Does Not Meet Evaluation. An evaluation in which a Member receives a does not meet rating in two (2) of the six (6) California Standards for the Teaching Profession (“CSTP”) as identified in Section 10.6.
Does Not Meet Evaluation Sample Clauses
Related to Does Not Meet Evaluation
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. (b) The technical evaluation committee may call the responsive bidders for discussion or presentation to facilitate and assess their understanding of the scope of work and its execution. However, the committee shall have sole discretion to call for discussion / presentation. (c) Financial bids of only those bidders who qualify the technical criteria will be opened provided all other requirements are fulfilled. (d) AIIMS Jodhpur shall have right to accept or reject any or all tenders without assigning any reasons thereof.
Annual Evaluation The Partnership will be evaluated on an annual basis through the use of the Strategic Partnership Annual Evaluation Format as specified in Appendix C of OSHA Instruction CSP 00-00-000, OSHA Strategic Partnership Program for Worker Safety and Health. The Choate Team will be responsible for gathering required participant data to evaluate and track the overall results and success of the Partnership. This data will be shared with OSHA. OSHA will be responsible for writing and submitting the annual evaluation.
Written Evaluation The Superintendent in consultation with the Board shall review and assess the Administrator’s performance on or before February 1 of each year. The Administrator shall be formally evaluated in writing annually by the Superintendent on or before February 1 of each year. The evaluation shall include a description of the Administrator’s duties and responsibilities and the standards to which the Administrator is to perform. It shall consider the Administrator’s specific duties, responsibilities, management and competence as an Administrator; specify the Administrator’s strengths and weaknesses with supporting reasons; align with research based standards established by the Illinois State Board of Education and use data and indicators on student growth as a significant factor in rating performance. The evaluation shall also consist of a review of the Administrator’s progress toward meeting established professional, student performance and academic goals set forth in Appendix A and a review of the Administrator’s leadership and management performance relative to his current assignment. The written evaluation shall be signed by both the Superintendent and the Administrator. The Administrator may respond to the evaluation in writing and such response shall be attached to and included in the Administrator’s personnel file.
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. 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. 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?
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.
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.
Purpose of Evaluation 10.1.1 It is recognized that a system of evaluation is essential to assist Unit Members in developing competency and realizing their potential. It is further recognized that information gathered through such a system will enable decisions that measure a Unit Member’s performance in a just and equitable manner. 10.1.2 The evaluation procedure is a cooperative process designed to: a. Promote the achievement of goals and objectives of the County Office and its programs through the assessment and evaluation of the staff that perform within that program; b. Provide a formal method of recognizing staff achievement and growth; c. Identify abilities and specific indicators most critical to support job performance; d. Develop suggestions and direction regarding desired performance and improvement based on standards for like positions; e. Increase the employee’s understanding of performance from the supervisor’s viewpoint; and f. Provide a process of two-way communication to evaluate job performance.
BID EVALUATION The Commissioner reserves the right to accept or reject any and all Bids, or separable portions of Bids, and waive technicalities, irregularities, and omissions if the Commissioner determines the best interests of the State will be served. The Commissioner, in his/her sole discretion, may accept or reject illegible, incomplete or vague Bids and his/her decision shall be final. A conditional or revocable Bid which clearly communicates the terms or limitations of acceptance may be considered, and Contract award may be made in compliance with the Bidder’s conditional or revocable terms in the Bid.
Annual Evaluations The purpose of the annual evaluation is to assess and communicate the nature and extent of an employee's performance of assigned duties consistent with the criteria specified below in this Policy. Except for those employees who have received notice of non-reappointment pursuant to the BOT- UFF Policy on Non- reappointment, every employee shall be evaluated at least once annually. Personnel decisions shall take such annual evaluations into account, provided that such decisions need not be based solely on written faculty performance evaluations.
Independent Evaluation Buyer is experienced and knowledgeable in the oil and gas business. Buyer has been advised by and has relied solely on its own expertise and legal, tax, accounting, marketing, land, engineering, environmental and other professional counsel concerning this transaction, the Subject Property and value thereof.
