Faculty of Engineering and Science

Engineering Foundations: Principle and Communication

Instaber
Tender Submission Review

Client : EMPACT

Project : Mars Lander

Date : 29/4/2017

Revision :A

Group : 3B

Written by : Junie Yu

Miri ID : 700016353

Perth ID : 19104302

1
Contractors companies :

Timothys Enterprise (7A) Contractor: Kenny Ngu (700019442)

Chin Jun Yee (700016988)
Izaan Johaan bin Salleh (700015892)
Osas Enterprise (7B)

Contractor: Chang Xin Xiong (700016992)

Ezrah Apoi Roland (700019719)

ATOMIC Enterprise (6E)

Contractor: Alan Yung (700019185)
Thian Jia Jia (700018827)
Lim Wen Yao (700018474)

2
Executive Summary:
This document is to evaluate the tender submission (Appendix D, E & F) submitted by
Timothys Enterprise, Osas Enterprise and ATOMIC Enterprise based on the Tender Evaluation
Criteria (TEC) that stated in our company, Instaber Design Package(Appendix G). We expected the
company to be passion in working together, experience in construction, be punctual, communicate
well in English, reply message quickly, fully understand our design and able to reduce the cost of
prototype.

After analyze the three tender submissions (Appendix D, E & F), Instaber has selected
Timothys Enterprise as the winning tenderer. The ranking is listed below in a table with score
weighing:

Ranking Companies Score (20%)

1 Timothys Enterprise 17
2 Osas Enterprise 12
3 ATOMIC Enterprise 9

The Timothys Enterprise is ranked as the first position because Timothys Enterprise fulfilled
the Tender Evaluation Criteria with solid reasons and evidence. Timothys Enterprise contractor
provided certificates related to TEC to prove that their company is capable to construct the prototype.
They also provided the evidence required by the TEC. The company suggested some weakness of the
design and provided a reliable solution to the problems. They also came before the time to every
meeting. They response the email and messages very quickly showed that they are enthusiastic to
work with us. Timothys Enterprise provided the strongest proof of experience in handlings tools and
materials which is outstanding. Timothys Enterprise also has the most understanding of Instabers
design package so they should be faster in constructing our prototype compared to other 2 companies.
Timothys Enterprise deducted some marks due to lack evidence for their teamwork and the
reduction in cost of the prototype.

Osas Enterprise score 12 out of 20% which is good enough, they provided strong evidence for
punctuality and also communication in English language. They show their excellent teamwork. They
cannot get higher mark due to weak evidence of experience in handling tools and material. Moreover,
the evidence is inefficiency to prove the criteria of prompt in response of email/text messages and
phone calls. There is no evidence for the reducing in cost of constructing the prototype.

ATOMIC Enterprise performed weakly in the tender submission. Their tender is lack of
evidence, cannot prove their ability to fulfill the TEC. They did not reduce the cost but increase the
cost of prototype. They did put effort as they scored full marks by showing their teamwork and
response fast to the text messages.

3
Table of Content:

No.Contents Page number

1 Executive Summary 3
2 Table of Content 4
3 List of Table 5
4 List of Diagram 5-6
5 1.0 Introduction 7
6 2.0 Score Weighing Summary 8
7 3.0 Tender Review 9-18
3.1 Experience in Sawing wood 9
3.2 Experience in Handling tools or materials 10
3.3 Teamwork 11-12
3.4 Punctuality 12
3.5 Communication in English Language 13
3.6 Prompt Response to Email/Test Messages/ Phone 14
Calls
3.7 Understanding of Design 15
3.8 Cost Efficiency 16
8 4.0 Evaluation of Design Package review 17
9 5.0 Summary 18
10 6.0 Appendices 19-170

4
List of Table:

Table 1.0: Companies ranking

Table 2.0: Score weighing

Table 3.0: Marking criteria of experience in sawing wood

Table 4.0: Marking criteria of experience in handling tools or materials

Table 5.0: Marking criteria of teamwork

Table 6.0: Marking criteria of punctuality

Table 7.0: Marking criteria of communication in English language

Table 8.0: Marking criteria of prompt response to email/text messages/phone calls

