FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED Sample Clauses

FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED. The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal: Award will be made to the offerors whose proposals are most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors listed below.
Sample 1Sample 2
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED. The following factors and key elements shall be used to evaluate offerors. VOLUME I (FACTOR 1) – TECHNICAL AND MANAGEMENT APPROACH Tab 1 – Technical Approach Element 1 – Technical Capability Element 2 – Sample Task Order Tab 2 – Management Approach Element 1 - Quality Management/Quality Control Program and Corporate Business Practices Element 2 - Contractor Safety and Health Program Element 3 - Key Personnel and Other Resources Element 4 - Organizational Structure VOLUME II (FACTOR 2) – PAST PERFORMANCE Tab 1 – Past Performance Project Narratives Tab 2 – Past Performance Questionnaires VOLUME III (FACTOR 3) – SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN Tab 1 – Small Business Commitment Document Tab 2 – Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Other than Small Business Only) Tab 3 – Representations and Certifications Tab 4 – Joint Venture/Mentor Protégé Agreements and Approvals (if applicable)
Sample 1
FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED. During the evaluation of each proposal, the Government will assign a rating for Factors 1 through
Sample 1
FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED. The prospective contractor will provide responses to four (4) evaluation factors: Factor I-Technical Factor II- Key Personnel
Sample 1
FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED. 1. TECHNICAL FACTOR 1 - CASE STUDY SUBMISSION 2. TECHNICAL FACTOR 2 - WRITTEN TECHNICAL SOLUTION AND ITD
Sample 1
FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED. Factor I - Technical Approach (Trade-Off) Factor II – Staffing Plan / Personnel Credentials (Trade-Off) Factor III – Corporate Experience (Acceptable/Unacceptable) Factor IV – Transition Plan (Acceptable/Unacceptable) Factor V - Past Performance (Acceptable/Unacceptable) Factor VI – Small Business Utilization (Acceptable/Unacceptable) Factor VII - Cost/Price (Trade-Off)
Sample 1
FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED. During the evaluation of each proposal, the Government will assign a separate rating for Factors 1 through 3. The following factors will be used to evaluate each proposal: Factor 1 – Experience Factor 2 – Past Performance Factor 3 – Hypothetical Work Plan Factor 4 – Price Factors 1, 2 and 3 are of approximately equal importance, and each shall separately be more important than Factor 4. All evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than price.
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED. The Government will evaluate proposals to determine compliance with all requirements of the solicitation, including any attachments and exhibits. The Government will evaluate each proposal strictly in accordance with its content. The Government will not assume that the performance will include areas not specified in the Offeror’s proposal. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's proposal against the minimum requirements set out in Attachment 02 "Requirements Matrix" to determine whether the proposal is "Acceptable" or "Unacceptable" utilizing the rating and descriptions provided below. An Offeror's technical proposal will not be found Acceptable unless all the minimum requirements are found Acceptable. A rating of Unacceptable for any requirement will cause the entire technical proposal to be found Unacceptable and may cause the Offeror not be considered for award. FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL FACTOR 2 – PRICE
Sample 1
FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED 
Sample 1

Related to FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

  • Performance Evaluations 34.1. The Contractor is subject to an annual performance evaluation to be conducted by NYCDOT pursuant to the PPB Rules.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • SCHEDULE FOR PERFORMANCE REVIEWS 8.1 The performance of each Employee in relation to his/her performance agreement shall be reviewed on the following dates with the understanding that reviews in the first and third quarter may be verbal if performance is satisfactory:

  • 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 Xxxxxxxxxx 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:

  • Self-Evaluation Each regular faculty member shall provide a self-evaluation. It shall address, among other items, the faculty member's fulfillment of professional responsibilities as referenced in Section 18.2.3 and an assessment of his or her own performance. The faculty member will share the self-evaluation with the Faculty Evaluation Committee and the first-level manager or designee. The self-evaluation will become part of the evaluation report.

  • Re-evaluation a) When a job has moved to a higher group as a result of re-evaluation, the resulting rate shall be retroactive from the date that Management or the employee has applied to the Plant Job Review Committee for re-evaluation.

  • 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.

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