Evaluation Ratings. 9.10.1 If the “Final Rating” is “Satisfactory,” no other meeting is necessary.
Evaluation Ratings a. At the conclusion of the evaluation process the evaluator shall give a rating of Highly Effective/Innovating, Effective/Proficient, Developing/ Professional Support Needed, or Unsatisfactory/Does Not Meet Standard in Standard 5 (Assessment) and each of the two other Standards agreed upon during the Goal Setting Conference. The evaluator may also give ratings in the remaining three Standards, with supporting evidence. In addition, the evaluator will indicate potential direction/focus for subsequent evaluation (see Evaluation Form, Appendix).
Evaluation Ratings. 10.6.3.1 There are four possible ratings on each objective under the six standards: Unsatisfactory, Needs Improvement, Satisfactory, Exceeds Standards.
Evaluation Ratings. The Government will evaluate the Contractor’s performance of the SOW and the TPOC will assign a rating of either acceptable or unacceptable. The acceptable quality levels are outlined in Enclosure (1).
Evaluation Ratings. Unit members shall receive an overall rating of “Exceeds Standards (4),” “Meets Standards (3)”, “Growth Expected (2),” or “Does Not Meet Standards (1)” in each of the six standards of the CSTP. It is the intent of the parties to encourage unit members to advance their teaching practice on a continual basis against the standards in the CSTP. The judgments reached by the evaluator are not subject to the grievance procedure. Judgments concerning the professional practice of the unit member shall be reasonably related to multiple sources of information consistent with the standards in the CSTP.
Evaluation Ratings. Unit members shall receive an overall rating of “Exceeds Competency Standards (4),” “Meets Competency Standards (3)”, “Growth Expected (2),” or “Does Not Meet Competency Standards (1)” in each of the competency areas. Judgments concerning the professional practice of the unit member shall be reasonably related to multiple sources of information consistent with the classified competency areas.
Evaluation Ratings. Substantive performance evaluation ratings and comments shall not be subject to the grievance procedure.
Evaluation Ratings. In its evaluation of the non-price factors, the Government will consider the benefits and risks associated with the Quoter’s proposed approaches to arrive at a confidence assessment of the Quoter’s likelihood of successfully performing the work and meeting the requirements of the solicitation. The table below shows the ratings the Government will assign in its evaluation of these factors. Ratings for Factors, 1, 2 3 and 4 Rating Definition High Confidence The Government has high confidence that the Quoter understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the contract with little or no Government intervention. Some Confidence The Government has some confidence that the Quoter understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the contract with some Government intervention. Low Confidence The Government has low confidence that the Quoter understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, or will be successful in performing the contract even with Government intervention. Phase 2 - Factor 5 - Price (Volume II) including Discount Terms (Not Rated) Each price quotation will be evaluated to include the individual labor rates the Quoter provides in Attachment 2, as well as the BPA Pricing Model, Attachment 3. The evaluation will assess the accuracy, completeness, discounts offered and reasonableness. This process involves verification that prices and/or discounts are included for all RFQ requirements, figures are correctly calculated, and prices are presented in an adequate format. Quoters are encouraged to propose discounts off their GSA Schedule contract. The Quoter is required to submit pricing data in the format indicated in Attachment 2, Pricing Table and Attachment 3, Pricing Model of the RFQ. The Pricing Model shall identify the Quoter’s proposed labor categories, labor rates, and total proposed price. The Pricing Model is provided for evaluation purposes only, for Quoters to complete and submit as part of their Price Quotation. The rates quoted by the Quoter in Attachment 2 – Pricing Table will be the BPA Award rates. Attachment 3 – Pricing Model is for Evaluation purposes only. DHS may choose not to enter into a Blanket Purchase Agreement with Quoters whose prices are not competitive, or which offer no discount or reduction for services off the negotiated GSA schedule rates. Price discounts or reductions must be clearly identified and are strongly encouraged. ATTACHM...
Evaluation Ratings. The Government will review each Offeror’s proposal and utilize a combined technical/risk rating. The following “Risk” descriptions will be used in the combined technical/risk evaluation ratings: Technical Risk Rating Method Table Adjectival Ratings Description Low The Offeror’s Proficiency Demonstration Part C or its personnel satisfy the eligibility criteria in Part B; and Proficiency Part B provides a sufficient approach to deliver on the core competencies identified in Part A. The Self-Scoring Worksheet validation score in any Proficiency Demonstration Parts (A, B and C) for any one Proficiency Area is 5 to 8. Moderate The Offeror’s Proficiency Demonstration in Part C or its personnel somewhat satisfy the eligibility criteria in Part B; and, Proficiency Part B somewhat provides a sufficient approach to deliver on the core competencies identified in Part A. The Self-Scoring Worksheet validation score in all Proficiency Demonstration Parts (A, B and C) for any one Proficiency Area is 4 or higher. High The Offeror’s Proficiency Demonstration Part C or its personnel do not satisfy the eligibility criteria in Part B; or, Proficiency Part B does not provide a sufficient approach to deliver on the core competencies identified in Part A. The Self-Scoring Worksheet validation score in any Proficiency Demonstration Parts (A, B and C) for any one Proficiency Area is 3 or less. The Technical Factor will receive one of the following adjectival ratings, based on the technical/risk evaluation. Evaluation Factor Combined Technical Risk/Rating Table and Definitions Color Rating Adjectival RATING DEFINITION Blue Outstanding Proficiency Demonstration Scores for all Parts A, B and C for all Proficiency Areas were successfully validated by the Government; AND the Technical Excellence score for all Proficiency Areas receives the Highest Score; AND the Technical Breadth Cumulative Score within the Market Segment receives the Highest Score; AND risk of unsuccessful performance is low. Purple Good Proficiency Demonstration Scores for all Parts A, B and C for at leastone Proficiency Area were successfully validated by the Government; AND the Technical Excellence score for at least one Proficiency Demonstration is Above Normal or higher; AND the Technical Breadth Cumulative Score within the Market Segment receives an Above Normal Score; AND risk of unsuccessful performance is low. to Green Acceptable Proficiency Demonstration Scores for all Parts A, B and C for at least one Profi...
Evaluation Ratings. The Government will review each Offeror’s proposal and utilize a combined technical/risk rating. The following “Risk” descriptions will be used in the combined technical/risk evaluation ratings:
