COMBINED EVALUATION SCORE Sample Clauses

COMBINED EVALUATION SCORE. The Combined Evaluation Score will be made up of the marks for the technical proposal accounting for [65%], the margin of preference accounting for [5%] and the marks for the financial proposal accounting for [30%] of the final evaluation score. Pursuant to the above, the final weighted score or Combine Evaluation Score, will be computed as follows: 𝐶𝑆 = 𝑥𝑥𝑇𝑆) + 𝑦𝑦(𝑃𝑆) + 𝑧𝑧(𝐹𝑆) Where: CS = Combined Evaluation Score xx = Percentage Weighting of the Technical Score TS = Technical Evaluation Score yy = Percentage Weighting of the Preference Score PS = Margin of Preference Score zz = Percentage Weighting of the Financial Score FS = Financial Evaluation Score The LHDA may at its discretion seek clarification from a Bidder on parts of the proposal to facilitate the evaluation process. Such clarifications shall be requested in writing and shall not change the proposal. There shall be no other communication on the proposal between LHDA and the Bidder during the evaluation process. XXXX will then enter into negotiations with the preferred Consultant with the intention of entering into a Contract. At the conclusion of the negotiations, the Client will prepare a Memorandum of Understanding, which, together with the Client's Letter of Acceptance of Proposal will constitute a binding contract, unless and until a formal Contract Agreement has been entered into. In the event that these negotiations are not successful, LHDA will proceed to the second-ranked Consultant, and so on. The LHDA reserves the right to conduct background checks for all its potential consultants. KINGDOM OF LESOTHO LESOTHO HIGHLANDS WATER PROJECT THE LESOTHO HIGHLANDS DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Lesotho Highlands Water Project Request for Proposals for CONTRACT LHDA NO. 6028C Provision of Professional Services for LESOTHO HIGHLANDS WATER PROJECT CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT SECTION 8 – FORM OF AGREEMENT LHDA LHDA Tower Building Kingsway Maseru, Lesotho July 2022 Version 1 AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT together with the documents annexed and/or named herein called "the Agreement" made this ……….. day of ………….. in the year two thousand and………….., between the Lesotho Highlands Development Authority (LHDA) (hereinafter called the "the Client") of the one part and (hereinafter called "the Consultant”) of the other part. Witnesseth that:
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
COMBINED EVALUATION SCORE. The Combined Evaluation Score will be made up of the marks for the technical proposal accounting for [65%], the margin of preference accounting for [5%] and the marks for the financial proposal accounting for [30%] of the final evaluation score. Pursuant to the above, the final weighted score or Combine Evaluation Score, will be computed as follows: 𝑪𝑺 = 𝒙𝒙(𝑻𝑺) + 𝒚𝒚(𝑷𝑺) + 𝒛𝒛(𝑭𝑺) Where: CS = Combined Evaluation Score xx = Percentage Weighting of the Technical Score TS = Technical Evaluation Score yy = Percentage Weighting of the Preference Score PS = Margin of Preference Score zz = Percentage Weighting of the Financial Score FS = Financial Evaluation Score The LHDA may at its discretion seek clarification from a Bidder on parts of the proposal to facilitate the evaluation process. Such clarifications shall be requested in writing and shall not change the proposal. There shall be no other communication on the proposal between LHDA and the Bidder during the evaluation process. XXXX will then enter into negotiations with the preferred Consultant with the intention of entering into a Contract. At the conclusion of the negotiations, the Client will prepare a Memorandum of Understanding, which, together with the Client's Letter of Acceptance of Proposal will constitute a binding contract, unless and until a formal Contract Agreement has been entered into. In the event that these negotiations are not successful, LHDA will proceed to the second-ranked Consultant, and so on.

Related to COMBINED EVALUATION SCORE

  • Focused Evaluation The Focused Evaluation is used when a teacher is not evaluated using the Comprehensive Evaluation process, and will include evaluation of one of the eight state criteria (student growth impact required). If a non-provisional teacher has scored at Proficient or higher the previous year, they may be moved to Focused Evaluation. The teacher may remain on the Focused Evaluation for five (5) years before returning to the Comprehensive Evaluation. The teacher or the evaluator can initiate a move from the Focused to the Comprehensive Evaluation. A decision to move a teacher from a Focused to a Comprehensive Evaluation must occur by December 15.

  • JOC EVALUATION If any materials being utilized for a project cannot be found in the RS Means Price Book, this question is what is the markup percentage on those materials? When answering this question please insert the number that represents your percentage of proposed markup. Example: if you are proposing a 30 percent markup, please insert the number "30". Remember that this is a ceiling markup. You may markup a lesser percentage to the TIPS Member customer when pricing the project, but not a greater percentage. EXAMPLE: You need special materials that are not in the RS Means Unit Price Book for a project. You would buy the materials and xxxx them up to the TIPS Member customer by the percentage you propose in this question. If the materials cost you, the contractor, $100 and you proposed a markup on this question for the material of 30 percent, then you would charge the TIPS Member customer $130 for the materials. No response TIPS/ESC Region 8 is required by Texas Government Code § 791 to be compensated for its work and thus, failure to agree shall render your response void and it will not be considered. Yes - No Vendor agrees to remit to TIPS the required administration fee or, if resellers are named, guarantee the fee remittance by or for the reseller named by the vendor?

