a company, so that we
may assist M.E.C.C. in providing EMPACT with a successful mars lander that meets all their required
specifications.
EMPACT requires a small-scale mars lander that can maintain hold of a filled, 600mL water
bottle after dropping 1 metre, vertically. The mars lander must have at least two axles, and must be
able to travel linearly down a thirty-degree (minimum) slope for two metres, with no external
assistance, before it falls one metre to a hard surface. The water bottle must stay in contact with the
mars lander throughout its motion, and should be easily assessable without interacting with any part
of the lander. Following the drop, the mars lander must land on its wheels, and not sustain any major
damages, while housing the water bottle.
The fundamental design constraints revolve around the size of the, the security of the water
bottle lander and its cost. The footprint of the mars lander must fit inside a 420mm x 297mm area,
with a vertical restriction of 210mm. It is also specified that the water bottle must be simple to attach
to the lander, without any complex assembly or being directly adhered to it (eg. zip-ties, glued in, etc.).
Also, the mars lander must cost the client less than thirty Australian Dollars. This cost encompasses
the costs of all the materials required to construct one mars lander it is assumed that all the tools
required to build one unit are already owned, and are of no extra cost to the client. It should also be
noted that recycled materials may be used for the mars lander, and their costs will be considered as
half of their retail value. 3D-printed parts may also be used if the total cost of all 3D components to
be used comprise less than a quarter of the total cost of one mars lander unit.
5
2.2 | Understanding of M.E.C.C.s Design
At a glance, M.E.C.C.s mars lander is comprised of a wooden frame that is lifted off the ground
by two pairs of wheels at either end of the frame. The centre of the frame is hollow, and has been
made into the cargo bay, where the water bottle will be suspended by a set of three rubber bands.
The entire footprint of the design resides in a space of 395mm by 230mm, with a total height of
100mm.
M.E.C.C.s mars lander design places heavy emphasis on the absorption of shock. The wheels
are comprised of 25mm wide, cylindrical sections of recycled pool noodle. The wheels have a diameter
of 100mm, keeping the body of the lander about 35mm from the ground. The wheels of the lander
comply with the requirements laid out in the client brief, and pose a clever implementation of shock
absorption, forgoing the need for any complex suspension mechanisms. This is because the brunt of
the impact will be absorbed by the elasticity of the noodle wheels. It should also be noted that, due
to their position on the lander, unless the cart lands on its side or sustains heavy damage, the wheels
are the only part of the lander that can collide with the floor after the drop. This is best illustrated in
the side view of DWG #3 v2 of M.E.C.C.s Design Package (see Appendix A). Due to the mars landers
symmetry along the horizontal axis, the top and bottom sides are identical, resulting in the mars lander
landing on its wheels, even if it is inverted at any point during the drop or landing. However, with the
water bottle in place, the impact of the lander onto the floor may cause the bottle to extend
downwards and collide with the floor, should the rubber bands not be able to hold the bottle firmly
in the centre of the frame. This secondary impact may pose a threat to the successful landing of the
mars lander, but this will be further addressed and explored in Section 2.4.
The water bottle will be held to the wooden frame by three rubber bands. These rubber bands
are to be held in by channels in the wooden frame. These are best seen in the top view of DWG #3 v2
of M.E.C.C.s Design Package (see Appendix A). The channels are simply chiselled out of the wooden
frame, providing better traction for the rubber bands to the frame, so that the bottle is held firmly in
the centre. The rubber band mechanism was implemented so that the cargo has vertical elasticity to
better handle the impact, having free space and support both above and below the frame. The bottle
is simple to insert, and can be done by lifting the top of the endmost rubber band, inserting the bottle
inside it and then following along the rubber band line until the bottle sits in the centre of the frame.
This process should not take longer than about five seconds, and the unobtrusive holding mechanism
allows for the clear assessment of the cargo after impact. This cargo holding mechanism complies with
the restrictions given by EMPACT, and proves to be a promising solution to the clients problem.
Sections of wood for the frame will be joined with both screws and glue. This will ensure that
the frame is as sturdy as possible, without costing the client extra funding for enhancements, such as
steel brackets. This is necessary because the frame must hold the water bottle throughout the fall and
impact, and any weaknesses in the frame could result in the bottle detaching from the lander, or major
damages rendering the design a failure to EMPACT, as their design brief dictates.
6
2.3 | Understanding of Construction Method
M.E.C.C. has provided detailed and extensive instructions for the use of each tool required to
create their mars lander. This can be seen in the Construction Techniques section of M.E.C.C.s Design
Package (see Appendix A).
The frame is constructed first, using four cuts of pine wood. Joining the cuts together requires
pilot drilling and countersinking, to ensure the screws are correctly aligned and the screw heads are
flush with the surface of the frame. The cuts are also glued together, using a spatula to coat the
surfaces evenly, to ensure that the joins are tightly bound together. The rubber band channels are
also to be chiselled out before the assembly of the wheels and axles.
The wheels are 25mm thick sections of pool noodle, cut from the original noodle with a wood
saw. Each wheel is to be glued to the 3D printed rims, so that they can be properly secured to the
threaded axles. A hacksaw is to be used to cut two axles to 250mm long. After the insertion of the
axles into the holes drilled into the frame, the wheels are to be attached to the ends of the axles with
washers and nuts.
The water bottle holding bay is the last of the construction method, and is arguably the
simplest part of the method. It requires that the rubber bands are stretched over and laid in the
corresponding channels, for extra traction.
With the detailed construction set and extensive tool operation guide, M.E.C.C. has left little
to wonder about with the construction method. Scope Engineering feels that they are more than
capable of following M.E.C.C.s design specifications, to the letter.
2.4 | Addressing of Concerns with M.E.C.C.s Design

Upon review of the design, Scope Engineering has understood the design decisions that
M.E.C.C. has made. However, we would like to share our thoughts on how the design may be
improved, and express any concerns that we have, so that M.E.C.C. may obtain EMPACTs work by
producing the most polished, and highest performing, mars lander.
Scope Engineerings primary concern is with the availability and construction of the 3D printed
rims. It was discussed at the meeting between Scope Engineering and M.E.C.C., and information was
shared that the Curtin University 3D printer was currently out of service. M.E.C.C. assured Scope
Engineering that they would be able to source the rims from another company (see Appendix G).
However, we would like to mitigate any risk that threatens the timeliness of the landers completion.
Scope Engineering would like to propose that 40mm by 40mm cuts of recycled CDs, or 50mm diameter
cuts of recycled takeaway containers should be used as replacements to the rims. Upon evaluation,
Scope Engineering believes that the internal portion of the rim that adheres to the inside of the wheels
is not wholly necessary. As long as there is enough adhesion on the flat side of the wheel with the rim,
the bond between the wheel and axle will be secure - with the rims being bolted to the axle as before.
The larger surface area of the circular takeaway container will provide greater adhesion to the wheel,
but is less rigid than the CD material. The square cut of CD should be used for a stronger, more rigid
support if the adhesion to the wheel is satisfactory. A circular cut of CD would be used, but the typical
dimensions of a CD do not allow for a single piece of that size. Combining multiple pieces of CD to
make a circle with a 50mm diameter would introduce a large weakness, between the joins of the
pieces; hence why it was not suggested.
7
In terms of the overall design, Scope Engineering is impressed with the prospective sturdiness
of M.E.C.C.s mars lander. The wooden joins are secured with both glue and screws, and the wooden
frame should be thick enough to withstand a one metre drop. The invertible, symmetrical design is
well thought out, and allows the lander to flip over throughout the drop and still abide by the clients
specifications. The water bottle holding solution is simple enough for the bottle to be inserted quickly,
and is an open-air design, allowing for quick assessment of the cargo. The rubber bands and the pool
noodle possess elastic properties and provide the lander with simple shock absorption, to keep the
cargo in the bay. Scope Engineering believes that M.E.C.C.s mars lander design has great potential to
perform well, and we are most interested working with M.E.C.C. to construct the most effective mars
lander for EMPACT.
2.5 | Addressing of Concerns with M.E.C.C.s Construction Methods

