Basis of Evaluation. Unit Members shall be evaluated based upon Performance Competency: The District shall evaluate and assess certificated Unit Member competency as it reasonably relates to The California Standards for the Teaching Profession (See Appendix Section 1D) and progress towards completion of performance goals.
Basis of Evaluation. The Government will evaluate proposals by conducting price analysis. The Government will evaluate price based on the total evaluated price in Attachment 2. The Government intends to evaluate the options and extension of services (option) period and has included the provision FAR 52.217-5, Evaluation of Options (JUL 1990) in the solicitation. In accordance with FAR 52.217-5, evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s). Analysis will be performed by one or more of the following techniques to ensure a fair and reasonable price:
Basis of Evaluation. The evaluation shall be based solely on the duties and responsibilities that have been assigned to the Member as noted in Article 21A.13.3.
Basis of Evaluation. The Government is seeking to determine that the offeror has consistently demonstrated a commitment to safety and that the offeror plans to properly manage and implement safety procedures for itself and its subcontractors. The evaluation will collectively consider the DART rate, TCR, Technical Approach to Safety, and other sources of information available to the Government as part of such collective evaluation. The board will evaluate the DART rates and TCR to determine if the offeror has demonstrated a history of safe work practices taking into account any negative trends and extenuating circumstances that impact the rating.
Basis of Evaluation. (i) The Government will evaluate price based on the total proposed price, which may take into consideration proposed ELIN Pricing at the functional (Annex/Sub-annex, Spec Item, etc.) level. Total price consists of the basic requirements and all option items (see Section B of the solicitation). The Government intends to evaluate all options and has included the provision FAR 52.217-5, Evaluation of Options (JUL 1990) in Section M of the solicitation. In accordance with FAR 52.217-5, evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s). Analysis will be performed by one or more of the following techniques to ensure a fair and reasonable price:
Basis of Evaluation. The Government will evaluate how well the offeror performed on the recent, relevant projects submitted under Factor 1, Corporate Experience, and on other recent, relevant contracts documented in known sources. There are three aspects of the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy, and quality. The first is to evaluate the recency of the offeror’s past performance. The second aspect is to determine the relevancy of the offeror’s past performance. For purposes of this evaluation, the criteria identified in Factor 1, Corporate Experience will be utilized in determining relevancy. The third aspect is to evaluate the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance and how well the offeror performed on the projects. The past performance evaluation does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed on those past contracts. The Government will evaluate the degree to which past performance evaluations and all other past performance information reviewed by the Government (e.g., CPARS, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and information obtained from any other source) reflect a trend of satisfactory performance considering: – A pattern of successful completion of tasks; – A pattern of deliverables that are timely and of good quality; – A pattern of cooperativeness and teamwork with the Government at all levels (task managers, contracting officers, auditors, etc.); and – Recency/relevancy (as defined for Factor 1) of tasks performed that are identical to, similar to, or related to the task at hand In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past contract performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv). In this case, the offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a confidence rating of “neutral.” CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
Basis of Evaluation. The assessment of the offeror’s recent and relevant experience will be used as a means of evaluating the capability of the offeror to successfully meet the requirements of this solicitation. The Government will consider the depth and breadth of the relevant experience, focusing on performance of technical specifications to be performed under this contract, to evaluate the level of risk of unsuccessful performance. The Government will review only five (5) projects. Any projects submitted in excess of the five (5) project limit will not be considered. Projects must be submitted on the required Attachment JM-1. Projects completed by the offeror or its corporate affiliates (e.g., subsidiaries, sister companies, predecessor companies, and parent companies) in any capacity other than as prime contractor will be considered not relevant. Projects performed by the offeror as the prime contractor may be evaluated more favorably than those performed by affiliates/subsidiaries/parent/LLC/LTD/member companies. Projects completed by a proposed subcontractor will be considered not relevant. Projects submitted by JVs where the JV firms performed together may be evaluated more favorably than projects submitted in which the JV firms did not perform together. With the exception of offerors covered by Mentor-Protégé Agreements approved by the Small Business Administration, if the offeror is a JV, each member of the JV must demonstrate prime contractor experience on at least one relevant project. If each member of the JV does not have at least one relevant experience project, then the offeror will be considered unacceptable. For multiple award contracts (MACs) or indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contracts, the specific relevant single task order proposed, not the entire MAC or IDIQ contract, will be considered a project for evaluation purposes. Offerors who fail to aggregately demonstrate relevant experience in ALL of the following will be considered unacceptable: 1502000 – Facility Investment similar to the requirements of the RFP (at minimum, Service Orders, Preventive Maintenance, and HVAC); 1503010 – Custodial similar to the requirements of the RFP; 1503050 – Grounds Maintenance and Landscaping similar to the requirements of the RFP. Offerors who demonstrate relevant experience in 1604000 Wastewater system maintenance may be evaluated more favorably.
Basis of Evaluation. Evaluations shall be based on classroom activities, student supervision, and the other criteria identified in the evaluation instrument. Formal classroom evaluations shall be conducted in the open and with full knowledge of the teacher concerned. Without prior notification, no form of electronic device may be used. Formal classroom observations may not be conducted in conjunction with a holiday or on the day after or before it.
Basis of Evaluation. Evaluations shall be based on direct personal knowledge or substantiated information about the employee's performance, subject to paragraph A above.
Basis of Evaluation. The Offeror will be evaluated on the extent to which the key personnel resumes demonstrate the Offeror’s key personnel’s experience, education, and qualifications to meet the contract requirement. The Offeror will also be evaluated on the extent to which the Offeror’s staffing and transition plans demonstrate an effective and realistic approach to implement the requirements of the PWS.
