Tender Evaluation

Mars Rover
Company Name: Nikola
Client: EMPACT
Tender company: Flash, Windex and Glasses Republic
Date: 10th May 2017
Submitted by: Andrew Sherard Ocampo Dela Cruz

1
Executive Summary
This document contains the tender evaluations for the tender applications proposed and
prepared by the following companies, Windex, Glasses Republic and Flash. The evaluations
conducted on the three company applications were arranged under the guidelines of the
Tender Evaluation Criteria (TEC) as shown in Appendix Four of Stage 1 Design Package. A
company will be selected based on the grading from the evaluation.
After the assessment of the three tenders, Team Flash has been elected as the superior
company. The percentage marks are as follows:

Tenderer Percentage Mark

Flash 75%
Glasses Republic 55%
Windex 30%

The company, Flash is ranked first due to their appeasing tender. They were able to provide
much evidence. The criteria was answered quite comprehensively with a good command in
language skills. Judging from their well put application, this company has very well
organized and competent members. Due to lack of detail and costing within their minutes of
meeting, they were unable to obtain a perfect score in the evaluation though still the most
suitable company.
The company, Glasses Republic was far more lacking in terms of data and documentation
regarding their claims. This makes them less reliable although they were able to manage their
time wisely and were quick with replies as well as easy to converse with, making them the
second best choice.
The company, Windex has proved that they are quite a skilful company although they
performed quite poorly due to the lack of details among other necessary things that were not
provided. They were also unable to satisfy the criteria resulting in them landing the last
position.

Lastly, Flash is the most favored company by the designers of Nikola as well as the company
most suitable to cooperate with on the production of Nikolas Rover. Glasses Republic would
make for a sufficient team although not as much as that of Flash while Windex only meet the
bare minimum of the designers expectations.

2
Table of contents
1.0 Introduction.4
2.0 Tender Reflection5
3.0 Tender Evaluations
3.1 Evaluation for Team Flash...6
3.1.1 Understanding of the design
3.1.2 Time Management
3.1.3 Cost
3.1.4 Communication
3.1.5 Team Responsiveness
3.2 Evaluation for Team Windex6-7
3.2.1 Understanding of the design
3.2.2 Time Management
3.2.3 Cost
3.2.4 Communication
3.2.5 Team Responsiveness
3.3 Evaluation for Team Glasses Republic7
3.3.1 Understanding of the design
3.3.2 Time Management
3.3.3 Cost
3.3.4 Communication
3.3.5 Team Responsiveness
4.0 Tender Evaluation Summary..8
5.0 Summary.9
6.0 Appendix
6.1 Appendix One - Flash Tender Application ....10-32
6.2 Appendix Two - Windex Tender Application ...33-49
6.3 Appendix Three - Glasses Republic Tender Application ......50-56
6.4 Appendix Four Design Package ......57-80
6.5 Appendix Five Supporting Evidence ......81-84

3
1.0 Introduction

This document contains the evaluated tender applications proposed by companies,

Windex, Glasses Republic and Flash. The evaluation was strictly conducted under the
guidelines of the Tender Evaluation Criteria found within Appendix Four of the Design
Package provided in Stage 1. The company which is able to score the highest grade from
the evaluation will elected.

Following the revision of all submitted tender applications, Flash has been elected as
the most qualified tenderer. After evaluating the three tenders, Team Nikola chose Team
Flash as the most suitable tenderer. The percentage marks given to each company are as
follows:

Tenderer Percentage Mark

Flash 75%
Glasses Republic 55%
Windex 30%

This document will include the evaluation of the tender applications submitted by the
three companies as well as the review regarding the companies responses toward the
tender criteria.

4
2.0 Tender Reflection
2.1 Tender Reflection for Flash
Flash had three different additional propositions in regards to Nikolas current design. Their
first proposal was to install a rounded pipe on both sides of the main body through soldering
in an attempt to eliminate risks of the load falling from either end of the Rover. Although this
proposal has its benefits, it is not very economical. Further discussions may aid in finding a
solution here.
Their second proposal was to line and cover the wheels using balloons in order to increase
resistance as well as the friction between the wheels and the ground. Quite an innovative
suggestion which will surely be discussed further in the future.
Lastly, they proposed the idea of increasing the size of the rear wheels as to help the Rover
tilt backwards as opposed to tilting forward and risking a head on collision potentially
damaging the load. The designers of Nikola have previously gone over this earlier with a
solution of their own by shifting the load toward the back effectively increasing the weight of
the rear. This proposal by Flash will still surely be considered.
2.2 Tender Reflection for Windex
Windex suggested that we be brief with our summary and commented on the lack of a list of
tools that we intend to be used. They also chose not to make any comment on the design. We
have acknowledged our mistake and will make sure to avoid similar problems in the future.
2.3 Tender Reflection for Glasses Republic
Glasses Republic came up with the proposal to increase the number of bolts used to secure
the wheels and axles from one to two on each side. This was quite thoughtful and will be seen
as an improvement to our current design. The members of Glasses Republic have also
expressed their desire to conduct more meetings with our designers in order to familiarize
themselves with our design better.