M.E.C.C. has included an extensive instruction set for each construction method, including
sawing, pilot drilling, gluing, and countersinking (see Construction Techniques section of Appendix A).
M.E.C.C. has eliminated all doubt for any contractor looking to build their mars lander, elaborating on
every construction technique that is required by the construction method.
Quality Control (QC) procedures have also been included to ensure that the contractors are
building the mars lander to the expected quality (see Performance Testing section of Appendix A). By
regularly assessing each component of the lander throughout construction, Scope Engineering will be
able to produce a mars lander that fits the exact specifications of the Design Package. M.E.C.C. was
asked what they expected their contractors to do should one of the QC tests failed; M.E.C.C. asks that
the contractors edit their lander such that the QC tests pass (see Appendix G).
With M.E.C.C.s detailed construction methods and quality control tests, we feel that we are
more than capable of constructing a successful mars lander to your specifications.
8
3.0 | Addressing of Tender Evaluation
This section aims to prove that Scope Engineering is more than capable to construct an
exceptional mars lander using M.E.C.C.s design specifications. Each of M.E.C.C.s tender evaluation
criterions will be addressed to establish Scope Engineerings capability to perform well in each stage
of the project by providing suitable evidence.
It should be noted that, for ease of reference, the original tender evaluation criteria from
M.E.C.C.s Stage 1 package has been included in italics above Scope Engineerings response to each
respective criterion (see Appendix A for M.E.C.C.s complete Stage 1 Design Package).
3.1 | Project Management

The ability to manage a project and operate efficiently is valued highly here at M.E.C.C. Hence we
expect our contractor to be able to prove their company has a clear order of command and a
predetermined plan to complete the project.
Chain of Command
0 15
Project Planning
0 5 10 15 20
Scope Engineering is comprised of two teams; the designing team and the contracting team.
Tapiwa Mapeto has been designated as the Lead Designer, and Michael Anderson as the Lead
Contractor (see Appendix B for proof of company hierarchy). By appointing leadership positions for
different company positions, Scope Engineering is well equipped to delegate duties at any stage during
a project, resulting in efficient company operation and ensuring the timeliness of task completion.
Scope Engineering has also completed a GANTT chart ahead of time, planning the entirety of the
project. This will assist Scope Engineering in providing the most efficient working practices during the
entirety of the company partnership, should M.E.C.C. employ us to build their mars lander (see
Appendix C for complete GANTT chart).
Having a clear chain of command results in Scope Engineering being an efficiently working
company. We can evenly delegate the project workload to each employee, resulting in the team
effectively harnessing all their available resources to achieve the completion of tasks on time.
Completing a GANTT chart over the projects duration shows the initiative Scope Engineering is willing
to take to ensure we can complete any given project under time constraints. Scope Engineering has
displayed excellent project management skills and is more than capable of delivering M.E.C.C. a
completed mars lander by the given deadline, thanks to our project planning and company hierarchy.
Scope Engineering designating a lead contractor corresponds with a mark of 15/15 for Chain of
Command, and submitting a completed GANTT chart corresponds with a mark of 20/20 for Project
Planning.
9
3.2 | Communication
In all forms of business communication is crucial. As you would expect, it is no different here at M.E.C.C.
as we value communication highly. Quick and efficient communication can be extremely beneficial to
the construction and planning phases of a project. At M.E.C.C. we appreciate fast communication but
the quality of the response is valued higher.
Emails
0 5 10
Email quality
0 5 10
Does not respond or responds Responds but does not Responds and addresses
but address the question fully the question fully
does not address the question
Scope Engineering has employees that also hold part-time and full-time positions at other
establishments (see Appendix D). Through our work experience, we understand the importance of
effective communication. It is imperative to communicate effectively with managers and other
colleagues to ensure that the company is intelligently delegating work, running efficiently, and not
wasting time completing redundant tasks. Scope Engineering also ensures that emails are responded
to within the same day (see Appendix E). This ensures that relevant information is provided to the
other party as quickly as possible, so they can continue with their schedule after their questions have
been answered.
Scope Engineering understands that the timeliness of written responses is of high importance,
to minimise downtime between messages, so that both companies involved can continue working on
their current projects. It is also imperative that all questions are addressed, so that the questioning
party receives the information that they require, without waiting for a second response after asking
the question again. We have proven to M.E.C.C. that we are willing and able to respond to emails
within the same day, and address all questions presented within it. Constructing a mars rover to
M.E.C.C.s expected quality and timeliness will be greatly assisted by Scope Engineerings excellent
communication - being able to ask critical questions and provide meaningful responses within the
same day, as outlined by the Tender Evaluation Criteria. Being able to respond within the day
corresponds to a mark of 7/10 for Emails (as all replies were sent within twenty-four hours, but not
within ~6 hours), and a mark of 10/10 for Email Quality, as every reply answered all questions fully.
10
3.3 | Time Management
Meeting deadlines is a must at M.E.C.C and hence the reason why we take time management so
seriously. Poor time management can lead to an excessive cost which is in no way benefiting the
company. Therefore we are looking for companies with extraordinary time allocation skills to maximise
what M.E.C.C gets out of this project.
0 5 8 11 15
Does not submit Submits in Submits in Submits GANTT Submits GANTT
in GANTT Chart GANTT Chart GANTT Chart 1 Chart 2 days Chart 3 days
in timeframe on deadline day before before deadline before deadline
day deadline day
Because of our company hierarchy, Scope Engineering is excellent at delegating tasks between
employees. Appendix F shows an example of work delegation that took place a week before the
Project One submission, facilitated by the Lead Designer and Lead Contractor, Tapiwa Mapeto and
Michael Anderson respectively. It details specifically what work is required and by who, and was input
from every employee was considered. A completed GANTT chart was created and submitted to
M.E.C.C. on the 16 April, 2017 (see Appendix M), as requested. It showcases the work to be completed
over the second stage of the project by every member of the team, as well as external, non-
engineering commitments that the team members must schedule around. It should also be noted that
the GANTT chart was submitted 3 days before the deadline (19 April 2017) (see sent date shown in
the email given in Appendix M), complying with a score of 15/15 for the Time Management Criterion
of the Tender Evaluation Criteria.
Scope Engineering understands that if work is divided evenly and to each team members
strengths, larger amounts of work can be completed in shorter amounts of time. The completion of
explicit work delegation sheets and an elaborate GANTT chart exhibits Scope Engineerings time
management skills and foresight into what working with M.E.C.C. might entail. By assessing all
scheduled events and commitments, the members of Scope Engineering can plan the construction
schedule of the mars lander efficiently, and ahead of time, ensuring that the earliest possible
construction sessions can be attended by all applicable employees. M.E.C.C. will benefit from our time
management skills because we have planned ahead and left ample time before the completion
deadline to address any unfinished work, should any unforeseen circumstances halt the construction
process. We will provide the greatest chance of ensuring that your project will be completed by
EMPACTs deadline, through our excellent time management and extensive preparation. Submitting
a completed GANTT chart three days before the deadline corresponds with a mark of 15/15.
11
3.4 | Punctuality
Punctuality to meetings is extremely important as wasting each others time is of no benefit to the
project. However, we also understand that in some circumstances the company may not be able to
attend, as such in the following criteria marks are given on the professionalism of the company's
behaviours.
0 5 10 15
Does not attend Is unable to attend but Arrives at Arrives at
meeting, provides apologies meeting on meeting 5
and provides no and an time. minutes early
reason/apology for alternate time to
absence. reschedule
meeting
Most of Scope Engineerings employees also hold jobs at other companies. These include
casual, part-time and full-time positions at various establishments, as mentioned in section 3.2 (see
Appendix D). It is imperative for team members to attend their shifts on-time, to please their employer
and avoid the termination of their contracts because of poor punctuality. It is through this that the
members of Scope Engineering prioritise punctuality to their scheduled events, and make sure that
they arrive on time. It should be noted that Michael Anderson arrived early and Salim Al Alawi arrived
on time for the first meeting between Scope Engineering and M.E.C.C. on Thursday 6 th April, as
documented in the meeting minutes (see Appendix G). Nicholas Stokes was unable to attend this
meeting, but prior notice was given well over 24 hours in advance by email (see Figure 2 of Appendix
E).
Being punctual minimises time lost for both companies when attending meetings or scheduled
activities, including construction sessions within the contracting team of Scope Engineering. Scope
Engineerings excellent punctuality and professionalism in non-optimal circumstances for meeting in
person makes our company an ideal working partner for efficient project completion. Apologies were
made for a non-attending member in advance (5/15), a team member arrived on time (10/15) and a
team member arrived more than five minutes early (15/15). This makes scoring this section quite
difficult, so the median mark of 10/15 will be suggested.
12
3.5 | Safety Management
Safety is of the utmost concern at M.E.C.C.. The ability to manage safety and eliminate or reduce risk
is valued highly at M.E.C.C..
0 15
Mitigating Delay in the The team members of Scope Engineering are no

