METHODOLOGY 2, COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS Sample Clauses

METHODOLOGY 2, COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS as prescribed in DoD Source Selection Procedures, paragraph 3.1.2.2, are excerpted below. The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. The combined technical/risk evaluations shall utilize the combined technical/risk ratings and the risk descriptions set forth in the DoD Source Selection Procedure 3.1.2.2, as shown in Table Five and Table Six below. Table Five - Combined Technical Capability/Risk Factor/Subfactors Rating Definitions DESCRIPTION ADJECTIVAL RATING Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low. Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate. Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate. Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high. Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable. Table Six: Technical Risk Rating Descriptions ADJECTIVAL RATING DESCRIPTION Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties. Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties. High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring. Unaccaptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that in...
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
METHODOLOGY 2, COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS as prescribed in DoD Source Selection Procedures, paragraph 3.1.2.2, are excerpted below. The rating for the Technical Capability Factor reflects the degree to which the proposed approach meets or does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirements through an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks of a proposal. The rating for Technical Capability will be expressed as an adjectival assessment of Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, or Unacceptable, as defined in the table below. The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. The Technical Capability factor will be a “roll-up” of the Technical Capability subfactor ratings using the same adjectival assessment for the subfactor ratings as for the overall rating for Technical Capability. DRAFT Table One - Combined Technical Capability/Risk Factor/Subfactors Rating Definitions Rating Description Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low. Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate. Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate..
Sample 1

Related to METHODOLOGY 2, COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

  • 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.

  • Benchmarks for Measuring Accessibility For the purposes of this Agreement, the accessibility of online content and functionality will be measured according to the W3C’s Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 Level AA and the Web Accessibility Initiative Accessible Rich Internet Applications Suite (WAI-ARIA) 1.0 for web content, which are incorporated by reference. Adherence to these accessible technology standards is one way to ensure compliance with the College’s underlying legal obligations to ensure that people with disabilities are able to acquire the same information, engage in the same interactions, and enjoy the same benefits and services within the same timeframe as their nondisabled peers, with substantially equivalent ease of use; that they are not excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or otherwise subjected to discrimination in any College programs, services, and activities delivered online, as required by Section 504 and the ADA and their implementing regulations; and that they receive effective communication of the College’s programs, services, and activities delivered online.

  • Loop Testing/Trouble Reporting 2.1.8.1 NOW will be responsible for testing and isolating troubles on the Loops. NOW must test and isolate trouble to the BellSouth portion of a designed/non-designed unbundled loop (e.g., UVL-SL2, UCL-D, UVL-SL1, UCL-ND, etc.) before reporting repair to the UNE Customer Wholesale Interconnection Network Services (CWINS) Center. At the time of the trouble report, NOW will be required to provide the results of the NOW test which indicate a problem on the BellSouth provided loop.

  • Using Student feedback in Educator Evaluation ESE will provide model contract language, direction and guidance on using student feedback in Educator Evaluation by June 30, 2013. Upon receiving this model contract language, direction and guidance, the parties agree to bargain with respect to this matter.

  • 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.

  • Originating Switched Access Detail Usage Data A category 1101XX record as defined in the EMI Telcordia Practice BR-010-200- 010.

  • Statistical Sampling Documentation a. A copy of the printout of the random numbers generated by the “Random Numbers” function of the statistical sampling software used by the IRO.

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