CASE $3\mathrm{.}3$ PROPOSAL EVALUATION FOR APOLLO SPACECRAFt:

Five proposals were submitted to NASA to design and build the Apollo spacecraft. An evaluation board of more than $100$ specialists reviewed the proposals and ranked them as follows $($maximum $=10).$

$\backslash$table$[[$Martin Company,,$x^2{x}^2+x^2+x,,],[$General Dynamics,$\backslash$table$[[5\mathrm{.}58],[5\mathrm{.}27]],6\mathrm{.}63,8\mathrm{.}09,6\mathrm{.}90],[\backslash$table$[[$Astronautics$],[$North American$]],,5\mathrm{.}35,8\mathrm{.}52,6\mathrm{.}59],[\backslash$table$[[$Aviation$],[$General Electrir$]],5\mathrm{.}09,6\mathrm{.}66,7\mathrm{.}59,6\mathrm{.}56],[\backslash$table$[[$Compal Electric$],[$Company$]],5\mathrm{.}16,5\mathrm{.}60,,],[\backslash$table$[[$McDonnell Aircraft$],[$Corporation$]],5\mathrm{.}53,5\mathrm{.}67,7\mathrm{.}62,]]$

The board unequivocally recommended to NASA senor management that Martin be awarded the contract but suggested North American as the next$-$best alternative based upun NAs experience in developing high$-$performance military and research aircratt. This experience liechnical qualificationl sufficiently impressed the board that it put NA ahead of General Dynamics, despite NAs lower ratings on technical approach Idesign of the space capsulel and business strength lorganization and managementl. The board mentioned that any shortcomings in NAs technical approach could be corrected through additional design effort. Seeing the board's recommendations $-$ and aware of