5
3.0 Tender Evaluations
3.1 Tender evaluation for Flash
3.1.1 Understanding of the Design
Flash has shown that they are capable of understanding our design with ease as two of their
members are part of the IEEE and Curtin Civil Society clubs as shown in Appendix One.
They have shown that their contractors are more than capable and would be very important
assets to this company.
3.1.2 Time Management
Flash was not able to provide sufficient detail within their minutes of meeting and took some
time to submit the minutes of meeting as well. They have proven that they could finalize the
prototype during the stage one process as well. They have expressed how they intend to
manage their time through their Gantt chart, discussions were made to improve the chart as
well.
3.1.3 Cost
Flash provided evidence such as their own companys costing for their design and recycled
materials included and not to mention the cost reductions show in Appendix One.
3.1.4 Communication
Flash had a good command in English and language skills during previous meetings held.
Their contractors expressed effective communication skills. The necessary data was also
provided in Appendix One.
3.1.5 Team Responsiveness
Members of Flash were able to provide proof of their quick responses to any enquiries in
Appendix One thus fulfilling this criterion.

3.2 Tender evaluation for Windex

3.2.1 Understanding of the Design
Besides a certificate of manufacturing and repair, the company of Windex was unable to
provide any solid proof of their capability. It will not be sufficient to fulfil this criterion.
3.2.2 Time Management
Windex was tasked to accomplish a task before the deadline but was not able to provide proof
of this besides proof of their meeting starting on time from the minutes, this is not enough to
fulfil this criteria and will therefore be unaccepted.

3.2.3 Cost

6
Windex was able to obtain cheaper material effectively aiding in cost reduction. A certificate
of commerce was also provided which proves they can manage a budget as well. This
criterion is fulfilled.
3.2.4 Communication
Windex created a Whatsapp group as a platform to communicate with team members and
designers from Nikola, proof was shown by a picture though one Designer, namely Nikhita
was not added into the group. It may have been due to adding an incorrect number as shown
in Appendix Two.
3.2.5 Team Responsiveness
There was a lack of evidence regarding their completed tasks. Because it is unsupported, this
criterion is not fulfilled.

3.3 Tender evaluation for Glasses Republic

3.3.1 Understanding of the Design
Glasses Republic was unable to provide any evidence to back their claims of being able to
understand our design. This criterion has been left unfulfilled.
3.3.2 Time Management
No proof was provided to back their claims of their proper time management. Glasses
Republic was successful in completing the task assigned to them before the deadline.
3.3.3 Cost
Lack of information and evidence regarding contact details of merchants.
3.3.4 Communication
Although there is another lack of evidence, based on previous meetings with Glasses
Republic, we can be sure that they have a good comprehension over how we want the design
to be constructed as well as being cooperative. Marks will be given.
3.3.5 Team Responsiveness
Proof has been omitted here as there is no way to back their claims of maintaining a
professional attitude when it comes to team responsiveness. There was no proof to show that
they could complete tasks before their respective deadlines as well so this criterion has not be
fulfilled.

7
4.0 Tender Evaluation Summary
The following table illustrates the summary of the grading done for the three tenders submitted.
Table 1: Tender Evaluation Summary

Criteria Table Criteria Details Flash Windex Glasses

Republic
Understanding Prove comprehension over design 20/20 0/20 0/20
the Design
Time Accomplish tasks before respective 0/20 0/20 20/20
Management deadlines
Cost Ensuring cost is below the budget cap 20/20 15/20 15/20
Communication Replying the emails or texts within an 15/20 15/20 10/20
amount of time
Team Quick responses to enquiries 20/20 0/20 0/20
Responsiveness
Total 75/100 30/100 55/100

8
5.0 Summary
In summary, Flash comes in first having contributed the most remarkable tender application,
with a score of 75%. A truly capable and trustworthy group of individuals make up their company.
Whereas Glasses Republic submitted a decent tender application and shows much potential. Windex
is slightly overshadowed by the other two companies and may prove difficult to work with although
still capable of working harder.

9
 6.0 Appendix

6.1 Appendix One

Flash Tender Application

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
 6.2 Appendix Two
Windex Tender Application

33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
 6.3 Appendix Three
Glasses Republic Tender Application

50
51
52
53
54
55
56
6.4 Appendix Four
Design Package

57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
 6.5 Appendix Five
Supporting Evidence

81
82
83
84