Contract Evaluation Sample Clauses
The Contract Evaluation clause establishes the process and criteria for assessing the performance or suitability of a contract during its term. Typically, this clause outlines when and how evaluations will occur, who is responsible for conducting them, and what standards or benchmarks will be used to measure compliance or effectiveness. By providing a structured approach to review, the clause ensures that both parties can monitor progress, address issues proactively, and make informed decisions about contract continuation or modification, thereby reducing the risk of disputes and unmet expectations.
Contract Evaluation. The parties hereto agree that once each year, or more often if deemed necessary in the opinion of City, City or its designated representative shall complete a performance review concerning the performance of Lessee under this Agreement.
Contract Evaluation. Did the contractor meet the performance goals and/or provide deliverables in a timely manner?
Contract Evaluation. Unless the criteria set forth in Article 11.07(F)(3) are met, evaluation of the Resident Educators shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the evaluation procedure contained in Article XI of this collective bargaining agreement and per applicable state laws.
Contract Evaluation. The Entry Year Program shall not replace employment evaluation. Evaluation of Entry Year teachers shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the evaluation procedure contained in Article V of this collective bargaining agreement and per applicable state laws.
Contract Evaluation. At least once every 5 years, the chair of the GOVERNING BOARD shall appoint a committee of members of the GOVERNING BOARD to review and evaluate this contract. Such committee shall prepare either (1) a statement saying no amendments are necessary, (2) written amendments to this contract, or (3) a new contract, and present the same to the GOVERNING BOARD. The GOVERNING BOARD shall consider the matters presented by such committee and make the changes it deems appropriate to this contract.
Contract Evaluation a) Evaluation will be conducted by City personnel and/or the City’s representative(s) using direct monitoring, indirect monitoring, survey, interview or milestone reviews.
b) Evaluations may include written reports and other documents regarding Vendor performance, and any written Vendor responses or documents. All evaluation material and supporting documentation will be maintained in the Vendor’s file, and will be considered as a “public record.” The evaluation shall be part of the record that the City is required to review, and may be considered in determining future Contract eligibility.
c) The opinions of the City are not statements of fact, and the Vendor shall not institute suit based on statements of opinion made by the City or its employees, officers or representatives.
d) At any time during normal business hours, and as often as the City may deem it reasonably necessary, there shall be available in the office of the Contractor for the purpose of audit, examination, and/or to make excerpts or transcript all records, contracts, invoices, materials, payrolls, records of personnel, conditions of employment and other data relating to all matters covered by this Contract.
Contract Evaluation. Contract evaluation considers three important aspects; the fleet size, composition issues and whether to accept long-term contracts. Based on those aspects: The shipping company has to evaluate whether it has sufficient fleet tonnage to fulfill the contract commitments together with its existing commitments, and if so, whether the contract is profitable (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al. [8]). Thus, in order to check the contract’s profitability, assumption regarding the development of the future spot market (in a given time period) needs to be considered. A common strategy among the shipping companies is to prefer as large contract coverage as possible when low spot rates are anticipated. The distribution of contracts depends on the trade-off between customer relations and costs. [8] NorStone’s current shipping policy is based on a long-term evaluation of the ship-owners they cooperate with. Considering the present market, SPOT-contracts would be very profitable in the short run, due to low demand and favorable bunker rates. Quality in transportation, the ability to deliver within given terms, and benefits from long-term relationship is important factors that determine the distribution of contracts. NorStone strive to maintain their “best in class” philosophy and, in order to do so, they offer customer service at highest level by providing deliveries within one-three days. Maintaining this request is possible due to a heterogeneous fleet and a broad cooperation with various ship-owners. Altogether, 44 heterogeneous vessels distributed approximately