Quality Evaluation Process. 10.4.1 The evaluation of each response to the Award Questionnaire will be conducted and consensus checked in accordance with the Consensus Marking Procedure.
Quality Evaluation Process Sample Clauses
Related to Quality Evaluation Process
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.
PROGRESS EVALUATION Engineer shall, from time to time during the progress of the Engineering Services, confer with County at County’s election. Engineer shall prepare and present such information as may be pertinent and necessary, or as may be reasonably requested by County, in order for County to evaluate features of the Engineering Services. At the request of County or Engineer, conferences shall be provided at Engineer's office, the offices of County, or at other locations designated by County. When requested by County, such conferences shall also include evaluation of the Engineering Services. County may, from time to time, require Engineer to appear and provide information to the Xxxxxxxxxx County Commissioners Court. Should County determine that the progress in Engineering Services does not satisfy an applicable Work Authorization or any Supplemental Work Authorization related thereto, then County shall review same with Engineer to determine corrective action required. Engineer shall promptly advise County in writing of events which have or may have a significant impact upon the progress of the Engineering Services, including but not limited to the following:
Research Use Reporting To assure adherence to NIH GDS Policy, the PI agrees to provide annual Progress Updates as part of the annual Project Renewal or Project Close-out processes, prior to the expiration of the one (1) year data access period. The PI who is seeking Renewal or Close-out of a project agree to complete the appropriate online forms and provide specific information such as how the data have been used, including publications or presentations that resulted from the use of the requested dataset(s), a summary of any plans for future research use (if the PI is seeking renewal), any violations of the terms of access described within this Agreement and the implemented remediation, and information on any downstream intellectual property generated from the data. The PI also may include general comments regarding suggestions for improving the data access process in general. Information provided in the progress updates helps NIH evaluate program activities and may be considered by the NIH GDS governance committees as part of NIH’s effort to provide ongoing stewardship of data sharing activities subject to the NIH GDS Policy.
Student Evaluation A. All unit members shall be subject to student evaluations each semester in each course taught.
Authorized User Overview and Mini-Bid Process Project Based IT Consulting Services Contracts enable Authorized Users to use a competitive Mini-bid Process to acquire Services on an as-needed basis, for qualified IT Projects. Project Based IT Consulting Services may include, but will not be limited to projects requiring: analysis, data classification, design, development, testing, quality assurance, security and associated training for Information Technology based applications. See section 1.3 Out of Scope Work for a listing of projects expressly excluded from the scope of this Contract. An Authorized User Agreement for Project Based IT Consulting Services will be governed first by the terms and conditions specified in the OGS Centralized Contract and second by terms and conditions added to the Authorized User Statement of Work. Additional terms and conditions shall not conflict with or modify the terms and conditions of the OGS Centralized Contract. NYS Executive Agencies must adhere to all internal processes and approvals including, as required, approval from NYS Office of Information Technology Services. Other Authorized Users must adhere to their own internal processes and approvals. In accordance with Appendix B, section 28, Modification of Contract Terms, an Authorized User may add additional required terms and conditions to this Mini-Bid and resultant Authorized User Agreement only if such terms and conditions (1) are more favorable to the Authorized User and (2) do not conflict with or supersede the OGS Centralized Contract terms and conditions. Examples of additional terms and conditions include: • Expedited delivery timeframe; • Additional incentives, such as discount for expedited payment/Procurement Card use; and • Any additional requirements imposed by the funding source or Federal law.
Project Monitoring Reporting Evaluation A. The Project Implementing Entity shall monitor and evaluate the progress of its activities under the Project and prepare Project Reports in accordance with the provisions of Section 5.08(b) of the General Conditions and on the basis of indicators agreed with the Bank. Each such report shall cover the period of one
Review and Selection Process The Project Narratives of SAMHSA applications are peer-reviewed according to the evaluation criteria listed above. Decisions to fund a grant are based on the strengths and weaknesses of the application as identified by peer reviewers. The results of the peer review are advisory in nature. The program office and approving official make the final determination for funding based on the following: • Individual awards over $250,000 are approved by the Center for Mental Health Services National Advisory Council; • Availability of funds; • Equitable distribution of awards in terms of geography (including urban, rural, and remote settings) and balance among populations of focus and program size; • Submission of any required documentation that must be submitted prior to making an award; and • SAMHSA is required to review and consider any information about your organization that is in the Federal Award Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS). In accordance with 45 CFR 75.212, SAMHSA reserves the right not to make an award to an entity if that entity does not meet the minimum qualification standards as described in section 75.205(a)(2). If SAMHSA chooses not to award a fundable application in accordance with 45 CFR 75.205(a)(2), SAMHSA must report that determination to the designated integrity and performance system accessible through the System for Award Management (XXX) [currently, FAPIIS]. You may review and comment on any information about your organization that a federal awarding agency previously entered. XXXXXX will consider your comments, in addition to other information in FAPIIS in making a judgment about your organization’s integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under federal awards when completing the review of risk posed as described in 45 CFR 75.205 HHS Awarding Agency Review of Risk by Applicants.
Quality Assurance Program An employee shall be entitled to leave of absence without loss of earnings from her or his regularly scheduled working hours for the purpose of writing examinations required by the College of Nurses of Ontario arising out of the Quality Assurance Program.
Project Monitoring Reporting and Evaluation The Recipient shall furnish to the Association each Project Report not later than forty-five (45) days after the end of each calendar semester, covering the calendar semester.
Completion of Evaluation Cycle 1. The summative evaluation rating shall be based upon a preponderance of the evidence, assessed in a holistic manner, that is aligned to the Ohio Educator Standards. Only evidence gathered during the walkthroughs and formal observations that are conducted for the current school year may be used.