Table 9.0: Marking criteria of understanding in design

Table 10.0: Marking criteria of cost efficiency

List of Diagram:

Diagram 1: Demonstration of sawing wood

Diagram 2: Result slip of Pendidikan Menengah Rendah (PMR)

Diagram 3: Minute of previous meeting

Diagram 4: Attendance list of contractors

Diagram 5: Academic eRecord

Diagram 6: Email replied by contractor

Diagram 7: Summary of design package (specialist construction techniques)

Diagram 8: Draft of improvised listing

Diagram 9: Demonstration on sawing wood

Diagram 10: Woods are cut into pieces

Diagram 11: Contractor using hammer

Diagram 12: First, second, third and fourth minutes of meeting

5
Diagram 13: Attendance list of contractors

Diagram 14: Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia

Diagram 15: Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia

Diagram 16: Academic Transcript

Diagram 17: Email replied by designer

Diagram 18: Summary of design package

Diagram 19: List of alternative materials

Diagram 20: Prototype built during secondary school

Diagram 21: Week 1 minute of meeting

Diagram 22: Attendance sheets of contractor and designers

Diagram 23: Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia

Diagram 24: Academic Transcript

Diagram 25: Text replied

Diagram 26: Email replied by designer

Diagram 27: Questions answered by contractors

Diagram 28: Materials recommended

6
1.0 Introduction:
This document containing the review for 3 companies tender submissions (Appendix D,
E & F), which are Timothy Enterprise, Osas Enterprise and ATOMIC Enterprise. The marks are
given based on Tender Evaluation Criteria in the latest design package named
DESIGNPACKAGEINSTABER_Repaired (Appendix G). The first ranking will be given to the
company that fulfilled the criteria.

Timothys Enterprise has been selected as the first ranking after evaluating 3 tender
submissions (Appendix D, E and F). The ranking is listed below in a table with score weighing:

Ranking Companies Score (20%)

1 Timothys Enterprise 17
2 Osas Enterprise 12
3 ATOMIC Enterprise 9

Table 1.0: Companies ranking

Instaber seek for the most potential company with great skills to produce high quality
work and are able to build the mars lander based on the latest design package according to
some necessary criteria. The score will be given while evaluating each company. The selected
tender for this project will be the company that scoring the highest rate based on the criteria
given.

7
2.0 Score Weighing Summary:

Criteria Marks

Tender 1 Tender 2 Tender 3

Experience in sawing 2/2 1/2 1/2

wood

Experience in 2/2 1/2 0/2

handling
tools/materials

Teamwork 1/2 2/2 2/2

Punctuality 3/3 3/3 0/3

Communication in 3/3 3/3 2/3

English Language

Prompt responses of 3/3 0/3 3/3

e-mails/text
messages/phone call

Summary of Design 3/3 2/3 1/3

Package

Cost-Efficiency 0/2 0/2 0/2

Total 17/20 12/20 9/20

Table 2.0: Score weighing

8
3.0 Tender Review:
3.1 Experience in Sawing wood (2%)
Sawing wood is a very technique and important task to construct mars rover which is
mostly build by wood. Tenderers are required to have some hands-on experience and
proof it with demonstration of sawing wood or certificate of workshop that involving
sawing.
0 1 2

No evidence or proof of Partially relevant evidence Relevant evidence provided /

experience provided provided / sloppy Experience well demonstrated
demonstration.

Table 3.0: Marking Criteria of experience in sawing wood.

Timothys Enterprise:
The contractor in Timothys Enterprise has proved that he has experience in sawing
wood by giving the photo of demonstration of cutting wood (Appendix A, Diagram 1).
Timothys Enterprise is rate for 2 marks which is full marks for criteria Experience in
Sawing wood because they shows that the contractor is experience in sawing wood with
solid evidences. Timothys Enterprise fulfilled this criterion.

