Scoring Criteria Sample Clauses

Scoring Criteria. The first four benchmarks are weighted the same, so failure to substantially meet the four benchmarks will count as one failure and result in withholding of 10% of the fiscal year 2020 PHEP award. Failure to meet the pandemic influenza preparedness planning requirement may result in withholding of 10% of the fiscal year 2020 PHEP award. CDC’s evaluation and performance measurement strategy will assess recipient progress made across the six domains, and the recipient's related strategies, activities, and outcomes. CDC will deploy several methods for assessing PHEP recipient performance throughout this five-year performance period, including, but not limited to: • CPG reports; • ORRs; • Additional process measures; • Outcome measures; and • Progress reports.
Sample 1
Scoring Criteria. Each entry will receive a score of 0-30, based on the following criteria: 7.3.2.1. How easy to understand? (0 – min, 10 – max) 7.3.2.1.1. How much is the text used for explanation? (0 points: more than 10 sentences; 1 point: less than 10 sentences and it is relevant; 2 points: text is concise and contributes to understanding of report) 7.3.2.1.2. Are the indicative colors in charts instinctually understandable? (e.g. Red – critical, alert; Green – no issues or mild) (0 points: color scheme is confusing; 1 point: main idea is understandable, but some details are confusing; 2 points: the meaning of the data is completely understandable) 7.3.2.1.3. Does it tell a story? (0 points: no discernible connection between data on report pages or charts on the page; 1 - 2 points: connection between different charts on the same page is understandable; 3-4 points: it is somewhat understandable how the data forms a narrative that answers the challenge; 5-6 points: the narrative and outcome is clear and understandable) 7.3.2.2. How easy to use? (0 – min, 10 – max) 7.3.2.2.1. Are graphs interactive (e.g. clicking on bar in one chart filters the data appropriately in others on the same page)? (0 points: none of the graphs are interactive; 1 point: some graphs are interactive (no more than 3 connections in all pages); 2 points: most of the graphs are interactive) 7.3.2.2.2. Response time. (1 point: there is noticeable lag in switching between report pages; 2 points: there is no lag.) 7.3.2.2.3. Use of advanced functionality: 7.3.2.2.3.1. Filters inside the report (e.g. user can filter the report data) (0 points: no filters; 1 point: there is a filter; 2 points: there is a filter and it is relevant to the challenge; 3 points: there are several filters and they are relevant to the challenge) 7.3.2.2.3.2. Use of layers (e.g. switching between different data representations on same data page) (0 points: no such functionality; 1 – 3 points on implemented use of layers, relevancy to data display and ease of use) 7.3.2.3. How did you like the design? (0 – min, 10 – max) 7.3.2.3.1. Visual design: is the overall look consistent, no empty spaces, no overcrowding? (0 points: not at all; 1 point: in most places; 2 points: fits all points) 7.3.2.3.2. Interface design: are there unnecessary visualisations/buttons/complexity in use? (0 points: consistently and many; 1 point: in some places; 2 points: not observed) 7.3.2.3.3. UX design: is the produced report usable (e.g. clickable)? (0 poi...
Sample 1
Scoring Criteria. Applicant has written evidence that small business development will be supported by startup or expansion as a result of the grant. 5 points for each letter for separate businesses up to 25 points
Sample 1
Scoring Criteria. This section fully describes the technical merit scoring criteria for applications received in response to this funding opportunity. In preparing applications, applicants are strongly encouraged to review the programmatic requirements. Applications will be scored on a scale of 0-100 according to the point distribution specified in the table below. Cost sharing will not be considered in the technical merit scoring, since ability to meet cost share is already required to be eligible for this award. However, if it is determined during any point in the review process that an applicant cannot meet cost sharing requirements, the application will be deemed ineligible. For scoring purposes, more weight will be given based on quality than on quantity. Application Part‌‌ Subsection Criterion Point Project Narrative Strategic approach and Project Design Comprehensive Description of Model 20 Supporting Evidence 10 Evaluation Strategy 25 Work Plans and Timelines 10 Organizational Capacity and Quality of Key Personnel Whole subsection and attached Résumés 15 Management and Operational Plan Whole subsection and attached Organizational Chart 10 SF-424 A Budget Budget Narrative and Spreadsheet Budget Narrative and Spreadsheet 10 Review panel members (“panelists”) will assign scores up to the point values listed in the table. Points will be deducted from those values based on any criteria listed in Section IV or Section V that the applicant has not included in the application. All full point value should reflect that all criteria have been met. Panelists should provide an identified weakness for any points deducted. Panelists will use the following criteria to assess applications received in response to this announcement: 1) Strength of Strategic Approach and Proposed Project Design a) Comprehensive Description of Model: Up to 20 points
Sample 1
Scoring Criteria. In order to qualify, the applicants are required to meet all the following minimum qualification criteria regarding applicants general and particular experience personnel and equipment (computer aids etc.) capabilities, software’s and financial position as demonstrated by the applicant’s response through the questionnaire attached at Appendix-I.
Sample 1
Scoring Criteria. This section fully describes the selection criteria for applications received in response to this funding opportunity. In preparing applications, applicants are strongly encouraged to review the programmatic requirements. Applications will be scored on a scale of 0-100 according to the point distribution specified in the table below. For scoring purposes, more weight will be given based on quality than on quantity. Strength of Strategic Approach and Proposed Project Design 30 Strength of Evidence 15 Quality of Evaluation 15 Organizational Capacity 15 Budget and Budget Narrative 10 Monitoring and Reporting 15 Total 100 The following criteria will be used to assess applications received in response to this announcement:
Sample 1
Scoring Criteria. Refer to Section 8.1 for detailed guiding questions for the Narrative. Narrative documents shall not exceed 25 pages (not including Cover Page, Table of Contents, and Appendices) and must be written in Calibri, Arial, or Times New Roman, 11 or 12 pt with 1” margins, single-spaced with a single line in between paragraphs. Text in tables, captions, and footnotes may be 10 pt. Narratives must utilize the headers provided in the proposal framework and address all questions and prompts provided. The TAC will incorporate equity in decision-making, scoring, and fund disbursement, evaluating ports according to their needs and ensuring that benefits are shared across the port ecosystem and broader supply chain. Proposals may earn up to 100 points: 60 points for Program Alignment and 40 points for Technical Review. The following scoring scale will be applied to all subsections within Program Alignment and Technical Review. The percentage score will determine the number of points eligible to win from each subsection. The TAC expects that all ports should have a passing score, considering the availability of the TAC to provide feedback on drafts. The TAC reserves the right to veto or disqualify proposals if any section is deemed incomplete, unsatisfactory, or ineligible. 0% Not Passing Response minimally addresses the requirements being scored. The omissions, flaws, or defects are significant and unacceptable. 34 | G r a n t A g r e e m e n t 40% Adequate Response addresses the requirements being scored, but there ar one or more omissions, flaws, or defects or the requirements are addressed in such a limited way that it results in a slightly lower degree of confidence in the proposed solution.
Sample 1

