Qualitative Rating Sample Clauses

Qualitative Rating. The Project Development Plan will be reviewed and will be assigned a qualitative rating for each of the evaluation subfactors in accordance with the following table:
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Qualitative Rating. Adjective Rating Description Excellent The Proposal greatly exceeds the stated requirements / objectives, offering material benefits and/or added value and providing assurance that a consistently outstanding level of quality will be achieved. There is very little or no risk that the Proposer’s team would fail to satisfy the requirements of the Project. Weaknesses, if any, are very minor and can be readily corrected. Significant unique and/or innovative characteristics are present. Very Good The Proposal significantly exceeds the stated requirements / objectives, offering advantages, benefits and/or added value and providing assurance that a level of quality will be achieved that is materially better than acceptable. There is little risk in that Proposer’s team would fail to satisfy the requirements of the Project. Weaknesses, if any, are very minor and can be readily corrected. Some unique and/or innovative characteristics are present. Good The Proposal materially exceeds the stated requirements / objectives and provides assurance that the level of quality will meet or exceed minimum requirements. There may be a slight probability of risk that Proposer’s team may fail to satisfy the requirements of the Project. Weaknesses are correctable or acceptable per minimum standards. Fair The Proposal marginally exceeds stated requirements / objectives and provides satisfactory assurance that the level of quality will meet or marginally exceed minimum requirements. There may be questions about the likelihood of success and there is risk that the Proposer may fail to satisfy the requirements of the Project. Weaknesses are correctable or acceptable pre minimum standards. Meets Minimum The Proposal meets stated requirements / objectives and provides satisfactory assurance that the minimum level of quality will be achieved. There may be questions about the likelihood of success and there is some risk that Proposer’s team may fail to satisfy the requirements of the Project. Weaknesses are correctable or acceptable per minimum standards.
Sample 1

Related to Qualitative 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.

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

  • 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).

  • Evaluation Rating The final summative evaluation level that is assigned to a teacher based on the holistic review of all Evaluation Factors, observed during the Evaluation Cycle. The rating shall be “accomplished”, “skilled”, “developing”, or “ineffective”. The final rating shall not be weighted in such a way that one (1) domain or component of the evaluation system has a higher importance than another, except that any area marked N/A shall not negatively impact the evaluation rating.

  • Industry Ratings The City will only accept coverage from an insurance carrier who offers proof that it:

  • Credit Rating With respect to the Competitive Supplier or Competitive Supplier’s Guarantor, its senior unsecured, unsubordinated long-term debt rating, not supported by third party credit enhancement, and if such debt is no longer rated, then the corporate or long-term issuer rating of Competitive Supplier or Competitive Supplier’s Guarantor.

  • Level IV a. If the grievant is not satisfied with the disposition of his/her grievance at Level III, he/she may file the grievance within five (5) days of the Level III response for transmittal to the Board.

  • Level III In the event the grievance is not resolved in Level II, the decision rendered may be appealed to the School Board, provided such an appeal is made in writing within ten (10) days after receipt of the decision in Level II. If a grievance is properly appealed to the School Board, the School District shall hear the grievance within twenty (20) days after the receipt of the appeal. Within twenty (20) days after the meeting the School Board shall issue its decision in writing to the parties involved. At the option of the School Board, a committee or representative(s) of the School District may be designated by the School Board to hear the appeal at this level, and report its findings and recommendations to the School District. The School District shall then render its decision.

  • Ratings No “nationally recognized statistical rating organization” as such term is defined for purposes of Rule 436(g)(2) (i) has imposed (or has informed the Company that it is considering imposing) any condition (financial or otherwise) on the Company’s retaining any rating assigned to the Company or any securities of the Company or (ii) has indicated to the Company that it is considering any of the actions described in Section 7(c)(ii) hereof.

  • Rating The Notes can be issued without the requirement that they have any rating from a nationally recognized statistical rating organization.

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