Evaluation Method. Only those applications which are responsive and compliant will be evaluated. Incomplete applications will not be considered; Offers will be evaluated according to the Combined Scoring method – where the technical criteria will be weighted at 70% and the financial offer will be weighted at 30%; The technical criteria (education, experience, language [max. 90 points] and interview [max. 30 points]) will be based on a maximum 120 points. Only the top 3 candidates that have achieved a minimum of 63 points from the review of education, experience and language will be considered for the interview; Candidates obtaining 21 points or higher in the interview will be deemed technically compliant and considered for financial evaluation; Financial score (max 100 points) shall be computed as a ratio of the proposal being evaluated and the lowest priced proposal of those technically qualified; The financial proposal shall specify an all-inclusive daily fee. In order to assist the requesting unit in the comparison of financial proposals, the financial proposal must additionally include a breakdown of this daily fee (including all foreseeable expenses to carry out the assignment); Applicant receiving the Highest Combined Score and has accepted UNDP’s General Terms and Conditions will be awarded the contract. Documentation to be submitted: Applicants must submit a duly completed and signed UNDP Personal History form (P11) and/or CV including Education/Qualification, Professional Certification, Employment Records /Experience; Please attach or provide links to 2 samples of your previous work relevant to this assignment in your application; Applicants must reply to the mandatory questions asked by the system when submitting the application; Applicants must submit a duly completed and signed Xxxxx XX Offeror´s letter to UNDP confirming interest and availability for the Individual Contractor (IC) assignment to be downloaded from the UNDP procurement site. UNDP Personal History form (P11) required of all applicants; P11.
Evaluation Method. In order to assure a high quality of teacher performance and to advance the instructional programs of the District, a continuous program for teacher evaluation shall be established, and regular reports shall be made to the Board of Trustees concerning the outcome of these evaluations. The evaluation process shall include:
Evaluation Method. The performance of all employees shall be evaluated in writing. Such evaluations shall be on the standard form provided by the District, based upon observations, and shall acknowledge the strengths of employees as well as deficiencies. The evaluator will inform the employee of any deficiency in performance in a timely manner. If a deficiency is not corrected it may result in a “Does Not Meet Standards” (DNMS) or Unsatisfactory (U) rating on the annual evaluation. Data used to support the District’s assessment for items marked DNMS or U will be shared with the employee. The evaluator shall take into consideration and note in writing any circumstances which may adversely affect an employee's performance, such as workload or physical facilities. The District’s Classified Employee Evaluation Handbook may be amended in consultation with the ESSA. The District will provide an annual evaluation of each ESSA employee by an evaluator not in the ESSA bargaining unit. A supervisor/lead will draft evaluations as input for employee evaluations. It is expected a supervisor/lead will work collaboratively with the evaluator to prepare a final evaluation. The supervisor/lead is not required to sign the final evaluation.
Evaluation Method. The evaluation of the Tenders is carried out in accordance with the description provided in Annex A. The award criteria used are the Economic Most Advantageous Tender by The Best Price- Quality Ration, based on the following criteria and sub-criteria: Quality 80 % - Key Personnel 50% - Resource Base 30% - Energy Modelling and Analysis 20 % Price 20 %
Evaluation Method. The student shall return assigned work to the teacher immediately upon returning to school. Teacher will evaluate work done and record progress where indicated above. THE WORK MUST BE TURNED IN ON THE DUE DATE EVEN IF THE STUDENT DOES NOT RETURN TO SCHOOL THAT DAY. Parent Signature Date Student Signature Date Supervising Teacher’s Signature Date This section is to be completed after receiving the student’s work. # of days credit given: Date work received : Teacher comments / Grade: Teacher’s Certification Signature: Principal’s Review Signature: Date: Date: ISC Eng. Template rev.3/5/2015 Page 1 of 2 Master Agreement for Independent Study (continued) Student: *I understand that: • Independent Study is a form of education that I have voluntarily chosen, and I understand that I can return to the classroom at any time. • I am entitled to textbooks and supplies, supervision by my teacher, and all the services and resources received by other children enrolled in my grade at School. • I have the same rights as other students in my grade at the Fallbrook Union Elementary School District. • I must follow the rules and standards in the discipline code and behavior guide of the School. • If I do not complete all work products, my incomplete work will result in review of my agreement and I may not be allowed to continue in Independent Study. I agree to: • Be supervised by and meet regularly with my teacher as written on page one. • Complete my assigned work by its due date, as explained by my teacher and described in my written assignments. Student Signature Date Parent / Guardian: * I understand that the major objective of Independent Study is to provide a voluntary educational alternative for my son or daughter. I agree to the above conditions listed under “Student”. I also understand that: • Learning objectives are consistent with and evaluated in the same manner that they would be if he or she were enrolled in a traditional school program. • If my child has an Individualized Education Program (IEP), the IEP must specifically provide for his or her enrollment in Independent Study. • Unless otherwise indicated, the supervising teacher who signs this agreement will meet with me and my son or daughter on a regular basis as specified on page one to direct the child’s study and measure progress toward the objectives in the agreement. It is my responsibility to promptly reschedule any appointment missed due to any emergency. When any student fails to complete three conse...
