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.
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.
Performance Evaluations Employee performance shall be evaluated and communicated on a yearly basis as required under County policy. Performance evaluations are used to demonstrate to employees that they are valued; record how an employee’s performance meet the requirements of the job; create a job history record; identify employee strengths and areas for enhancement; assist the employee and supervisor in an effort to attain the highest level of performance; and reinforce performance standards. Every effort will be made to include substantiated information within an employee’s performance evaluation. Non-recurring discipline history which is more than two (2) years old will not be referenced in performance evaluations. The County shall ensure employee performance evaluations are conducted in accordance with County and departmental policy. Performance evaluations and disciplinary matters shall only be conducted by County employees. When an employee who does not agree with the overall rating he/she receives on his/her written performance evaluation, he/she shall discuss and attempt to resolve the differences with his/her immediate supervisor. If discussion with his/her immediate supervisor does not result in resolution of the differences, the employee may file a written request to meet with the next level of management. Said request shall state the unresolved issues and the specific changes in the written performance evaluation the employee is seeking. The appropriate manager shall meet with the employee to discuss the unresolved issues. If the issues are not resolved to the employee’s satisfaction following discussion with the appropriate manager, the employee may within thirty (30) working days file a written request for a meeting with the department head. Within fourteen (14) working days of receipt of a written request stating the unresolved issues and the desired changes in the written performance evaluation, the department head shall meet with the employee to discuss the issues. Within ten (10) working days of said meeting, the department head shall respond in writing to the employee. The decision of the Department Head shall be final and not subject to the grievance procedure. An employee may submit a written response to his/her evaluation that shall be placed in his/her personnel file.
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.
JOC EVALUATION If any materials being utilized for a project cannot be found in the RS Means Price Book, this question is what is the markup percentage on those materials? When answering this question please insert the number that represents your percentage of proposed markup. Example: if you are proposing a 30 percent markup, please insert the number "30". Remember that this is a ceiling markup. You may markup a lesser percentage to the TIPS Member customer when pricing the project, but not a greater percentage. EXAMPLE: You need special materials that are not in the RS Means Unit Price Book for a project. You would buy the materials and xxxx them up to the TIPS Member customer by the percentage you propose in this question. If the materials cost you, the contractor, $100 and you proposed a markup on this question for the material of 30 percent, then you would charge the TIPS Member customer $130 for the materials. TIPS/ESC Region 8 is required by Texas Government Code § 791 to be compensated for its work and thus, failure to agree shall render your response void and it will not be considered. Vendor agrees to remit to TIPS the required administration fee or, if resellers are named, guarantee the fee remittance by or for the reseller named by the vendor?
BID EVALUATION AND AWARD 13.1 The electronic signature shall be considered an offer on the part of the Bidder. Such offer shall be deemed accepted upon issuance by the Owners of purchase orders, contract award notifications, or other contract documents appropriate to the work.
13.2 No bid shall be modified or withdrawn for a period of ninety (90) calendar days after the time and date established for receiving bids, and each Bidder so agrees in submitting the bid.
13.3 In case of a discrepancy between the unit prices and their extensions, the unit prices shall govern.
13.4 The bid will be awarded to the lowest responsible, responsive Bidder whose bid will be most advantageous to the Owners, and as the Owners deem will best serve the requirements and interests of the Owners.
13.5 The Owners reserves the right to accept or reject any or all bids; to request rebids; to award bids item-by-item, with or without alternates, by groups, or "lump sum"; to waive minor irregularities in bids; such as shall best serve the requirements and interests of the Owners.
13.6 In order to determine if the Bidder has the experience, qualifications, resources and necessary attributes to provide the quality workmanship, materials and management required by the plans and specifications, the Bidder may be required to complete and submit additional information as deemed necessary by the Owners. Failure to provide the information requested to make this determination may be grounds for a declaration of non-responsive with respect to the Bidder.
13.7 The Owners reserves the right to reject irregular bids that contain unauthorized additions, conditions, alternate bids, or irregularities that make the Bid Proposal incomplete, indefinite or ambiguous.
13.8 Any governmental agency may piggyback on any contract entered into from this bid.
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.
Tests, Labs, and Imaging and X rays (diagnostic)
TECHNICAL EVALUATION (a) Detailed technical evaluation shall be carried out by Purchase Committee pursuant to conditions in the tender document to determine the substantial responsiveness of each tender. For this clause, the substantially responsive bid is one that conforms to all the eligibility and terms and condition of the tender without any material deviation. The Institute’s determination of bid’s responsiveness is to be based on the contents of the bid itself without recourse to extrinsic evidence. The Institute shall evaluate the technical bids also to determine whether they are complete, whether required sureties have been furnished, whether the documents have been properly signed and whether the bids are in order.
(b) The technical evaluation committee may call the responsive bidders for discussion or presentation to facilitate and assess their understanding of the scope of work and its execution. However, the committee shall have sole discretion to call for discussion / presentation.
(c) Financial bids of only those bidders who qualify the technical criteria will be opened provided all other requirements are fulfilled.
(d) AIIMS Jodhpur shall have right to accept or reject any or all tenders without assigning any reasons thereof.
BID EVALUATION The Commissioner reserves the right to accept or reject any and all Bids, or separable portions of Bids, and waive technicalities, irregularities, and omissions if the Commissioner determines the best interests of the State will be served. The Commissioner, in his/her sole discretion, may accept or reject illegible, incomplete or vague Bids and his/her decision shall be final. A conditional or revocable Bid which clearly communicates the terms or limitations of acceptance may be considered, and Contract award may be made in compliance with the Bidder’s conditional or revocable terms in the Bid.