Osas Enterprise:
The contractor of Osas Enterprise provided some pictures which demonstrate on
sawing wood (Appendix B, Diagram 9) and wood are cut into pieces (Appendix B, Diagram
10). They mention that they learn sawing technique through Kemahiran Hidup Bersepadu
(KHB) but there is no evidence provided so 1 mark is given to Osas Enterprise.

ATOMIC Enterprise:
The contractor of ATOMIC Enterprise only provided a picture of the prototype that
build during secondary school (Appendix C, Diagram 20). This is not a strong evidence for
proving that the contractor is experience in sawing woods. It is because we cannot ensure
that the prototype was built by the contractor. However, from the picture we can see that
the prototype was constructed neatly, so ATOMIC Enterprise will have 1 mark for
experience in sawing woods.

9
3.2 Experience in Handling tools or materials (2%)
The mars rover is not only built from wood so contractors should know how to handle
different type of materials when constructing the prototype. Moreover, the contractors
should also familiar in using different tools to assembly parts of prototype together
without any damaging of materials.
0 1 2

No evidence or proof of Partially relevant evidence Relevant evidence provided

experience provided provided.

Table 4.0: Marking criteria of experience in handling tools or materials

Timothys Enterprise:
Timothys Enterprise showed that their contractors are experience in handling tools by
showing the result slip of Pendidikan Menengah Rendah (PMR) (Appendix A, Diagram 2).
The contractor scored excellent result in Kemahiran Hidup Bersepadu (KHB) unit which
can prove them have knowledge and experience in handling tools. This is due to they need
to construct a prototype individually to get the marks for PMR result. While constructing
the prototype, the contractor is using the tools and handling materials himself. In
conclusion, Timothys Enterprise also fulfilled this criterion, so they can get 2 marks out of
2 marks.

Osas Enterprise:
Osas Enterprise only showed a picture of their contractor using a hammer nailing a
wood (Appendix B, Diagram 11). However they didnt show that their contractor can using
other tools than hammer. Osas Enterprise can be concluded for providing partial relevant
evidence and got 1 mark.

ATOMIC Enterprise:
ATOMIC Enterprise used the picture of prototype (Appendix C, Diagram 20) to prove
that the contractor in their company is fulfilled the criterion of experience in handling tools
and materials. From this evidence, we do not know that the constructor of the prototype is
ATOMIC Enterprise contractor although the prototype is good in condition after
construction. ATOMIC Enterprise is given zero marks for this criterion.

10
3.3 Teamwork (2%)
Teamwork is one of the very vital points in achieving the best outcome. The contractor
should work with other contractors when facing problems and solving tasks. It is also
important teamwork can make the progress faster and smoother. Minutes of meeting
are required to proof that the members in company work together.

0 1 2

No previous minutes of Previous Minutes of meeting Previous minutes of meeting

meeting evidence provided provided with simple details provided with significant details
and relevant task distribution. and professional task distribution
between group members.

Table 5.0: Marking criteria of teamwork

Timothys Enterprise:
Timothys Enterprise provided the minute of previous meeting (Appendix A, Diagram 3).
The minute of meeting is not providing clear details. Example, for the part Suggestion to
the change on design of the prototype, the height on the side of prototype is suggested to
decrease, but they did not mention decrease the height by what amount of length. In the
other hand, they did mentioned which wood should be decreased the height. In the minutes
of meeting, all the basic details are stated such as the dead line and person responsible.
Next, the minute of meeting did not have task distributions among their contractors. This
showed that their company contractors are lack of teamwork. Timothys Enterprise is been
given 1 mark because the minute of meeting contained simple details of meeting.

