Mission Suitability Factor Sample Clauses

Mission Suitability Factor. The Mission Suitability factor indicates, for each Offeror, the merit or excellence of the work to be performed and the ability of the Offeror to accomplish what is offered, or the product to be delivered. The overall Mission Suitability factor will be numerically scored, and the Mission Suitability sub-factors will be adjectivally rated and numerically weighted and scored in accordance with NFS 1815.305(a)(3), "Technical Evaluation," and the following table:
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Mission Suitability Factor. Mission suitability consists of those sub-factors which indicate the ability of the Offeror to furnish excellent services. Proposals will be evaluated and scored numerically based upon the sub-factors set forth below:
Sample 1
Mission Suitability Factor. The Mission Suitability factor indicates, for each Offeror, the merit or excellence of the work to be performed and the ability of the Offeror to accomplish what is offered, or the product to be delivered. The overall Mission Suitability factor will be numerically scored, and the Mission Suitability sub-factors will be adjectivally rated and numerically weighted and scored in accordance with NFS 1815.305(a)(3), "Technical Evaluation," and the following table: TABLE M-1: DEFINITION OF MISSION SUITABILITY RATINGS ADJECTIVAL RATING DEFINITIONS PERCENTILE RANGE Excellent A comprehensive and xxxxxxxx proposal of exceptional merit with one or more significant strengths. No deficiency or significant weakness exists. 91-100 Very Good A proposal having no deficiency and which demonstrates over- all competence. One or more significant strengths have been found, and strengths outbalance any weaknesses that exist. 71-90 Good A proposal having no deficiency and which shows a reasonably sound response. There may be strengths or weaknesses, or both. As a whole, weaknesses not off-set by strengths do not significantly detract from the Offeror's response. 51-70 Fair A proposal having no deficiency and which has one or more weaknesses. Weaknesses outbalance any strengths. 31-50 Poor A proposal that has one or more deficiencies or significant weaknesses that demonstrate a lack of overall competence or would require a major proposal revision to correct. 0-30 Overall, the Offeror’s Mission Suitability proposal will be evaluated based on the Offeror’s ability to fulfill the contract management and technical requirements while meeting quality, schedule, and safety requirements. The compatibility between the proposed management and technical approach and proposed total compensation to accomplish the work will be an important consideration in the evaluation of this factor.
Sample 1
Mission Suitability Factor. The Mission Suitability factor will consider how well the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates an overall understanding of the requirements. The Mission Suitability evaluation will also consider whether the resources proposed are consistent with the proposed approach. The Offeror’s justification for the proposed resources will be considered in this evaluation. If the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a lack of resource realism, it will be evaluated as demonstrating a lack of understanding of, or commitment to, the requirements. The Mission Suitability factor includes four sub-factors: Management, Technical, Safety and Health, and Small Business Utilization. Separate adjective rating and point scoring will be accomplished for each sub-factor. There is no further scoring below the sub-factor level. These sub-factors and the topics that will be evaluated are described below. MANAGEMENT SUB-FACTOR Management Approach:
Sample 1

Related to Mission Suitability Factor

  • Evaluation Cycle Goal Setting and Development of the Educator Plan

  • Evaluation Factors The walkthrough(s), observation(s), and other components required by Ohio Rev. Code to be used in the teacher evaluation procedure

  • Performance Qualifications The Buyer reserves the right to investigate or inspect at any time whether the product, qualifications, or facilities offered by Respondent meet the Contract requirements. Respondent shall at all times during the Contract term remain responsive and responsible. In determining Respondent’s responsibility as a vendor, the agency shall consider all information or evidence which is gathered or comes to the attention of the agency which demonstrates the Respondent’s capability to fully satisfy the requirements of the solicitation and the contract. Respondent must be prepared, if requested by the Buyer, to present evidence of experience, ability, and financial standing, as well as a statement as to plant, machinery, and capacity of the respondent for the production, distribution, and servicing of the product bid. If the Buyer determines that the conditions of the solicitation documents are not complied with, or that the product proposed to be furnished does not meet the specified requirements, or that the qualifications, financial standing, or facilities are not satisfactory, or that performance is untimely, the Buyer may reject the response or terminate the Contract. Respondent may be disqualified from receiving awards if respondent, or anyone in respondent’s employment, has previously failed to perform satisfactorily in connection with public bidding or contracts. This paragraph shall not mean or imply that it is obligatory upon the Buyer to make an investigation either before or after award of the Contract, but should the Buyer elect to do so, respondent is not relieved from fulfilling all Contract requirements.

  • Evaluation Cycle: Formative Assessment A) A specific purpose for evaluation is to promote student learning, growth and achievement by providing Educators with feedback for improvement. Evaluators are expected to make frequent unannounced visits to classrooms. Evaluators are expected to give targeted constructive feedback to Educators based on their observations of practice, examination of artifacts, and analysis of multiple measures of student learning, growth and achievement in relation to the Standards and Indicators of Effective Teaching Practice.

  • Constructability Review Prepare detailed interdisciplinary constructability review within Fourteen (14) days of receipt of the plans from the District that:

  • Staffing Levels to deal with Potential Violence The Employer agrees that, where there is a risk of violence, an adequate level of trained employees should be present. The Employer recognizes that workloads can lead to fatigue and a diminished ability both to identify and to subsequently deal with potentially violent situations.

  • APPOINTMENT FACTORS Location Perth Accommodation As determined by the WA Country Health Service Policy Allowances/ Appointment Conditions Appointment is subject to: • Completion of a 100 point identification check • Successful Criminal Record Screening clearance • Successful Pre- Placement Health Screening clearance Specialised equipment operated

  • Teaching Effectiveness a sustained record of successful and effective performance as a university teacher at all levels including advising and supervision of undergraduate and graduate students (as appropriate for the candidate and their academic unit).

  • Selection Based on Consultants’ Qualifications Services estimated to cost less than $100,000 equivalent per contract may be procured under contracts awarded in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 3.1, 3.7 and 3.8 of the Consultant Guidelines.

  • Evaluation Cycle: Annual Orientation A) At the start of each school year, the superintendent, principal or designee shall conduct a meeting for Educators and Evaluators focused substantially on educator evaluation. The superintendent, principal or designee shall:

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