Finished Tender Evaluation Application

Tender Submission
Tender Evaluation: Xer0n Inc.

Client: EMPACT
Project: Mars Rover
Date: 19/04/2017
Revision: D
Designers: Benjamin Eiszele, Alexander Vermeulen and Rylan Meisinger

Contractors: Fynn Andrews, Jacob Sheets and Vincent Dalstra
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This tender submission document is written on the behalf of M.A.R.S. to represent the skills and
requirements required by Xer0n Inc. acting on the behalf of the client EMPACT. The purpose of this
document is to demonstrate that M.A.R.S. has a comprehensive understanding of both the design and
construction method indicating that is it the most suitable and appropriate candidate for the
construction of Xer0n Mars Rover.
As stated in Xer0ns Design Package, tenderers will be evaluated in their compliance to the six tender
evaluation criterions. Upon analysis, M.A.R.S. believes that it not only complies and addresses this
criteria, but also excels in many aspects making it the most suitable tenderer. M.A.R.S remains an
cooperative and unified body allowing us to excel in areas of organisation and management. With
specific members allocated specific rolls evenly, M.A.R.S has managed to progress as a company
with relative ease. Members are constantly aware of the forthcoming goals and objectives and in turn,
will successfully meet any deadlines prescribed. Evidence of our companys organisation and
management is provided.
In addition, M.A.R.S. works in a professional manner and to the utmost of quality. Two of our
members are currently employed under scholarships and hence reinforce our focus on professionalism
and quality. Amongst other documentation revealing our professional demeanour, the evidence of the
quality enforced by our company is evident by the projects we individually pursue. Similarly, the
communication between the designing company and M.A.R.S. serves as a portrayal of the formal and
professional manor our company embodies.
M.A.R.S. demands within its members a level of communication that allows us to converse
effectively and efficiently. Many communication methods allow us to have a firm understanding of
what each member is currently completing and/or pursuing. Additionally, our external company
communication is exceptional in the way we consistently communicate with our partners to guarantee
both parties have a firm understanding of the projects ahead. In turn, M.A.R.S. remains a unified body
who meets the 24-hour requirement as stated in the tender criteria and evidence is provided of the
communication methods our company uses.
M.A.R.S. remains to be an educated and innovative company who through dedication have managed
to complete our projects and documents with a high level of academic excellence. Reinforcing the two
members currently pursuing employment scholarships, two of our other members have previously
completed research projects and evidence of these projects can be found within this document. These
research projects demand a level of dedication and innovation that reflects how these characteristics
are presented at our company.
In collaboration to the academic excellence our company embodies, M.A.R.S. also has previous
experience in off-the-plans construction. Exceeding the requested experience in the criteria, our
company has two members whom have previously been involved in furniture assembly and the
construction of outdoor objects such as a bird aviary and a shed. Evidence of both projects is available
within the document.
Within M.A.R.S., 4 out of the 6 employees have previous woodworking experience with one member
recently completing a unit in Design and Technology in collaboration with Woodwork, evidence is
provided. Complements of the woodworking experience, our employees have a wide arrange of
experience using not only simple hand tools as required within your design, but also heavier
machinery excelling out companys image. M.A.R.S. has more than ample experience in construction
compelling it to be the most suitable tenderer.
The employment of M.A.R.S. brings with it the professional and organised demeanour, academic
excellence and experience Xer0n Inc. desires within their Tender Evaluation Criteria and hence
should be deemed the most suitable tenderer for the Xer0n Inc. Mars Rover.
CONTENTS
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ 2
1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 6
2.0 Design Package Review .............................................................................................................. 6
2.1 Understanding Of Design........................................................................................................ 6
2.2 Client Brief Compliance ......................................................................................................... 6
2.3 Concerns and Solutions........................................................................................................... 7
3.0 Criteria ........................................................................................................................................ 8
3.1 Organisation ............................................................................................................................ 8
3.2 Professionalism ....................................................................................................................... 8
3.3 Communication ....................................................................................................................... 8
3.4 Innovation & Research............................................................................................................ 9
3.5 Basic Experience ..................................................................................................................... 9
3.6 Relevant Education ................................................................................................................. 9
4.0 References ................................................................................................................................. 10
5.0 Appendix A.1 Weekly Meeting Agenda and Minutes ........................................................... 12
6.0 Appendix A.2 Weekly Progress Report ................................................................................. 14
7.0 Appendix B.1 Emails between Xer0n Inc. and M.A.R.S. ...................................................... 16
8.0 Appendix C.1 M.A.R.S. Facebook Group Chat ..................................................................... 16
9.0 Appendix C.2 - M.A.R.S. Google Drive Account .................................................................... 17
10.0 Appendix C.3 - M.A.R.S Wiki Page ......................................................................................... 17
11.0 Appendix D.1 Air Resistance Investigation ........................................................................... 18
12.0 Appendix D.2 Magnetic Field Strength Investigation ........................................................... 23
13.0 Appendix E.1 - Wooden Chair .................................................................................................. 25
14.0 Appendix E.2 Bird Aviary ..................................................................................................... 25
15.0 Appendix E.3 Metal Shed ...................................................................................................... 26
16.0 Appendix E.4 Work Bench .................................................................................................... 26
17.0 Appendix F.1 Year 9 Report Card Materials Technology .................................................. 27
18.0 Appendix F.2 Academic Excellence in Design and Technology Certificate ......................... 27
19.0 Appendix F.3 Year 10 Report Card Design and Technology ............................................. 28
20.0 Appendix F.4 Year 10 Report Card Woodwork ................................................................. 28
21.0 Appendix F.5 Chopping Board .............................................................................................. 29
22.0 Appendix F.6 Hinged Box ..................................................................................................... 29
23.0 Appendix F.7 Wooden Truck................................................................................................. 30
24.0 Appendix F.8 Candle Holder ................................................................................................. 30
25.0 Appendix F.9 Carbon Dioxide Racer ..................................................................................... 31
26.0 Appendix F.10 Chopping Boards........................................................................................... 31
27.0 Appendix F.11 Electric Motor ............................................................................................... 32
28.0 Appendix F.12 Wooden Shelf................................................................................................ 32
29.0 Appendix F.13 Step Stool ...................................................................................................... 33
30.0 Appendix F.14 Wooden Plane ............................................................................................... 33
31.0 Appendix F.15 Wooden Table ............................................................................................... 34
32.0 Appendix G.1 M.A.R.S. Stage One Design Package............................................................. 35
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This document entails M.A.R.S.s tender submission for the construction of EMPACTS Mars Rover.
It has been written in response to the criteria as defined by Xer0n Inc.s document Xer0n Inc Stage 1
Design Package.pdf, developed on the behalf of EMPACT.
2.0 DESIGN PACKAGE REVIEW

A design review has been executed to ensure M.A.R.S. has a full and comprehensive understanding of
the design package.
2.1 UNDERSTANDING OF DESIGN

M.A.R.S. has a firm understanding of not only the design of the rover, but also the
Construction Method stated within your Design Package. The rover body is simple to construct
however requires some precision and accuracy to ensure the orientation of the wheels is straight.
Following this, M.A.R.S. understands the construction of the rover wheels stated in your method is
ambiguous in the way that the size of the sponge used varies with difference purchases and hence
your method overcomes this issue. We also again understand accuracy is essential in the production
of the wheels as the hole that is pierced through the centre of each wheel must be straight and not
tilted. At M.A.R.S., safety is a priority and hence all members have a firm grasp of the safety
requirements required to use a hacksaw, drill, Stanley knife and skewer. During the testing phase,
M.A.R.S. has the appropriate facilities and tools to conduct such testing and hence will be able to
identify and resolve any issues exposed during the testing phase.
This design core revolves around the use of the sponge wheels which will compress under the
pressure of the fall and in turn absorb the force. As a result of this design characteristic, the rest of the
design reflects this idea. The lightweight materials used in the design in the form of the aluminium
axles and the soda bottle, reduce the weight of the prototype hence reducing the force exerted onto the
wheels upon hitting the surface after the vertical drop. The rubber band is used to prevent the water
bottle from bouncing out of the rover body after the rover has dropped.
The plastic material of the body will also absorb the force of the drop due to the flexible
property whilst also not sacrificing strength. With the vertical drop being only 1 metre in height, the
soda bottle body will be able to absorb the force and not break. The straight orientation of the wheel
alignment allows the rover to roll down the slope in the straight line.
2.2 CLIENT BRIEF COMPLIANCE

The Client Brief calls for a design that must be able to hold a full 600 mL water bottle whilst
its width and length do not overhang the boundaries of an A3 paper sheet (420mm x 297mm) and
cannot exceed a height of 210mm. The Brief also calls for the design to have at least two axles. The
dimensions of the design, evidenced by table 1, indeed meet these requirements. The design similarly
meets the requirements regarding number of axels.
Table 1: Rover Dimensions
Dimension Value (mm)

Overall Height 130
Overall Width 230
Overall Length 300
.
In terms for materials constraints, it is stated that the prototype must be designed to cost less
than $30 which was not exceeded with the total coming to $11.30 (Refer to table 2) in your design.
Although there are constraints on 3D printing, the design contains no such printing and hence will not
affect your design.
Material (Q) Cost / Unit Cost * Q Supplier

2L Soft Drink Bottle (1) $2.00 / bottle $2.00 Woolworths1
Car Washing Sponger $1.50 / sponge $3.00 Kmart2
(2)
Aluminium Rod $2.10 / metre $2.10 Bunnings3
(2*250mm x 6.3mm)
Super Glue $2.20 / 6mL $2.20 Bunnings4
Rubber Bands $2.00 / 100g $2.00 Coles5
Total Cost ($): $11.30
The Client Brief calls for the Mars Rover to be able to travel in a self-guided straight line for
2 metres, down a slope with a decline of 30-45 degrees. Following this, the prototype will be
subjected to a 1 metre vertical drop in which it must land on its wheels without any visible damage to
not only the rover but also the water bottle. Due to the straight orientation of the wheels, your design
will effectively travel in a straight line and due to the ability of the sponge to compress under
pressure, the force of the drop should be absorbed hence assuring the condition of the rover is in
optimal status.
2.3 CONCERNS AND SOLUTIONS