Projects Submission strangers to deadlines and how important they are to meet.
1. Make sure that there is M.E.C.C. requires that their contracting companies followed the
constant contact between risk management plans outlaid in their Design Package to be
group members using scored for this section (see Risk Management Plan of Appendix
ASANA and a Facebook A).
group chat.
2. If there are any To mitigate delay in the submission of the Stage 1
disagreements, the Design Package, Scope Engineering maintained constant
outcome will be chosen by communication through a Facebook group chat (see Figure 2 of
most votes. Appendix N). Scope Engineering deals with uncertainty in
3. ASANA helps us view what situations by asking for opinions from every team member. An
tasks group members have example of this can be seen in Appendix F, where the work that
or have not completed.
was delegated was given to team members based on the
4. Have a meeting agenda and
groups consensus. Every week at 11:00AM, all members of
a set time for the meeting
so that group members Scope Engineering were required to attend a group meeting, to
know what to focus on delegate tasks, answer and ask questions, and discuss ideas.
during the meeting. Because of these set rules, the company prioritises the sharing
of information and the regular completion of delegated work,
to minimise the risk of a late Stage 1 Design Package
submission.
Mitigating risk of not being Delegating all tasks extensively at every meeting is a
able to complete further tasks high priority, and makes up most of the weekly minutes (see
because previous work has Appendix F for an example of Scope Engineerings weekly
not been completed
minutes). Being able to effectively delegate tasks will result in
1. Explain in detail who has
less wasted time and a clear project schedule. Scope
what task to complete and
set a task list on ASANA to Engineering is excellent at delegating tasks to suit employees
remind group members strengths, and has shown project initiative by creating a
what they have to do. OneDrive to facilitate instant file sharing and to allow the
2. Setting up the ASANA task assessment of employees completed work by the project
list allows group members leaders, to ensure that the project is not falling behind schedule
to see what other group (see Figure 1 of Appendix N).
members have or have not
completed.
3. Setting up a Google drive
will allow group members
so submit work from their
computers and allows
everyone in the group to
see and edit that work.
13
Mitigating risk of false sense of Scope Engineering ensures that meeting agendas are created
security that the required work before every group meeting. This is so that the meetings
has been completed follow a predetermined plan, and everything that needs to be
1. Keeping a meeting agenda discussed is discussed, and time at meetings is not wasted
will allow group members because of tangential conversations.
to know what to talk about
and not talk about anything
unrelated.
Scope Engineering understands the importance of meeting deadlines and we will do

everything we can to make sure our submissions are made on time. Scope Engineering has excellent
team management skills, being able to delegate tasks to suit team members strengths and keep on
top of completed work. A set meeting schedule and following meeting agendas shows our
dedication to the project, and our ability to work efficiently with others. We have demonstrated that
we can follow risk mitigation plans, and suggest scoring Scope Engineering a mark of 12/15 for
Safety Management (losing three marks due to the absence of a company ASANA page).
3.6 | Experience
M.E.C.C. appreciates experience and the ability to achieve to a high construction standard. Experience
is also beneficial to safety management.
Marks awarded for;
Certificate I, II, III or IV in a construction related field (School earned certificates count) (5
marks each up to a value of 15)
Proven record of a completed construction project (Photographic evidence is satisfactory) (5

marks)
Scope Engineering has years of experience behind them, including the completion of materials
technology classes at a secondary educational level and the undertaking of personal mechanical
projects (see Appendix H, Figures 2 and 3). The company has also successfully designed and
constructed its own mars lander prototype (see Appendix I). Most of the company has completed
EFDP to a more than satisfactory level, being a testament to their ability to perform well with new
teams of engineers and their ability to construct models (see Appendix J). Michael Andersons EFDP
groups prototype submission can be seen in Figure 4 of Appendix H. However, no members of the
contracting team have completed a construction related field to a Certificate I, II, III or IV level.
Having a broad expanse of experience with woodworking, metalworking and other

construction methods shows Scope Engineerings diversity in skill, and ability to work well with other
engineers. Scope Engineering will provide a high-quality mars lander from the given specifications, as
we use our wealth of experience in many construction methods and our excellent teamworking. As a
company, we are well suited to building M.E.C.C.s mars lander, and giving M.E.C.C. the best chance
of standing out from the other competing companies, and obtaining EMPACTs work. Scope
Engineering believes that a score of 8/20 for this section is representative of our qualitative skill, due
to a secondary educational pass grade for Materials Technology and photographic evidence of a
completed construction project. This score would be higher if it was not required to have a Certificate
I, II, III or IV to prove our expertise in construction.
14
3.6 | Capability
M.E.C.C. is looking for a constructor with the correct tools and facilities to construct our rover to the
highest standard.
Marks awarded for;
Photographic evidence of tools required in specifications (2 marks each)

