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

(B) Group 2: Bible Study Class-Cheng Zhen, Shao Lizin, and Hu Fang

(C) Responses to Various Evaluation Categories

(1) Problem Definition and Selection: (0-15)	10
(2) Proposed Spectroscopic Solution: (0-15)	9
     *C=N and C=O,1690 and 1700 are too close to distiguish compounds on a
FT-IR
(3) Market Screening: (0-10)			8
(4) Class Selection: (0-10)			5
     *No mention of Class selection
(5) Part I: Characteristics. (0-10)		6
     *Identified characteristics, but did not discuss the 3 most decisive
(6)  Part II: Completeness of Quote. (0-10)	9
     *Good detail on the explanations of items
(7) Part III: Costs. (0-10)			6
      *No time period listed for a valid quote
(8) Pros & Cons: The Verdict. (0-10)		6
     *Could elaborate on the specific details
(9) Overall Impression. (0-10)			5
     *It is the groups opinion that IR is not an appropriate technique for
      this project. A better method should be chosen for analysis.
TOTAL						64

> (A) Group II  JAW (evaluator)
> 
> (B) Group III Gang of Three
> 
> (1) problem Definition and Selection : 12
> 
> (2) proposed Spectroscopic solution : 13
> 
> (3) Market screening : 8
> 
> (4) Class selection : 8
> 
> (5) Detailed Comparisin of Alternative. Part I: 8
> 
> (6) Detailed comparision of alternative. Part II: 8
> 
> (7) Detailed comparision of altrnative. Part III : 8
> 
> (8) Pros and Cons : The Verdict. : 8
> 
> (9) Overall Impression. : 8

              (B) Group three:Bible study group
              
              (C)(1) Problem definition and selection:10
                     Problem too broad and ill defined.
                 (2) Proposed spectroscopic solution: 10
                     Since the problem is poorly defined it is difficult
                     to assess the approach to it.
                 (3) Market screening:9
                     Number of companies and their importance in relevant
                     field is well covered.
                 (4) Class selection:7
                     Characteristic very broadly and vaguely stated.
                 (5) Detailed comparison of alternatives:Characteristics:7
                     Criteria for assessing the two instruments seem to
                     vary considerably.
                 (6) Completenes of quotes:7
                     Cost breakdown is confusing.
                 (7) Costs:7
                     
                 (8) Pros and cons:8
                     Decision was made .Hard to see much difference
                     between the two quotes and instrument qualification.
                 (9) Overall impression:6
                     Would return this application for considerable review
                     and refinement,both of instrument characteristics and
                     stated programme as a whole.
  
                   total points:70
                                      
                                                           from 
                                                       "The gang of three"

A) Evalutators:  Group 5, Alcohol Protecting Group
B) Evaluees:  Group 3, Bible Study Class
C)1. Definition and Selection:  10 points	
	Elaborate on you situation in the pharmaceutical company, ie will
other types of drugs be tested by other parts of the company.  Show the
figure you referred and  some formulas.
  2. Solution:  12 points
	Stating whether your goal is quantitative or qualitative would
strenghten your arguement that UV is not good enough.  Considering that
your samples may not be clean may make the overall arguement more
complete.  Giving the absorption ranges was good.
  3. Market Screening:  8 points
	Obviously there was a problem with the file being converted to
text, but regardless more information on addresses and numbers would be
nice.  A short description of the general type of instrument each company
offfers would be helpful.
  4. Class Selection: 1 point
	Missing information completely, execpt the mention of well
respected suppliers
  5. Characteristics:  8 points
	The table was done well and make comparing the two instruments
easy.  Maybe include a little more discussion comparing the two in the
text.  
  6.  Completeness:  7 points
	You have most of the important equiptment and accessories listed,
especially for the Nicolet, but it is a little confusing to compare the
two instruments.  Rewriting in a more concise format would be extremely
helpful (use the same numbering/lettering system for both).
  7. Costs:  8 points
	There is a better price break down for the Nicolet and more items
are included. A more complete quote of the MIDAC or an explaination of why
certain things are not included would be nice.  The English Language
Option is a good thing to include.
   8.  Pros/Cons:  5 points
	There needs to be more detail in comparing the two
instument's options and thus why the MIDAC was picked.
   9.  Overall:  6 points
	The thoughts that went into the decisions you made need to be made
more clear.  This would make every thing much more convincing.
We would need more information and clarification before we could agree
with your decision.