M.A.R.S. has three major concerns relating to the design of the Mars Rover. The first of
which comes as a result of the 30-45 degree decline the ramp will be presented at. As the water bottle
is simply resting upon the axles and it is not bound in place, it is a concern that the water bottle will
shift forwards when moving down the ramp. In addition to the wheels slightly favouring towards the
back of the rover in the design causing the weight distribution to slightly favour the front, upon the
bottle sliding forward I believe the prototype will flip once leaving the ramp. In order to fix such a
problem incurring, we suggest a simple solution of adding or essentially stuffing newspaper to the
inside of the bottle at the front. As a result, the water bottle will not be able to slide forward as it will
be stopped by the presence of the newspaper.
The second concern is that regardless of the centre of mass being in the middle of the rover,
the vehicle will land on its front axle as one metre does not provide ample falling time for the rover to
level and land on both axles. As a result, the built-in suspension of the sponge wheels will not be
fully utilised. In order to fully utilise this suspension, we suggest increasing the weight of the back of
the rover by using some sort of recycled wood of dimensions <50mm x <80mm and weight
approximately 200-300g. The dimensions correlate to the space behind the back axle meaning the
wood will not slide as it will be locked in place by the axle. As a result, we believe at M.A.R.S. that
this will force the Rover to land on both axle at the same time. During the testing phase, we will
however identify the ample mass of the counter weight to ensure the rover lands on both axles at the
same time.
The last concern M.A.R.S. has regarding your design of the rover is whether there is a
sufficient gap between the axel and the bottom of the rover. We believe that there is not ample space
and as a result upon landing, the axles will break through the bottom of the rover. As a result,
increasing the 10mm gap to 20mm will increase the amount of plastic between the axel and the
bottom to absorb the force upon landing.
3.0 CRITERIA
Please note that in answering the tender evaluation criteria stated by Xer0n, the criteria will be written
in italics and the M.A.R.S. response will follow in normal text.
3.1 ORGANISATION
It is required that the tenderer demonstrate that previous assignments were completed with adequate
organisation of team members.
Requested evidence: Xer0n. Inc will evaluate this criterion through examination of: (I) at least one
weekly meeting agenda and their minutes, and (II) any complementary evidence the tenderer wishes
to submit.
Please refer to Appendix A.1 where a copy of our Weekly Meeting Agenda and there
corresponding Minutes can be found. M.A.R.S. consistently maintains an organised and prompt
attitude towards their work and in turn, increases our efficiency. Members are aware of the goals and
objectives for not only for the forthcoming week, but the weeks and months to come. As we have
shown in Appendix A.2 the company is well aware of the weekly endeavours in our Weekly Progress
Report but Appendix G.1 contains a GANTT chart referring to our awareness of future projects and
tests.
3.2 PROFESSIONALISM
It is required that the tenderer can demonstrate that they engage in sufficient professionalism.
Requested evidence: Xer0n Inc. will evaluate this criterion through examination of the
business/communication/organisation practices of the tenderer during the tendering process.
M.A.R.S. has firm understanding that professionalism is a key factor for a projects success.
The quality of the final product is critical to M.A.R.S. and Appendix G.1 refers to the end quality and
finish we adhere to. In addition, the company members are in sync and demonstrate a professional
demeanour in which we are polite and well-spoken allowing us to competitively express our ideas and
converse between companies formally, Appendix B.1 refers to our goals in terms of professionalism
between communications. Please refer to Appendix A.2 entailing our Weekly Progress Report in
which our professional demeanour is evidenced by our lack of group issues but also our structure and
formality it is written in.
3.3 COMMUNICATION
It is required that the tenderer can demonstrate that they engage in efficient and effective
communication. A 24 hour turnaround is ideal.
Requested evidence: Xer0n Inc. will evaluate this criterion through examination of communication
practices of the tenderer during the tendering process.
M.A.R.S. recognises that communication is essential to the success of a business and hence,
completed our Stage One Design Package, Appendix G.1, with sufficient remaining time and ease.
Our company primarily uses a Facebook messaging group to converse with each other outside
meetings, however we also have a Google Drive system to share documents, individual contact details
(phone numbers, emails and Facebook accounts) to specifically communicate and separate Facebooks
groups for contractors and designers to contact one another. Evidence of such networking methods
can be found in Appendices C.1, C.2 and C.3. The 24 hour turn around on replying required by the
criteria should also be evidenced in the email communication M.A.R.S. and Xer0n Inc. have been
using to communicate.
3.4 INNOVATION & RESEARCH

It is required that the tenderer can demonstrate that previous assignments involved sufficient
innovation and dedication.
Requested evidence: Xer0n Inc. will evaluate this criterion through examination of at least two
documents evidencing technical/scientific research into a previous assignment (e.g. annotated website
link list, research findings summary).
M.A.R.S. has two students who have engaged in research assignments however evidence is
only available for one. Alexander Vermeulen was engaged in two assignments, one investigating air
resistance and one investigating magnetic field strength, see Appendices D.1 and D.2 During these
two assignments, Alexander was dedicated to conducting innovative experiments to address the thesis
at hand.
Fynn Andrews completed two assignments regarding research into wind turbine efficiency in
terms of the blades and also one focusing on air flow over model cars. Evidence for both assignments
are available upon request as that are currently unavailable. Using a smaller scale wind turbine, Fynn
tested the sizes, angles and type of blades that came to be the most efficient in producing a voltage.
During the air flow assignment, Fynn used a smoke machine to visual project the way air flows over
different model cars.
Two members of M.A.R.S. have thorough research capabilities that represent on the behalf of
M.A.R.S. the innovation and dedication our company exercises.
3.5 BASIC EXPERIENCE

It is required that the tenderer can demonstrate that at least one member of their construction team
has experience with off-the-plans construction (e.g. furniture assembly, model building).
Requested evidence: Xer0n Inc. only requires a brief description of any off-the-plans constructions
activities engaged in.
The majority of M.A.R.S. have woodworking experience that has come from school based
projects and plans. However, two of our members have experience in out of school off-the-plans
construction. Fynn Andrews has experience in furniture assembly, refer to Appendix E.1, Fynn
assembled 8 Ikea chairs using basic wood tools such as screwdrivers and wrenches. Jacob Sheets has
similarly has some off-the-plans experience in which he was involved in the construction of a bird
aviary in 2014, Appendix E.2 and has since constructed a metal shed in 2016, please refer to
Appendix E.3.
M.A.R.S. also has exposure to equipment required to build the Mars Rover whilst also having
a workshop allowing us to ensure utmost safety and precaution is maintained during construction, see
Appendix E.4.
3.6 RELEVANT EDUCATION

Xer0n Inc. will consider any relevant education of any of the tenderers construction teams members.
Relevant education includes: (I) WACE level woodworks, metalworks, robotics, or (II) non-WACE
certifications that are relevant to construction or design.
Requested evidence: Xer0n Inc. will evaluate this criterion through examination of any documents
evidencing the relevant education.
4 out of the 6 members of M.A.R.S. have exposure to woodwork education in school, Fynn
Andrews, Jacob Sheets, Benjamin Eiszele and Rylan Meisinger, refer to Appendix F.1. 4 of these
members completed Woodwork and/or Design and Technology (D&T) until year 9 with Benjamin
Eiszele getting awarded a certificate of excellence in the Design and Technology in year 8, see
appendix F.2. Please refer to Appendix F.3 and Appendix F.4 to see evidence of the last member,
Ryland Meisinger, completing Woodwork and Design and Technology until year 10. Rylan also built
an electric motor in 2016, see Appendix F.11.
During the several years of Woodworking experience, many gained exposure to tools and
machines and the safety coinciding with them. M.A.R.S. has experience using the following tools and
machines:
- Router
- Drop Saw
- Orbital Sander
- Laser Cutter
- Band Saw
- Band
- Machine Planer
- Handheld tools (screwdrivers, hammers, etc.)
Please refer to Appendices F.5 F.15 for evidence of the multiple projects completed by the
members of M.A.R.S.
4.0 REFERENCES
1. ^ https://www.woolworths.com.au/Shop/Browse/drinks/soft-drink-bottles?name=schweppes-
lemonade-bottle&productId=32634
2. ^ http://www.kmart.com.au/product/jumbo-sponge---yellow/747821
3. ^ https://www.bunnings.com.au/metal-mate-6-3mm-x-1m-aluminium-solid-rod_p1130541
4. ^ https://www.bunnings.com.au/parfix-3ml-super-glue-adhesive-2-pack_p1230050
5. ^ https://shop.coles.com.au/online/mobile/vic-metro-coburg/coles-rubber-bands-1841350p

Appendices
5.0 APPENDIX A.1 WEEKLY MEETING AGENDA AND
MINUTES
Weekly Meeting Minutes and Agenda for the 20/03/2017.
6.0 APPENDIX A.2 WEEKLY PROGRESS REPORT
Weekly progress report for the 22/03/2017.
7.0 APPENDIX B.1 EMAILS BETWEEN XER0N INC. AND
M.A.R.S.
Evidence in the form of an image of the communication between Xeron Inc. and M.A.R.S.
8.0 APPENDIX C.1 M.A.R.S. FACEBOOK GROUP CHAT

Evidence in the form of an image of the M.A.R.S. Facebook group chat
9.0 APPENDIX C.2 - M.A.R.S. GOOGLE DRIVE ACCOUNT
Image of M.A.R.S. Google Drive System that we use to share documents.
10.0 APPENDIX C.3 - M.A.R.S WIKI PAGE

Image of M.A.R.S.s wiki page revealing the transfer of phone numbers to further improve
communication.
11.0 APPENDIX D.1 AIR RESISTANCE INVESTIGATION
The beginning of Alexander Vermeulens investigation into air resistance. The rest of the document is
available upon request.
12.0 APPENDIX D.2 MAGNETIC FIELD STRENGTH
INVESTIGATION
The beginning of Alexander Vermeulens investigation into magnetic field strength. The rest of the
document is available upon request.
13.0 APPENDIX E.1 - WOODEN CHAIR
An off-the-plans chair built by Fynn Andrews.
14.0 APPENDIX E.2 BIRD AVIARY

A bird aviary built by Jacob Sheets in 2014.
15.0 APPENDIX E.3 METAL SHED
A metal shed built by Jacob Sheets in 2016.
16.0 APPENDIX E.4 WORK BENCH

The work bench used by the M.A.R.S. company.
17.0 APPENDIX F.1 YEAR 9 REPORT CARD MATERIALS
TECHNOLOGY
The report card for Fynn Andrews providing evidence of him completing Materials Technology
(Woodwork).
18.0 APPENDIX F.2 ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE IN DESIGN

AND TECHNOLOGY CERTIFICATE
A certificated awarded to Benjamin Eiszele regarding him receiving an academic excellence in
Design and Technology in year 8.
19.0 APPENDIX F.3 YEAR 10 REPORT CARD DESIGN AND
TECHNOLOGY
The report card belonging to Rylan Meisinger proving his involvement in Design and Technology.
20.0 APPENDIX F.4 YEAR 10 REPORT CARD

WOODWORK
The report card belonging to Rylan Meisinger proving his involvement in Woodwork.
21.0 APPENDIX F.5 CHOPPING BOARD
A chopping board made by Benjamin Eiszele.
22.0 APPENDIX F.6 HINGED BOX

A wooden hinged box made by Benjamin Eiszele.
23.0 APPENDIX F.7 WOODEN TRUCK
A wooden truck made by Benjamin Eiszele.
24.0 APPENDIX F.8 CANDLE HOLDER

A wooden candle holder made by Fynn Andrews.
25.0 APPENDIX F.9 CARBON DIOXIDE RACER
A carbon dioxide racer made by Fynn Andrews.
26.0 APPENDIX F.10 CHOPPING BOARDS

Chopping boards made by Fynn Andrews.
27.0 APPENDIX F.11 ELECTRIC MOTOR
An electric motor made by Rylan Meisinger in Year 12 Physics.
28.0 APPENDIX F.12 WOODEN SHELF

A wooden shelf made by Jacob Sheets.
29.0 APPENDIX F.13 STEP STOOL
A step stool made by Jacob Sheets.
30.0 APPENDIX F.14 WOODEN PLANE

