Evaluation Result Sample Clauses

Evaluation Result. Bid Ranking
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Evaluation Result. The improvements to major rivers, tributaries and municipal drainage channels, and the development of drainage channels (revetments, covered conduits, etc.) were conducted almost as planned, and the project period and costs were also basically as planned. The river improvements (main rivers now capable of handling floods with a 25-year return probability*1) and drainage channel development (handling floods with a 5-year return probability*1) resulted in no external overflow*2 during the torrential rains of February 2003 although a flow rate of 600m3/s - equivalent to the scale of a 25-year return probability - was recorded in the Airdingin River. This suggests that the flood control effects of the project have been sufficiently realized. In the beneficiary survey, more than 60% of respondents stated that “damage to household effects and furniture has decreased”, and more than 50% that “there is less destruction of property”, confirming that there have been significant reductions in flood damage. This project together with the Phase 1 project has benefited approximately 820 thousand people (the population of Padang City) (Sakai City in Osaka has a population of 790 thousand). Reduced flood damage is promoting increased housing investment and expansions to useable land areas in the region covered by the project. Between 1995-2001, GRDP (gross regional domestic product) in Padang City increased by an average of 3.4% annually, exceeding the national average of 1.2%. In addition, beneficiaries pointed to “higher asset values” and “improved living standards” as impacts of the project. There are no problems in the technical capacity, operation and maintenance system, or financial condition of the Directorate General of Water Resources, Ministry of Public Works: the project’s executing agency. *1 Floods on a scale that occurs roughly once every 25 years (5 years) *2 Water from rivers inundates areas where there are no revetments, etc.
Sample 1
Evaluation Result. The development of the airport (civil works, architectural work, air safety facilities, utility supply and treatment facilities) was implemented almost as planned, and the project period and costs were also almost as planned. A comparison of air traffic prior to project implementation (1993) and post completion (2002) reveals that passenger traffic has increased by 21%, or from 4 million to 4.84 million passengers, while cargo traffic has is up 71%, or from 41 thousand tons to 70 thousand tons. While national GDP fell 1.5% during 1997 through 2000, GRDP (gross regional domestic production) in Bali Province climbed 6.1% in the same period. In terms of safety, since 1994 there have been no accidents at Bali International Airport or in its air traffic control zone. The economic crisis and political upheaval have caused air traffic volumes to fall below target levels (2002: passenger traffic of 5 million people, cargo traffic of 70 thousand tons) in the years since 1998, and the airport has yet to rebound to the peak levels seen in 1997. Regarding the project’s contribution to development of the tourist industry in Bali, the Bali terrorist bomb attack and outbreaks of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) of 2002 pushed tourist, hotel and restaurant numbers down, but numbers of foreign tourists (monthly)* have subsequently rallied, increasing from approximately 100,000 (May 2003) to 123,000 (May 2004). There are no problems in the technical capacity, operation and maintenance system, or financial status of PTAP-I, the company that manages and operates Bali International Airport. In terms of lessons learned from the implementation of this project, in projects involving land acquisition consideration needs to be given to the relocation schedule when devising construction plans. * Number of passengers arriving at the airport on direct international flights.
Sample 1
Evaluation Result. In this stage we are presenting the experimental result of Performance based Service Level Agreement for different scenario. We mainly focus on VM Management, VM Provision and scheduling policies by using low level metric parameters to monitor the performance of the services. In this simulation, adjust resources component decide that how many Virtual Machines should provide to satisfy customer request. Three polices are usually used in cloud computing VMs provision. These are Maximize Throughput Provision Policy, Minimize Response time Provision Policy and Maximize Utilization Provision Policy [16]. We check performance of our framework by these three polices. MTPP MRPP MUPP Four types of work load 3000, 6000, 10000 and 20000 were tested. Simulation results are checked for Mean Execution Time and Deadline Satisfaction rate . Figure no 6 gives the graph between numbers of tasks and means execution time. MTPP mean execution time is 390,430,700 and 800 respectively for the work loads, MRPP mean time execution time is 400,450,700 and 780 respectively for the work loads, MUPP mean time execution time is 430,530,600 and 700 respectively for the work loads. Results shows that Maximize Utilization Provision Policy is very good, as the workload increases its Mean Execution Time decreases. 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 MTPP MRPP MUPP Figure no 7 gives the graph between numbers of tasks and numbers of deadline satisfaction. It shows that MTPP deadlock satisfaction rate is 72,65,55 and 40 respectively for the work loads, MRPP deadlock satisfaction rate is 70,63,52 and 30 respectively for the work loads and MUPP deadlock satisfaction rate is 73,70,53 and 40 respectively for the work loads. Graph shows that Maximize Utilization Provision Policy is satisfying large number of deadlock with respect to other provision polices. Above results shows that Maximize Utilization Provision Policy is very good and effectively utilizing VMs for different dynamic loads, so we conclude that MUPP is best for VM utilization and deadline satisfaction. 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 FP CP MP AP Price mechanisms shows that how much the customer is charge when it accesses the resources. Usually four types of price mechanisms are used in Cloud Computing. These are Fixed Price, Capability based Price, Market based Price and Auction based Price [16]. We checked every price mechanisms with Maximize Utilization Provision Policies. Figure 8 shows a graph drawn between number of tasks and mean execution tim...
Sample 1