Photographic evidence of a suitable working area for construction of the project. Suitable
working area in this instance is defined as an area with at least 1m^2 working area (5 marks)
As can be seen in Appendix K, Scope Engineering has access to all of the required tools listed
in M.E.C.C.s Stage 1 Design Package. Acquiring all of the tools listed in M.E.C.C.s Design Package is
imperative for Scope Engineering to be able to construct the mars lander as M.E.C.C. intended. Scope
Engineering also has a suitable working area, as described as one square metre of free space. The
working area that we have designated is more than the minimum outline in the Tender Evaluation
Criteria it is a ventilated, shaded area, with more than five square metres of surrounding free space,
and access to wall power outlets and running water (should water be needed to clean, extinguish fires,
etc.) (see Appendix L). Scope Engineering understands the importance of a free working space, and
has prioritised its availability for constructing a mars lander.
Scope Engineering has obtained all the tools and cleared an exemplary working space, as
outlined in the Tender Evaluation Criteria (see above). Making these available exhibits our ability to
construct M.E.C.C.s mars lander as their specification describes, and Scope Engineerings dedication
to obtaining anything necessary to construct a high-quality mars lander. Scope Engineering has proved
to be more than capable of constructing M.E.C.C.s mars lander with the given tools and facilities, and
is willing to source extra tools, should they be requested. Photographs of every tool required and a
suitable working place have been provided in Appendices K and L, corresponding with a mark of 7/7
for this section.
15
Appendix B | Meeting Minutes
Scope Engineering Decides on Company Hierarchy
Meeting Wk2 Minutes 09/03/2017

Discussed rough ideas
Discussed meeting availability
Discussed workload for the week
o Designers
Familiarise with drawing programs (focus)
Research design ideas for body, suspension etc.
o Contractors
Research design ideas for body, suspension etc.
Focus research on material availability and cost considerations
Delegated leads for designers and contractors
o Lead Designer: Tapiwa Mapeto
o Lead Contractor: Michael Anderson
Salim and Ibraheem had to leave early to attend their classes
Notes are to be shared on OneDrive before Thursday 16th March
WPR to be brought in to the workshop by Eleanor this week
o All team members are to have filled in their goals and work done by 9pm
Wednesday 15th
Recorded and uploaded by Michael Anderson
48
Appendix C | GANNT Chart
Completed GANTT Chart of prospective project timespan
49
Appendix D | Proof of Employment
Proof of Current Employment in Establishments other than Scope Engineering
Figure 1: Michael Anderson holds a part time position at Coles

Supermarkets
Figure 2: Nicholas Stokes holds a part time position at
Aegis Aged Care Facility.
50
Appendix E | Communication with M.E.C.C.
Example of Same-Day Replies to M.E.C.C. via Email
Figure 1: Email Received from M.E.C.C. 04/04/2017
Figure 2: Email Sent to M.E.C.C. 04/04/2017
51
Appendix F | Task Delegation
Minutes for the Meeting Preceding the Stage 1 Submission
52
Appendix G | Meeting Minutes for Meeting Between Scope
Engineering and M.E.C.C.
Minutes of Meeting Between M.E.C.C. and Scope Engineering Representatives (06/04/2017,
11:00AM)
Introductions and Meeting Commencement
Punctuality
o Michael, Josh and James: +15min early
o Salim arrived on time
o Nicholas was not able to attend due to being out of state
Preferred methods of communications/meetings established
o Email sufficient for same-day responses
o Michael is willing to respond to text messages for immediate response
o Skype meetings are an option for urgent meetings, as agreed upon by both teams
Company hierarchy outlaid
Michael Lead Contractor

Tapiwa Lead Designer
M.E.C.C. design was clarified
Size and thickness of rubber bands questioned

o Examples, brought to the meeting by Josh, clarified the specifications of the bands
Rubber band holding-structure met bottle-insertion constrictions as per the brief when prototyped
o No further doubts about validity
3D-printed wheel rims were questioned and alternative suggested
o It was questioned whether there was a 3D schematic for the rims so that they can be printed
M.E.C.C. have designed a 3D schematic and plan to have rims printed at the Curtin 3D-
printer
o In the case that the Curtin 3D-printer would not be available at the time of construction, a plastic
washer replacement was suggested
o However, M.E.C.C. assured that the rims would be available
M.E.C.C. would supply the rims from an external companys printer
Prototypes success was questioned
Complete prototype was not able to be constructed, due to 3D-printer out-of-service

M.E.C.C. assured prototypes success
Quality Control (QC) section of M.E.C.C. Stage 1 package was questioned for clarification
Tests used to ensure the lander was built as instructed by the design specifications
M.E.C.C. was questioned, what does one do if a QC test fails?
o M.E.C.C. instructed Scope that an intuitive and immediate fix (eg. sanding back excess wood,
reapplying glue, etc.) should be implemented
o The contractors should fix the lander, rather than constructing a new one
Conclusions
o Meeting had concluded after about 15 minutes
Minutes recorded and shared to M.E.C.C. by Michael Anderson
53
Appendix H | Proof of Experience
Woodworking, Metalworking and/or Graphical Technology Experience of Employees.
Figure 1: Michael Anderson completed Material Technology satisfactorily at a Secondary Educational level.
54
Figure 2 (left): Nicholas Stokes has hands on
experience with metals and moving,
mechanical parts. This is a photo of his work
with a brake set for his personal vehicle.
Figure 3: Nicholas installing an engine for a custom car project.
55
Figure 4: Michael Andersons EFDP groups conceptual house prototype
56
Appendix I | Scope Engineerings Prototype
Scope Engineerings own Mars Lander Prototype
Figure 1: Scope Engineerings first prototype wheels not attached due to testing of new wheel types (see tennis balls on
right). This photo was taken following the completed assembly of the magnetic cover.
57
Appendix J | Proof of EFDP Competency
Proof of employees Competency with Engineering Foundations: Design and Processes (EFDP)
Figure 1: Michael Andersons eStudent Results of Semester 2, 2016 Distinction Grade for EFDP
Figure 2: Salim Al Alawis eStudent Results of Semester 2, 2016
58
Figure 3: Nicholas Stokes eStudent Results of Semester 2, 2016
59
Appendix K | Proof of Required Tools
Tools Specified by M.E.C.C. Stage 1 Design Package
Figure 1: Wood Saw Figure 2: Power Drill
Figure 3: Chisel (multiple sizes) Figure 4: Glue Spreader/Spatula or Scraping Tool
Figure 5: 10mm Countersinking Drill Bit Figure 6: Tape Measure
60
Figure 2: Safety Glasses Figure 3: Square
Figure 5: 3.5mm Drill Bit, for Pilot Holes