A wooden plane made by Jacob Sheets.
31.0 APPENDIX F.15 WOODEN TABLE
A wooden table made by Jacob Sheets.
32.0 APPENDIX G.1 M.A.R.S. STAGE ONE DESIGN
PACKAGE
The M.A.R.S. Stage One Design Package.
Stage One Design Package
Client: EMPACT
Project: Mars Rover
Date: March 2017
Package Includes:
Package Name Package Title & Revision
Design Drawings m.a.r.s_drawings_1.05 v1.05
Specifications m.a.r.s_specs_1.05 v1.06
Risk Management Plan m.a.r.s_rmp_1.05 v1.05
Tender Evaluation Criteria m.a.r.s_tec_1.04 v1.04
GANTT Plan and Unit Plan m.a.r.s_gantt_1.03 v1.03
M.A.R.S. states that as per the EMPACT client brief, all requirements have been met as
desired in addition to all of the information required for the Mars Rover Projects design,
tendering and construction is contained within the following documents.
M.A.R.S. strictly states that all of these documents are our own work, and that there has
been no infringement upon external intellectual property nor legal breach of conduct.
Signed:
Jacob Sheets (19127260), (Contractor)
Benjamin Eiszele (19136651), (Designer)
Alexander Vermeulen (19125646), (Designer)
Fynn Andrews (19127684), (Contractor)
Rylan Meisinger (19151094), (Designer)
Vincent Dalstra (19193106), (Contractor)
P a g e |1
Table of Contents
Design Drawings ................................................................................................................................... 2

Specifications ...................................................................................................................................... 15
Risk Management Plan ....................................................................................................................... 20
Tender Evaluation Criteria .................................................................................................................. 36
GANTT Chart and Unit Plan ................................................................................................................. 51
M.A.R.S.
Design Drawings
Client: EMPACT
Project: M.A.R.S. Rover
Date: March 2017
Revision: 1.05
m.a.r.s_drawings_1.05
P a g e |3
Table of Contents
ASSEMBLED VIEW MARS ROVER 1.05..................................................................................................... 4

Top view with elastic bands .................................................................................................................... 5
Side view with elastic bands ................................................................................................................... 6
Front view with elastic bands ................................................................................................................. 7
Rover_Axle_and_Wheel_Front_and_Side .............................................................................................. 8
EXPLODED VIEW ROVER 1.05 ................................................................................................................. 9
Construction Diagram A.1 ..................................................................................................................... 10
m.a.r.s_drawings_1.05
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
A A
B B
C C
D D
E E
M.A.R.S Draw by M.A.R.S Engineers and Designers PROJECT NAME: Mars Rover
Email: Contact Details: ASSEMBLED VIEW MARS ROVER 1.05

F Mars.Engineers123@gmail.com Benjamin: 19136651@student.curtin.edu.au F
Alexander: 19125646@student.curtin.edu.au
Rylan: 191151095@student.curtin.edu.au
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT
400.00
120.00 120.00
25.40 25.40
20.70 20.70
31.83
2.00

10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 2.00

15.00
20.00
40.00
40.00
75.00 115.00
40.00
40.00
20.00
15.00
10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 2.00
2.00
6.00
12.70 12.70
120.00
120.00
115.00 220.00 65.00
Drawn by M.A.R.S. Designers: Title: Scale: Revision number:

M.A.R.S.
email:
Contact details:
Benjamin Eiszele: 19136651@student.curtin.edu.au
Top view with elastic bands 1:2 1.05
Mars.engineers123@gmail.com Alexander Vermeulen: 19125646@student.curtin.edu.au All measurements done in mm Project name: Revision date:
Rylan Meisinger: 191151095@student.curtin.edu.au M.A.R.S. rover 28/03/2017

115.00 220.00 65.00
70.00 42.50
10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00

31.83
R3.00
22.50 R5.00
45.00 45.00
22.50
90.00
R3.00
22.50 R5.00
R3.00
R5.00
22.50
R6.00 R10.35 R12.70 R60.00 R60.00 R12.70 R10.35 R6.00

M.A.R.S.
email:
Contact details:
Side view with elastic bands 1:2 1.05

40.00
20.00 20.00
22.50
22.50
120.00 25.40 20.70 90.00

12.70 22.50
22.50
75.00
115.00 15.00
2.00
173.00
Drawn by M.A.R.S. Designers Title: Scale: Revision number:

M.A.R.S.
email:
Contact details:
Front view with elastic bands 1:2 1.05

15.00 15.00
2.00 115.00 2.00
R6.35
20.70 25.40 R10.35
12.70 R12.70
R60.00
2.00 2.00
173.00
Side view
Front view

M.A.R.S.
email:
Contact details:
Rover_Axle_and_Wheel_Front_and_Side 1:2 1.05
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
4 12 22 8 13 3 11 21 7 16 14 15 6 23 20
A A
10
2
B B
17
C C
19
D 5 D
COMPONENTS LIST
9 1-8: 12 mmStandard Nut
9-12: 12 mm Standard Washer
13 : Front Block
14:Rear Block
E 1 15: Side Block 2
E
16: Side Block 1

17: Rear Axle (threaded) 12 mm
Diameter
18 18: Front Axle(threaded) 12 mm
Diameter
M.A.R.S. Drawn by M.A.R.S Engineers and Designers
PROJECT NAME: Mars Rover
19-22: Wheels 120mm Diameter
23: 6mm Diameter, 40 mm long screws
F F
email: Mars.Engineers123@gmail.com Contact Details:
Benjamin Eiszele : 19136651@student.curtin.edu.au
Alexander Vermeulen: 19125646@student.curtin.edu.au EXPLODED VIEW ROVER 1.05
Rylan Meisinger : 191151095@student.curtin.edu.au
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
400.0000

115.0000
90.0000
20.0000
75.0000
Drawn by M.A.R.S designers Project name: Scale: Revision number:

M.A.R.S.
email:
Contact details:
1:3 1.05
Mars.engineers123@gmail.com Alexander Vermeulen: 19125646@student.curtin.edu.au All measurements done in mm Drawing name: Revision date:
Rylan Meisinger: 191151095@student.curtin.edu.au Construction Diagram A.1 31/03/2017

400.0000
31.8300
22.5000
22.5000
90.0000
22.5000
22.5000
Drawn by M.A.R.S. designers Project name: Scale: Revision number:

M.A.R.S.
email:
Contact details:
M.A.R.S. rover 1:2 1.05
75.0000
65.0000
20.0000

90.0000
drawn by M.A.R.S. designers Project name: Scale: Revision number:

M.A.R.S.
email:
Contact details:
M.A.R.S. rover 1:3 1.05
Rylan Meisinger: 191151095@student.curtin.edu.au Construction Diagram A.3 31/03./2017

400.0000
17.9000
22.5000
22.5000
90.0000
22.5000
22.5000
Drawn by M.A.R.S. designers Project name: Scale: Revision number:

M.A.R.S.
email:
Contact details:
M.A.R.S. rover 1:2 1.05
20.0000

400.0000
90.0000
drawn by M.A.R.S. designers Project name: Scale: Revision number:

M.A.R.S.
email:
Contact details:
M.A.R.S. rover 1:3 1.05
M.A.R.S.
Design Specifications
Client: EMPACT
Project: Mars Rover
Date: March 2017
Revision: 1.06
m.a.r.s_design_1.06
P a g e | 16
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 17

2.0 Dimensions Summary ................................................................................................................... 17
3.0 Bill of Materials ............................................................................................................................. 17
4.0 Required Tools .............................................................................................................................. 18
5.0 Suppliers ....................................................................................................................................... 18
6.0 Construction Method .................................................................................................................... 18
6.1 Rover Body Assembly ................................................................................................................ 18
6.2 Preliminary Construction of Wheel Axle ................................................................................... 19
6.3 Final Construction of Rover and Axle ........................................................................................ 19
Index of Tables
Table 1:Dimensions Summary............................................................................................................. 17

Table 2:Bill of Materials ...................................................................................................................... 17
Table 3: Required Tools ...................................................................................................................... 18
m.a.r.s_design_1.06
P a g e | 17
1.0 Introduction
This package contains the specifications for the construction of the M.A.R.S. Rover project. Using this
document as a guide, any tendering company will be able to manufacture our M.A.R.S. Rover to the
standard and specifications required by M.A.R.S.
2.0 Dimensions Summary
The previous drawings document should be held as the definitive guide to all dimensions. A
summary of these Dimensions is held here in Table 1
Table 1:Dimensions Summary
Dimension Name: Dimension Value (mm):

Body Length 400
Body Width 115
Body Height 90
Axle Length 173
Axle Diameter 12.7
Wheel Width 15
Wheel Diameter 120
Cargo Bay Length 220
Cargo Bay Width 75
Cargo Bay Height 90
2.1 Table 1: Dimensions Summary 1
3.0 Bill of Materials

Based upon the drawing package dimensions and proposed materials, the following table has been
fashioned.
Table 2:Bill of Materials
Item Purpose No. Dimensions Cost Projection

(AUD)-(Each)
Block Wood (Pine) Front and Back Blocks 1 L:850 x H:90 x W:20
$1.53
(mm)
Main Body Sides 1 L:200 x H:90 x W:75
$1.35
(mm)
Wheels 1 L:300 x H:300 x W:15
$1.35
(mm)
Elastic Band Cargo Containment 10 W: >5mm
$0.10
D: 90mm
Craft Glue To fasten components 1 ~ 30g
$4.50
together
Steel rod - Threaded To serve as Axles 1 L: ~610 x D:12.7
$5.37
(mm)
Washers Hold Wheels 8 D: 12.7 (mm) $0.11
Bolts Fasten Wheels 8 D: 12.7 (mm) $0.14
Screws Bind together Main Body 12 D: 6 x L: 40 (mm) $0.17
Total Projected Cost: $19.14
m.a.r.s_design_1.06
P a g e | 18
3.1 Table 2: Bill of Materials 1
4.0 Required Tools

Table 3: Required Tools
Hand Drill with Bits sized to specifications

Sandpaper of Grit 100-150
PVA Glue (See suppliers list)
Handsaw
5.0 Suppliers
M.A.R.S. Recommends the suppliers Bunnings Warehouse for all components besides glue, which
can be better served by Officeworks, which has a specific glue ( J.Burrows Clear Gum Glue 125mL)
that would be ideal for our design.
6.0 Construction Method