Osas Enterprise:
Osas Enterprise inserted first, second, third and fourth minutes of meeting (Appendix B,
Diagram 12) in their tender submission. From the minutes of meeting, we can clearly know
that the tasks were distributed well among the team members every week. This proved
that the company having the teamwork aspect. They also show significant details and
professional task distribution. For example, throughout the process of designing a mars
lander, each of the team members are been given tasks such as research for the car design,
construction materials and safety aspects. The company is able to use the manpower wisely
in order to strive for effective progress. Two marks are been given to Osas Enterprise for
having excellent teamwork in their company.
ATOMIC Enterprise:
Although ATOMIC Enterprise provided the first week minute of meeting (Appendix C,
Diagram 21) only, they showed their teamwork. They arranged a schedule for the
chairperson and secretary for every week of meeting. This allowed every member in the
company experience the job of chairman and secretary. Then, the tasks were evenly
distributed among the team members. All the tasks were mentioned with basic details such
as the dead line is all stated and the person responsible is listed in the minute of meeting.
11
 They also stated the task with significant details, the research for car design; safety
procedure, materials used and budget are clearly stated. 2 marks are given to ATOMIC
Enterprise.

3.4 Punctuality (3%)

Contractors should be punctual and should not procrastinate the task been given so
contractor can complete construct the prototype within dead line. Moreover, contractor
should complete as fast as possible so prototype can be modify if prototype does not
work. The punctuality of a contractor can be seen through small task such as attending
meeting on time. Attendance list with designers signature is needed to prove this
criterion. The attendance lists will only be sign if the contractors come on time.
0 1 2 3

Contractors do not Contractors arrive 15 Contractors arrive 5- Contractors are punctual

show up to minutes late or longer 15 minutes late and on time to meetings
meetings

Table 6.0: Marking criteria of punctuality

Timothys Enterprise:
From the attendance list (Appendix A, Diagram 4), we knew that the three contractors
come on time for the meeting. This shows the punctuality of contractors, so 3 marks are
given to Timothys Enterprise.
Osas Enterprise:
The two contractors of Osas Enterprise also come on time for meeting. It is proved by
the attendance list (Appendix B, Diagram 13) signed by our company designer, Yii Xin. 3
marks are also given to Osas Enterprise.

ATOMIC Enterprise:
ATOMIC Enterprise provided an attendance sheet of 2 meetings (Appendix C, Diagram
22) but without any of our company designers signature so 0 marks are given to ATOMIC
Enterprise because we could not confirm that the contractors really come on the time
during the meeting that stated in the attendance sheet.

12
3.5 Communication in English Language (3%)
English is the language which uses to communicate each other. A good English
communication is needed to express ideas and comments throughout the construction
of prototype so there is no misunderstanding between contractors and designers.
Certificate of result in English language required to prove good standard of English
communication skills of contractors.
0 1 2 3

Unable to provide O-level/SPM O- O-level/SPM/UEC/STPM

evidence of /UEC/STPM English level/SPM/UEC/STP English Language >=
certification of any Language >= 50% M English 70%
sort. Language >= 60%
Foundation ECS & Foundation ECS &
WRS >= 50% Foundation ECS & WRS >= 70%
WRS >= 60%

Table 7.0: Marking criteria of communication in English language

Timothys Enterprise:
The results for Foundation Effective Communication Skills and Writing and Research
Skills of the contractor is more than 70% (Appendix A, Diagram 5). The excellent result
proved that the contractor is able to speak and write in excellent English. 3 marks are able
to be given to Timothys Enterprise.

Osas Enterprise:
Osas Enterprise provided 2 Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (Appendix B, Diagram 14 and 15)
and 1 Academic Transcript (Appendix B, Diagram 16). From these certificates, the English
results are all more than or equal to 70% which fulfilled the 3 marks criteria. The
contractors are fluent in English Language. Full marks are given to Osas Enterprise for
Communication in English Language criterion.

ATOMIC Enterprise:
From Appendix Q and R, the results of Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (Appendix C, Diagram 23)
and Foundation (Appendix C, Diagram 24) for English Language which are English, Effective
Communication Skills and Writing and Research Skills, only more than 60%. It is slightly
poor compare to other companies. 2 marks are given to ATOMIC Enterprise.