Figure 4: Vice and Wood Clamp
Figure 7: Wood File Figure 6: Pen & Pencil
61
Figure 13: 6mm Drill Bit Figure 14: Hacksaw
62
Appendix L | Proof of Working Space
Prospective Working Area for Constructing M.E.C.C.s Mars Lander
Figure 1: More than 1 square metre of free space, as required, with nearby Figure 2: Shaded and ventilated space shade cloth
window for ventilation covers wide-mesh fencing, allowing for ample air flow
and protection from direct sunlight and winds
Figure 3: Working space has access to wall power, if required Figure 4: Working space has access to running water (tap and
hose on left), as well as a window near the worktable for added
ventilation (on right)
63
Appendix M | Proof of GANTT Submission
GANTT Chart Submission to M.E.C.C.
64
Appendix N | Scope Engineerings Internal Communication
Intra-team communication channels.
Figure 1: Scope Engineerings group OneDrive folder.
Figure 2 (left): Scope Engineerings

Facebook group chat.
65
Executive Summary
The tender was written by Red Planet industries in order to respond to the designing
company M.E.C.C that is on the behalf of the client, EMPACT. As the purpose of this
report, how Red Planet Industries understands the design and assembly of the Mars
Lander/Rover was covered and illustrated in this tender with a range of evidences
convincing that Red Planet Industries can be considered as the most suitable company
for the fabrication of Mars Lander/Rover.
All the tender evaluation criteria put forward by M.E.C.C has been successfully
addressed accompanied with convincing evidences in appendices. To begin with, a
project management plan involving chain of command and predetermined timeframe is
required by the designing company. Red Planet Industries has a leader in the contractor
team and a completed GANTT Chart for the project. Red Planet Industries has also
shown that they are communicative by replying emails within the day and answering all
the questions.
Furthermore, managing time well and being punctual are standards at Red Planet
Industries. It can be guaranteed that the contracting company will submit GANTT Chart
3 days before the deadline and arrive 5 minutes prior to any meetings.
In addition, Red Planet Industries has addressed the risk management plan during
Stage 1 to protect the project as the designing company recommended. As an
experienced company, one staff of Red Planet Industries is able to do handwork,
assuring that the project can be executed properly and efficiently. In terms of capability,
Red Planet Industries also has access to all the tools required by M.E.C.C and provides
suitable working environment where is more than 1m^2.
However, the material and diameter of axles and space in which allows the bottle to fit
are the concerns of Red Planet Industries to the design. The diameter of axles is only
6.35mm, compared with that of the wheel, which is 100mm; the material of axles is not
specified. It is likely to happen that the axles will snap inside of the vehicle when
travelling down the slope. Thus, Red Planet industries suggested that aluminium axles
with the diameter of 10mm should be implemented to ensure the toughness of axles.
In terms of the storage of the water bottle, it was indicated that the space was designed
with the dimensions of 90mm by 215mm in accordance with the specifications.
However, the water bottle to be used has the dimensions of 70mm by 205mm. There
are 20mm and 10mm of gaps respectively, possibly resulting in flipping and getting
attached to the ground or slope when being tested. The solution Red Planet Industries
coming up with was to reduce the dimensions so that they are identical to each other
and to secure the bottles with more sets of rubber bands. This is able to increase the
friction and tension that the water bottle can be secured with.
This report consisted of two parts: Design Package Review (understanding of design,
client brief compliance and concerns and solutions) and Addressing of Tender
Evaluation Criteria. These topics above were detailed in the main body of report. The
1
Red Planet Industries were aimed to meet the standards set out by M.E.C.C and finish
fabricating the Mars Lander/Rover within the time-frame.
2
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1
2.0 Design Package Review ........................................................................................... 1
2.1 Understanding of Design ........................................................................................ 1
2.2 Client Brief Compliance.......................................................................................... 2
2.3 Concerns and Solutions ......................................................................................... 2
3.0 Criteria....................................................................................................................... 4
3.1 Project Management .............................................................................................. 4
3.2 Communication ...................................................................................................... 5
3.3 Time Management ................................................................................................. 5
3.4 Punctuality ............................................................................................................. 6
3.5 Safety Management ............................................................................................... 7
3.6 Experience ............................................................................................................. 7
3.7 Capability ............................................................................................................... 8
Appendix 1. A. ................................................................................................................. 9
Appendix 1. B. ............................................................................................................... 10
Appendix 2. A. ............................................................................................................... 11
Appendix 2. B. (1) ......................................................................................................... 12
Appendix 2. B. (2) ......................................................................................................... 13
Appendix 3. A. (1) ......................................................................................................... 14
Appendix 3. A. (2) ......................................................................................................... 15
Appendix 3. A. (3) ......................................................................................................... 16
Appendix 3. A. (4) ......................................................................................................... 17
Appendix 3. A. (5) ......................................................................................................... 18
Appendix 3. A. (6) ......................................................................................................... 19
Appendix 3. A. (7) ......................................................................................................... 20
Appendix 3. A. (8) ......................................................................................................... 21
Appendix Design Package from M.E.C.C...................................................................... 22
3
1.0 Introduction
This document focuses on the tender submission of Red Planet Industries for
the construction of the Mars Lander/Rover designed by M.E.C.C and responds to the
criteria set out by M.E.C.C on behalf of the client EMPACT.
2.0 Design Package Review

In this section, how Red Planet Industries understands the project has been
demonstrated and a design review has been performed.
2.1 Understanding of Design

The Mars Lander/Rover is designed with 4 wheels, 2 rods as axles, 2 long
pieces of wood and 2 short pieces of woods as the rectangle body of vehicle (see
page5, Design Package). Also 8 rubber bands are used to secure the water bottle to
be used during testing.
As shown in the drawings of the vehicle (see page 7 and 9, Design Package),
the dimensions of the main body are designed 335mm by 150mm, while an area of
215mm*90mm inside the frame allows the water bottle to fit in. Also 8 holes can be
found on the body. 4 holes with the diameter of 6.35 mm are specified that the 2
axles will be screwed through. The rest holes are reserved for the screws being
implemented to secure 4 pieces of woods so that the rectangle frame is formed. In
addition, there are 6 5-milimetre-deep channels on each longer side of the body,
which are able to provide friction in case that the rubber bands might slide.
When it comes to the wheels and axles (see page8, 10 and 11, Design
Package), there are 2 main components of wheels: 3D-printed rims and tyres made
from foam pool noodles. The specifications indicate that the diameter of wheels, rims
and tyres are 100mm, 50mm(Exterior) and 30mm(Interior) and 100mm(Exterior) and
30mm(Interior) respectively. Holes in the centre of wheels are also drilled for the
axles. The order of assembly is (From the inner side to the outer side): Washer
assembled wheel (Rim and Tyre) Washer Nut. Also, threaded rods with the
diameter of 6.35mm and length of 250mm have been applied as the axles.
Furthermore, the constructing procedure is considered as the most critical
part of the project (see page18 and 19, Design Package). The procedure includes:
Frame Construction, Wheel Construction, Axle and Wheel Installation and Water
bottle installation. To construct the frame, namely the main body, before holes are
drilled, the wood is cut to the dimensions as specified, followed by countersinking the
4 holes for screws. After that, the 4 pieces of wood are to be joined together with
wood glue applied. Last the channels for more friction are created using handheld
power drill and chisel. As for the wheel construction, the foam pool noodles should
be cut at first to the dimensions as specified, followed by gluing the tyres and rims.
This stage repeats for the other 3 wheels. When assembling the axles and wheels,
axles are cut to the dimensions as specified prior to the axle holes are drilled,
1
followed by screwing the axles through holes and wheels in. Again, assembling
wheels follows the sequence Washer assembled wheel (Rim and Tyre) Washer
Nut, with general purpose glue applied between the nuts and wheels. Finally,
rubber bands will be used to hold the water bottle by stretching them over the vehicle
and sitting them in the channels.
2.2 Client Brief Compliance