6.1 Rover Body Assembly
i. Obtain the pieces of wood as specified in Table 2: Bill of Materials and visually
inspect for any defects. If the wood is contains any defects (knots, warping, cracks,
wormholes etc.), discard and obtain another piece of wood without any defects.
ii. Cut 2 wooden planks and 2 wooden blocks according to the dimensions given in
drawings revision 1.05 Top view with elastic bands and revision 1.05 Side view
with elastic bands ensuring that all measurements are triple checked and all cuts
are performed in an accurate manner. All sides must be straight (see Note). The two
planks must have identical dimensions and one of the two blocks must be deeper
than the other (i.e. their length and depth dimensions are the same, but one has a
greater depth dimension). Refer to construction diagrams A.1, A.2 and A.3 if
confusion arises about plank and block size.
iii. Sand any wood burrs that have formed from cutting off with a moderate grit
sandpaper (100-150).
iv. Referring to construction diagram A.1 align one of the planks up with the larger of
the two blocks and glue them together using PVA glue. Clamp the two pieces
together using a suitable wood clamp and leave the glue to dry for at least 10
minutes. After the 10 minutes has elapsed, test the join with light pressure to ensure
that the glue holds. Sand or wipe any excess glue away.
v. Drill three pilot holes (of smaller diameter than the screw diameter) in the positions
specified in construction diagram A.2, and then screw the three screws through the
plank at 90 degree angles. Ensure the depth of these holes is roughly 20mm.
vi. Referring to construction diagram A.3 align the smaller block to the other side of the
plank and glue them together using PVA glue. Clamp the two pieces together using a
suitable wood clamp and leave the glue to dry for at least 10 minutes. After the 10
minutes has elapsed, test the join with light pressure to ensure that the glue holds.
Sand or wipe any excess glue away.
vii. Drill three pilot holes (of smaller diameter than the screw diameter) in the positions
specified in construction diagram A.4, and then screw the three screws through the
plank at 90 degree angles. Ensure the depth of these holes is roughly 20mm.
viii. Align the second plank with the front and back of the construction. Attach the
second plank by mirroring the application of PVA glue followed by screwing in the
m.a.r.s_design_1.06
P a g e | 19
three screws as discussed in step iv - vii. When finished the construction should
resemble construction diagram A.5.
ix. Place the ten elastic bands around the open cavity left in the centre of the rover
body. Refer to the revision 1.05 Top view with elastic bands and revision 1.05 Side
view with elastic bands for their placement.
x. Wait 30 minutes.
xi. Referring to the drawings revision 1.05 Top view with elastic bands, revision 1.05
Side view with elastic bands and revision 1.05 front view with elastic bands drill
two holes of 13mm in radius perpendicular through the whole width of the rover.
The drawings give the placement of these holes.
Note: when referring to a straight length of wood; when it is laid on a flat surface no object taller
than half a millimetre should be able to slide underneath it on any side. Alternatively when you place
a spirit level in varying directions the bubble is located in the centre position.
6.2 Preliminary Construction of Wheel Axle

i. Obtain the pieces of wood specified in Table 2: Bill of Materials that will be used for
the wheels and visually inspect for any defects. If the wood is contains any defects
(knots, warping, cracks, wormholes etc.), discard and obtain another piece of wood
without any defects.
ii. Cut out 4 wooden wheels according to the dimensions in given in drawings revision
1.05 Top view with elastic bands and revision 1.05 front view with elastic bands.
iii. Sand any burrs that have formed from the cutting of the wheels with a moderate
grit sandpaper (100-150) to ensure that the wheels are smooth and uniform.
iv. Drill a hole through the centre of each of the four wooden wheels, according to the
dimensions given in drawings revision 1.05 Axle and Wheel Front and Side view.
v. Create two metal axles by cutting the threaded steel rod in two, according to the
dimensions in given in drawings revision 1.05 Axle and Wheel Front and Side view
for dimensions. Ensure that an appropriate hacksaw or metal cutting power tool is
used, and a steady and consistent cutting technique is used. This will ensure that the
cut is clean and the rod is able to have a nut threaded on it at a later stage.
vi. File off any burrs that have formed form the cutting of this threaded rod. This will
ensure that a nut will be able to be threaded on onto the rod at a later stage.
vii. Take one of axles and place a single washer on one side, then insert that end of the
axle through the central hole in one of the wheels, followed by one more washer.
Screw one nut loosely on the end of the threaded metal axle to prevent the wheel
from sliding off. Refer to the drawing Rover 1.05 exploded to ensure that the
correct sequence of nut, washer, wheel and then washer is used.
viii. Repeat step vii with the second axle, ensuring that when the nut is screwed on, it is
only screwed on loosely.
6.3 Final Construction of Rover and Axle

i. Insert one of the axles through one of the holes that has been drilled through the
body of the rover. Ensure that the end that does not have the nut (and wheel)
attached is inserted first.
m.a.r.s_design_1.06
P a g e | 20
ii. Referring to drawings revision 1.05 Top view with elastic bands, revision 1.05 Side
view with elastic bands and revision 1.05 front view with elastic bands, place a
washer on the end of the axle on the side that does not yet have a wheel.
iii. Referring to drawings revision 1.05 Top view with elastic bands, revision 1.05 Side
view with elastic bands and revision 1.05 front view with elastic bands, place a
wheel on the end of the axle of the same side followed by another washer.
iv. Referring to drawings revision 1.05 Top view with elastic bands, revision 1.05 Side
view with elastic bands and revision 1.05 front view with elastic bands, screw a nut
onto the threaded metal rod on the same side as above.
v. Tighten each nut on both sides as tightly as possible without damaging the wheel,
the rover body, the metal axle itself or the equipment that is used to tighten the nut.
This will ensure that the wheels will not fall off the axle when the prototype is being
tested. However, ensure that the nut is not tightened to the extent that the wheel
cannot freely rotate.
vi. Repeat step i v for the second axle, inserting it through the remaining hole.
vii. When finished the final construction should look like revision 1.05 Top view with
elastic bands, revision 1.05 Side view with elastic bands and revision 1.05 front
view with elastic bands.
m.a.r.s_design_1.06
M.A.R.S.
Risk Management Plan
Client: EMPACT
Date: March 2017
Revision: 1.05
m.a.r.s_rmp_1.05
P a g e | 21
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 22

2.0 Risk Assessment .............................................................................................................................. 22
2.1 Definition and Evaluation............................................................................................................ 22
2.2 Risk Matrix .................................................................................................................................. 22
3.0 Risk Identification, Assessment and Mitigation .............................................................................. 23
3.1 Project Design ............................................................................................................................. 23
3.2 Project Construction ................................................................................................................... 26
3.3 Project Testing ............................................................................................................................ 31
4.0 Appendices ...................................................................................................................................... 35
m.a.r.s_rmp_1.05
P a g e | 22
1.0 Introduction
The objectives of this document are identify, assess and mitigate risks during all stages of the
production of the M.A.R.S. Rover (herein defined as the Rover or the Project), to ensure safe
working practices and the timely completion of the Project. This document covers the 3 stages of the
Rovers production: design, construction and testing.
2.0 Risk Assessment

2.1 Definition and Evaluation
Any risk arising as a result of a hazard can be defined as the product of likelihood and severity. Thus
any identified risk can easily be quantified and evaluated by use of the Risk Matrix (section 2.1)
which allows for the easy comparison of the risk levels before and afterwards mitigation.
As risk is a product of likelihood and severity, it can be diminished through the reduction of either
variable. Thus for every identified risk (and its associated hazards) a suitable mitigation plan will be
determined so as to reduce the risk identified with the hazard. However, it is impossible to eliminate
completely all risk, so thus it is inevitable that residual risk will still exist. The residual risk will also
quantified and thus classified by use of the Risk Matrix, which allows for further evaluation.
In the event that after the implementation of suitable mitigation strategies the residual risk remains
above a high level (Risk -10), then the residual risk is deemed to be too great and an alternative
plan will be implemented. This alternative plan will involve the re-evaluation of every aspect of the
risk with a focus placed upon reducing and removing risk (along with the associated hazards) to
decrease the residual risk to more manageable levels. This re-evaluation process will continue until
the residual risk is reduced to a more manageable level (Risk > -10).
2.2 Risk Matrix
-20 Risk > -25 Black Extreme Risk

-10 Risk > -20 Red High Risk
-5 Risk > -10 Yellow Moderate Risk
-2 Risk > -5 Green Low Risk
-1 Risk > -2 Blue Insignificant Risk
Consequence Insignificant Minor Significant Major Severe

Severity -1 -2 -3 -4 -5
Likelihood
Rare Insignificant Low Low Low Moderate
1 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5
Unlikely Low Low Moderate Moderate High
2 -2 -4 -6 -8 -10
Possible Low Moderate Moderate High High
3 -3 -6 -9 -12 -15
Likely Low Moderate High High Extreme
4 -4 -8 -12 -16 -20
Almost Certain Moderate High High Extreme Extreme
5 -5 -10 -15 -20 -25
Severity scale values (-1 to -5) are negative because the result of an undesired incident is negative.
When multiplied by the likelihood numbers (1 to 5) the resulting Risk values are negative (-1 to -25).
m.a.r.s_rmp_1.05
P a g e | 23
3.0 Risk Identification, Assessment and Mitigation

3.1 Project Design
Hazard Risk Initial Risk Mitigation Risk after Residual Risk

Mitigation
Likelihood
Likelihood
Risk Level
Risk Level
Severity
Severity
Sickness (and the Delays in project - Uphold good hygiene standards (including - There is still the possibility to get sick,
Significant (-3)
Moderate (-9)
Minor (-2)
Low (-4)
Unlikely (2)
Possible (3)
associated reduction in completion. frequently washing hands, coughing into a however with the regular
efficiency due to tissue and maintaining a clean food implementation of the mitigation
reduced cognitive preparation space). strategies previously described, both
function). - Maintain a healthy lifestyle. the likelihood and severity of the
- If feeling unwell or displaying symptoms of residual risk are significantly reduced.
being sick stay at home and get plenty of rest.
- Have good time management skills and be
proactive in completing work before
deadlines.
- Be organised and work in an efficient
manner, minimising time-wasting and Mitigation strategies assigned to:
procrastinating. All designers and contractors.
- Technological issues - Ensure that all computers and programs used - There is still the possibility of delays
(outdated software, are fully updated. attributed to technological issues;
internet connectivity - Back up all work to an external hard copy or however by use of the mitigation
issues, power outages, alternatively to an external drive/cloud. strategies previously described, the
corrupted files). - Frequently charge devices and save at residual risk is greatly reduced.
regular intervals.
- Consider using a computer in one of the
computer labs located throughout the Curtin
University Bentley campus (buildings 303, 408,
501 and 105 levels 2 and 3) and saving work to
the shared student I: drive.
- Save a copy of each completed revision on
the M.A.R.S. Google Drive, under a folder Mitigation strategies assigned to:
labelled with the current revision number. All designers and contractors.
m.a.r.s_rmp_1.05
P a g e | 24
- Travel delays due to - Plan route in advance, allowing for possible - Due to the unpredictability of traffic
traffic congestion. travel delays due to unforeseen traffic there here is an inherent risk of delay
conditions. If necessary, plan to leave earlier in associated with travel. However with
order to allow for these possible delays. the implementation of the mitigation
- Consider public transport as a back-up plan. strategies previously described both the
- In the event of traffic delays contact a team likelihood and severity of the residual
member who will then inform the rest of the risk are significantly reduced.
group via text or in person of your
circumstances. Mitigation strategies assigned to:
All designers and contractors
- Lack of experience in Inexperience (in - Watch the instructive videos supplied by the - A lack of experience in using drawing
Minor (-2)
Moderate (-8)
Minor (-2)
Low (-4)
Unlikely (2)
Likely (4)
using CAD (computer design) CAD program developers and practice the software presents a significant risk,
aided drawing) techniques used. however by the use of the mitigation
programs. - Practice designing simple shapes and objects strategies previously described, both
to increase familiarity. the likelihood and severity of the
- Collaborate with team members regarding residual risk are greatly reduced.
the use of these programs.
- Ask questions of university staff and any
personal contacts that have experience in the Mitigation strategies assigned to:
use of CAD programs Designers (specifically Alexander and
- Budget more time when involved in drawing Benjamin they have experience in using
these technical drawings. CAD programs).
- Lack of experience in - Seek clarification from team members or - A lack of experience in understanding
technical drawing friends more experienced in CAD use, and/or the correct use of technical drawing
expectations and university staff about the appropriate expectations presents a significant risk;
guidelines. standards to use in dimensions, views, title however by the implementation of the
blocks etc. mitigation strategies previously
- Seek feedback regarding final designs in discussed, the likelihood and severity of
terms of both design and also technical the residual risk are greatly reduced.
aspects (dimensions etc.).
Mitigation strategies assigned to:
Designers (specifically Alexander and
Benjamin they have experience in using
CAD programs).
m.a.r.s_rmp_1.05
P a g e | 25
- Poor communication Poor communication - Ensure that every document has a revision - There is always an inherent risk of
Rare (1)
Major (-4)
Moderate (-8)
Insignificant (-1)
Insignificant (-1)
Unlikely (2)
regarding design and regarding design and number, and every time that a document is communication issues when working in
document changes document changes. updated (or edited) the revision number needs a group or team setting. However with
(which revision is most to be changed to reflect that the document the mitigation strategies previously
current). has been updated. described, both the likelihood and
- If an individual package of the whole design severity of the residual are greatly
package contains more than one component, reduced to an insignificant level.
and an individual component is updated, then
all the revision numbers of the other
components in that package must also be
updated. This reflects the changes made and
also reduces confusion as it indicates which
revision is the most current.
- Once a document is updated the current
(and therefore correct) revision number will
be updated on the M.A.R.S. group wiki
(accessible via Blackboard: Engineering
Foundations Principles and Communication). Mitigation strategies assigned to:
Also, each current revision of each document All designers and contractors
will be made available on the M.A.R.S. Google (specifically Benjamin, who monitors
Drive, under a folder labelled with the current the M.A.R.S. group wiki and Jacob who
revision number. monitors the Google Drive).
m.a.r.s_rmp_1.05
P a g e | 26
3.2 Project Construction

