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

(B) Group 5:Alcoholic Protecting Group-Dave Alvarez, Tara Fuchs, and Pat
	Kirchhoefer

(C) Responses to Various Evaluation Categories

(1) Problem Definition and Selection: (0-15)	11
(2) Proposed Spectroscopic Solution: (0-15)	13 
(3) Market Screening: (0-10)			8
(4) Class Selection: (0-10)			8
(5) Part I: Characteristics. (0-10)		8
(6)  Part II: Completeness of Quote. (0-10)	8
(7) Part III: Costs. (0-10)			6
     *No time period listed for a valid quote
(8) Pros & Cons: The Verdict. (0-10)		8
(9) Overall Impression. (0-10)			8
      *Good proposal with some minor revisions
TOTAL						78

(A) Group-2:  JAW(Evaluator)  
     (B) Group-5: The Alcohol Protecting Group(Evaluee)
     (C) Responses to Various Evaluation Categories
         (1). Problem Definition and Selection:12
              It is a realistic     
         (2). Proposed Spectroscopic Solution:13
              How to separate products and starting materials with
              overlapping UV adsorption.    
         (3). Market Screening:8
              Most important manufactures are included
         (4). Class Selection:6
              The selection are not fully understood
         (5). Detailed Comparison ( Part I) Characteristics:9
              These characteristics are very important for UV /VIS
              spectrum
         (6). Detailed Comparison( Part II ) Completeness:9
         (7). Detailed Comparison( Part III) Costs:8
              The quotation is complete. Only valid time is needed.
         (8). Pros & cons 9
              The outstanding performance of HP8453 can be seen from this
              section. Actually we often use HP8453 which is located in
              the second floor, it is really a good one. 
         (9). Overall Impression: 9
              It is a good project. 
  

>  Group 5--- The Alcohol Protecting Group
>  (A) Group-3:  Bible Study Class
>  (B) Group-5: The Alcohol Protecting Group
>  (C) Responses to Various Evaluation Categories
>      (1). Problem Definition and Selection:13
>      (2). Proposed Spectroscopic Solution:13   
>      (3). Market Screening:8
>      (4). Class Selection:7
>      (5). Detailed Comparison of Alternative: Part I Characteristics:9 
>      (6). Detailed Comparison of Alternative: Part II Completeness:8 
>      (7). Detailed Comparison of Alternative: Part III Costs:9
>      (8). Pros& Cons:9
>      (9). Overall Impression: 9

Dr. Glaser,
This is our evaluation for 'Alcohol Protecting Group'.
(1) Problem Definations and Selections:12
 Well defined although the selection needs to be more vivid.
(2) Proposed Spectroscopic Solution:15
 UV-Vis spectroscopy seems to be the best technique to study enzyme
catalysis.   
(3) Market Screening:10
Five major companies were contacted.
(4) Class Selection:7
 The class selecton was not properly done.
(5)Detailed Comparisons: Characteristics:6
    Comparison has not been nade in a proper manner.
(6) Part II. Completeness of Quote:10
 well covered  and all the accessories have been tabulated.
(7) Part III. Costs:9
Costs of all the neccessary items have been tabulated. Although no
information about the hidden costs has been given e.g. shipping, setup
training etc.
(8) Pros and Cons:(8)
 A more specific conclusions could have been written.
(9) Overall Impression:(8)
This project can be implemented with a little orientation on class
selection and a detailed descripltion of characteristics.
Total:85
From
Gang of three.