Related to Scoring Criteria

  • Evaluation Criteria 5.2.1. The responses will be evaluated based on the following: (edit evaluation criteria below as appropriate for your project)

  • Selection Criteria Each Contract is secured by a new or used Motorcycle. No Contract has a Contract Rate less than 1.00%. Each Contract amortizes the amount financed over an original term no greater than 84 months (excluding periods of deferral of first payment). Each Contract has a Principal Balance of at least $500.00 as of the Cutoff Date.

  • General Criteria (a) If general criteria are required as part of the Application, only one (1) set shall be completed. General criteria measure the quality of the Land Manager’s overall OHV program. The Applicants shall answer these questions with respect to the entirety of the OHV operation, including all trails and areas available for OHV Recreation, not just specific Projects or Project Areas. (b) General criteria include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) OHV Opportunity and services provided, (2) Agency contribution to the overall cost of managing and delivering the OHV Opportunity, (3) Management of natural and Cultural Resources, (4) Effective education of rules/regulations, and (5) Past performance in completing and administering Xxxxx funded Projects. (c) Non-land manager Applicants required to complete the general criteria shall cooperate with the Land Manager(s) to obtain the information necessary to complete the general criteria section of the Application. Note: Authority cited: Sections 5001.5 and 5003, Public Resources Code. Reference: Sections 5024.1, 5090.32 and 5090.50, Public Resources Code.

  • Award Criteria 40.1 The Procuring Entity shall award the Contract to the successful tenderer whose tender has been determined to be the Lowest Evaluated Tender in accordance with procedures in Section 3: Evaluation and Qualification Criteria.

  • Criteria (1) Annual Evaluation Criteria. All performance evaluations shall be based upon assigned duties, and shall carefully consider the nature of the assignment in terms, where applicable, of: a. Teaching effectiveness, including effectiveness in presenting knowledge, information, and ideas by means or methods such as lecture, discussion, assignment and recitation, demonstration, laboratory exercise, practical experience, supervision of interns, theses, professional projects and/or dissertations, and direct consultation with students. The evaluation shall include consideration of effectiveness in imparting knowledge and skills, and effectiveness in stimulating students' critical thinking and/or creative abilities, the development or revision of curriculum and course structure, and adherence to accepted standards of professional behavior in meeting responsibilities to students. The evaluator may take into account class notes, syllabi, student exams and assignments, and any other materials relevant to the employee's teaching assignment. The teaching evaluation must take into account any relevant materials submitted by the employee, including the results of peer evaluations of teaching, and may not be based solely on student evaluations when this additional information has been made available to the evaluator. b. Contribution to the discovery of new knowledge, development of new educational techniques, and other forms of creative activity. Evidence of research and other creative activity shall include, but not be limited to, published books; articles and papers in professional journals; musical compositions, paintings, sculpture; works of performing art; papers presented at meetings of professional societies; funded grant activities; and research and creative accomplishments that have not yet resulted in publication, display, or performance. The evaluation shall include consideration of the employee's productivity, including the quality and quantity of the employee's research and other creative programs and contributions during the year, as well as recognition by the academic or professional community of what has been done. c. Public service that extends professional or discipline-related contributions to the community, the State, public schools, and/or the national and international community. This public service includes contributions to scholarly and professional organizations, governmental boards, agencies, and commissions that are beneficial to such groups and individuals. d. Participation in the governance processes of the University through significant service on committees, councils, and senates, beyond that associated with the expected responsibility to participate in the governance of the University through participation in regular departmental or college meetings. e. Other assigned University duties, such as attending University events, advising, counseling, and academic administration, or as described in a Position Description, if any, of the position held by the employee. Other assigned duties may include entrepreneurial activities that contribute to the further development of the University with an end result of creating a new venture. Evidence of entrepreneurial contributions shall include, but not be limited to, creation of self- supporting centers or institutes, development of multi- disciplinary research partnerships, and applications of research to implementations in society. To provide guidelines for the establishment, maintenance and use of employee evaluation files within the employee’s respective academic unit.