Mitigation
Likelihood
Likelihood
Risk Level
Risk Level
Severity
Severity
- Use of power tools. Injury to person - Read and understand the instruction manual - There is an inherent risk of injury when
Major (-4)
High (-12)
Unlikely(-2)
Minor (-2)
Low (-4)
Possible (3)
and warning labels for each individual power using power tools, due to the moving
tool before use. parts, vibration, electricity and possible
- Be familiarised with the function, correct safe jamming, however with the correct
use and any emergency protocols before use. implementation of the mitigation
- Operate the power tool in a safe manner, strategies previously described the
and only ever use the power tool for its likelihood and severity of the residual
intended purpose. risk are greatly reduced.
- Ensure that the switch is turned off before
plugging in the power tool, and only ever
make adjustments or corrections when the
power tool is switched off and unplugged.
- Be conscious of any moving parts and tie long
hair back, remove any jewellery and do not
wear any loose fitting clothing.
- Wear suitable personal protective equipment
(PPE), including enclosed shoes, safety glasses
and hearing protection (if necessary).
- Do not operate power tools without Mitigation strategies assigned to:
appropriate supervision. Contractors
- Equipment - Only use equipment that is in good condition. - There is still the possibility of injury by
malfunction/faulty - Inspect the equipment to make sure it is in equipment malfunction, or using faulty
equipment or good condition (ie check for frayed cords, equipment however by implementing
breakdowns. damaged parts, loose attachments etc.). the mitigation strategies previously
- Do not use equipment that has exceeded its described the likelihood and severity of
warranty as issued by the manufacturer. this risk are greatly reduced.

Contractors
m.a.r.s_rmp_1.05
P a g e | 27
-Slippery/wet floors and - Keep work station clean, clear and that the - There is an inherent risk of slipping and
tripping hazards. floor surface is dry (if the floor surface is wet, tripping (leading to injury) however
mop up and dry before commencing work). through the implementation of the
- Remove any objects that could present a mitigation strategies previously
tripping hazard. discussed the likelihood and severity of
the residual risk is greatly reduced.

Contractors
- Dust and airborne - Ensure working environment is well- - Working with power tools has an
debris/flying projectiles. ventilated. inherent risk of dust, or airborne debris
- Wear suitable personal protective equipment which could lead to injury. However
(PPE) including safety glasses, enclosed shoes with suitable mitigation strategies the
and respiratory protection (if necessary). residual risk is significantly reduced.

Contractors
- Ergonomic hazards - Take regular breaks, especially if performing - Any manual handling or physical labour
(manual handling, a repetitive action. has an associated risk of injury, however
repetitive movements - Do not overreach, or work in an awkward with the correct mitigation strategies (as
etc.). position. previously described) the likelihood and
- Use a step ladder when lifting or moving severity of this residual risk are
objects at height. significantly reduced.
- If necessary lift heavy objects with another
person, and always use a safe method of Mitigation strategies assigned to:
lifting (squat and lift with your legs) Contractors
- Improper (unsafe) set - Ensure working environment is clean and - An inappropriate work station design
up of work station. clear from any tripping hazards (if necessary presents the risk of injury, however with
move objects that present a tripping hazard). the mitigation strategies previously
- Define a safety working zone (a zone around discussed; both the likelihood and
a power tool or piece of equipment, where severity of the residual risk of injury are
only person can be in at a time) to reduce the greatly reduced.
risk of distraction or injury to another person.
- Keep work station well-lit (either by natural Mitigation strategies assigned to:
light or a lighting source) and well ventilated. Contractors
m.a.r.s_rmp_1.05
P a g e | 28
- Inappropriate machine - Inspect the equipment guards to make sure - Inappropriate machine guards present
guards. they are in good condition. a high risk for injury; however with the
- Do not use any equipment with faulty, mitigation strategies the residual risk for
damaged or missing guards injury is greatly reduced.

Contractors
- Electricity. - Visual inspection to make sure all cords are in - Any work with electricity has an
good condition (no fraying, no broken wire associated inherent risk of injury,
insulation, no damage to the plug etc.). however with the implementation of the
- Ensure that all cords have the earth wire pin mitigation strategies both the likelihood
(ie have three pins) and are grounded. Also and severity of this residual risk are
arrange the cords to the sides and edges of significantly reduced.
the work station to remove any tripping
hazard. Also do not use if any water is present
in the working environment.
- Only use heavy duty extension cords.
- Ensure that all circuits are protected by a
residual current device (RCD) which has a
current test and tag applied by a certified Mitigation strategies assigned to:
electrician. Contractors
- Lack of experience in Inexperience High (-12) - Watch some instructive videos available - A lack of experience in woodwork
Major (-4)
Significant (-3)
Moderate (-6)
Unlikely (2)
Possible (3)
woodworking. online, for basic woodworking techniques and presents a significant risk in
practice the techniques used. compromising the design of the
- Seek the supervision and guidance of prototype, however with suitable
someone with experience in wood working mitigation strategies, the likelihood and
(either in an educational, workplace or severity of this residual risk is reduced,
hobby/recreational setting). but still remains at a moderate residual
risk.

Contractors
m.a.r.s_rmp_1.05
P a g e | 29
- Lack of experience in - Read and understand the instruction manual - A lack of experience in using power
using power tools. and warning labels for each individual power tools presents a significant risk (with
tool before use. regard to compromising the integrity
- Undergo suitable training by someone and desired function of the prototype),
experience in the use of each specific power however with the risk mitigation
tool, with an emphasis placed on safety. strategies previously described, both the
- Be familiarised with the function, correct safe likelihood and severity of the residual
use of all power tools and any emergency risk are reduced, albeit to a moderate
protocols before use. level.
- Do not operate power tools without suitable
supervision.
- If necessary allow another who has more
experience to operate the power tool and
perform the required action (however if this is
the case, monitor their work closely to ensure Mitigation strategies assigned to:
that the specifications are closely followed). Contractors
- Lack of experience in - Follow the all specifications exactly, and if - A lack of experience in following
following specifications. any questions arise, contact one of the specific design specifications present a
designers for clarification. considerable risk in compromising deign
- Refer back to drawings often. integrity and function, however by the
- Triple-check all measurements before implementation of the mitigation
committing to the action. strategies, the likelihood and severity of
this risk are reduced to a moderate
level.

- Communication issues - Compromised - If necessary, organise a meeting with one of - Any work in a group or team setting
Rare (1)
Significant (-3)
Moderate (-6)
Minor (-2)
Low (-2)
Unlikely (2)
between contractors design integrity. the designers to clarify their expectations of has an associated risk of communication
and designers. construction and to address any issues that issues; however with the mitigation
might arise. strategies previously described, both the
- If any questions arise regarding the likelihood and severity of the residual
expectations of the designers, contact one of risk are greatly reduced to very low
the designers for clarification. Ensure that this level.
process of clarification is performed in a swift
and efficient manner. Mitigation strategies assigned to:
m.a.r.s_rmp_1.05
P a g e | 30
- Issues in reading - Check on the M.A.R.S. group wiki (accessible - There is always an inherent risk of
design, or following via Blackboard: Engineering Foundations difficulties in understanding the design
design specifications. Principles and Communication) for the most and specifications. However with the
current revision numbers of all documents, to mitigation strategies previously
ensure that the correct drawings and described, both the likelihood and
specifications are used during the construction severity of the residual risk are greatly
phase. reduced to very low level.
- If any questions arise regarding the drawings
or specifications, contact one of the designers
for clarification. Ensure that this process of
clarification is performed in a swift and Mitigation strategies assigned to:
efficient manner. All designers and contractors
m.a.r.s_rmp_1.05
P a g e | 31
3.3 Project Testing

Mitigation
Likelihood
Likelihood
Risk Level
Risk Level
Severity
Severity
- Inappropriate (or Prototype failure - Clear an area (at least 5 metres by 5 metres) - Inappropriate testing conditions
Possible (3)
Significant (-3)
Moderate (-9)
Minor (-2)
Low (-2)
Rare (1)
unsafe) testing for testing, removing any objects that could contribute greatly to prototype failure;
conditions. present a tripping hazard or influence the however by the implementation of the
outcome of the testing (this includes ensuring mitigation strategies previously
that the ground surface that the prototype described, both the likelihood and
lands on is a flat, hard and smooth. severity of the residual risk of prototype
- Test the completed prototype according to failure are greatly reduced.
the conditions specified in the 2017 Semester
1 Assignment Handbook Section 2.1 (see Mitigation strategies assigned to:
Appendix A). Designers
m.a.r.s_rmp_1.05
P a g e | 32
- Part failure. - Before testing, submit the completed - There is always an inherent risk of
prototype to the designers who will assess for prototype failure; however by the
compliance to design and specifications. If implementation of the mitigation
they find any issues, then address those issues strategies previously described, both
as soon as possible and resubmit the revised the likelihood and severity of the
prototype to the designers for assessment. residual risk are significantly reduced.
- In the event that a part fails during early
testing, contact the designers and inform of
the part failure. Furthermore, seek their
opinion on how to repair the part (or damage
and how to ensure that part does not fail in
subsequent tests.
- Organise a portable repair kit which includes
basic tools (a screwdriver, glue etc.) and spare
parts (a spare wheel, elastic bands, screws,
nuts and washers). Consult specifications and
contact designers for the exact contents (both
sizing and quantities) of this repair kit. Ensure
that testing does not occur without this Mitigation strategies assigned to:
portable repair kit being present. Designers
- Non compliance to Injury - Clear an area (5 metres by 5 metres - There is a risk of injury associated with
Significant (-3)
Moderate (-6)
Rare (1)
Minor (-2)
Low (-2)
Unlikely (2)
testing conditions. minimum), removing any objects that present testing any prototype that is mobile,
a tripping hazard. however by the implementing of the
- Only test the completed prototype according suitable mitigation strategies previously
to the conditions specified in the 2017 discussed, both the likelihood and
Semester 1 Assignment Handbook Section 2.1 severity of the residual risk are
(see Appendix A). significantly reduced.
- Define a safe observation zone (a zone
behind the ramp and outside of the testing
environment) where all personnel can observe
the testing safely.
- Wear enclosed shoes and stand in the safe Mitigation strategies assigned to:
zone unless specifically involved in the testing. Designers
m.a.r.s_rmp_1.05
P a g e | 33
-Slippery/wet floors and - Remove any objects that could present a - There is an inherent risk of slipping
tripping hazards. tripping hazard in the testing environment, or and tripping (leading to injury) however
surrounding observation zone. through the implementation of the
- Keep work station clean, clear and that the mitigation strategies previously
floor surface is dry (if the floor surface is wet, discussed the likelihood and severity of
mop up and dry before commencing work). the residual risk is greatly reduced.

