Evidence Used In Evaluation The following categories of evidence shall be used in evaluating each Educator:
A. Multiple measures of student learning, growth, and achievement, which shall include:
i. Measures of student progress on classroom assessments that are aligned with the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks or other relevant frameworks and are comparable within grades or subjects in a school;
ii. Common assessments of student learning, growth, and achievement related to the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks or the Massachusetts Vocational Technical Education Frameworks or other relevant frameworks that are comparable across grades and/or subjects district-wide. These measures may include: portfolios, approved commercial assessments and district-developed pre and post unit and course assessments, and capstone projects.
iii. Measures of student progress and/or achievement toward student learning goals set between the Educator and Evaluator for the school year or some other period of time as established in the Educator Plan.
iv. For Educators whose primary role is not as a classroom teacher, the appropriate measures of the Educator's contribution to student learning, growth, and achievement set by the District. The measures set by the District should be based on the Educator's role and responsibility. See rubrics in Appendix A.
B. Judgments based on observations and artifacts of practice including:
i. Unannounced observations which are typically at least 10 minutes.
ii. Announced observation(s) for non-PTS Educators in their first year of practice in a school, PTS Educators, Educators on Improvement Plans, and as determined by the evaluator.
iii. Examination of Educator work products.
iv. Examination of student work samples.
C. Evidence relevant to one or more Performance Standards, including but not limited to:
i. Evidence compiled and presented by the Educator, including: • Evidence of fulfillment of Standard IV: Professional Culture, including, but not limited to, professional responsibilities and growth such as self-assessments, peer collaboration, professional development linked to goals in the Educator plans, contributions to the school community and professional culture; and/or other items as described under Standard IV: Professional Culture. • Evidence of fulfillment of Standard III: Family and Community Engagement, including, but not limited to active outreach to and engagement with families, for example, phone logs, newsletters, conferences, district approved applications and platforms such as websites and email correspondence and /or other items as described in Standard III: Family and Community Engagement.
ii. Evidence of progress towards professional practice goal(s);
iii. Evidence of progress toward student learning outcomes goal(s).
iv. Student Feedback (subject to negotiations)
v. Any other relevant evidence from any source that the Evaluator shares with the Educator. Other relevant evidence could include information provided by other evaluators/administrators such as the superintendent. Relevant information from other sources will be assessed by the Evaluator and information will be shared with the Educator.
vi. An Educators submission of evidence to support meeting the indicators of performance for Standard I: Curriculum, Planning and Assessment and Standard II: Teaching All Students, is optional as this evidence is typically gathered by the Evaluator during a classroom observation. Submission of evidence supporting either Standards I or II can provide additional data for inclusion in the Formative or Summative Reports. If an Educator chooses to submit evidence for these categories, it is suggested that the evidence be included by the time the Summative Report will be written.
Evaluation of Tenders 33.1 The Procuring Entity shall use the criteria and methodologies listed in this ITT and Section III, Evaluation and Qualification criteria. No other evaluation criteria or methodologies shall be permitted. By applying the criteria and methodologies, the Procuring Entity shall determine the Lowest Evaluated Tender. This is the Tender of the Tenderer that meets the qualification criteria and whose Tender has been determined to be:
a) substantially responsive to the tender documents; and
b) the lowest evaluated price.
33.2 Price evaluation will be done for Items or Lots (contracts), as specified in the TDS; and the Tender Price as quoted in accordance with ITT 14. To evaluate a Tender, the Procuring Entity shall consider the following:
a) price adjustment due to unconditional discounts offered in accordance with ITT 13.4;
b) converting the amount resulting from applying (a) and (b) above, if relevant, to a single currency in accordance with ITT 31;
c) price adjustment due to quantifiable nonmaterial non-conformities in accordance with ITT 29.3; and
d) any additional evaluation factors specified in the TDS and Section III, Evaluation and Qualification Criteria.
33.3 The estimated effect of the price adjustment provisions of the Conditions of Contract, applied over the period of execution of the Contract, shall not be considered in Tender evaluation.
33.4 Where the tender involves multiple lots or contracts, the tenderer will be allowed to tender for one or more lots (contracts). Each lot or contract will be evaluated in accordance with ITT 33.
