Performance Evaluation Tracks Sample Clauses

Performance Evaluation Tracks. Each ancillary staff employee shall be placed on one of three evaluation “tracks,” depending on both the ancillary staff employee’s status and the ancillary staff employee’s most recent performance evaluation rating(s).
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Performance Evaluation Tracks. Each teacher shall be placed on one of three evaluation “tracks,” depending on both the teacher’s tenure status and the teacher’s most recent performance evaluation rating(s).

Related to Performance Evaluation Tracks

  • Performance Evaluation The Department may conduct a performance evaluation of Contractor’s Services, including Contractor’s Subcontractors. Results of any evaluation may be made available to Contractor upon request.

  • Performance Evaluations The Contractor is subject to an annual performance evaluation to be conducted by NYCDOT pursuant to the PPB Rules.

  • 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.

  • PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 6.1 The Performance Plan (Annexure A) to this Agreement sets out – 6.1.1 The standards and procedures for evaluating the Employee’s performance; and 6.1.2 The intervals for the evaluation of the Employee’s performance. 6.2 Despite the establishment of agreed intervals for evaluation, the Employer may in addition review the Employee’s performance at any stage while the contract of employment remains in force; 6.3 Personal growth and development needs identified during any performance review discussion must be documented in a Personal Development Plan as well as the actions agreed to and implementation must take place within set time frames; 6.4 The Employee’s performance will be measured in terms of contributions to the goals and strategies set out in the Employer’s Integrated Development Plan (IDP) as described in 6.6 – 6.12 below; 6.5 The Employee will submit quarterly performance reports (SDBIP) and a comprehensive annual performance report at least one week prior to the performance assessment meetings to the Evaluation Panel Chairperson for distribution to the panel members for preparation purposes; 6.6 Assessment of the achievement of results as outlined in the performance plan: 6.6.1 Each KPI or group of KPIs shall be assessed according to the extent to which the specified standards or performance targets have been met and with due regard to ad-hoc tasks that had to be performed under the KPI, and the score of the employer will be given to and explained to the Employee during the assessment interview. 6.6.2 A rating on the five-point scale shall be provided for each KPI or group of KPIs which will then be multiplied by the weighting to calculate the final score; 6.6.3 The Employee will submit his self-evaluation to the Employer prior to the formal assessment; 6.6.4 In the instance where the employee could not perform due to reasons outside the control of the employer and employee, the KPI will not be considered during the evaluation. The employee should provide sufficient evidence in such instances; and 6.6.5 An overall score will be calculated based on the total of the individual scores calculated above.

  • 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.

  • Performance Expectations The Charter School’s performance in relation to the indicators, measures, metrics and targets set forth in the CPF shall provide the basis upon which the SCSC will decide whether to renew the Charter School’s Charter Contract at the end of the charter term. This section shall not preclude the SCSC from considering other relevant factors in making renewal decisions.