  • PROGRESS EVALUATION Engineer shall, from time to time during the progress of the Engineering Services, confer with County at County’s election. Engineer shall prepare and present such information as may be pertinent and necessary, or as may be reasonably requested by County, in order for County to evaluate features of the Engineering Services. At the request of County or Engineer, conferences shall be provided at Engineer's office, the offices of County, or at other locations designated by County. When requested by County, such conferences shall also include evaluation of the Engineering Services. County may, from time to time, require Engineer to appear and provide information to the Xxxxxxxxxx County Commissioners Court. Should County determine that the progress in Engineering Services does not satisfy an applicable Work Authorization or any Supplemental Work Authorization related thereto, then County shall review same with Engineer to determine corrective action required. Engineer shall promptly advise County in writing of events which have or may have a significant impact upon the progress of the Engineering Services, including but not limited to the following:

  • Job Evaluation The work of the provincial job evaluation steering committee (the JE Committee) will continue during the term of this Framework Agreement. The objectives of the JE Committee are as follows: • Review the results of the phase one and phase two pilots and outcomes of the committee work. Address any anomalies identified with the JE tool, process, or benchmarks. • Rate the provincial benchmarks and create a job hierarchy for the provincial benchmarks. • Gather data from all school districts and match existing job descriptions to the provincial benchmarks. • Identify the job hierarchy for local job descriptions for all school districts. • Compare the local job hierarchy to the benchmark-matched hierarchy. • Develop a methodology to convert points to pay bands - The confirmed method must be supported by current compensation best practices. • Identify training requirements to support implementation of the JE plan and develop training resources as required. Once the objectives outlined above are completed, the JE Committee will mutually determine whether a local, regional or provincial approach to the steps outlined above is appropriate. It is recognized that the work of the committee is technical, complicated, lengthy and onerous. To accomplish the objectives, the parties agree that existing JE funds can be accessed by the JE committee to engage consultant(s) to complete this work. It is further recognized that this process does not impact the established management right of employers to determine local job requirements and job descriptions nor does this process alter any existing collective agreement rights or established practices. When the JE plan is ready to be implemented, and if an amendment to an existing collective agreement is required, the JE Committee will work with the local School District and Local Union to make recommendations for implementation. Any recommendations will also be provided to the Provincial Labour Management Committee (PLMC). As mutually agreed by the provincial parties and the JE Committee, the disbursement of available JE funds shall be retroactive to January 2, 2020. The committee will utilize available funds to provide 50% of the wage differential for the position falling the furthest below the wage rate established by the provincial JE process and will continue this process until all JE fund monies at the time have been disbursed. The committee will follow compensation best practices to avoid problems such as inversion. The committee will report out to the provincial parties regularly during the term of the Framework Agreement. Should any concerns arise during the work of the committee they will be referred to the PLMC. Create a maintenance program to support ongoing implementation of the JE plan at a local, regional or provincial level. The maintenance program will include a process for addressing the wage rates of incumbents in positions which are impacted by implementation of the JE plan. The provincial parties confirm that $4,419,859 of ongoing annual funds will be used to implement the Job Evaluation Plan. Effective July 1, 2022, there will be a one-time pause of the annual $4,419,859 JE funding. This amount has been allocated to the local table bargaining money. The annual funding will recommence July 1, 2023.

  • Performance Evaluations 34.1. The Contractor is subject to an annual performance evaluation to be conducted by NYCDOT pursuant to the PPB Rules.

  • Performance Evaluation The Department may conduct a performance evaluation of Contractor’s Services, including Contractor’s Subcontractors. Results of any evaluation may be made available to Contractor upon request.

  • Summative Evaluation An evaluation used to arrive at a rating on each standard, an overall rating, and as a basis to make personnel decisions. The summative evaluation includes the Evaluator’s judgments of the Educator’s performance against Performance Standards and the Educator’s attainment of goals set forth in the Educator’s Plan.

  • Program Evaluation The School District and the College will develop a plan for the evaluation of the Dual Credit program to be completed each year. The evaluation will include, but is not limited to, disaggregated attendance and retention rates, GPA of high-school-credit-only courses and college courses, satisfactory progress in college courses, state assessment results, SAT/ACT, as applicable, TSIA readiness by grade level, and adequate progress toward the college-readiness of the students in the program. The School District commits to collecting longitudinal data as specified by the College, and making data and performance outcomes available to the College upon request. HB 1638 and SACSCOC require the collection of data points to be longitudinally captured by the School District, in collaboration with the College, will include, at minimum: student enrollment, GPA, retention, persistence, completion, transfer and scholarships. School District will provide parent contact and demographic information to the College upon request for targeted marketing of degree completion or workforce development information to parents of Students. School District agrees to obtain valid FERPA releases drafted to support the supply of such data if deemed required by counsel to either School District or the College. The College conducts and reports regular and ongoing evaluations of the Dual Credit program effectiveness and uses the results for continuous improvement.

  • Annual Performance Evaluation On either a fiscal year or calendar year basis, (consistently applied from year to year), the Bank shall conduct an annual evaluation of Executive’s performance. The annual performance evaluation proceedings shall be included in the minutes of the Board meeting that next follows such annual performance review.

  • Re-evaluation a) When a job has moved to a higher group as a result of re-evaluation, the resulting rate shall be retroactive from the date that Management or the employee has applied to the Plant Job Review Committee for re-evaluation.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.