Combined Technical/Risk Rating Sample Clauses

Combined Technical/Risk Rating. Adjectival Rating Description Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low. Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach andunderstanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate. Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate. Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high. Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk or unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable. Table M.3.5b. Technical Risk Rating Method Adjectival Rating Description Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties. Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties. High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring. Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level. Table M.3.5c. Definitions Evaluation Term Definition Strength An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance. Weakness A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. Significant Weakness A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. Uncertainty Is any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the in...
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Combined Technical/Risk Rating. Adjectival Rating Description Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low. Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understandingof the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate. Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate. Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high. Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk or unsuccessful performance is unacceptable.Proposal is unawardable.
Sample 1
Combined Technical/Risk Rating. 1. The offeror will be evaluated on offeror’s capability/capacity of schedule planning and understanding of the requirements in order to determine if the offeror will be able to meet the required delivery date.
Sample 1
Combined Technical/Risk Rating. Rating Description Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low. Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low. Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.
Sample 1
Combined Technical/Risk Rating. The following combined technical/risk ratings include consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings and will be used for the Technical Capability evaluation.
Sample 1
Combined Technical/Risk Rating. Rating Description Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low. Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate. Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high. Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable. Risk Rating Description Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties. Moderate Proposal contains significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties. High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring. Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.
Sample 1
Combined Technical/Risk Rating. The combined technical/risk rating for each subfactor includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. The technical rating evaluates the quality of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirements and the degree to which the offeror’s proposal meets or does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirements. If an offeror’s proposal demonstrates a material failure to meet a Government requirement, this is a deficiency in the offeror’s proposal resulting in a Red/Unacceptable rating and the proposal is not awardable. The severity of the deficiency will determine if the offeror will be able to correct the deficiency through discussions. The combined technical/risk evaluations shall utilize the combined technical/risk ratings listed in Table 3 of the DoD Source Selection Procedures and the risk descriptions set forth in Table 2B.
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Combined Technical/Risk Rating

  • Industry Ratings The City will only accept coverage from an insurance carrier who offers proof that it:

  • Evaluation Rating The final summative evaluation level that is assigned to a teacher based on the holistic review of all Evaluation Factors, observed during the Evaluation Cycle. The rating shall be “accomplished”, “skilled”, “developing”, or “ineffective”. The final rating shall not be weighted in such a way that one (1) domain or component of the evaluation system has a higher importance than another, except that any area marked N/A shall not negatively impact the evaluation rating.

  • Insurance Carrier Rating Coverages provided by Contractor must be underwritten by an insurance company deemed acceptable to the State of Washington’s Office of Risk Management. Insurance coverage shall be provided by companies authorized to do business within the State of Washington and rated A- Class VII or better in the most recently published edition of Best’s Insurance Rating. Enterprise Services reserves the right to reject all or any insurance carrier(s) with an unacceptable financial rating.

  • Reporting on Utilization of Subject Inventions 1. The Performer agrees to submit, during the term of the Agreement, an annual report on the utilization of a subject invention or on efforts at obtaining such utilization that are being made by the Performer or its licensees or assignees. Such reports shall include information regarding the status of development, date of first commercial sale or use, gross royalties received by the Performer, and such other data and information as the agency may reasonably specify. The Performer also agrees to provide additional reports as may be requested by DARPA in connection with any march-in proceedings undertaken by DARPA in accordance with Paragraph I of this Article. DARPA agrees it shall not disclose such information to persons outside the Government without permission of the Performer, unless required by law.

  • TECHNICAL EVALUATION (a) Detailed technical evaluation shall be carried out by Purchase Committee pursuant to conditions in the tender document to determine the substantial responsiveness of each tender. For this clause, the substantially responsive bid is one that conforms to all the eligibility and terms and condition of the tender without any material deviation. The Institute’s determination of bid’s responsiveness is to be based on the contents of the bid itself without recourse to extrinsic evidence. The Institute shall evaluate the technical bids also to determine whether they are complete, whether required sureties have been furnished, whether the documents have been properly signed and whether the bids are in order.

  • ROCK GRADATION TYPES Purchaser shall manufacture rock in accordance with the types and amounts listed in the ROCK LIST. Rock must meet the following specifications for gradation and uniform quality when placed in hauling vehicles. Purchaser shall provide a sieve analysis upon request from the Contract Administrator.

  • Insurance Carrier Required Rating All insurance companies must carry a rating acceptable to the Office of Risk and Insurance Management. If the Contractor is self-insured for a portion or all of its insurance, review of financial information including a letter of credit may be required.

  • Originating Switched Access Detail Usage Data A category 1101XX record as defined in the EMI Telcordia Practice BR-010-200- 010.

  • Benchmarks for Measuring Accessibility For the purposes of this Agreement, the accessibility of online content and functionality will be measured according to the W3C’s Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 Level AA and the Web Accessibility Initiative Accessible Rich Internet Applications Suite (WAI-ARIA) 1.0 for web content, which are incorporated by reference. Adherence to these accessible technology standards is one way to ensure compliance with the College’s underlying legal obligations to ensure that people with disabilities are able to acquire the same information, engage in the same interactions, and enjoy the same benefits and services within the same timeframe as their nondisabled peers, with substantially equivalent ease of use; that they are not excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or otherwise subjected to discrimination in any College programs, services, and activities delivered online, as required by Section 504 and the ADA and their implementing regulations; and that they receive effective communication of the College’s programs, services, and activities delivered online.

  • Loop Testing/Trouble Reporting 2.1.6.1 Think 12 will be responsible for testing and isolating troubles on the Loops. Think 12 must test and isolate trouble to the BellSouth portion of a designed/non- designed unbundled Loop (e.g., UVL-SL2, UCL-D, UVL-SL1, UCL-ND, etc.) before reporting repair to the UNE Customer Wholesale Interconnection Network Services (CWINS) Center. Upon request from BellSouth at the time of the trouble report, Think 12 will be required to provide the results of the Think 12 test which indicate a problem on the BellSouth provided Loop.

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