(A) Group 1:Dissolved in Water: Mike Lewis, Emma Treuten, and Paul Benny

(B) Group 2: JAW-WenJiang, Asitha Abeywardane and Jianzheng Shi

(C) Responses to Various Evaluation Categories

(1) Problem Definition and Selection: (0-15)	13

(2) Proposed Spectroscopic Solution: (0-15)	14 
       *Very well articulated    *Sound reasoning
(3) Market Screening: (0-10)			8
       
(4) Class Selection: (0-10)			5
     *No mention of Class section
(5) Part I: Characteristics. (0-10)		9

(6)  Part II: Completeness of Quote. (0-10)	7

(7) Part III: Costs. (0-10)			6
     *No time period listed for a valid quote
(8) Pros & Cons: The Verdict. (0-10)		7

(9) Overall Impression. (0-10)			9
     *Great web page design. This method only needs some minor changes for
submission.
TOTAL						78

>  Group 2--- JAW
>  (A) Group-3:  Bible Study Class
>  (B) Group-2: JAW
>  (C) Responses to Various Evaluation Categories
>      (1). Problem Definition and Selection: 12
>      (2). Proposed Spectroscopic Solution: 12
>           We were convinced that your choice was reasonable.
>      (3). Market Screening:8  
>      (4). Class Selection: 8
>      (5). Detailed Comparison of Alternative: Part I Characteristics 8
>      (6). Detailed Comparison of Alternative: Part II Completeness 7
>      (7). Detailed Comparison of Alternative: Part III Costs 7
>      (8). Pros& Cons:9
>      (9). Overall Impression: 8
>  

(B) Group 2:Jaw
              
           (C)(1) Problem definition and selection:11
                  Not very specific in addressing the goal.Implied propsal
                  not adequately reflected in the procedure.
              (2) Proposed spectroscopic solution:15                     
                  Fluorescence spectroscopy seems to be the best choice to
                  analyse the type of material.
              (3) Market survey:10
                  Five major companies were contacted.
              (4) Class selection:8
                  One of us was not convinced of the need for as much
                  sophiscation in instrument.    
              (5) Detailed comparison of alternatives:Characteristics:8.5
                  The comparison has been made but not perfect.
              (6) Completeness of quotes:8
                  No need to mention of shipping ,set up costs ie site
                  need to be specifically prepared in other words what 
                  conditions are required.
              (7) Costs:7.5
                  Quotes not clear presentation confusing.
              (8) Pros and cons:9.5
                  Based on information supplied comparison was adequate
                  and decision well supported.
              (9) Overal impression:8
                  Would probably approve with only some clarification of a
                  few points:(ie How much data is likely to be generated?     
                  How useful is synchronous scanning?Is sophisticated
                  computerization really necessary?).
               

               total points 85

A) Evaluators:  Group 5,Alcohol Protecting Group
B) Evaluees:  Group 2 JAW
C)
   1.  Definition and selection: 13 points
More elaboration needed regarding the realistic company situation for need
this instrument.  Analyzing for metabolites is a realistic situation.
   2.  Solution:  12 points
Argument on why to use Fluorescence Spect. is OK but perhaps GC-MS would
have been worth considering.  
   3. Market Screening:  10 points
Fulfilled the necessary search and we especially like the short
description that went with each company's instrument.
   4.  Class Selection:  7 points
There was not clear separation between the classes of instruments that
they were looking to purchase.
   5.  Characteristics:  10 points
The extra table with more information regarding the qualities of each
instrument was helpful.  They clearly stated and compared the three most
important characteristics of the instruments.
   6.  Completeness:   5 points
The quote price is difficult to read in paragraph form.  Hard to tell what
price goes with what instrument.  Why didn't you a table here, it looked
good elsewhere and helped to clarify.
   7.  Costs:  5 points
Same argument as above, plus no information on cells and that type of
supply are included.
   8.  Pros and Cons: 7 points
The conclusion in general could be better stated. The decision to buy the
LS-50 seem rational.    
   9.  Overall:  7 points
The first part of the discussion was very good.  The price quotes and
final decision just need a little more clarification. A suggestion would
be to set up the price quote as a chart.  It would make your whole final
argument easier to follow.