Designers
- Communication issues Non-adherence to - Contact one of the designers if any issues - Communication issues contribute
Significant (-3)
Moderate (-2)
Minor (-2)
Low (-2)
Rare (1)
Unlikely (2)
between contractors the testing timeline arise regarding the testing timeline, and greatly to the risk of non-adherence to
and designers. ensure that all communications are performed the testing timeline; however with the
in a swift and efficient manner. mitigation strategies previously
- If necessary, organise a meeting with one of described, both the likelihood and
the designers to clarify their expectations of severity of the residual risk are greatly
testing and to address any issues that might reduced to very low level.
arise.
- Designate clear objectives for each team
member involved in testing, ensuring that all
personnel understand their individual role in Mitigation strategies assigned to:
testing. Designers
- Sickness - Uphold good hygiene standards (including - There is still the possibility to get sick,
frequently washing hands, coughing into a which would contribute to the risk of
tissue and maintaining a clean food not adhering to the testing timeline;
preparation space). however by the implementation of the
- Maintain a healthy lifestyle mitigation strategies previously
- If feeling unwell or displaying symptoms of described, both the likelihood and
being sick stay at home and get plenty of rest. severity of the residual risk are
- Have good time management skills and be significantly reduced.
proactive in having the prototype ready to be
tested according to the testing timeline
- Ensure that the prototype is accessible to all
team members, so that in the event of Mitigation strategies assigned to:
sickness, testing can still be performed. Designers
m.a.r.s_rmp_1.05
P a g e | 34
- Travel delays - Plan route in advance, allowing for possible - Due to travel delays there is an
travel delays due to unforeseen traffic inherent risk of not adhering to the
conditions. If necessary, plan to leave earlier in testing timeline. However with the
order to allow for these possible delays. implementation of the mitigation
- Consider public transport as a back-up plan. strategies previously described both the
- In the event of traffic delays contact a team likelihood and severity of the residual
member who will then inform the rest of the risk are significantly reduced.
group via text or in person of your
circumstances. Mitigation strategies assigned to:
Designers
m.a.r.s_rmp_1.05
P a g e | 35
4.0 Appendices
Appendix A
The following statement is summarised from the 2017 Semester 1 Assignment Handbook for
INDE1000 Engineering Foundations: Principles and Communication.
2.1 Design statement
EMPACT requires a vehicle to be constructed such that it is capable of being tested by rolling down a
slope between 30-45 degrees for 2 metres, and falling through a vertical drop of 1 metre without
sustaining any significant damage.
m.a.r.s_rmp_1.05
M.A.R.S.
Tender Evaluation Criteria
Client: EMPACT
Date: March 2017
Revision: 1.04
m.a.r.s_tec_1.04
P a g e | 37
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 38

2.0 Criteria Summary ............................................................................................................................ 38
3.0 Technical Experience....................................................................................................................... 39
3.1 Woodworking Experience ........................................................................................................... 39
3.2 Project Experience ...................................................................................................................... 41
3.3 Experience in power tool use...................................................................................................... 43
4.0 Capability ........................................................................................................................................ 44
4.1 Access to Equipment ................................................................................................................... 44
4.2 Manpower................................................................................................................................... 46
5.0 Professionalism ............................................................................................................................... 47
5.1 Communications ......................................................................................................................... 47
5.2 Organisation ................................................................................................................................ 49
m.a.r.s_tec_1.04
P a g e | 38
1.0 Introduction
The objectives of this document are to outline the criteria that will be used to assess potential
companies to construct the M.A.R.S. Rover (herein defined as the Rover). The chosen tendering
company will be the one that successfully satisfies the most criteria that are summarised below. The
degree to which the various tendering companies satisfy the evaluation criteria and their associated
sub-criteria, is represented by a total score out of one hundred
2.0 Criteria Summary
Criteria Sub-criteria Weighted score

Woodworking experience - Woodworking experience
/28
- Woodwork skills
Project Experience Experience in other construction
/6
projects
Experience in power tool use Experience in using tools /10
Access to Equipment - Access to workshop
- Work station setup /18
- Access to tools
Manpower - Production plan /4
Communications - Formality
/16
- Promptness of reply
Organisation - Preparation
/18
- Punctuality
Total /100
It is also assumed that the designers will award marks according to their own discretion, unless
specifically mentioned otherwise. Thus, it is the responsibility of all tendering company
representatives to impress the designers, as this will be favourable in being awarded the tender.
m.a.r.s_tec_1.04
P a g e | 39
3.0 Technical Experience

3.1 Woodworking Experience
As identified in the risk management plan inexperience in woodworking presents a significant risk of injury, project delay and compromised design integrity.
Thus as the construction of final Rover design involves wood construction techniques and simple wood joinery, M.A.R.S. requires the tendering companies
to have verifiable experience in wood working.
To reflect the great level of importance that M.A.R.S. places on woodworking experience, the sub-criteria of Woodworking Experience and Woodworking
Skills will be assigned large weightings of x4 and x3 respectively.
Note: The lowest score of any sub-criterion is the final score that will be awarded for that section. I.e. If the tendering company meets the Excellent
standard for every aspect of a sub-criterion except one where they only meet the Fair standard, then their final score will be Fair (1).
Sub-criteria Poor (0) Fair (1) Good (2) Excellent (4)
Woodworking Company has no representatives Company only has one Company has two representatives Company has three or more
1
experience with any experience in representative with experience in with experience in woodworking . representatives with experience in
1 1 1
Weighting = x4 woodworking . woodworking . woodworking .
Score (where
appropriate)
Weighted score (Score x 4) =
Woodworking No company representatives have At least one company At least one company At least one company
skills any woodworking or wood joinery representative has basic representative has intermediate representative has advanced
2 2 2 2
Weighting = x3 skills . woodworking skills . This includes woodworking skills . This includes woodworking skills . This includes
cutting wood, drilling holes, accurately cutting wood, drilling accurately cutting wood in non-
inserting screws, sanding by hand pilot holes before inserting screws, standard shapes (e.g. in curves or
etc. and basic wood joinery applying wood finishes etc. and around corners), drilling pilot holes
techniques (e.g. butt joints). intermediate wood joinery and countersinks before inserting
techniques (e.g. lap joints, biscuit screws in order to have a flush
joints or finger joints). finish, accurate planing etc. and
advanced wood joinery techniques
(eg mortise and tenon joints or
dovetail joints).
Score (where
appropriate)
Weighted score (Score x 3) =
m.a.r.s_tec_1.04
P a g e | 40
Total Score = Weighted Score + Weighted Score = /28

1.
Experience in woodworking is defined by M.A.R.S. as: two years or more of attending high school or tertiary level woodwork classes (or similar classes under the
Design and Technology branch that involved working with wood), or a Certificate (2, 3 or 4) qualification in a woodworking discipline (Furnishings or Furniture
Making, Cabinet Making, Carpentry etc.), or an apprenticeship or work placement in a woodworking environment (cabinet maker, carpenter, furniture machining
etc.). All experiences need to be verifiable by either photographic evidence or a copy of the qualification (CVs will also be accepted), accompanied by a short
summary detailing the time period and duration that the experience was gained and the techniques and skills learnt. However, any other relevant experience that
is sufficiently evidenced and presented to the designers may be accepted as satisfactory level of experience. Furthermore, the experience levels of all company
representatives needs to be mentioned in the meetings with the M.A.R.S. designers.
2.
In order to verify the level of woodworking skills a tendering company has, M.A.R.S. requires evidence in the form of: photographic proof of two or more
woodworking projects in which that determined skill level (as defined in the criteria table above) was exhibited. These photographs must be accompanied by a
short summary that details when the project was undertaken, the duration of the project, in what setting (high school, at home etc) and the woodworking
techniques that were needed to complete the project.
m.a.r.s_tec_1.04
P a g e | 41
3.2 Project Experience
It is important to M.A.R.S. that the M.A.R.S. Rover is constructed to the exact dimensions detailed in the drawings and specifications, in order to maintain
design integrity. Indeed, inexperience in following exact specifications is identified as a key risk in the risk management plan for the construction phase.
Therefore M.A.R.S. requires the tendering company to have had experience in similar projects that involved the exact adherence to specific dimensions and
specifications.
To reflect the level of importance that M.A.R.S. places on experience in similar projects, the sub-criteria of Experience in other construction projects will be
assigned a moderate weighting of x1.5.
Sub-Criteria Poor (0) Fair (1) Good (2) Excellent (4)
Experience in Company has no representatives Company only has one Company only has two Company has three or more
other with any prior experience in any representative with experience in representatives with experience in representatives with experience in
3
construction construction-based project(s) . one or more construction-based one or more construction-based one or more construction-based
3 3 3
projects. project(s) . project(s) . project(s) .
Weighting = x1.5
In which had to follow specification
exactly, was involved in measuring
and cutting parts to exact
dimensions as specific in the
specifications. Required strict
adherence to specifications
N/A (i.e. same criteria for Fair) The completed project was of N/A (i.e. same criteria for The completed project was of
4
lesser complexity than the Rover . Excellent) equal or greater complexity than
4
the Rover .
Score (where
appropriate)
Weighted Score (Score x 1.5) =
Total Score = Weighted Score = /6

