Comparative Evaluation Methodology Sample Clauses

Comparative Evaluation Methodology. As authorized under FAR 13.106-2(b)(3), all quotes evaluated using a method called “pairwise comparisons” and assumption of transitivity. For this exercise, presumption four quotes received. When evaluating quotes the higher number is better. First, evaluation for experience. Subjectively compare TPV Company A description of its experience to TPV Company B. Subjective determination which TPV has better experience by taking note of asserted facts, identifying differences, determining their significance in meeting NDARNG Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements, and documenting conclusions. Presumption TPV Company A is better than Company B. Evaluator then compares TPV Company A to Company C. This time Company C subjectively determined better than Company A. Because Company C is better thanCompany A that is better than Company B, therefore Company C is better than Company B. Evaluator then compares TPV Company C to Company D. Subjective determination that Company D is better than Company C. Because TPV Company D is better than Company C that is better than Company A and Company B, then Company D is better than Company A and Company B. Therefore, TPV Company D is best on experience. Because there are four offerors, and because TPV Company D is best, evaluator gives Company D four points. Because Company C is better than Company A and Company B,evaluator gives Company C three points. Because Company A is better than Company B,evaluator gives Company A two points. Finally, evaluator gives Company B one point. EXPERIENCE: D=4 C=3 A=2 B=1 Second, evaluation for past performance, using the same procedure as we did for experience. This time the result is as follows: PAST PERFORMANCE: D=4 A=3 B=2 C=1 Third, evaluation of the four TPV Companies’ prices. The lowest price gets four pointsand the highest gets 1 point. The result is: PRICE: B=4 A=3 C=2 D=1 Fourth, we total the points TOTAL: A=8 B=7 C=6 D=9 Fifth, Comparative Evaluation methodology determination TPV Company D is best overall. Award of BPA to Company D.
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Comparative Evaluation Methodology

  • Calculation methodology No adjustment in the Conversion Price need be made unless the adjustment would require an increase or decrease of at least 1% in the Conversion Price then in effect, provided that any adjustment that would otherwise be required to be made shall be carried forward and taken into account in any subsequent adjustment. Except as stated in this Article VI, the Conversion Rate will not be adjusted for the issuance of Common Stock or any securities convertible into or exchangeable for Common Stock or carrying the right to purchase any of the foregoing. Any adjustments that are made shall be carried forward and taken into account in any subsequent adjustment. All calculations under Article V and Section 6.06 hereof and this Section 6.07 shall be made to the nearest cent or to the nearest 1/10,000th of a share, as the case may be.

  • Methodology 1. The price at which the Assuming Institution sells or disposes of Qualified Financial Contracts will be deemed to be the fair market value of such contracts, if such sale or disposition occurs at prevailing market rates within a predefined timetable as agreed upon by the Assuming Institution and the Receiver.

  • 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.

  • Administrative Evaluation It is the intent of the SCD administration to conduct evaluations of non-priority- hire faculty as early as possible in a faculty member's employment in an SCD instructional unit. Administrative evaluation should occur before the beginning of the fifth quarter within the nine (9) out of twelve (12) quarter sequence outlined in Article 10.7.a.

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

  • Long Term Cost Evaluation Criterion 4. READ CAREFULLY and see in the RFP document under "Proposal Scoring and Evaluation". Points will be assigned to this criterion based on your answer to this Attribute. Points are awarded if you agree not increase your catalog prices (as defined herein) more than X% annually over the previous year for the life of the contract, unless an exigent circumstance exists in the marketplace and the excess price increase which exceeds X% annually is supported by documentation provided by you and your suppliers and shared with TIPS, if requested. If you agree NOT to increase prices more than 5%, except when justified by supporting documentation, you are awarded 10 points; if 6% to 14%, except when justified by supporting documentation, you receive 1 to 9 points incrementally. Price increases 14% or greater, except when justified by supporting documentation, receive 0 points. increases will be 5% or less annually per question Required Confidentiality Claim Form Required Confidentiality Claim Form This completed form is required by TIPS. By submitting a response to this solicitation you agree to download from the “Attachments” section, complete according to the instructions on the form, then uploading the completed form, with any confidential attachments, if applicable, to the “Response Attachments” section titled “Confidentiality Form” in order to provide to TIPS the completed form titled, “CONFIDENTIALITY CLAIM FORM”. By completing this process, you provide us with the information we require to comply with the open record laws of the State of Texas as they may apply to your proposal submission. If you do not provide the form with your proposal, an award will not be made if your proposal is qualified for an award, until TIPS has an accurate, completed form from you. Read the form carefully before completing and if you have any questions, email Xxxx Xxxxxx at TIPS at xxxx.xxxxxx@xxxx-xxx.xxx 8 Choice of Law clauses with TIPS Members If the vendor is awarded a contract with TIPS under this solicitation, the vendor agrees to make any Choice of Law clauses in any contract or agreement entered into between the awarded vendor and with a TIPS member entity to read as follows: "Choice of law shall be the laws of the state where the customer resides" or words to that effect. 9

  • 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?

  • 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.

  • Long Term Cost Evaluation Criterion # 4 READ CAREFULLY and see in the RFP document under "Proposal Scoring and Evaluation". Points will be assigned to this criterion based on your answer to this Attribute. Points are awarded if you agree not i ncrease your catalog prices (as defined herein) more than X% annually over the previous year for years two and thr ee and potentially year four, unless an exigent circumstance exists in the marketplace and the excess price increase which exceeds X% annually is supported by documentation provided by you and your suppliers and shared with TIP S, if requested. If you agree NOT to increase prices more than 5%, except when justified by supporting documentati on, you are awarded 10 points; if 6% to 14%, except when justified by supporting documentation, you receive 1 to 9 points incrementally. Price increases 14% or greater, except when justified by supporting documentation, receive 0 points. increases will be 5% or less annually per question Required Confidentiality Claim Form Required Confidentiality Claim Form This completed form is required by TIPS. By submitting a response to this solicitation you agree to download from th e “Attachments” section, complete according to the instructions on the form, then uploading the completed form, wit h any confidential attachments, if applicable, to the “Response Attachments” section titled “Confidentiality Form” in order to provide to TIPS the completed form titled, “CONFIDENTIALITY CLAIM FORM”. By completing this process, you provide us with the information we require to comply with the open record laws of the State of Texas as they ma y apply to your proposal submission. If you do not provide the form with your proposal, an award will not be made if your proposal is qualified for an award, until TIPS has an accurate, completed form from you. Read the form carefully before completing and if you have any questions, email Xxxx Xxxxxx at TIPS at xxxx.xxxxxx@t xxx-xxx.xxx

  • 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.

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