Evaluation Overview. Saugus Union School District has developed an evaluation system which meets requirements specified in the legislation and follows standards which constitute a legal system of employee evaluation. • The evaluation system contains the components mandated by the Legislature and is in harmony with statutory procedural standards. • Standards for satisfactory performance are available to employees and are applied equally to all. • Notices of deficiencies are provided to employees in written form along with specific directions and assistance to improve unsatisfactory performance. The present instrument for the improvement of instruction is based on The California Standards for the Teaching Profession which are organized around the following six categories: • Engaging and Supporting All Students in Learning • Creating and Maintaining Effective Environments for Student Learning • Understanding and Organizing Subject Matter for Student Learning • Planning Instruction and Designing Learning Experiences for All Students • Assessing Students for Learning • Developing as a Professional Educator The purpose of evaluation is to improve the quality of education provided to students. It is an ongoing process focused on the means by which each individual can more effectively contribute to the educational effort of the District. It is based upon a fair and objective assessment of performance. Site Administrators are responsible for completing all evaluation documents. Teacher support programs which assist in the development of good teaching skills include: Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment (BTSA), Pre-intern, Intern, and Peer Assistance and Review (PAR). Improvement of Instruction Evaluation Process Schedule for PERMANENT Teachers If the teacher has received a "competent or proficient" rating on the summative, she/he may be evaluated every other year. If a teacher receives an "unsatisfactory" or two or more "needs to improve" on the summative, she/he will be evaluated yearly. If a teacher receives a single "needs to improve" she/he may be evaluated yearly. If the teacher is permanent in the district, but new to the school, and has been evaluated the previous year as "competent or proficient", the principal may choose to evaluate the teacher. If the teacher receives an "unsatisfactory" or two consecutive "needs to improve" ratings on the summative, participation in Peer Assistance and Review (PAR) will be mandatory. The following steps are to be completed: STEPS TO BE C...
Evaluation Overview. The Government intends to award a contract to the Offeror whose proposal represents the best overall value and is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with the requisite consideration discussed below using the four (4) evaluation factors: Technical, Small Business Subcontracting, Past Performance, and Cost/Price. The Technical Factor will be adjectively rated. The Past Performance and Small Business Factor will be rated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. The Cost factor will not be rated, but will be evaluated for completeness, reasonableness and for realism as specified below. The relative order of importance of all factors will be in the following order the Technical Factor is significantly more important than the Small Business, Past Performance and Cost/Price Factors when combined. The Small Business, Past Performance and Cost/Price are of all equal importance to each other. In order for an Offeror to be considered for award, the proposal must receive at least an “Acceptable” rating in every non- price Factor and Sub-factor. A proposal receiving a rating of “Unacceptable” in any non-price Factor or Sub-factor will not be eligible for award. In a trade-off evaluation, Offerors are cautioned that an award may not necessarily be made to the Offeror who submitted the lowest priced offer. Evaluation and award of this contract will be made in accordance with the Best Value Continuum Tradeoff procedures described in FAR Part 15.101-1 Tradeoff Process for a Best Value Decision. For purposes of performing the best value tradeoff, all non-cost factors when combined are significantly more important than the Cost/Price factor. The Government intends to hold discussions; however reserves the right to award without discussions; therefore, Offerors are cautioned to ensure that their proposals contain all necessary information and are complete in ALL respects. The non-cost factors for evaluation are: Technical, Small Business Subcontracting, and Past Performance. The Technical Factor is comprised of six (6) Sub-factors: 1a) Technical Experience; 1b) Facilities/Software Infrastructure; 1c) Contract Administration and Management; 1d) Earned Value Management (EVM); 1e) Transition Plan; and 1f) Performance Work Statement Compliance Matrix. Sub-factor 1a is significantly more important than Sub-factor 1b. Technical Sub-factor 1c through Technical Sub-factor 1f are rated as “acceptable” or ‘unacceptable” so the relative importance of these sub-factors a...
Evaluation Overview. This part of the study will involve research and presentation of basic information for the economic evaluation work. Topics include selection of the appropriate discount rate to use, price adjustment over time (inflation), format and procedures for evaluating benefits and costs, and related topics. [1.25 PD] Evaluation and Analysis Advisory assistance will be conducted throughout the study process, for 4 projects. From past experience, this varies by project, usually with more extensive work on the first project, less for the rest. The average, including ongoing coordination review and assistance, is estimated to be about 1 PD per project for the 4 projects. [4 PD] Meetings/Coordination Meetings and coordination will consist of communication by phone, email, and possibly also in-person meetings throughout the project.