3.
Experience in a construction-based project is defined by M.A.R.S. as: any handyman or home-improvement project completed within the past 5 years, or any
experience working on a project at a high school, tertiary level, or hobby setting that involved manual labour (no matter how strenuous) to construct a prototype,
m.a.r.s_tec_1.04
P a g e | 42
model etc. according to strict specifications or constraints. This includes the designing and building of any robotic devices, as long as the construction of the device
required strict adherence to specifications/constraints. Thus suitable evidence for these experiences must be supplied in the form of photographic proof,
accompanied by a short summary detailing when and where the project was undertaken, the duration of the project and key tasks involved in the completion of
the project. However, any other experience that is sufficiently evidenced and presented to the designers may be accepted as satisfactory level of experience.
Furthermore, the experience levels of all company representatives needs to be mentioned in the meetings with the M.A.R.S. designers.
4.
The complexity of the previous project(s) will be judged by the designers from M.A.R.S. as they compare the complexity of the project completed by the tendering
company with the complexity of the Rovers construction. Thus suitable evidence must be supplied, in the form of photographic proof and be accompanied by a
summary detailing when the project was undertaken, the duration of the project, and a brief overview summarising key tasks in the completion of the project.
m.a.r.s_tec_1.04
P a g e | 43
3.3 Experience in power tool use
As identified in the risk management plan, the use of power tools presents a significant risk of injury, and this risk is significantly increased if the user is
inexperienced. Thus as the construction of the final Rover design involves the use of power tools, M.A.R.S. requires that tendering companies have
verifiable experience in using power tools as this greatly reduces the risk of injury as well as increasing the structural integrity of the final Rover prototype.
To reflect the value M.A.R.S. places on safety and the correct use of power tools, the sub-criteria of Experience in using tools will be assigned a moderate
weighting of x2.5.
Experience in Company has no representatives Company only has one Company only has two Company has three or more
5 5 5 5
using tools with any prior experience in using representative with experience in representatives with experience in representatives with experience in
6 6 6 6
Weighting = x2.5 hand tools . using hand tools . using hand tools . using hand tools .
Company has no representatives Company only has one Company only has two Company has three or more
5 5 5 5
with any prior experience in using representative with experience in representatives with experience in representatives with experience in
7 7 7 7
power tools . using power tools . using power tools . using power tools .
Score (where
appropriate)

5.
Experience in using tools is defined by M.A.R.S. as: having read and understood the instruction manual and warning labels for each individual power tool before
use, having undergone suitable training by someone experienced in how to safely use the tool, and being familiarised with the function, correct and safe use and
emergency protocols for each power tool. As power tool experience is difficult to verify, M.A.R.S. will accept a suitable risk management plan detailing the
mitigation practices to reduce the risk of using power tools, accompanied by a brief summary detailing safe use of each power tool that the tendering company
has access to as suitable evidence for hand and power tool use. Furthermore, the experience levels of all company representatives needs to be mentioned in the
meetings with the M.A.R.S. designers.
6.
Hand tools are defined by M.A.R.S. as any tool that is not a power tool and include hand saw, hack saw, pliers (vise grip, needle nose), wrenches (socket,
adjustable, open-end/ring), Allen keys, screwdrivers (Phillips and flathead), hammer, spirit level, awl, clamps, utility knife, square, tape measure etc.
7.
Power tools are defined by M.A.R.S. as any tool powered by an electric motor and include cordless drill/driver, circular saw (or drop saw), orbital sander, jigsaw,
angle grinder (or bench grinder) etc.
m.a.r.s_tec_1.04
P a g e | 44
4.0 Capability
4.1 Access to Equipment
M.A.R.S. prides itself on its focus on safety and safe working practices, and thus requires a tendering company with verifiable access to a suitable workshop
to build the Rover prototype but also access to a wide range of hand and power tools. However, as an unsafe work station was identified as a key hazard in
the risk management plan, M.A.R.S. requires that any workshop that the tendering companies clear, safe and suitable for use as this greatly reduces the risk
of injury.
To reflect that importance that M.A.R.S. places on safety and safe working practices as well as ease of access, the sub-criteria of Access to a workshop,
Work station setup and Access to tools will be assigned moderate weightings of x1, x1.5 and x2 respectively.
Access to a Company has no access to a private N/A (i.e. same criteria for N/A (i.e. same criteria for Company has access to a private
8 9 8 9
workshop workshop or public workshop Excellent) Excellent) workshop or a public workshop
Weighting = x1 where the Rover can be where the Rover can be
constructed. constructed.
Company has no representatives Company only has one Company has two representatives Company have three or more
10 10
with access to the workshop . representative with access to the with access to the workshop . representatives with access to the
10 10
workshop . workshop .
Score (where
appropriate)
Weighted Score (Score x 1) =
Work station Workshop is dirty, has many N/A (i.e. same criteria for Good) The workshop is somewhat clean, The workshop is clean, clear, free
setup tripping and slipping hazards, is has a few hazards that present the from any potential tripping or
Weighting = x1.5 dark and does not have a source of risk of tripping or slipping, is fairly slipping hazards, is well-ventilated,
lighting and presents an unsafe well-lit and ventilated, and is a well-lit (either by natural light or a
11 11
working environment . fairly safe working environment . lighting source) and is a safe
11
working environment .
Score (where
appropriate)
m.a.r.s_tec_1.04
P a g e | 45
Access to tools Company has no representatives Company only has one Company only has two Company has three or more
12 13 12 12 12
Weighting = x2 with any access to hand tools . representative with access to representatives with access to representatives with access to
13 13 13
hand tools . hand tools . hand tools .
Company has no representatives Company only has one Company only has two Company has three or more
12 14 12 12 12
with any access to power tools . representative with access to representatives with access to representatives with access to
14 14 14
power tools . power tools . power tools .
Score (where
appropriate)
Total Score = Weighted Score + Weighted Score + Weighted Score = /18
8.
Access to a private workshop is defined by M.A.R.S. as: any work station in a private setting that the tendering company has easy and unrestricted access to. This
includes garages, shed etc. of family members, friends etc. This access needs to be verified by photographic evidence of the workshop accompanied by a short
summary detailing the location of this workshop (eg family members garage etc.), and any restrictions placed upon the access to this workshop.
9.
Access to a public workshop is defined by M.A.R.S. as: any work station in a public setting that the tendering company has easy and unrestricted access to. This
includes a Hackerspace or similar public maker-space, a secondary or tertiary design and technology workshop, a workshop at a functional work place etc. This
access needs to be verified by photographic evidence of the workshop accompanied by a short summary detailing the location of this workshop (eg high school
woodwork class workshop etc.), and any restrictions placed upon the access to this workshop. In the case that a membership or sign-in form is required for access
to this workshop, M.A.R.S requires documentation showing the membership details, conditions of membership, copy of sign-in form etc.
10.
M.A.R.S. requires verifiable evidence to prove that company representatives are able to access the workshop reasonably quickly in the form of: travel plans to the
location of the workshop, written evidence from the owner of the private workshop grating permission for all company representatives to use the workshop, and
in the case that a public workshop will be used, M.A.R.S. requires documentation showing membership details, conditions of membership, copy of sign-in form
etc. However, any other evidence that is presented to the designers may be accepted as satisfactory evidence to verify access.
11.
M.A.R.S. requires verifiable evidence to prove that workshop is a safe work station in the form of: photographic evidence of the workshop, accompanied by a
short summary that clearly shows and explains how the work station is clean, free from any potential tripping or slipping hazards, is well-ventilated and well-lit.
This photograph and summary should also detail the processes put in place to ensure that the work station remains a safe work station (eg cleaning after every
stage of the project, use of personal protective equipment (PPE) etc.).
12.
M.A.R.S. requires verifiable evidence to prove that the tendering company has access to a wide range of hand and power tools in the form of: photographic
evidence of a wide range of hand tools and power tools that are in good vidual condition and that all power tools have appropriate guards etc. This photograph
should also be accompanied by a summary detailing the exact range of tools that the tendering company has access to.
13.
Hand tools are defined by M.A.R.S. as any tool that is not a power tool and include hand saw, hack saw, pliers (vise grip, needle nose), wrenches (socket,
adjustable, open-end/ring), Allen keys, screwdrivers (Phillips and flathead), hammer, spirit level, awl, clamps, utility knife, square, tape measure etc.
14.
Power tools are defined by M.A.R.S. as any tool powered by an electric motor and include cordless drill/driver, circular saw (or drop saw), orbital sander, jigsaw,
angle grinder (or bench grinder) etc.
m.a.r.s_tec_1.04
P a g e | 46
4.2 Manpower
It is important to M.A.R.S. that the tendering company has both the manpower and capabilities to undertake this project and complete it in a timely
manner, without sacrificing quality. Thus, M.A.R.S. requires the tendering company to produce a production plan that will detail their production timeline,
as well as their time management plan to ensure that the project is completed before the project deadline.
To reflect the value M.A.R.S. places on being able to successfully complete the project, the sub-criteria of Production plan will be assigned a moderate
weighting of x1.
Production plan Company does not produce a Company produces a production N/A (i.e. same criteria for Company produces a
15 15 15
Weighting = x1 production plan or a time plan which assigns tasks to Excellent ) comprehensive production plan
management plan. different company representatives, that details how they will divide the
and details their time management project into stages and how
plan, but the plan is unclear or company resource (manpower)
lacks detail . allocation will be managed. This
15
production plan also includes a
detailed time management plan
that details how they will manage
and schedule tasks to ensure
completion before project
deadlines.
Score (where
appropriate)
15.
A production plan is defined by M.A.R.S. as: any sort of document that details the production timeline that divides the overall project into smaller tasks, the details
of each stage, and allocates individual tasks to individual company representatives. This production plan should also detail how companies will measure and
report progress (weekly progress report submitted to the designer of M.A.R.S. etc.)This document should also include a detailed time management plan that
comprehensively shows to the designers of M.A.R.S. how the tendering company will manage and schedule these stages to ensure completion before project
completion. This document can be in the form of a GANTT chart, however it is not restricted to this layout. The final production plan needs to be presented to the
designers of M.A.R.S. as evidence of a production plan.
m.a.r.s_tec_1.04
P a g e | 47
5.0 Professionalism
5.1 Communications
Due to the high degree of collaboration required between the tendering company and M.A.R.S. it is important that all communications are undertaken in a
formal and polite manner. In addition, M.A.R.S. greatly values prompt replies to communications.
To reflect the importance that M.A.R.S. places on communication, the sub-criteria of Formality and Promptness of reply will be assigned moderate
weightings of x2.5 and x1.5 respectively.
Formality Communications are often unclear Communications often contain Communications are mostly clear, Communications are always clear
Weighting = x2.5 and ambiguous, and have many ambiguous sections and often have with few ambiguous sections and and are always formatted correctly.
inconsistencies and mistakes in inconsistencies or mistakes in rarely have inconsistencies or
formatting. formatting. mistakes in formatting.
Communications do not contain Communications contain some N/A (i.e. same criteria for Communications contain all
any individual or company contact relevant individual and company Excellent) relevant individual and company
details. contact details. contact details.
Communications are frequently Communications are mostly formal N/A (i.e. same criteria for Communications are always formal.
informal (using colloquialisms, but still contain some Excellent)
slang terms or abbreviations). abbreviations, colloquialisms or
contractions.
Emails are unclear, have an N/A (i.e. same criteria for Good) Emails are fairly clear, have an Emails are clear and concise, have
inappropriate subject description, appropriate subject, greeting and an appropriate subject description,
greeting and signoff and are too sign-off, but are too lengthy (i.e. formal greeting and sign-off, and
lengthy (i.e. contain waffle). contain waffle). are also straight to the point.
Any reply emails are not edited to Any reply emails are edited to
remove any irrelevant content. remove any irrelevant content.
Communications have frequent N/A (i.e. same criteria for Good) N/A (i.e. same criteria for All communications are free from
spelling and grammatical mistakes. Excellent) spelling and grammatical errors.
Communications are outright Communications are mostly polite, N/A (i.e. same criteria for Communications are always polite,
impolite and contain profane or but contain instances of sarcasm or Excellent) and never contain any insults or
insulting language. insulting language. profane language.
Score (where
appropriate)
m.a.r.s_tec_1.04
P a g e | 48
Promptness of Replies to communications are Replies to communications are Replies to communications are Replies to communications are
reply often unnecessarily delayed (takes often delayed (takes more than 12 mostly prompt (takes more than 3 always prompt (takes less than 3
Weighting = x1.5 more than 24 hours to respond to a hours but less than 24 hours to hours but less than 12 hours to hours to respond to a text message
16
text message and more than 48 respond to a text message and it respond to a text message (during (during business hours ) and takes
16
hours to respond to an email). takes more than 24 hours but less business hours ) and it takes more less than 24 hours to respond to an
than 36 hours to respond to an than 24 hours but less than 36 email).
email). hours to respond to an email).
Score (where
appropriate)