The client calls for a prototype Mars Lander/Rover loaded with a 600ml water
bottle that is able to travel down a slope between 30 and 45 degrees for 2 metres,
followed by a 1 metre vertical drop. Complex assembly is not expected, such as
screwing a panel. Shown in the table are the dimensional constraints set out by the
client.
Length 420mm
Width 297mm
Height 210mm
The client also states that the expenditure on the prototype must be restricted
to 30 dollars or less, based on the spreadsheet on blackboard. These followings are
details:
1.3D-printed components must be less than 25% of the theoretical cost.
2. Recycled materials account for 50% of their original prices. And the actual cost
should be based on how much the contractor spends, even if only parts of the materials
are used.
The impact and cushioning constraints are also specified that the vehicle
should not be controlled manually during testing and no significant damage or split
water bottle is observed. At least one set of wheels should land and be in contact
with the ground.
2.3 Concerns and Solutions
There are two concerns of Red Planet Industries in terms of the design. And
Red Planet Industries also provides suggestions that can have positive impacts on
the project.
The first concern is that the diameter of the axles is design to be only 6.35mm
whereas that of the wheels is 100mm (see page 8 and 11, Design Package). It is
likely that the axle may snap inside after undergoing the 1m vertical drop. In addition,
the material of axles is not specified in the design package. Whether the material is
tough or not plays a critical role in the performance. i.e. the ability to withstand
2
pressure. It is recommended that the diameter of axles be increase to 10mm and
aluminium be implemented as the material of axles.
The second concern too important to be neglected is that the water bottle
storage space has dimensions of 90mm by 215mm as specified in the design
package (see page 9, Design Package) while the water bottles dimensions is
indicated to 70mm by 205 mm. There are 20mm and 10mm difference between
widths and lengths. These differences can lead to the water bottles flipping hence
the water bottle will get approached to the ground or slope if the rubber bands
cannot provide strong enough friction and tension. As a potential mitigation to this
risk, it is highly suggested that the water bottle storage space should be reduced to
70mm*205mm which is the same as the dimensions of water bottle and more rubber
bands should be implemented to secure the water bottle.
3
3.0 Criteria
Please note that the criteria have been listed in italics and Red Planet
Industries response follows in normal text
3.1 Project management

The ability to manage a project and operate efficiently is valued highly here at
M.E.C.C. hence we expect our contractor to be able to prove their company has a clear
order of command and a predetermined plan to complete the project.
Chain of command
0 15
Project planning
0 5 10 15 20

Red Planet Industries is a company that has a well-structured contracting

team. Inside the contracting team are 3 members, Dazhi, Hoi Yan and Amjad. As a
leader, Dazhi is in charge of the project and the other 2 contractors submit him a
project progress report every week to ensure that the project is on track. He can be
contacted on +61 405 052 453. Red Planet Industries has a leader and clear chain
of command.
In addition, Red Planet Industries also has a completed project plan. In
Appendix 1.A, a GNATT Chart on this project has been provided by Red Planet
Industries. According to the GNATT Chart, the contracting company starts gathering
material during Week 8, followed by wheel assembly and cutting axles. Later on, the
main body of prototype is to be delivered within Week 9 prior to testing every
component as instructed by M.E.C.C. This timeline ensures the vehicle can be
constructed by Week 9 which is 1 week before the handovers and 2 weeks before
prototype testing. Hence there is substantial time remaining for any modifications in
Week 10. What is more, every week a project progress report will be generated and
analysed.
4
3.2 Communication
In all forms of business communication is crucial. As you would expect, it is no
different here at M.E.C.C. as we value communication highly. Quick and efficient
communication can be extremely beneficial to the construction and planning phases of a
project. At M.E.C.C. we appreciate fast communication but the quality of the response is
valued higher.
Emails
0 5 10
Email quality
0 5 15
Responds and
Does not respond or responds but Responds but does not
addresses the question
does not address the question address the question fully
fully
Red Planet Industries has replied every email within the day and answered
every question thoroughly in case of miscommunication and keeping information up-
to-date. For example, Red Planet Industries received an email at 9.09am from
M.E.C.C that suggested a meeting be arranged. And Red Planet has replied
unambiguously this invitation tomorrow at 8.00 am with the time and location of the
meeting. This assures M.E.C.C that Red Planet Industries is a communicative and
active contracting company. Quick and informative communication is the key to
successful project. Hence, Red Planet Industries performs well in terms of
communication, a positive factor to the success of a project. M.E.C.C are the
witnesses.
3.3 Time management

Meeting deadlines is a must at M.E.C.C and hence the reason why we take time
management so seriously. Poor time management can lead to an excessive cost which is in
no way benefiting the company. Therefore, we are looking for companies with extraordinary
time allocation skills to maximise what M.E.C.C gets out of this project.
5
0 5 8 11 15
Does not submit Submits in Submits in Submits Submits

in GANTT Chart GANTT Chart GANTT Chart 1 GANTT Chart 2 GANTT Chart 3
in timeframe on deadline day before days before days before
day deadline day deadline deadline
Red Planet Industries takes time management seriously since a bad time
management plan leads to more cost from which neither party is benefiting. The
GANTT Chart as mentioned above is to be submitted with this document as an
appendix on 19th of April whereas the tender evaluation will be started on 24 th of
April. Hence, it is obvious that there are more than 3 days from the submission and
deadline. After this document is submitted, the date of submission will be displayed
on Oasis, proving that Red Planet Industries meets this criterion.
3.4 Punctuality
Punctuality to meetings is extremely important as wasting each others time is of no
benefit to the project. However, we also understand that in some circumstances the
company may not be able to attend, as such in the following criteria marks are given on the
professionalism of the company's behaviours.
0 5 10 15
Is unable to attend but Arrives at Arrives at