Evaluation Method. Best value for money The evaluation will be conducted on the basis of the below award criteria: Award criteria Maximum score Organisation of call-off orders Quality assurance routines Merits 30 points 30 points 40 points Total: 100 The assessment and scoring of the award criteria will be carried out according to the following scoring scale: The score for each criterion generates a weighted score. For example, a criterion score of 5 points that is deemed to be “Good” is assigned 0.8 x 5 = 4 points. Rejected Inadequate Acceptable Good Very good 0 % 40 % 60 % 80 % 100 % Definition of the scoring scale: Rejected = The description or equivalent element is missing or has major shortcomings. Inadequate = The description or equivalent element is included but has certain shortcomings. Acceptable = The description or equivalent element is sufficiently good but lacks substantial benefits or is of uneven quality. Good = The description or equivalent element is adequate and well suited for the purpose. Very good = The description or equivalent element provides added value and is of high quality overall. The following formula is used: Price per hour/Received quality score (in number of points) = Price per quality point The most economically advantageous tender is determined by aggregating the score from the award criteria above and dividing this number by the offered price. The tender with the lowest cost of quality wins. The evaluation process is illustrated in the fictitious example below. Evaluation example: Tender A: 1200 SEK per hour Tender B: 1500 SEK per hour Tender A: Total quality score obtained (points): 5 points Tender B: Total quality score obtained (points): 6 points Tender A: 1200 SEK / 5 points = 240 SEK Tender B: 1500 SEK / 6 points = 250 SEK
Evaluation Method. Matching results for each patient study were first qualitatively scored to three categories: matching success for all views, failure in one view and failure in more than one view. Failures were reported and excluded from quantitative evaluation. Multi-View AAMs: Application to X-Ray Angiography and Cardiac MRI
Evaluation Method. The City will appoint a committee consisting of department staff to evaluate the proposals and to make recommendation to the City Council. The City will be the sole judge of its own bestinterests, the proposals, and the resulting contract. The City’s decisions will be final. Award will be made to the proposal, which presents the best value to the City based on the entire evaluation process and all the information gathered. The City may require the short-listed firm(s) to do an oral presentation or have discussions by proposed team relative to their specific experience on similar projects. Although each member of the evaluation committee independently examines the proposals prior to the meeting, the short-listing or selection of the firm(s) is determined by the consensus of the committee.
Evaluation Method. For all above performance metrics, the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) will document the time of verbal notification to the contractor. The COR and NTR will document the official time and date of notification. The COR and NTR will review deliverables against performance standard and document. The COR will confirm and provide feedback to the contractor and KO.
Evaluation Method. After resolution of minor or clerical errors and/or mistakes, the Government will perform a price analysis on all proposals received. Price analysis will be performed in accordance with FAR 15.404-1, to determine the adequacy of the offer in fulfilling the requirements of the proposal. Completeness addresses the extent to which the elements of the price proposal are consistent with the requirements of the RFP. Reasonableness will be established using historical price information, price competition information, the Independent Government Estimate (IGE) and any other pricing tools necessary. Award cannot be made for project cost for design and construction exceeding the contract cost limitation described herein. Submittal of Section 00101 is not considered for evaluation, but are required as part of the offeror’s proposal of this solicitation. The information requested in this Section needs to be fully completed along with completion of Online Representations and Certifications Application in XXX. The submitted information will be reviewed for completeness by the Contracting Officer. Bid bonds will be reviewed for acceptability. Any offeror whose bid bond is unacceptable, will be eliminated without further consideration unless the Source Selection Authority/Contracting Officer later determines that discussions are necessary and decides that the offeror’s proposal should be included in the competitive range. However it is the intention of the Contracting Officer to award without discussions. Supplemental Price Breakdown. If deemed necessary to evaluate the price proposals, the Government’s will request a Phase 2 price breakdown of the Contract Line items in a sealed envelope marked “Phase 2 Price Breakdown Information”, in Excel format. The Government will provide details on where and how to send the breakdown. This information will not be needed sooner than three working days after the proposal submission due date. This information may be required for the initial Phase 2 proposal and, if requested, for any revised proposals. This information is not an opportunity for an Offeror to revise its non-price or price proposal. REQUIRED PRE-AWARD INFORMATION Submission Requirements for Pre-award Information: Use Attachment 9 to complete this section. Evaluation Criteria: In addition to the other Phase 1 and Phase 2 proposal information, the Contracting Officer shall use this information in making an affirmative responsibility determination for award to the Successfu...
