EVALUATION OF BIDS’ PROJECT VIABILITY Sample Clauses

EVALUATION OF BIDS’ PROJECT VIABILITY. The implementation of the Project Viability Calculator as a screening tool for use in the evaluation of Offers has brought several advantages: • The Calculator is a step in the direction of more standardized evaluation of viability across all three IOUs. • The Calculator provides a broader set of criteria by which projects are assessed than was the case with PG&E’s prior approach to scoring viability. • The range of scores from zero to 100 gives more visibility to differences between projects than methods that use single-digit scores. • The methodology allows PG&E to use both the more standardized tool as well as business judgment in taking project characteristics into account when making short list decisions. There are still opportunities to improve the use of the Calculator. • Some of the scoring guidelines for the Calculator are sufficiently ambiguous that reasonable individuals scoring the same project can arrive at different results. When the scores rated by Xxxxxx and the PG&E team were compared, the variance between scores had a standard deviation of 12 points. Even among individual members of the PG&E team there was a need to review and standardize scoring to reduce discrepancies between individuals’ practices. This suggests that the Calculator is still a crude screening tool with a lot of noise in the scoring process, and that differences of only two or three points between projects should not be regarded as determinative in selecting one and rejecting the other, because the difference falls within the error of the analysis. • As evidenced by feedback from Participants, developers in general have a poor understanding of how the utility interprets the scoring guidelines. Many developers, for example, claimed not understand that their project cannot obtain a score of 10 out of 10 for project development experience if their team has never brought at least two projects of equal or larger size with similar technology into operation…even though that is explicitly what the scoring guidelines in the Calculator state. • Some scoring criteria would be difficult for a layperson to interpret, such as the Transmission System Upgrade Requirements criterion that requires some basic knowledge of what components of an upgrade require or don’t require a CPUC Permit to Construct of Notice of Construction. Many or most developers lack on- staff experts in the regulatory landscape for new transmission build in California. • Some of the Offers were scored low simply be...
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3See All (15)
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to EVALUATION OF BIDS’ PROJECT VIABILITY

  • Evaluation of Contractor Performance of the Contractor under this Agreement will be evaluated. The evaluation shall be prepared on Contract/Contractor Evaluation Sheet (STD 4), and maintained in the Agreement file. For consultant agreements, a copy of the evaluation will be sent to the Department of General Services, Office of Legal Services, if it is negative and over $5,000.

  • EVALUATION OF BIDS i) Bids submitted by the tenderer will be opened first and evaluated for fulfilling the Pre-qualification criteria and other conditions in NIT/Tender documents, based on documentary evidence submitted along with the offer.

  • Project Monitoring Reporting Evaluation A. The Project Implementing Entity shall monitor and evaluate the progress of its activities under the Project and prepare Project Reports in accordance with the provisions of Section 5.08(b) of the General Conditions and on the basis of indicators agreed with the Bank. Each such report shall cover the period of one

  • Project Monitoring Reporting and Evaluation The Recipient shall furnish to the Association each Project Report not later than forty-five (45) days after the end of each calendar semester, covering the calendar semester.

  • Constructability Review Prepare detailed interdisciplinary constructability review within Fourteen (14) days of receipt of the plans from the District that:

  • Completion of Evaluation Cycle 1. The summative evaluation rating shall be based upon a preponderance of the evidence, assessed in a holistic manner, that is aligned to the Ohio Educator Standards. Only evidence gathered during the walkthroughs and formal observations that are conducted for the current school year may be used.

  • Evaluation Use In the event that the Software is licensed only for Evaluation Use, the terms of this paragraph shall apply. Your license to use the Software commences on installation of the Software and, unless You and NetIQ agree to a different period, will terminate after a period of 30 days (the “Evaluation Period”). You may use the Software for an unlimited number of users and servers during the Evaluation Period. At the end of the Evaluation Period, Your license to use the Evaluation version of the Software is automatically terminated. You may not extend the time limits of the Software in any manner. At the end of the Evaluation Period You agree to de-install the Software and if required by NetIQ, return all copies or partial copies of the Software or certify to NetIQ that all copies or partial copies of the Software have been deleted from Your computer libraries and/or storage devices and have been destroyed. If You desire to continue Your use of the Software beyond the Evaluation Period, You must contact NetIQ to acquire a license to the Software for the applicable fee. EVALUATION SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED ON AN “AS IS” BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR REPRESENTATIONS OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES OR REPRESENTATIONS OF TITLE OR NON-INFRINGEMENT.

  • 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

  • Evaluation of Teaching 1. All reports on a teacher shall be in writing.

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