Evaluation Criteria Technical Bid
Evaluation Criteria Technical Bid Sample Clauses
Related to Evaluation Criteria Technical Bid
Evaluation Criteria 5.2.1. The responses will be evaluated based on the following: (edit evaluation criteria below as appropriate for your project)
Evaluation Cycle Goal Setting and Development of the Educator Plan A) Every Educator has an Educator Plan that includes, but is not limited to, one goal related to the improvement of practice; one goal for the improvement of student learning. The Plan also outlines actions the Educator must take to attain the goals established in the Plan and benchmarks to assess progress. Goals may be developed by individual Educators, by the Evaluator, or by teams, departments, or groups of Educators who have the similar roles and/or responsibilities. See Sections 15-19 for more on Educator Plans. B) To determine the goals to be included in the Educator Plan, the Evaluator reviews the goals the Educator has proposed in the Self-Assessment, using evidence of Educator performance and impact on student learning, growth and achievement based on the Educator’s self-assessment and other sources that Evaluator shares with the Educator. The process for determining the Educator’s impact on student learning, growth and achievement will be determined after ESE issues guidance on this matter. See #22, below. C) Educator Plan Development Meetings shall be conducted as follows: i) Educators in the same school may meet with the Evaluator in teams and/or individually at the end of the previous evaluation cycle or by October 15th of the next academic year to develop their Educator Plan. Educators shall not be expected to meet during the summer hiatus. ii) For those Educators new to the school, the meeting with the Evaluator to establish the Educator Plan must occur by October 15th or within six weeks of the start of their assignment in that school iii) The Evaluator shall meet individually with Educators with PTS and ratings of needs improvement or unsatisfactory to develop professional practice goal(s) that must address specific standards and indicators identified for improvement. In addition, the goals may address shared grade level or subject matter goals. D) The Evaluator completes the Educator Plan by November 1st. The Educator shall sign the Educator Plan within 5 school days of its receipt and may include a written response. The Educator’s signature indicates that the Educator received the plan in a timely fashion. The signature does not indicate agreement or disagreement with its contents. The Evaluator retains final authority over the content of the Educator’s Plan.
Selection Criteria Each Contract is secured by a new or used Motorcycle. No Contract has a Contract Rate less than 1.00%. Each Contract amortizes the amount financed over an original term no greater than 84 months (excluding periods of deferral of first payment). Each Contract has a Principal Balance of at least $500.00 as of the Cutoff Date.
Tests and Preclinical and Clinical Trials The preclinical studies and clinical trials conducted by or, to the Company’s knowledge, on behalf of the Company, that are described in the Registration Statement, the Pricing Disclosure Package and the Prospectus, as applicable, and are intended to be submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (the “FDA”) or other comparable government entities, were and, if still ongoing, are being conducted in all material respects in accordance with experimental protocols, procedures and controls pursuant to accepted professional scientific standards and all Authorizations and Applicable Laws, including, without limitation, current Good Clinical Practices and Good Laboratory Practices and any applicable rules and regulations of the jurisdiction in which such trials and studies are being conducted; the descriptions of the results of such studies and trials contained in the Registration Statement, the Pricing Disclosure Package and the Prospectus are, to the Company’s knowledge, accurate and complete in all material respects and fairly present the data derived from such studies and trials; except to the extent disclosed in the Registration Statement, the Pricing Disclosure Package and the Prospectus, the Company is not aware of any studies or trials, the results of which the Company believes reasonably call into question the study or trial results described or referred to in the Registration Statement, the Pricing Disclosure Package and the Prospectus when viewed in the context in which such results are described and the clinical stage of development; and, except to the extent disclosed in the Registration Statement, the Pricing Disclosure Package or the Prospectus, the Company has not received any written notices or written correspondence from the FDA or any governmental entity requiring the termination or suspension of any preclinical studies or clinical trials conducted by or on behalf of the Company, other than ordinary course communications with respect to modifications in connection with the design and implementation of such trials, copies of which communications have been made available to you.
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.
Human Leukocyte Antigen Testing This plan covers human leukocyte antigen testing for A, B, and DR antigens once per member per lifetime to establish a member’s bone marrow transplantation donor suitability in accordance with R.I. General Law §27-20-36. The testing must be performed in a facility that is: • accredited by the American Association of Blood Banks or its successors; and • licensed under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Act as it may be amended from time to time. At the time of testing, the person being tested must complete and sign an informed consent form that also authorizes the results of the test to be used for participation in the National Marrow Donor program.
Feasibility Study A feasibility study will identify the potential costs, service quality and other benefits which would result from contracting out the work in question. The cost analysis for the feasibility study shall not include the Employer’s indirect overhead costs for existing salaries or wages and benefits for administrative staff or for rent, equipment, utilities, and materials, except to the extent that such costs are attributable solely to performing the services to be contracted out. Upon completion of the feasibility study, the Employer agrees to furnish the Union with a copy if the feasibility study, the bid from the Apparent Successful Bidder and all pertinent information upon which the Employer based its decision to contract out the work including, but not limited to, the total cost savings the Employer anticipates. The Employer shall not go forward with contracting out the work in question if more than sixty percent (60%) of any projected savings resulting from the contracting out are attributable to lower employee wage and benefit costs.
Evaluation Process A. The immediate supervisor will meet with an employee at the start of their review period to discuss performance expectations. The employee will receive copies of their performance expectations as well as notification of any modifications made during the review period. Employee work performance will be evaluated during probationary, trial service and transition review periods and at least annually thereafter. Notification will be given to a probationary or trial service employee whose work performance is determined to be unsatisfactory. B. The supervisor will discuss the evaluation with the employee. The employee will have the opportunity to provide feedback on the evaluation. The discussion may include such topics as: 1. Reviewing the employee’s performance; 2. Identifying ways the employee may improve their performance; 3. Updating the employee’s position description, if necessary; 4. Identifying performance goals and expectations for the next appraisal period; and 5. Identifying employee training and development needs. C. The performance evaluation process will include, but not be limited to, a written performance evaluation on forms used by the Employer, the employee’s signature acknowledging receipt of the forms, and any comments by the employee. A copy of the performance evaluation will be provided to the employee at the time of the review. A copy of the final performance evaluation, including any employee or reviewer comments, will be provided to the employee. The original performance evaluation forms, including the employee’s comments, will be maintained in the employee’s personnel file. D. If an employee disagrees with their performance evaluation, the employee has the right to attach a rebuttal. E. The performance evaluation process is subject to the grievance procedure in Article 30. The specific content of a performance evaluation is not subject to the grievance procedure. F. Performance evaluations will not be used to initiate personnel actions such as transfer, promotion, or discipline.
Evaluation Procedure The procedural requirements set forth in this agreement which conform with and provide specificity to the statutory obligations established by Ohio Rev. Code § 3319.111 and § 3319.112.
Study Population Infants who underwent creation of an enterostomy receiving postoperative care and awaiting enterostomy closure: to be assessed for eligibility: n = 201 to be assigned to the study: n = 106 to be analysed: n = 106 Duration of intervention per patient of the intervention group: 6 weeks between enterostomy creation and enterostomy closure Follow-up per patient: 3 months, 6 months and 12 months post enterostomy closure, following enterostomy closure (12-month follow-up only applicable for patients that are recruited early enough to complete this follow-up within the 48 month of overall study duration).
