Selection Criteria for Awarding Task Order The Government will award to the offeror whose proposal is deemed most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment using the evaluation criteria. The Government will evaluate proposals against established selection criteria specified in the task order RFP. Generally, the Government's award decision will be based on selection criteria which addresses past performance, technical acceptability, proposal risk and cost. Among other sources, evaluation of past performance may be based on past performance assessments provided by TO Program Managers on individual task orders performed throughout the life of the contract. The order of importance for the factors will be identified in the RFP for the specified task order.
Criteria for Evaluation Criteria for employee performance review shall be made available to the employee before the start of the evaluation period and shall remain unchanged during the evaluation period unless the employee is made aware of the changes.
Criteria (1) Annual Evaluation Criteria. All performance evaluations shall be based upon assigned duties, and shall carefully consider the nature of the assignment in terms, where applicable, of:
Criteria for Promotion 24.04.01 For evaluating each application for promotion, the following general criteria shall apply:
Criteria for Tenure A. The decision to award tenure to an employee shall be a result of meritorious performance and shall be based on established criteria specified in writing by the University. The decision shall take into account the following:
Criteria for Performance Assessment A. A teacher’s performance shall be assessed based on the criteria set forth in the evaluation instrument, Appendix D.
Criteria for Selection a. The Sabbatical Selection Committee shall use four (4) criteria for selection of academic employees to receive sabbaticals. These are: the merit of the sabbatical project, the applicant’s current and previous contributions to the College community, the proposal’s relevancy to the College’s Strategic Plan and whether or not the applicant has had a previous sabbatical. In instances where these criteria are equal, seniority shall be the determining factor.
Evaluation Criteria 5.2.1. The responses will be evaluated based on the following: (edit evaluation criteria below as appropriate for your project)
Additional RO Review Criteria (1) In addition to the requirements in Subparagraph 34A, the RO must:
Proposing Integration Activities in the Planning Submission No integration activity described in section 6.3 may be proposed in a CAPS unless the LHIN has consented, in writing, to its inclusion pursuant to the process set out in section 6.3(b).