Does not attend meeting, meeting on meeting 5
provides apologies and an
and provides no time. minutes early
alternate time to reschedule
reason/apology for absence.
meeting
The reason why Red Planet Industries is punctual can be explained by our
actions. Red Planet Industries arranged a meeting with M.E.C.C at 4.pm, 6th of April.
The two contractors from Red Planet Industries were in the meeting room 10
minutes early. More importantly the meeting was not rescheduled and ran at 4.10 pm
as planned. As a result, the meeting has been successful and both parties have
achieved the goals that they expected to achieve. This was witnessed by M.E.C.C.
6
3.5 Safety management
Safety management
Safety is of the utmost concern at M.E.C.C. The ability to manage safety and eliminate or
reduce risk is valued highly at M.E.C.C.
0 15

As can be seen in Appendix 1.B, Red Planet Industries provides its own
completed risk management plan during Stage 1. The hazards range from
Corruption of project files or loss of physical media to Unclear design package with
corresponding mitigations given. In addition, the likelihood, severity, risks and
residual risk are also provided. Following the risk management plan, the risks related
to data loss, no meeting the deadline and disagreement on design package due to
misunderstanding are effectively alleviated by backing up, making contingency plan
and review from peers out of Red Planet Industries respectively so that the project
can be executed under protection against unexpected things happening.
3.6 Experience
Experience
M.E.C.C. appreciates experience and the ability to achieve to a high construction standard.
Experience is also beneficial to safety management.
Marks awarded for;

Certificate I, II, III or IV in a construction related field (School earned
certificates count) (5 marks each up to a value of 15)
Proven record of a completed construction project (Photographic evidence is
satisfactory) (5 marks)
7
Red Planet Industries is a company with experienced contractors. One of the
contractors, Dazhi, in 2016, has finished Certificate IV degree of Engineering in
Curtin College with high distinction more than 80% overall. The transcript can be
attached in Appendix 2.a. A certificate in engineering field contributes to the
credential that Red Planet Industries has the ability to handle the construction as an
experienced company since the contractor had an academic engineering
experience. This is beneficial to the construction of Mars Lander/Rover regarding
any practical procedures.
In terms of a completed construction project, Dazhi also has built up a pottery
kennel of Snoopys as shown in Appendix 2.B.(1) and 2.B.(2). When constructing the
kennel, he shaped the frame, Snoopy on top of the roof first and then some Chinese
characters, followed by painting. The processes took him one week of time to finish.
It is indicated that Red Planet Industries not only shows its commitment to handwork,
but also experience. In conclusion, Red Planet Industries has former experience to
conduct handwork.
3.7 Capability
M.E.C.C. is looking for a constructor with the correct tools and facilities to construct
our rover to the highest standard.
Marks awarded for;

Photographic evidence of tools required in specifications
(2 marks each)
Photographic evidence of a suitable working area for construction of the
project. Suitable working area in this instance is defined as an area with at least
1m^2 working area
(5 marks)
Red Planet Industries has access to the majority of tools which are displayed
in Appendix 3. A. (1) (8) to conduct the project. One contractor, Dazhi, is able to
borrow handheld power drill, screwdriver (Philips and Flathead), tape measure,
safety glasses, ruler, hacksaw and pencil from his former homestay. With these tools
the project is capable of being carried out. In terms of the working area, as shown in
Appendix 3. B, there is a small backyard with area of more than 1m^2 that ensures
Red Planet Industries provides a safe, spacious and quiet environment for the
project. To summarise, Red Planet Industries not only has the tools but also provides
an appropriate working area for the project.
8
Appendices
Appendix 1. A.
9
Appendix 1. B.
10
Appendix 2. A.
11
Appendix 2. B. (1)
12
Appendix 2. B. (2)
13
Appendix 3. A. (1)
14
Appendix 3. A. (2)
15
Appendix 3. A. (3)
16
Appendix 3. A. (4)
17
Appendix 3. A. (5)
18
Appendix 3.A. (6)
19
Appendix 3. A. (7)
20
Appendix 3. A. (8)
21
Tender application
Es. KHUBED
Client: MECC
Project: Mars Rover
Date: 15/04/2017
King
1
Executive summary
This tender has been written by Es.KHUBED in response to the requirement of the
designing company MECC. According to the discuss by Es.KHUBED contractors and all
of ES.KHUBED contractors have been understood the design package of MECC. The
purpose of the tender is to decide Es.KHUBED company is most suitable to construct
the vehicle of Mars Rover than other company.
Among the important reasons why this tender decide to be Es.KUBHD group to
build. According to MECCs design package, Es.KHUBED totally reached the standard
of construct ability. Furthermore, Es.KHUBED quite sure that will showed the
evidences of each part for design package. In addition, it is clearly that Es.KUBHD has
high skill level to finish this vehicle of Mars Rover. The Es.KHUBED contractors also
have quite confident that will be finish a excellent production.
On the other hand, Es.KHUBED contractors all passed the stage 1 course. This
satisfies the tender evaluation criteria of MECCs which requires current certification
to an appropriate quality standard.
Thirdly, Es.KHUBED contractors have meeting minute with MECC company, and
understanding how to construct the Mars Rover step by step. The most important
thing that Es.KHUBED takes some advise for MECC design package, and MECC
designer has been change some mistakes and make a better way to instead the
before.
In conclusion, Es.KHUBED company has high construction skill and communication

skill. It also has much evidence to support how suitable Es.KHUBED can do this
project.In addition, it is clearly display we reached the standard of MECCs design
package.
2
Table of content
1.0Introduction............................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 Design package Review........................................................................................................ 1
2.1 Understanding of Design................................................................................................. 1
2.2 Client Brief Compliance ............................................................................................. 1
2.3 Questions And Solution..................................................................................................... 2
3.0 Criteria...................................................................................................................................... 2
3.1 Communication.............................................................................................................3
3.2Safety................................................................................................................................ 3
3.3 Professionalism............................................................................................................. 4
3.3.1Meeting Attendance.................................................................................................. 4
3.3.2Teamwork....................................................................................................................4
3.4Experience...................................................................................................................... 4
3.5Certification and Capability....................................................................................... 4
4.0Appendix...................................................................................................................................6
4.01Appendix........................................................................................................................ 6
4.02Appendix........................................................................................................................ 8
4.03Appendix...................................................................................................................... 12
4.04Appendix..................................................................................................................... 13
3
1.0 Introduction
The document contains Es.KHUBED tender application for construction of Mars
Rover vehicle. This document has been written in response to the criteria as defined
by the MECCs design package.
2.0 Design package review

This design has been discussed between Es.KHUBED and MECC. And Es.KHUBED
was totally understood the design package of MECC. Therefore, Es.KHUBED will
completely follow the requirement of MECC design package.
2.1 Understanding of design