16.
Business hours are defined by M.A.R.S. as 9am to 5pm from Monday to Friday. In the case that a text message is sent outside of business hours, M.A.R.S. does not
expect a response until the following business day.
m.a.r.s_tec_1.04
P a g e | 49
5.2 Organisation
It is very important to M.A.R.S. that the tendering company is organised, as this indicates to that the tendering company can work efficiently as a group.
M.A.R.S. places great value on preparation and seeks a tendering company that is prepared and is proactive in organising meetings with designers. However
M.A.R.S. also greatly values punctual arrival to all inter-company meetings as this indicates that the Project will completed in a timely manner.
To reflect the importance that M.A.R.S. places on organisation, the sub-criteria of Preparation and Punctuality will be assigned moderate weightings of
x2.5 and x2 respectively.
Preparation Company representatives do not N/A (i.e. same criteria for N/A (i.e. same criteria for Company representatives organise
Weighting = x2.5 organise any meetings with the Excellent) Excellent) once or twice a week (if necessary)
designers. meetings with the designers.
Company representatives do not Company representatives prepare Company representatives prepare Company representatives prepare
prepare a meeting agenda before an unclear agenda before the a clear agenda before the meeting a clear and concise agenda before
the meeting. meeting that does not specifically that contains most but not all the meeting that contains all
detail queries, clarifications or queries, clarifications and points to queries, clarifications, and points to
points to discuss during the discuss during the meeting. discuss during the meeting.
meeting. This agenda is emailed to the This agenda is emailed to the
This agenda is emailed to the agenda between 12 and 24 hours designers at least 24 hours before
agenda less than 12 hours before before the meeting. the meeting.
the meeting.
Minutes are either not written up Reasonable (but not detailed) Detailed minutes are written up Comprehensive minutes are
or in the case that they are written minutes are written up and and emailed to the designers for written up and emailed to the
up then they are only emailed to emailed to the designers for confirmation within 24 hours of the designers for confirmation within
the designers for confirmation confirmation within 48 hours of the meeting. 12 hours of the meeting.
more than 48 hours after the meeting.
meeting.
Company representatives have no N/A (i.e. same criteria for N/A (i.e. same criteria for Weekly progress report submitted
evidence of work they have Excellent ) Excellent ) to designers in meeting, containing
completed in the past week or of the work they have completed in
their goals for the following week. the past week (project updates)
and their goals for the week to
come (including deadlines).
m.a.r.s_tec_1.04
P a g e | 50
Company representatives do not Company representatives read Company representatives read Company representatives
read through design package through the design package before through the design package before comprehensively read through
before the meeting. the meeting, but do not the meeting, and demonstrate that design package before the meeting,
demonstrate that they have a very they have a reasonable and demonstrate that they have a
17
good understanding of the understanding of the package . detailed understanding of the
17 17
package . package .
Score (where
appropriate)
Punctuality Company representatives are more Company representatives are up to N/A (i.e. same criteria for Company representatives arrive on
Weighting = x2 than 10 minutes late or completely 5 minutes late to all organised Excellent) time or 5 minutes before all
miss organised meetings. meetings. organised meetings are scheduled
to start.
Company representatives provide In the event that unforeseen In the event that unforeseen In the event that unforeseen
no reasonable notice and apologies circumstances prevent them from circumstances prevent them from circumstances prevent them from
if they are unable to attend a attending the meeting company attending the meeting company attending the meeting company
meeting due to unforeseen representatives provide notice and representatives provide notice and representatives provide notice and
circumstances. apologies less than 1 hour before apologies less than 3 hours before apologies at least 3 hours before
Furthermore, they make no the meeting is scheduled to start. the meeting is scheduled to start. the meeting is scheduled to start.
attempt to reschedule an If this is the case, attached with the If this is the case, attached with the If this is the case, attached with the
alternative meeting time. notice and apologies is an attempt notice and apologies is an attempt notice and apologies is an attempt
to reschedule an alternative to reschedule an alternative to reschedule an alternative
meeting time within 48 hours. meeting time within 24 hours. meeting time within 24 hours.
Score (where
appropriate)
17.
The designers of M.A.R.S. will determine during the meeting if the tendering company representatives have read through the design package and their
understanding of the design package, based on their communicated understanding of the design and specifications, any queries that arise, and any suggestions
about carefully considered improvements to either the design or specifications.
m.a.r.s_tec_1.04
M.A.R.S.
GANTT Chart and Unit Plan
Client: EMPACT
Date: March 2017
Revision: 1.03
m.a.r.s_gantt_1.03
P a g e | 52
Table of Contents
GANTT Chart and Unit Plan ................................................................................................................... 53
m.a.r.s_gantt_1.03
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3
EFPC Deadlines (As group) Weekly progress reports/meetings
Other EFY Deadlines Materials lab and tutorial assessment Materials lab and tutorial assessment Materials lab and tutorial assessment
Materials laboratory reports Materials laboratory reports Materials laboratory reports
Contractors Deadlines
Designers Deadlines
Week 4 Week 5
EFPC Deadlines (As group) Weekly progress reports/meetings Stage 1
Group action plan
Weekly progress reports/meetings
Other EFY Deadlines Programming quiz Maths oral assessment
Materials laboratory reports Materials laboratory Reports
Materials lab and tutorial assessment Materials lab and tutorial assessment
Contractors Deadlines Risk management draft GANTT Chart & unit plan (Fynn Andrews)
Tender Evaluation Criteria draft Risk Management Plan (Jacob Sheets)
Tender Evaluation Criteria (Vincent Dalstra & Rylan Meisinger)
Designers Deadlines Drawings draft Drawings (Alexander Vermeulen & Benjamin Eiszele )
Specifications draft Specifications (Alexander Vermeulen & Benjamin Eiszele)
Week 6 TFW TFW
EFPC Deadlines (As group) Weekly progress reports/meetings Weekly progress reports/meetings Weekly progress reports/meetings
Other EFY Deadlines Materials lab and tutorial assessment Materials lab and tutorial assessment Materials lab and tutorial assessment
Materials laboratory reports
Contractors Deadlines Tender Application Draft Tender Application (Individual)
Designers Deadlines

EFPC Deadlines (As group) Weekly progress reports/meetings Stage 2 Weekly progress reports/meetings
Weekly project reports/meetings
Other EFY Deadlines Math mid-semester test Math workshop assessment

Materials lab and tutorial assessment Programming quiz
Materials lab and tutorial assessment
Designers Deadlines Tender Evaluation draft Tender Evaluation (Individual)

EFPC Deadlines (As group) Handovers Stage 3 Stage 4
Weekly progress reports/meetings Peer review presentation Unit reflection
Oral presentation draft Engineering Identity Reflection Oral presentation
Weekly progress reports/meetings
Other EFY Deadlines Math workshop assessment Materials lab and tutorial assessment Math laboratory assessment
Programming mid-semester test Materials lab and tutorial assessment
Materials lab and tutorial assessment
Contractors Deadlines Rehearse individual Oral presentation Finish peer review feedback
Designers Deadlines Rehearse individual Oral presentation Finish peer review feedback
Week 13
EFPC Deadlines (As group)
Other EFY Deadlines Programming quiz
Designers Deadlines

Finished Tender Evaluation Application

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Finished Tender Evaluation Application

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tender Submission

Tender Evaluation: Xer0n Inc.

Designers: Benjamin Eiszele, Alexander Vermeulen and Rylan Meisinger

2.0 DESIGN PACKAGE REVIEW

2.1 UNDERSTANDING OF DESIGN

2.2 CLIENT BRIEF COMPLIANCE

Dimension Value (mm)

Material (Q) Cost / Unit Cost * Q Supplier

2.3 CONCERNS AND SOLUTIONS

3.4 INNOVATION & RESEARCH

3.5 BASIC EXPERIENCE

3.6 RELEVANT EDUCATION

8.0 APPENDIX C.1 M.A.R.S. FACEBOOK GROUP CHAT

10.0 APPENDIX C.3 - M.A.R.S WIKI PAGE

14.0 APPENDIX E.2 BIRD AVIARY

16.0 APPENDIX E.4 WORK BENCH

18.0 APPENDIX F.2 ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE IN DESIGN

20.0 APPENDIX F.4 YEAR 10 REPORT CARD

22.0 APPENDIX F.6 HINGED BOX

24.0 APPENDIX F.8 CANDLE HOLDER

26.0 APPENDIX F.10 CHOPPING BOARDS

28.0 APPENDIX F.12 WOODEN SHELF

30.0 APPENDIX F.14 WOODEN PLANE

Design Drawings ................................................................................................................................... 2

ASSEMBLED VIEW MARS ROVER 1.05..................................................................................................... 4

Email: Contact Details: ASSEMBLED VIEW MARS ROVER 1.05

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 2.00

115.00 220.00 65.00

Drawn by M.A.R.S. Designers: Title: Scale: Revision number:

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

115.00 220.00 65.00

10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00

R6.00 R10.35 R12.70 R60.00 R60.00 R12.70 R10.35 R6.00

Drawn by M.A.R.S. Designers: Title: Scale: Revision number:

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

120.00 25.40 20.70 90.00

Drawn by M.A.R.S. Designers Title: Scale: Revision number:

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

20.70 25.40 R10.35

Drawn by M.A.R.S. Designers: Title: Scale: Revision number:

16: Side Block 1

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

Drawn by M.A.R.S designers Project name: Scale: Revision number:

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

Drawn by M.A.R.S. designers Project name: Scale: Revision number:

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

drawn by M.A.R.S. designers Project name: Scale: Revision number:

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

Drawn by M.A.R.S. designers Project name: Scale: Revision number:

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

drawn by M.A.R.S. designers Project name: Scale: Revision number:

1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 17

Table 1:Dimensions Summary............................................................................................................. 17

2.0 Dimensions Summary

Table 1:Dimensions Summary

Dimension Name: Dimension Value (mm):

3.0 Bill of Materials

Item Purpose No. Dimensions Cost Projection

3.1 Table 2: Bill of Materials 1

4.0 Required Tools

Hand Drill with Bits sized to specifications

6.0 Construction Method