Past Performance Rating Sample Clauses

Past Performance Rating. The following will be used for the Factor 2 Past Performance evaluation. Rating Description Acceptable Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown. Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort. The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror's probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. In accordance with FAR 15.305(a) (2), the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance shall be considered. These are combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each offeror. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information). The first is to evaluate the recency of the Offeror’s past performance as defined in Section 3.2 above. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant, and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information. The second is to determine how relevant a recent effort, accomplished by the offeror, is to the effort to be acquired, through the source selection. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration should be given to those aspects of an Offeror’s history of contract (or subcontract) performance that would provide the most context and give the greatest ability to measure whether the offeror will successfully satisfy the current requirement. Common aspects of relevancy include, but are not limited to, the following: similarity of product/service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, use of key personnel (for services), and extent of subcontracting/teaming. Relevancy, as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/tea...
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Past Performance Rating

  • Performance Rating Describes the Educator’s performance on each performance standard and overall. There shall be four performance ratings:  Exemplary: the Educator’s performance consistently and significantly exceeds the requirements of a standard or overall. The rating of exemplary on a standard indicates that practice significantly exceeds proficient and could serve as a model of practice on that standard district-wide.  Proficient: the Educator’s performance fully and consistently meets the requirements of a standard or overall. Proficient practice is understood to be fully satisfactory.

  • Past Performance The Government will evaluate the contractor's performance on the NETCENTS-2 Orders provided in Exhibit B, CDRL B001. The PCO will determine the quality of the work performed based on an integrated assessment of data obtained in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting Systems (CPARS) and information obtained from Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) channels, interviews with customers, program managers and/or contracting officers for NETCENTS-2 task orders. Based on the contractor performance records above, the PCO will determine if there is an expectation that the contractor will successfully perform the required efforts under the unrestricted Application Services contract.

  • Staffing Levels To the extent legislative appropriations and PIN authorizations allow, safe staffing levels will be maintained in all institutions where employees have patient, client, inmate or student care responsibilities. In July of each year, the Secretary or Deputy Secretary of each agency will, upon request, meet with the Union, to hear the employees’ views regarding staffing levels. In August of each year, the Secretary or Deputy Secretary of Budget and Management will, upon request, meet with the Union to hear the employees’ views regarding the Governor’s budget request.

  • Ongoing Performance Measures The Department intends to use performance-reporting tools in order to measure the performance of Contractor(s). These tools will include the Contractor Performance Survey (Exhibit H), to be completed by Customers on a quarterly basis. Such measures will allow the Department to better track Vendor performance through the term of the Contract(s) and ensure that Contractor(s) consistently provide quality services to the State and its Customers. The Department reserves the right to modify the Contractor Performance Survey document and introduce additional performance-reporting tools as they are developed, including online tools (e.g. tools within MFMP or on the Department's website).

  • PRIORITY RATING If so identified, this Contract is a "rated order" certified for national defense, emergency preparedness, and energy program use, and SELLER shall follow all the requirements of the Defense Priorities and Allocation System Regulation (15 C.F.R. Part 700).

  • Hearing Levels Level 1. An employee and/or Association having cause for a complaint shall, within twenty (20) days of its occurrence or knowledge of its occurrence, file a grievance form (Appendix C) with the immediate supervisor. An Association representative may participate if requested by the employee. A copy of the grievance form shall be given to the Association by the grievant at the time of filing. The immediate supervisor shall issue a decision within ten (10) days to the grievant and a copy filed with the Association by the immediate supervisor. After the filing of the grievance, an extension of up to ten (10) additional days shall be granted at the request of either party.

  • CLASS SIZE/STAFFING LEVELS The board will make every effort to limit FDK/Grade 1 split grades where feasible. APPENDIX A – RETIREMENT GRATUITIES

  • Annual Performance Evaluation On either a fiscal year or calendar year basis, (consistently applied from year to year), the Bank shall conduct an annual evaluation of Executive’s performance. The annual performance evaluation proceedings shall be included in the minutes of the Board meeting that next follows such annual performance review.

  • Moody’s Xxxxx’x Investors Service, Inc. and its successors.

  • Continuing Performance Each party is required to continue to perform its obligations under this contract pending final resolution of any dispute arising out of or relating to this contract, unless to do so would be impossible or impracticable under the circumstances.

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