The design is base upon the MECC design package introduces how to complete the
Mars Rover vehicle, and MECC design package display three views pictures and gives
Es.KHUBED the 3D drawing, It is clearly that the length of each part of the Mars
Rover vehicle. The length of the vehicle should be 395 mm, the width of the vehicle
should be 230 mm and the high of the wood sheet is 100mm.Vehicles wheel still
clearly from the design package. The Mars Rover vehicle wheel made by Pool Noodle,
The front wheel diameter is 100mm, and the back wheel diameter is 100mm,The
chassis of the vehicle is connected by grooves and wood glue. The creative of design
package is MECC shown six groove on vehicle body, all of groove for fixed bottle
strongly above vehicle by rubber band. Es.KHUBED contractors thought that design
should be working excellent.
Es.KHUBED already prepare safety glass and safety boot to prevent workers to
injuring. MECC also already created a materials table for Es.KHUBED. The table
introduce what materials Es.KHUBED should use is detail, it includes the number of
materials.But Es.KHUBED needs and the ways to get these materials. So MECC need
to told Es.KHUBED the price of material.
2.2 Client Brief Compliance

The client brief need a vehicle to be constructed such that it is capable of being
tested by rolling down a slope between 30-45 degrees for 2 meters, and falling
4
through a vertical drop of 1 meter without sustaining any significant damage.
Es.KHUBED are better to make a cheap, ease of manufacture, low weight and
energy efficiency vehicle .In addition , all materials can be buy in the local area.
2.3 Questions And Solution

Es.KHUBED and MECC already meeting on time. So Es.KHUBED had been write
down the meeting minutes as well. It is include three points.
1 . Understanding and clarifying M.E.C.C.s requirements, as well as their
tender criteria
All contractors of Es.KHUBED agreed that they understood M.E.C.Cs
requirements and their tender criteria.
2. Going through MECC design package of the Mars Rover in detail, and went
through the design clearly step by step.

3. Exchanging of Communication
Designers of M.E.C.C. and contractors of Es.KHUBED have decided to either use email
or sms to communicate with one another
3.0 Criteria
Please note that in answering this tender, the criteria have been listed in italics and
then the Es.KHUBED response follows in normal text.
3.1 Communication
Es.KHUBED and MECC need to submit weekly progress report on time. This
report need to include what has been complete during this week, how much time
has been spent, and write down what will be finish on next week. The important
thing that each company need to reply message and email on time, as quick as
possible within 3 hours.
Es.KHUBED company already use Whatapp for communication, and every group member
reply on time.
3.2 Safety
Before the beginning of build the Mars Rover vehicle, all of Es.KHUBED contractors
5
understand the hazards for work environment and know ways to preventing it. All of
Es.KHUBED contractors have person protection requirement, such as safety boots,
safety glasses and long sleeve shirts and pants.
3.3 Professionalism
3.3.1 Meeting Attendance
During the stage 2 of course. Es.KHUBED and MECC need to have two or more
meeting for construct the Mars Rover. Meeting will discuss the ways to construct the
project and clearly follow the design package of MECC.
3.3.2 Teamwork
Teamwork is essential for two company. The 3.1 introduce communication way by
contractors and designers.
3.4 Experience
Experience is a good way to prove the contractors has construction qualification.
Furthermore, it is clearly that understanding all of contractors and designers work
skill level. Example of woodwork, metal work or build some project before.
3.5 Certification and Capability

The obtaining of a relevant quality accreditation indicates to the client, MECC, that
the tenderer holds quality, responsibility and repeatability in high regard. According
to course standard, every tenderer already pass the stage 1 course, such as
Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry. Furthermore, all of Es.KHUBED contractors sign
in the Engineer of Australia
Es.KHUBED must show they have sufficient, suitably trained staff to complete the
project. And Es.KHUBED has much experience in the build the vehicle. Such as wood
work.
6
4.0 Appendix
4.0.1 Appendix
It is appendix of meeting minutes about meeting of Es.KHUBED and MECC
7
8
4.0.2 Appendix
It is appendix of Es.KHUBED communication by whatapp.
9
10
11
12
13
4.0.3 Appendix
It is tools of Es.KHUBED contractor.
4.0.4 Appendix
It is safety requirement of Es.KHUBED contractor
14
15
Appendix E Email Communication with Scope Engineering regarding Wheel design
Appendix F Late submission of Red Planet Industries to M.E.C.C.
Appendix G Meeting with Red Planet Industries Confirmation

Final Eval Sub Stage 2-Min

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Final Eval Sub Stage 2-Min

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

2017

Designers Tender Evaluation

Tenderer Percentage Mark

1. Understanding the Design Brief as detailed by EMPACT.

Scope Engineering (Appendix B)

Red Planet Industries

Red Planet Industries make no references to a review of the construction method or

Es.KHUBED makes no reference to reviewing the construction methods or stipulated

Criteria Title Criteria Summary Scope Red Plant Es.KHUBED

Scope have thoroughly addressed both criterion in Project management. They

Because of our company hierarchy, Scope Engineering is excellent at delegating tasks

Red Planet Industries has shown evidence of the completion of a formal

*No GANTT Chart is included in the tender as requested by the TEC*

*No GANTT Chart was submitted at all*

Pilot Hole Drilling

Gluing and Screwing the Frame

Creating channels in the side of the frame

Gluing Foam Pool Noodle to 3D printed Rim

Cutting Threaded Rod

1. Secure rod to a work bench using a clamp when cutting.

Attach Wheel assembly

M2 Washers inch (8 Qty) $0.04 each, $0.10 each

a. Obtain materials {Frame}, 4x {Wheel}.

4. Water bottle installation

a. Obtain materials {Rover}

Distance Measurements (Figure 1.a)

Visual Inspection (Figure 2.a)

Axle and Wheel installation

Distance measurements (Figure 3.a)

Shows no Shows a 25% Shows a 50% Shows a 75% Shows a

Does not submit Submits in Submits in Submits GANTT Submits GANTT

Punctuality to meetings is extremely important as wasting each others time is of no benefit to

Does not attend meeting, Is unable to attend but Arrives at Arrives at

No completion of risk management plans Completion of all risk management plans

Marks awarded for;

Marks awarded for;

Tender Evaluation Criteria Marks

Calculus for Engineers Mid Sem Individual

Mechanics Lab 2 Individual

Calculus Workshop Assesment 3 Individual

Programming Quiz 2 Individual

Calculus Workshop Assesment 4 Individual

Programming Mid Sem Individual

Mechanics Lab 3 Individual

Calculus Lab Assesment Individual

CTA Design Package Review Contractors

CTA Executive Summary Contractors

DTE Executive Summary Designers

DTE Reflection of Design Package Designers

Evaluation of Tender Applications Designers

Weekly Progress Reports Josh

Engineering Identity Reflection Group

Peer Presentation Feedback Individual

Prototype Testing Individual

Oral Presentation Individual

Final Reflection Individual

Design Company: M.E.C.C

2.0 | Design Package Review

2.1 | Understanding of the Design Brief

2.4 | Addressing of Concerns with M.E.C.C.s Design

2.5 | Addressing of Concerns with M.E.C.C.s Construction Methods

3.1 | Project Management

Mitigating Delay in the The team members of Scope Engineering are no

No GANTT Chart is included in the tender as requested by the TEC

No GANTT Chart was submitted at all