13
3.6 Prompt Response to Email/Test Messages/Phone Calls (3%)
Communication now a day is through e-mails, phone calls or text messages. It is more
benefic if contractors replied as soon as possible. For example, if there is an urgent
change must be done. Evidence such as photo of replied emails, text message or phone
calls with time mentioned. There is no phone call between designers and contractors.
0 1 2 3

Takes more than 24 Replies within 24 Replies within 12 Replies within 6 hours or
hours reply emails hours or less hours or less less
or no response at
Replies texts in 45
all Replies texts in 30 Replies texts in 15
minutes or less
Replies texts in an minutes or less minutes or less
hour or less
Answers phone within
Answers phone Answers phone within a
Does not pick up 3 calls or less
within 2 calls or less single call
phone / does not
answer back after
multiple calls

Table 8.0: Marking criteria of prompt response to email/text messages/phone calls

Timothys Enterprise:
The photo (Appendix A, Diagram 6) showed the time replied by contractor is within 6
hours. The designer sent the email at 2:33 p.m. on 10 April 2017, the contractor replied at
8:27 p.m. on 10 April 2017. This means that the designers can approach the contractors in
short time. 3 marks are given to Timothys Enterprise.

Osas Enterprise:
The evidence given by Osas Enterprise is not accepted as the photo (Appendix B,
Diagram 17) is showing the email replied by designer of Instaber, not the contractor of
their company. No marks are given to Osas Enterprise in the reason of no evidence proving
the contractor actively respond to communication through email and text message.

ATOMIC Enterprise:
The email is replied by the designer of Instaber, so the evidence is not accepted
(Appendix C, Diagram 26). However, the text replied within 15 minutes which the text is
replied at 1:32 p.m. (Appendix C, Diagram 25) is only needed less than 1 minute for the
contractor to reply the text. 3 marks are given to ATOMIC Enterprise.

14
3.7 Understanding of Design (3%)
The contractor should also fully understand the design of our company and the purpose
of each design in order to produce a prototype in good condition and within short time.
The contractor should know every details of design and a summary for the specification
section of our company design package is required as evidence. The contractor also
should able to answer the designer questions if they fully understand the design
package.
0 1 2 3

No summary Summary is Summary well Summary well

presented/ unable presented poorly. presented. Questions presented. Questions
to answer any Questions are answered poorly well-answered.
question. answered poorly

Table 9.0: Marking criteria of understanding in design

Timothys Enterprise:
Timothys Enterprise giving a details and complete summary of design package
(Appendix A, Diagram 7). From the summary of design package, we can know that
Timothys Enterprise fully understand our design package (Appendix G) and fulfilled the
requirement of Instaber. 3 marks are been given.
Osas Enterprise:
Osas Enterprise has provided a summary of design package (Appendix B, Diagram 18).
The summary of design package is containing fewer details which in the paragraph three,
the dimensions of woods are not mentioned so 2 marks are given.
ATOMIC Enterprise:
ATOMIC Enterprise only answers the three questions asked by designers (Appendix C,
Diagram 27) but without a summary of design package. This cannot prove that the
contractor clearly understand our design. So 1 mark is given to ATOMIC Enterprise.

15
3.8 Cost Efficiency (2%)
Contractor should able to reduce the budget of the prototype by using recycled
materials or cheaper price but same type of materials to construct a prototype. The
prototype also can be modified without any big changes. The price can be proved with
receipt.
0 1 2

No Cost of materials lowered by Materials are

changes/improvisation in a small margin substituted/improvised. Cost of
materials. Budget remains materials are significantly
unchanged. lowered

Table 10.0: Marking criteria of cost efficiency

Timothys Enterprise:
Timothys Enterprise given an improvised list (Appendix A, Diagram 8), there are some
reducing in budget but there is not proof so 0 mark is given in this criteria.
Osas Enterprise:
Osas Enterprise also giving a list of alternative materials (Appendix B, Diagram 19) but
there is no proof so 0 marks are given.
ATOMIC Enterprise:
ATOMIC Enterprise suggested some recommended materials (Appendix C, Diagram 28)
but the material is expensive than original material and the nails are sale in ton so the
suggestion are not effective and rejected. 0 marks are given.

