RFP Procedure and Evaluation Sample Clauses

RFP Procedure and Evaluation. The Commission has given TxDOT broad direction on the content and methodology for the solicitation of Proposals from shortlisted Proposers, the selection of a Proposer whose Proposal offers the apparent best value to TxDOT and the terms and conditions a P3A must contain to be deemed satisfactory. TxDOT staff and consultants intend to work with the Commission during the RFQ process to define the RFP and negotiation process with specificity, which may include, at an appropriate time, industry review of a draft RFP and contract documents, among other information. Proposers are advised that the evaluation criteria and weightings for the evaluations of the Proposals may differ from the criteria set forth herein to evaluate QSs. Award of the P3A by the Commission will be conditioned upon finalization of the P3A and subject to approvals from or reviews by FHWA, the Legislative Budget Board and the Attorney General in accordance with applicable law.
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3See All (4)
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
RFP Procedure and Evaluation. Short-Listed Proposers are advised that the evaluation criteria and weightings for the evaluation of the Proposals will differ from the criteria set forth in this RFQ to evaluate SOQs. In addition, the scores and evaluation of the SOQs shall not carry over or be used in any way in the evaluation of the Proposals.
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3
RFP Procedure and Evaluation. Respondents are advised that the evaluation criteria and weightings for the evaluation of the Proposals submitted in response to the RFP will differ from the criteria set forth in this RFQ to evaluate SOQs. In addition, the scores and evaluation of the SOQs, as well as any revised SOQ scores and evaluations resulting from changes in a Proposer’s organization or Key Personnel, shall not carry over or be used in any way in the evaluation of the Proposals.
Sample 1
RFP Procedure and Evaluation. Short-Listed Proposers are advised that the evaluation criteria and weightings for the evaluation of the Proposals will differ from the criteria set forth in this RFQ to evaluate SOQs. In addition, the scores and evaluation of the SOQs shall not carry over or be used in any way in the evaluation of the Proposals. Arizona Department of Transportation Phoenix Metropolitan Area Freeway Lighting Project Page 47 of 5858 Request for Qualifications Project #F014701C Addendum #3, September 14, 2017
Sample 1
RFP Procedure and Evaluation. The Commission has given TxDOT broad direction on the content and methodology for the solicitation of Proposals from shortlisted Proposers, the selection of a Proposer whose Proposal offers the apparent best value to TxDOT and the terms and conditions a P3A must contain to be deemed satisfactory. TxDOT staff and consultants intend to work with the Commission during the RFQ process to define the RFP and negotiation process with specificity, which may include, at an appropriate time, industry review of a draft RFP and contract documents, among other information. Proposers are advised that the evaluation criteria and weightings for the calculations of the Proposals may differ from the criteria set forth herein to evaluate QSs. If the RFP solicits Proposals for both the design-build and toll concession methods (rather than for a single delivery method), TxDOT anticipates a two-step evaluation process. The first step will be to evaluate all Proposals received for each delivery method separately against specified criteria to determine the Proposal for each delivery method that provides the best value. The second step will be to compare the best value design-build Proposal with the best value toll concession Proposal in accordance with an objective and transparent formula to be set forth in the RFP to determine which Proposal provides the best overall value to the State. Award of the P3A by the Commission will be conditioned upon finalization of the P3A and subject to approvals from or reviews by FHWA, the Legislative Budget Board and the Attorney General in accordance with applicable law.
Sample 1
RFP Procedure and Evaluation. The Commission has given its staff broad direction on the content and methodology for the solicitation of Proposals from short listed Proposers, the selection of a Proposer whose Proposal offers the apparent best value to TxDOT and the terms and conditions a CDA must contain to be deemed satisfactory. TxDOT staff and consultants intend to work with the Commission during the RFQ process to define the RFP and negotiation process with specificity, which may include, at an appropriate time, industry review of a draft RFP and contract documents, among other information. Proposers are advised that the evaluation criteria and weightings for the calculations of the Proposals may differ from the criteria set forth herein to evaluate PQSs.
Sample 1

Related to RFP Procedure and Evaluation

  • Monitoring and Evaluation a. The AGENCY shall expeditiously provide to the COUNTY upon request, all data needed for the purpose of monitoring, evaluating and/or auditing the program(s). This data shall include, but not be limited to, clients served, services provided, outcomes achieved, information on materials and services delivered, and any other data required, in the sole discretion of the COUNTY, that may be required to adequately monitor and evaluate the services provided under this Contract. Monitoring shall be performed in accordance with COUNTY’S established Noncompliance Standards, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Attachment “C”. b. The AGENCY agrees to permit persons duly authorized by the COUNTY to interview any clients and all current and/or former employees of the AGENCY to be assured of the AGENCY’S satisfactory performance of the terms of this Contract. c. Following such evaluation, monitoring, and/or audit, the COUNTY will deliver a report of its findings and recommendations with regard to the AGENCY’S conformance with this Contract’s terms and conditions to the AGENCY and/or Board of Directors’ President, and members, whenever applicable. If deficiencies are noted, a written notice of corrective action will be issued to the AGENCY which will specify deficiencies and provide a timeline for correction of those deficiencies. Within the designated timeframe in the written notice of corrective action, the AGENCY shall submit to the COUNTY’S CCC manager (“Manager”), or their designee, a corrective action plan to rectify all deficiencies identified by the COUNTY. d. Failure by the AGENCY to correct noted deficiencies, as outlined in the written notice of corrective action, may result in the AGENCY being deemed in breach of the Contract terms. e. The AGENCY shall cooperate with the COUNTY on all reviews to ensure compliance with all applicable COUNTY guidelines and requirements for general fund recipients.

  • Nature and Purpose of Processing The Parties will Process Shared Personal Data only as necessary to perform under and pursuant to the Applicable Agreements, and subject to this Data Processing Addendum, including as further instructed by Data Subjects.

  • Program Monitoring and Evaluation The Recipient shall prepare, or cause to be prepared, and furnish to the Association not later than six months after the Closing Date, a report of such scope and in such detail as the Association shall reasonably request, on the execution of the Program, the performance by the Recipient and the Association of their respective obligations under the Legal Agreements and the accomplishment of the purposes of the Financing.”

  • 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.

  • 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.

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