FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED Sample Clauses

FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED. 1. Evaluation of the offeror’s proposal shall address each subfactor as it applies to the PWS. A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach”, paragraph C of this section. During evaluations of each proposal, the Source Selection Evaluation Board / Source Selection Team (SST) will assign each subfactor an adjectival rating and provide a written narrative evaluation of the identified findings. 2. The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below. 3. Factor 1: Combined Mission Capability (Technical)/ Risk factor is further divided into the following subfactors: • Subfactor 1: Management/Technical Approach to include Technical Risk • Subfactor 2: Staffing Approach/Key Personnel and Qualifications • Subfactor 3: Transition Plan 4. Factor 2: Past Performance (Performance Risk): Each offeror’s past performance will be reviewed to determine recency, relevancy and a confidence assessment.
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED. The following evaluation factors and sub-factors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below. A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach”, Paragraph C of this section. During evaluations of each proposal, the Government will assign each Factor 2, Technical, subfactor an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings. All other factors shall be evaluated on as an acceptable/not acceptable rating.
FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED. DRAFT The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal: Award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below.
FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED. M.3.1. Relative Order of Importance Terminology. An evaluation of all offers will be made in accordance with the criteria set forth below. Evaluation criteria consist of four factors. In order to provide the Offeror with an understanding of the significance assigned by the Government, the factors are assigned a relative order of importance. The following terminology is used:
FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED. 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. The evaluation Factors and Sub-factors (also known as “selection criteria”) are contained in the RFP Sections L and M, and are incorporated by reference. The following evaluation factors and sub-factors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to up to three (3) offerors whose proposals are most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and sub-factors described below. (However, the Government reserves the right to award more contracts, if it is deemed in the best interests of the Government.) The Offeror’s proposal is presumed to represent an Offeror’s best effort in response to the solicitation. The Government will perform a cost analysis on the proposal to determine completeness, reasonableness and realism. This analysis may include, but is not limited to, determining if 1) the costs are realistic for the work to be performed, 2) reflect a clear understanding of the contract requirements, and 3) are inclusive of all services requested. A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach,” Paragraph C of this section. DRAFT
FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED a FACTOR I TECHNICAL

Related to FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

  • EMPLOYEE EVALUATIONS 6.1 Administrators will meet with new employees to discuss their job description within one (1) month of hire. The Administrator and new employee will sign off on the job description and it will be forwarded to the Human Resources Department for inclusion in the employee‘s personnel file. The Human Resources Department will compile and distribute a list showing each employee‘s evaluator prior to November 1st of each year. Bargaining unit job descriptions will be made available via the District‘s web site. 6.2 Evaluations will transpire as follows for employees that are receiving satisfactory ratings: a. New hires—regular part-time (school year employees) will be evaluated at three (3) and six (6) working months. b. New hires—full time (12 month employees) will be evaluated at three (3), six (6) and twelve (12) months. c. After the initial year of employment, each employee shall be evaluated at least once annually by March 31st. 6.3 Criteria for evaluating bargaining unit members will be based on the performance categories outlined on the evaluation form as related to the job description of their specific position assignment. 6.4 Evaluation reports shall include feedback regarding strengths and weaknesses (if any) demonstrated by the employee. Prior to an employee receiving a rating less than “Meets Expectations,” the employee shall be advised of the performance concern and provided with a clear statement of any deficiency and a statement defining acceptable performance. This shall occur within a reasonable time prior to the final evaluation to allow the employee a chance to demonstrate improvement. 6.5 In the event an employee is evaluated overall as “Does Not Meet Expectations,” the district, in consultation with the employee and the Association, will provide the employee a written plan of improvement (See Employee Plan of Improvement form in Appendix). The plan shall clearly define all areas of deficiency, provide clear and attainable performance goals, and outline supports (if any) to be given, including any necessary training at the District’s expense. The employee will be given a reasonable amount of time, not to exceed sixty (60) working days, to meet job performance expectations. During the improvement period, feedback will be provided through a minimum of three scheduled meetings. Following the completion of the plan, the supervisor shall notify the employee in writing of the outcome. Failure to demonstrate satisfactory improvement may constitute grounds for termination. 6.6 The bargaining unit member shall be given a copy of their evaluation, and any data collection sheets (with the submitters name excluded) used in the evaluation. 6.7 Under the law there is no right to Association Representation at evaluation conferences. 6.8 Any information shared with the evaluating administrator for the evaluation process shall be recorded on Data Collection Sheet(s), with the exception of those unit members that have supervising teachers. Supervising teachers will work directly with the evaluating administrator to share performance information for inclusion in the unit member‘s evaluation. 6.9 Employees shall have the right to respond to evaluations in writing. Such written response shall be attached to the evaluation if received within 5 days. 6.10 No bargaining unit member shall be required to sign a blank or incomplete evaluation form.

  • Performance Evaluations The Contractor is subject to an annual performance evaluation to be conducted by NYCDOT pursuant to the PPB Rules.

  • SCHEDULE FOR PERFORMANCE REVIEWS 7.1 The performance of the Employee in relation to his performance agreement shall be reviewed for the following quarters with the understanding that the reviews in the first and the third quarter may be verbal if performance is satisfactory:

  • 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.