16
4.0 Evaluation of Design Package Review
Timothys Enterprise:
Timothys Enterprise showed their understandings about the Instabers design package
(Appendix G) through writing a review. Timothys Enterprise review has a small mistake that
they stated the height of prototype is 59mm, they only measure the height of wood but not
counted the height of nail and wheel. (Appendix D, 2.1 Understanding Design Package)
Timothys Enterprise know well about material type and dimensions, they suggested that the
wire clip is too loose for the axles so they want to replace with 8mm wire clip. The company
also suggested to replace the wheel with a condensed milk can as they think the Mr Brown
steel can cannot withstand the free fall when carrying load. (Appendix D, 2.2 Concerns and
Solution)

Osas Enterprise:
Osas Enterprise fully understands the design package and client required as they
mentioned that the load should be seen through 360. They suggested to reduce the height of
the prototype which already changed. Osas Enterprise also fully understands the procedure of
design package as they concerned about the edge of the can is grinded or not. They
recommended to grinded the edge to prevent injury. (Appendix E, 2.3 Concerns and Solutions)

ATOMIC Enterprise:
ATOMIC Enterprise also understand Instabers design package (Appendix G) as they
know the dimension of the prototype and the client requirement. They stated the load has to
be seen from every angle, so the wood should be reduce from 90mm to 50mm. They also fully
understand the design of prototype and material used. ATOMIC Enterprise suggested the
wheel should change to a bigger diameter and add on sponge to reduce the probability of flip
over and damaging of prototype. They also concerned about the dimensions of the prototype
as some dimensions in design package are stated wrongly. (Appendix F 2.0 Problems and
Solutions)

17
5.0 Summary:
In summary, Timothys Enterprise has provided an excellent tender submission by
scoring an impressive score 17% out of 20%. The next recommended company is Osas
Enterprise, the company submitted an acceptable tender submission. If neither Timothys
Enterprise nor Osas Enterprise, ATOMIC Enterprise can be consider.

18
6.0 Appendices:
Appendix A: Evidence from Timothys Enterprise

Diagram 1: Demonstration of sawing wood

Diagram 2: Result slip of Pendidikan Menengah Rendah (PMR)

19
20
Diagram 3: Minute of previous meeting

Diagram 4: Attendance list of contractors

21
Diagram 5: Academic eRecord

22
Diagram 6: Email replied by contractor

23
Diagram 7: Summary of design package (specialist construction techniques)

24
Diagram 8: Draft of improvised listing

25
Appendix B: Evidence from Osas Enterprise

Diagram 9: Demonstration on sawing wood

Diagram 10: Woods are cut into pieces

26
Diagram 11: Contractor using hammer

27
28
29
30
31
Diagram 12: First, second, third and fourth minutes of meeting

32
Diagram 13: Attendance list of contractors

Diagram 14: Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia

33
Diagram 15: Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia

Diagram 16: Academic Transcript

Diagram 17: Email replied by designer

34
Diagram 18: Summary of design package

Diagram 19: List of alternative materials

35
Appendix C: Evidence from ATOMIC Enterprise

Diagram 20: Prototype built during secondary school

36
37
Diagram 21: Week 1 minute of meeting

38
Diagram 22: Attendance sheets of contractor and designers

39
Diagram 23: Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia

Diagram 24: Academic Transcript

Diagram 25: Text replied

40
Diagram 26: Email replied by designer

Diagram 27: Questions answered by contractors

41
Diagram 28: Materials recommended

42
Appendix D: Tender
submission of
Timothys Enterprise
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
Appendix E: Tender
submission of Osas
Enterprise

63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
 Appendix F: Tender
submission of ATOMIC
Enterprise

81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
Appendix G:
Design
Package

116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170