Developer Evaluation Clause Samples

The Developer Evaluation clause establishes a process for assessing the performance, qualifications, or suitability of a developer involved in a project. Typically, this clause outlines the criteria and methods by which the developer's work or credentials will be reviewed, such as through periodic progress reports, milestone achievements, or third-party assessments. Its core function is to ensure that the developer meets agreed-upon standards and expectations, thereby reducing the risk of subpar work and providing a mechanism for addressing deficiencies early in the project.
Developer Evaluation. Products provided for Developer evaluation, or described as "Alpha," "Beta," "Tech Preview," or "Labs" by the Business Unit under an Order, may be used for development evaluation purposes only, must not be used or deployed in or on a Production or non-evaluation development environment, and are provided "AS IS" without Maintenance or any warranties or indemnities. Such offerings may contain bugs, errors, and other defects. Company does not make any representations, promises, or guarantees that such offerings will be publicly announced or made generally available. Such offerings can be suspended or terminated at any time by Company in its sole discretion with or without notice to Customer. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, such offerings may be deployed by Customer on AWS, Microsoft Azure, or similar environments.
View SourceView Similar (26)
Developer Evaluation. Products provided for Developer evaluation, or described as "Alpha," "Beta," "Tech Preview," or "Labs" by the Business Unit under an Order, may be used for development evaluation purposes only, must not be used or deployed in or on a Production or non-evaluation development environment, and are provided "AS IS" without Maintenance or any warranties or indemnities. Such offerings may contain bugs, errors, and other defects. Company does not make any representations, promises, or guarantees that such offerings will be publicly announced or made generally available. Such offerings can be suspended or terminated at any time by Company in its sole discretion with or without notice to Customer. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, such offerings may be deployed by Customer on AWS, Microsoft Azure, or similar environments. Customer grants an irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, transferable, sublicensable, and perpetual license to use, modify, publish, and distribute any information, comments, suggestions, possible improvements or other feedback provided by Customer with respect to Products or Company's business practices ("Feedback ") as well as to make, have made, distribute, sell, offer to sell, display, perform and otherwise exploit products and services that use such Feedback for any purpose without restriction.
View SourceView Similar (19)

Related to Developer Evaluation

  • 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.

  • JOC EVALUATION If any materials being utilized for a project cannot be found in the RS Means Price Book, this question is what is the markup percentage on those materials? When answering this question please insert the number that represents your percentage of proposed markup. Example: if you are proposing a 30 percent markup, please insert the number "30". Remember that this is a ceiling markup. You may markup a lesser percentage to the TIPS Member customer when pricing the project, but not a greater percentage. EXAMPLE: You need special materials that are not in the RS Means Unit Price Book for a project. You would buy the materials and ▇▇▇▇ them up to the TIPS Member customer by the percentage you propose in this question. If the materials cost you, the contractor, $100 and you proposed a markup on this question for the material of 30 percent, then you would charge the TIPS Member customer $130 for the materials. TIPS/ESC Region 8 is required by Texas Government Code § 791 to be compensated for its work and thus, failure to agree shall render your response void and it will not be considered. Vendor agrees to remit to TIPS the required administration fee or, if resellers are named, guarantee the fee remittance by or for the reseller named by the vendor?

  • TECHNICAL EVALUATION (a) Detailed technical evaluation shall be carried out by Purchase Committee pursuant to conditions in the tender document to determine the substantial responsiveness of each tender. For this clause, the substantially responsive bid is one that conforms to all the eligibility and terms and condition of the tender without any material deviation. The Institute’s determination of bid’s responsiveness is to be based on the contents of the bid itself without recourse to extrinsic evidence. The Institute shall evaluate the technical bids also to determine whether they are complete, whether required sureties have been furnished, whether the documents have been properly signed and whether the bids are in order. (b) The technical evaluation committee may call the responsive bidders for discussion or presentation to facilitate and assess their understanding of the scope of work and its execution. However, the committee shall have sole discretion to call for discussion / presentation. (c) Financial bids of only those bidders who qualify the technical criteria will be opened provided all other requirements are fulfilled. (d) AIIMS Jodhpur shall have right to accept or reject any or all tenders without assigning any reasons thereof.

  • Self-Evaluation Each regular faculty member shall provide a self-evaluation. It shall address, among other items, the faculty member's fulfillment of professional responsibilities as referenced in Section 18.2.3 and an assessment of his or her own performance. The faculty member will share the self-evaluation with the Faculty Evaluation Committee and the first-level manager or designee. The self-evaluation will become part of the evaluation report.

  • Annual Evaluation The Partnership will be evaluated on an annual basis through the use of the Strategic Partnership Annual Evaluation Format as specified in Appendix C of OSHA Instruction CSP ▇▇-▇▇-▇▇▇, OSHA Strategic Partnership Program for Worker Safety and Health. The Choate Team will be responsible for gathering required participant data to evaluate and track the overall results and success of the Partnership. This data will be shared with OSHA. OSHA will be responsible for writing and submitting the annual evaluation.