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?
Job Evaluation The work of the provincial job evaluation steering committee (the JE Committee) will continue during the term of this Framework Agreement. The objectives of the JE Committee are as follows: • Review the results of the phase one and phase two pilots and outcomes of the committee work. Address any anomalies identified with the JE tool, process, or benchmarks. • Rate the provincial benchmarks and create a job hierarchy for the provincial benchmarks. • Gather data from all school districts and match existing job descriptions to the provincial benchmarks. • Identify the job hierarchy for local job descriptions for all school districts. • Compare the local job hierarchy to the benchmark-matched hierarchy. • Develop a methodology to convert points to pay bands - The confirmed method must be supported by current compensation best practices. • Identify training requirements to support implementation of the JE plan and develop training resources as required. Once the objectives outlined above are completed, the JE Committee will mutually determine whether a local, regional or provincial approach to the steps outlined above is appropriate. It is recognized that the work of the committee is technical, complicated, lengthy and onerous. To accomplish the objectives, the parties agree that existing JE funds can be accessed by the JE committee to engage consultant(s) to complete this work. It is further recognized that this process does not impact the established management right of employers to determine local job requirements and job descriptions nor does this process alter any existing collective agreement rights or established practices. When the JE plan is ready to be implemented, and if an amendment to an existing collective agreement is required, the JE Committee will work with the local School District and Local Union to make recommendations for implementation. Any recommendations will also be provided to the Provincial Labour Management Committee (PLMC). As mutually agreed by the provincial parties and the JE Committee, the disbursement of available JE funds shall be retroactive to January 2, 2020. The committee will utilize available funds to provide 50% of the wage differential for the position falling the furthest below the wage rate established by the provincial JE process and will continue this process until all JE fund monies at the time have been disbursed. The committee will follow compensation best practices to avoid problems such as inversion. The committee will report out to the provincial parties regularly during the term of the Framework Agreement. Should any concerns arise during the work of the committee they will be referred to the PLMC. Create a maintenance program to support ongoing implementation of the JE plan at a local, regional or provincial level. The maintenance program will include a process for addressing the wage rates of incumbents in positions which are impacted by implementation of the JE plan. The provincial parties confirm that $4,419,859 of ongoing annual funds will be used to implement the Job Evaluation Plan. Effective July 1, 2022, there will be a one-time pause of the annual $4,419,859 JE funding. This amount has been allocated to the local table bargaining money. The annual funding will recommence July 1, 2023.
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.
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.
Monitoring and Evaluation a. The AGENCY shall expeditiously provide to the COUNTY upon request, all data needed for the purpose of monitoring, evaluating and/or auditing the program(s). This data shall include, but not be limited to, clients served, services provided, outcomes achieved, information on materials and services delivered, and any other data required, in the sole discretion of the COUNTY, that may be required to adequately monitor and evaluate the services provided under this Contract. Monitoring shall be performed in accordance with COUNTY’S established Noncompliance Standards, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Attachment “C”.
b. The AGENCY agrees to permit persons duly authorized by the COUNTY to interview any clients and all current and/or former employees of the AGENCY to be assured of the AGENCY’S satisfactory performance of the terms of this Contract.
c. Following such evaluation, monitoring, and/or audit, the COUNTY will deliver a report of its findings and recommendations with regard to the AGENCY’S conformance with this Contract’s terms and conditions to the AGENCY and/or Board of Directors’ President, and members, whenever applicable. If deficiencies are noted, a written notice of corrective action will be issued to the AGENCY which will specify deficiencies and provide a timeline for correction of those deficiencies. Within the designated timeframe in the written notice of corrective action, the AGENCY shall submit to the COUNTY’S CCC manager (“Manager”), or their designee, a corrective action plan to rectify all deficiencies identified by the COUNTY.
d. Failure by the AGENCY to correct noted deficiencies, as outlined in the written notice of corrective action, may result in the AGENCY being deemed in breach of the Contract terms.
e. The AGENCY shall cooperate with the COUNTY on all reviews to ensure compliance with all applicable COUNTY guidelines and requirements for general fund recipients.
