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 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 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 JV, 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), the specific relevant single task order proposed, not the entire MAC, 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: 1501000/1502000 – Facility Management/Facility Investment (including at least 3 sub-categories, such as Infrastructure Condition Assessment Programs, Scoping and Estimating Services, Managing Service Orders, Preventive Maintenance Programs, Integrated Maintenance Programs, Inspecting, Testing and Certification Programs); At least two Utility sub-annexes that are similar to the respective requirements in the RFP (at minimum, including operations, maintenance and repairs of the sub-annex systems); and 1700000 – Base Support Vehicles and Equipment (BSVE) (at minimum, including ope...
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. 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.
1. DART Rate: The board will evaluate trends over the last five years considering changes that take it from one risk level (or more) to the next up or down. Negative trends occurring above moderate risk levels require the offeror to provide a detailed explanation that includes any corrective actions taken for improvement.
a. Missing data without an explanation is considered a deficiency.
b. Declining trends that push the risk levels from Moderate Risk (MR) or higher to Low Risk (LR) or Very Low Risk (VLR) would indicate a strength.
c. An increasing DART rate trend could be considered a weakness (i.e. MR or better to High Risk (HR) or Extremely High Risk EHR)) if an acceptable explanation is not provided for any trends that rise above Moderate.
d. This chart correlates the DART rate to the level of risk: Risk DART Rate Very Low Risk Less Than 1.0 Low Risk From 1.0 to 1.99 Moderate Risk From 2.0 to 2.99 High Risk From 3.0 to 4.0 Extremely High Risk Greater than 4.0
2. TCR Rate: The board will evaluate trends over the last five years considering changes that take it from one risk level (or more) to the next up or down. Negative trends occurring above moderate risk levels require the offeror to provide a detailed explanation that includes any corrective actions taken for improvement.
a. Missing data without an explanation is considered a deficiency.
b. Declining trends that push the risk levels from Moderate Risk (MR) or higher to Low Risk (LR) or Very Low Risk (VLR) would indicate a strength.
c. An increasing TCR rate trend could be considered a weakness (i.e. MR or better to High Risk (HR) or Extremely High Risk EHR)) if an acceptable explanation is not provided for any trends that rise above Moderate.
d. This chart correlates the TCR rate to the level of risk: Risk TCR Rate Very Low Risk Less Than 2.49 Low Risk From 2.5 to 3.49 Moderate...
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. Offerors will be evaluated on the extent to which their proposals and other performance information available to the Government demonstrate a history of successfully supporting Government policies concerning utilization of small business concerns as subcontractors including, when applicable, achievements against established small business subcontracting plan goals. Offerors will also be evaluated on the levels of small business participation proposed and the degree of commitment to use named sources. The anticipated benefits of proposed initiatives and tools to enhance small business participation and capabilities will be considered. The Government will assess proposal realism and the likelihood of success in achieving the small business objectives of this acquisition. The subcontracting plan will not be evaluated.
Basis of Evaluation. The Government will evaluate each offeror’s past performance using a three step process. First, the Government will determine whether the project is recent. Second, the Government will evaluate the relevancy of all projects/contracts submitted by the offeror and other information available (Relevancy Assessment). Third, the Government will, considering relevancy and the offeror’s performance on those contracts, assign a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating.
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.
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:
1.3.6.1.1 Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation.
1.3.6.1.2 Comparison of proposed prices to historical prices paid, whether by the Government or other than the Government, for the same or similar services.
1.3.6.1.3 Comparison of proposed prices with Government cost estimates.
1.3.6.1.4 Analysis of pricing information provided by the offeror.
1.3.6.1.5 The Government will also evaluate the price proposal for unbalanced pricing.