Related to Evaluation Result

  • Evaluation 1. The purposes of evaluation provisions include providing employees with feedback, and employers and employees with the opportunity and responsibility to address concerns. Where a grievance proceeds to arbitration, the arbitrator must consider these purposes, and may relieve on just and reasonable terms against breaches of time limits or other procedural requirements.

  • 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.

  • Evaluation Reports Where a formal evaluation of an employee's performance is carried out, the employee shall be provided with a copy to read and review. Provision shall be made on the evaluation form for an employee to sign it. The form shall provide for the employee's signature in two (2) places, one indicating that the employee has read and accepts the evaluation, and the other indicating that the employee disagrees with the evaluation. The employee shall sign in one of the places provided within seven (7) calendar days. No employee may initiate a grievance regarding the contents of an evaluation report unless the signature indicates disagreement with the evaluation. The employee shall receive a copy of the evaluation report at the time of signing. An evaluation report shall not be changed after an employee has signed it, without the knowledge of the employee, and any such changes shall be subject to the grievance procedure.

  • Evaluation Report The state must provide a narrative summary of the evaluation design, status (including evaluation activities and findings to date), and plans for evaluation activities during the extension period. The narrative is to include, but not be limited to, describing the hypotheses being tested and any results available.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Evaluation Conference The final evaluation conference shall occur not later than the end of the fall term. The purpose of the final evaluation conference is to discuss with the probationary employee the results of the evaluation and announce the team’s recommendation. The evaluation team shall determine what additional evaluation activity shall occur during the spring term. If the team recommends that the District not employ the professor for the following year, no evaluation activities in the spring are necessary.

  • Audit Results If an audit by a Party determines that an overpayment or an underpayment has occurred, a notice of such overpayment or underpayment shall be given to the other Party together with those records from the audit which support such determination.

  • Independent Analysis Each Party hereby confirms that its decision to execute this Agreement has been based upon its independent assessment of documents and information available to it, as it has deemed appropriate.

  • Evaluations A. District management shall direct the evaluation of all permanent bargaining unit members no less than once every two years and probationary bargaining unit members no less than twice per year. Bargaining unit members who have been employed with VUSD for at least ten (10) years and whose previous evaluation rated the employee as meeting or exceeding standards, may be evaluated at least every five (5) years, if the administrative evaluator and certificated employee being evaluated agree. The certificated employee or the administrative evaluator may withdraw consent of this agreement at any time (EC 44664 (a) (3)). B. The written procedures for evaluations that are currently in effect shall be maintained by the District until the bargaining unit negotiates and ratifies new procedures. The present procedures are in Appendix A. They include: 1. The evaluator shall be an immediate supervisor or any other management or supervisory employee, who is designated by District management. 2. Bargaining unit members may utilize peer review in lieu of management evaluation with principal approval. 3. Those bargaining unit members who are regularly scheduled to be evaluated will be notified by the evaluator no later than October 1st of each school year. Such notice will contain a brief explanation as to the procedures for evaluations 4. One-half of the permanent staff will be formally evaluated each year. a. Pre-Conference Guidelines (for Temporary, Probationary and Permanent Bargaining Unit Members) 1. A pre-conference for bargaining unit members to be evaluated will be held by October 31. The purpose of the pre-conference is to review the Standards for Bargaining Unit Members assignment and to determine the evaluation focus. At that time the evaluator and the bargaining unit member may agree that some elements of the standards are not applicable (NA) to the employee’s assignment and may mark them NA at that time. 2. If there is disagreement about which of the elements is not applicable (NA), the parties may invite the Assistant Superintendent of Certificated Human Resources to assist in resolving the differences. The Assistant Superintendent shall recommend alternatives to the unit member and evaluator.

Draft better contracts in just 5 minutes Get the weekly Law Insider newsletter packed with expert videos, webinars, ebooks, and more!