  • 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 Metrics The “Performance Metrics” for the Performance Period are: (i) the JD Power Residential National Large Segment Survey for investor-owned utilities; (ii) the System Average Interruption Frequency Index (Major Events Excluded) (“XXXXX”); (iii) Arizona Public Service Company’s customer to employee improvement ratio; (iv) the OSHA rate (All Incident Injury Rate); (v) nuclear capacity factor; and (vi) coal capacity factor. (1) With respect to the Performance Metric described in clause (i) of this Subsection 6(a), the JD Power Residential National Large Segment Survey will provide data on an annual basis reflecting the Company’s percentile ranking, relative to other participating companies. (2) With respect to the Performance Metric described in clause (ii) of this Subsection 6(a), the Edison Electric Institute (“EEI”) will provide data on an annual basis regarding the XXXXX result of the participating companies; the Company will calculate its XXXXX result for the year in question and determine its percentile ranking based on the information provided by EEI. (3) With respect to the Performance Metric described in clause (iii) of this Subsection 6(a), SNL, an independent third party data system, will provide data on an annual basis regarding the customer and employee counts; the Company will use its customer and employee counts for the year in question and determine its percentile ranking based on the information provided by SNL. Only those companies whose customers and employees were included in the data provided by SNL in each of the years of the Performance Period will be considered. (4) With respect to the Performance Metric described in clause (iv) of this Subsection 6(a), EEI will provide data on an annual basis regarding the OSHA rate of the participating companies; the Company will calculate its OSHA rate for the year in question and determine its percentile ranking based on the information provided by EEI. (5) With respect to the Performance Metric described in clause (v) of this Subsection 6(a), SNL will provide data on an annual basis regarding the nuclear capacity factors of the participating nuclear plants; the Company will calculate its nuclear capacity factor for the year in question and determine its percentile ranking based on the information provided by SNL. Only those plants that were included in the data provided by SNL in each of the years of the Performance Period will be considered. (6) With respect to the Performance Metric described in clause (vi) of this Subsection 6(a), SNL will provide data on an annual basis regarding the coal capacity factors of the participating coal plants; the Company will calculate its coal capacity factor for the year in question and determine its percentile ranking based on the information provided by SNL. Only those plants that were included in the data provided by SNL in each of the years of the Performance Period will be considered. (7) The Company’s percentile ranking during the Performance Period for each Performance Metric will be the average of the Company’s percentile ranking for each Performance Metric during each of the three years of the Performance Period (each, an “Average Performance Metric”); provided, however, that if the third year of a Performance Metric is not calculable by December 15 of the following year, the Performance Metric shall consist of the three most recent years for which such Performance Metric is calculable. The Company’s “Average Performance,” for purposes of determining any Base Grant adjustments pursuant to Subsection 5(b) above will be the average of the Average Performance Metrics. If only quartile, rather than percentile, rankings are available for a particular Performance Metric, the Average Performance Metric for any such Performance Metric shall be expressed as a percentile. For example, if the Performance Metric was in the top quartile for two Performance Periods and in the lowest quartile in the other Performance Period, the average of these quartiles would be 3 (the average of 4, 4, and 1) and the Average Performance Metric would be the 75th percentile (3 /4). The calculations in this Subsection 6(a)(7) will be verified by the Company’s internal auditors. (8) If either EEI or SNL discontinues providing the data specified above, the Committee shall select a data source that, in the Committee’s judgment, will provide data most comparable to the data provided by EEI or SNL, as the case may be. If the JD Power Residential National Large Segment Survey for investor-owned utilities (or a successor JD Power survey) is not available during each of the years of the Performance Period, the Performance Metric associated with the JD Power Residential Survey (Subsection 6(a)(1)) will be disregarded and not included in the Company’s Average Performance for purposes of determining any Base Grant adjustments pursuant to Subsection 5(b).

  • Performance Monitoring ‌ A. Performance Monitoring of Subrecipient by County, State of California and/or HUD shall consist of requested and/or required written reporting, as well as onsite monitoring by County, State of California or HUD representatives. B. County shall periodically evaluate Subrecipient’s progress in complying with the terms of this Contract. Subrecipient shall cooperate fully during such monitoring. County shall report the findings of each monitoring to Subrecipient. C. County shall monitor the performance of Subrecipient against the goals, outcomes, milestones and performance standards required herein. Substandard performance, as determined by County, will constitute non-compliance with this Contract for which County may immediately terminate the Contract. If action to correct such substandard performance is not taken by Subrecipient within the time period specified by County, payment(s) will be denied in accordance with the provisions contained in this Paragraph 47 of this Contract. D. HUD in accordance with 24 CFR Part 570 Subpart O, 570.902, will annually review the performance of County to determine whether County has carried out its Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) assisted activities in a timely manner and has significantly disbursed CDBG funds and met the mandated “1.5 ratio” threshold. Subrecipient is responsible to ensure timely drawdown of funds.

  • Long Term Cost Evaluation Criterion # 4 READ CAREFULLY and see in the RFP document under "Proposal Scoring and Evaluation". Points will be assigned to this criterion based on your answer to this Attribute. Points are awarded if you agree not i ncrease your catalog prices (as defined herein) more than X% annually over the previous year for years two and thr ee and potentially year four, unless an exigent circumstance exists in the marketplace and the excess price increase which exceeds X% annually is supported by documentation provided by you and your suppliers and shared with TIP S, if requested. If you agree NOT to increase prices more than 5%, except when justified by supporting documentati on, you are awarded 10 points; if 6% to 14%, except when justified by supporting documentation, you receive 1 to 9 points incrementally. Price increases 14% or greater, except when justified by supporting documentation, receive 0 points. increases will be 5% or less annually per question Required Confidentiality Claim Form This completed form is required by TIPS. By submitting a response to this solicitation you agree to download from th e “Attachments” section, complete according to the instructions on the form, then uploading the completed form, wit h any confidential attachments, if applicable, to the “Response Attachments” section titled “Confidentiality Form” in order to provide to TIPS the completed form titled, “CONFIDENTIALITY CLAIM FORM”. By completing this process, you provide us with the information we require to comply with the open record laws of the State of Texas as they ma y apply to your proposal submission. If you do not provide the form with your proposal, an award will not be made if your proposal is qualified for an award, until TIPS has an accurate, completed form from you. Read the form carefully before completing and if you have any questions, email Xxxx Xxxxxx at TIPS at xxxx.xxxxxx@t xxx-xxx.xxx

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