  • SCHEDULE AND MILESTONES The Parties shall execute one (1) Annex concurrently with this Umbrella Agreement. The initial Annex and any subsequent Annexes will be performed on the schedule and in accordance with the milestones set forth in each respective Annex.

  • Performance Measurement The Uniform Guidance requires completion of OMB-approved standard information collection forms (the PPR). The form focuses on outcomes, as related to the Federal Award Performance Goals that awarding Federal agencies are required to detail in the Awards.

  • Service Eligibility Criteria 5.3.4.1 High capacity EELs must comply with the following service eligibility requirements. <<customer_short_name>> must certify for each high-capacity EEL that all of the following service eligibility criteria are met: 5.3.4.1.1 <<customer_short_name>> has received state certification to provide local voice service in the area being served; 5.3.4.2 For each combined circuit, including each DS1 circuit, each DS1 EEL, and each DS1-equivalent circuit on a DS3 EEL: 5.3.4.2.1 1) Each circuit to be provided to each End User will be assigned a local number prior to the provision of service over that circuit; 5.3.4.2.2 2) Each DS1-equivalent circuit on a DS3 EEL must have its own local number assignment so that each DS3 must have at least twenty-eight (28) local voice numbers assigned to it; 5.3.4.2.3 3) Each circuit to be provided to each End User will have 911 or E911 capability prior to provision of service over that circuit; 5.3.4.2.4 4) Each circuit to be provided to each End User will terminate in a collocation arrangement that meets the requirements of 47 C.F.R. § 51.318(c); 5.3.4.2.4 5) Each circuit to be provided to each End User will be served by an interconnection trunk over which <<customer_short_name>> will transmit the calling party’s number in connection with calls exchanged over the trunk; 5.3.4.2.5 6) For each twenty-four (24) DS1 EELs or other facilities having equivalent capacity, <<customer_short_name>> will have at least one (1) active DS1 local service interconnection trunk over which <<customer_short_name>> will transmit the calling party’s number in connection with calls exchanged over the trunk; and 5.3.4.2.6 7) Each circuit to be provided to each End User will be served by a switch capable of switching local voice traffic. 5.3.4.3 BellSouth may, on an annual basis, audit <<customer_short_name>>’s records in order to verify compliance with the qualifying service eligibility criteria. The audit shall be conducted by a third party independent auditor, and the audit must be performed in accordance with the standards established by the American Institute for Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). To the extent the independent auditor’s report concludes that <<customer_short_name>> failed to comply with the service eligibility criteria, <<customer_short_name>> must true-up any difference in payments, convert all noncompliant circuits to the appropriate service, and make the correct payments on a going-forward basis. In the event the auditor’s report concludes that <<customer_short_name>> did not comply overall in any material respect with the service eligibility criteria, <<customer_short_name>> shall reimburse BellSouth for the cost of the independent auditor. To the extent the auditor’s report concludes that <<customer_short_name>> did comply in all material respects with the service eligibility criteria, BellSouth will reimburse <<customer_short_name>> for its reasonable and demonstrable costs associated with the audit. <<customer_short_name>> will maintain appropriate documentation to support its certifications. 5.3.4.4 In the event <<customer_short_name>> converts special access services to UNEs, <<customer_short_name>> shall be subject to the termination liability provisions in the applicable special access tariffs, if any.

  • Quantitative Analysis Quantitative analysts develop and apply financial models designed to enable equity portfolio managers and fundamental analysts to screen potential and current investments, assess relative risk and enhance performance relative to benchmarks and peers. To the extent that such services are to be provided with respect to any Account which is a registered investment company, Categories 3, 4 and 5 above shall be treated as “investment advisory services” for purposes of Section 5(b) of the Agreement.”

  • Acceptance Criteria The Services and Deliverables must meet the following acceptance criteria or the JBE may reject the applicable Services or Deliverables. The JBE may use the attached Acceptance and Signoff Form to notify Contractor of the acceptance or rejection of the Services and Deliverables. Contractor will not be paid for any rejected Services or Deliverables.