  • PROGRESS EVALUATION Engineer shall, from time to time during the progress of the Engineering Services, confer with County at County’s election. Engineer shall prepare and present such information as may be pertinent and necessary, or as may be reasonably requested by County, in order for County to evaluate features of the Engineering Services. At the request of County or Engineer, conferences shall be provided at Engineer's office, the offices of County, or at other locations designated by County. When requested by County, such conferences shall also include evaluation of the Engineering Services. County may, from time to time, require Engineer to appear and provide information to the Williamson County Commissioners Court. Should County determine that the progress in Engineering Services does not satisfy an applicable Work Authorization or any Supplemental Work Authorization related thereto, then County shall review same with Engineer to determine corrective action required. Engineer shall promptly advise County in writing of events which have or may have a significant impact upon the progress of the Engineering Services, including but not limited to the following: A. Problems, delays, adverse conditions which may materially affect the ability to meet the objectives of an applicable Work Authorization or any Supplemental Work Authorization related thereto, or preclude the attainment of Project Engineering Services units by established time periods; and such disclosure shall be accompanied by statement of actions taken or contemplated, and County assistance needed to resolve the situation, if any; and B. Favorable developments or events which enable meeting goals sooner than anticipated in relation to an applicable Work Authorization’s or any Supplemental Work Authorization related thereto.

  • EMPLOYEE EVALUATION A. Formal evaluation of employees shall be in writing and shall be for the purpose of establishing a record of the employee’s work performance. The evaluation may include but is not limited to: establishing performance standards and outcome measures, recognition of an employee’s efforts, as well as planning for improvement. Issues of attendance and punctuality may be addressed if they have previously been discussed with the employee. The employee’s job description shall be a basis for the evaluation. B. The evaluator shall review the written evaluation with the employee and provide the employee with a copy. The employee shall sign the evaluation acknowledging receipt. If the employee has objections to the evaluation, s/he, may within twenty (20) working days following receipt of the evaluation put such objections in writing and have them attached to the evaluation report and placed in his/her personnel file. C. The frequency of evaluations shall be determined by the District and generally occur every other year by April 1st for bargaining unit employees. If the District chooses to do so, it may conduct formal evaluations on an annual basis. An employee may request to receive one (1) annual evaluation. Such request shall be in writing to the employee’s supervisor with a copy to the Human Resources Department. D. The Human Resources Department will consult with the Federation in developing an outline of best practices to be used in conducting employee evaluations. E. When the District determines that an employee’s work performance is unsatisfactory, it shall inform the employee in writing of any deficiency and the improvement expected and provide the employee with the opportunity to correct the unsatisfactory performance within a reasonable time period established by the District. F. The judgment of an employee’s work performance by an evaluating supervisor shall not be the subject of a grievance. A grievance concerning an evaluation shall be limited to an allegation that the evaluation was done in bad faith or clearly untrue. The burden of proof shall rest with the grievant. Such grievance shall be filed at the next administrative level above that of the evaluator and that administrator shall provide a written decision within ten (10) working days of any hearing. If the grievance is not resolved, it may be appealed by submitting a written statement to the Human Resources Department within ten (10) working days following receipt of the administrative written decision. The written statement must clearly set forth why the previous decision is in error regarding the allegation of bad faith or being clearly untrue. The Director of Labor Relations, or designee, may review the record of the grievance and/or conduct a hearing and shall issue a written decision within ten (10) working days following such review or hearing. Such decision shall be final. G. Effective July 1, 2013, Sign Language Interpreters will be evaluated using the Educational Interpreter Performance Assessment (EIPA) pursuant to OAR 581-015-2035 and/or the District’s evaluation form.

  • 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.

  • Long Term Cost Evaluation Criterion # 4 READ CAREFULLY and see in the RFP document under "Proposal Scoring and Evaluation". Points will be assigned to this criterion based on your answer to this Attribute. Points are awarded if you agree not i ncrease your catalog prices (as defined herein) more than X% annually over the previous year for years two and thr ee and potentially year four, unless an exigent circumstance exists in the marketplace and the excess price increase which exceeds X% annually is supported by documentation provided by you and your suppliers and shared with TIP S, if requested. If you agree NOT to increase prices more than 5%, except when justified by supporting documentati on, you are awarded 10 points; if 6% to 14%, except when justified by supporting documentation, you receive 1 to 9 points incrementally. Price increases 14% or greater, except when justified by supporting documentation, receive 0 points. increases will be 5% or less annually per question Required Confidentiality Claim Form This completed form is required by TIPS. By submitting a response to this solicitation you agree to download from th e “Attachments” section, complete according to the instructions on the form, then uploading the completed form, wit h any confidential attachments, if applicable, to the “Response Attachments” section titled “Confidentiality Form” in order to provide to TIPS the completed form titled, “CONFIDENTIALITY CLAIM FORM”. By completing this process, you provide us with the information we require to comply with the open record laws of the State of Texas as they ma y apply to your proposal submission. If you do not provide the form with your proposal, an award will not be made if your proposal is qualified for an award, until TIPS has an accurate, completed form from you. Read the form carefully before completing and if you have any questions, email Xxxx Xxxxxx at TIPS at xxxx.xxxxxx@t xxx-xxx.xxx

  • Performance Evaluation The Department may conduct a performance evaluation of Contractor’s Services, including Contractor’s Subcontractors. Results of any evaluation may be made available to Contractor upon request.

  • Particular Methods of Procurement of Consultants’ Services 1. Quality- and Cost-based Selection. Except as otherwise provided in paragraph 2 below, consultants’ services shall be procured under contracts awarded on the basis of Quality and Cost-based Selection.

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