Ex-Post evaluation Clause Samples

Ex-Post evaluation. The Borrower agrees to cooperate, directly or through the Executing Agency, in the evaluation of the Program to be carried out by the Bank after the Program’s execution, with the purpose of identifying to what extent objectives of the Program have been reached, and to provide to the Bank all the information, data and documentation that the Bank may request to carry out said evaluation.
View SourceView Similar (8)
Ex-Post evaluation. Ex-post evaluation is to cover the utilisation of resources and the effectiveness and efficiency of assistance and its impact. It is to cover the factors contributing to the success or failure of implementation of measures and the achievements and results After the completion of measures, the Commission and the beneficiary countries will therefore evaluate the manner, including the efficient and effective use of resources, in which they have been carried out. The evaluation will also cover the actual impact of their implementation in order to assess whether the original objectives have been achieved. This evaluation will, inter alea, address the contribution made by measures to the implementation of Community policies on the environment or its contribution to extended Trans-European networks and common transport policies. They will also assess the environmental impact of the measures. The ISPA provides assistance for the following measures: (1) Environmental projects enabling the beneficiary countries to comply with the requirements of Community environmental law and with the objectives of the Accession Partnerships; (2) Transport infrastructure projects which promote sustainable mobility and in particular those that constitute projects of common interest based on the criteria of Decision N° 1692/96/EC2 and those which enable the beneficiary countries to comply with the objectives of the Accession Partnerships; this includes interconnection and interoperability of national networks as well as with the Trans-European Networks together with access to such networks; (3) Preliminary studies, appraisals, and technical support measures including information and publicity actions related to eligible projects. This includes technical and administrative assistance to the mutual benefit of the Commission and the beneficiary countries which do not fall within the standing remit of the national public administration, covering the identification, preparation, management, monitoring, audit and supervision of projects. The rules specified in sections II to XII below relate to projects listed under items 1 and 2 above they are, however, applied by analogy to decisions for projects listed under item 3.
View SourceView Similar (7)
Ex-Post evaluation. 1. During the last year of validity of the commitment established in the most recent MFA concluded with the [Candidate Country], the on-going evaluation shall take the form of a separate ex-post evaluation. It shall be completed and submitted to the Commission not later than the end of that year. 2. On the basis of the evaluation results already available as well as evaluation questions relevant to the IPARD Programme, the ex-post evaluation shall cover the utilisation of resources and the effectiveness and efficiency of the IPARD Programme, its impact and its consistency with the ex-ante evaluation. It shall cover factors contributing to the success or failure of implementation, the achievements of the IPARD Programme and results, including their sustainability. It shall draw conclusions relevant to the IPARD Programme and to the enlargement process. 3. If the [Candidate Country] fails to submit the ex-post evaluation report by the date referred to in paragraph 1 the provisions of Article 39(4) shall apply.
View SourceView Similar (4)
Ex-Post evaluation. (1) At the latest by the end of the first year after the programme implementation period, an ex-post evaluation shall be prepared by Serbia for the IPARD III programme. That report shall be completed and submitted to the Commission not later than the end of that year. (2) On the basis of the evaluation results already available as well as evaluation questions relevant to the IPARD III programme, the ex-post evaluation shall cover the utilisation of resources and the effectiveness and efficiency of the IPARD III programme, its impact and its consistency with the ex-ante evaluation. It shall cover factors contributing to the success or failure of implementation, the achievements of the IPARD III programme and results, including their sustainability. It shall draw conclusions relevant to the IPARD III programme and to the enlargement process. (3) If Serbia fails to submit the ex-post evaluation report by the date referred to in paragraph 1, Article 39(5) shall apply.
View SourceView Similar (2)
Ex-Post evaluation. 1. During the last year of validity of the commitment established in the most recent MFA concluded with Turkey, the on-going evaluation shall take the form of a separate ex-post evaluation. It shall be completed and submitted to the Commission not later than the end of that year. 2. On the basis of the evaluation results already available as well as evaluation questions relevant to the IPARD Programme, the ex-post evaluation shall cover the utilisation of resources and the effectiveness and efficiency of the IPARD Programme, its impact and its consistency with the ex-ante evaluation. It shall cover factors contributing to the success or failure of implementation, the achievements of the IPARD Programme and results, including their sustainability. It shall draw conclusions relevant to the IPARD Programme and to the enlargement process. 3. If Turkey fails to submit the ex-post evaluation report by the date referred to in paragraph 1 the provisions of Article 39(4) shall apply.
View Source
Ex-Post evaluation. (1) At the latest by the end of the first year after the programme implementation period, an ex-post evaluation shall be prepared by Albania for the IPARD II programme. That report shall be completed and submitted to the Commission not later than the end of that year. (2) On the basis of the evaluation results already available as well as evaluation questions relevant to the IPARD II programme, the ex-post evaluation shall cover the utilisation of resources and the effectiveness and efficiency of the IPARD II programme, its impact and its consistency with the ex-ante evaluation. It shall cover factors contributing to the success or failure of implementation, the achievements of the IPARD II programme and results, including their sustainability. It shall draw conclusions relevant to the IPARD II programme and to the enlargement process. (3) If Albania fails to submit the ex-post evaluation report by the date referred to in paragraph (1), Article 37(5) shall apply.
View Source
Ex-Post evaluation. The Counter-Guarantor agrees to cooperate, directly or through the Executing Agency, in the evaluation of the Program to be carried out by the Bank after the Program’s execution, with the purpose of identifying to what extent the objectives of the Program have been reached, and to provide to the Bank all the information, data, and documentation that the Bank may request to carry out said evaluation.
View Source
Ex-Post evaluation. An ex-post evaluation shall be carried out by the Republic of Bulgaria in consultation with the Commission under the responsibility of the Managing Authority. On the basis of the evaluation results already available, and taking account of Article 9 of this Section, as well as questions relevant to the Programme, the ex-post evaluation shall cover the utilisation of resources and the effectiveness and efficiency of the Programme, its impact and its consistency with the ex- ante evaluation. It shall cover factors contributing to the success or failure of implementation, the achievements of the Programme and results, including their sustainability. The ex-post evaluation shall draw conclusions relevant to the Programme. It shall be completed not later than the end of the fourth year following the conclusion of the final Annual Financing Agreement
View Source

Related to Ex-Post evaluation

  • Long Term Cost Evaluation Criterion # 4. READ CAREFULLY and see in the RFP document under "Proposal Scoring and Evaluation". Points will be assigned to this criterion based on your answer to this Attribute. Points are awarded if you agree not i ncrease your catalog prices (as defined herein) more than X% annually over the previous year for years two and thr ee and potentially year four, unless an exigent circumstance exists in the marketplace and the excess price increase which exceeds X% annually is supported by documentation provided by you and your suppliers and shared with TIP S, if requested. If you agree NOT to increase prices more than 5%, except when justified by supporting documentati on, you are awarded 10 points; if 6% to 14%, except when justified by supporting documentation, you receive 1 to 9 points incrementally. Price increases 14% or greater, except when justified by supporting documentation, receive 0 points. increases will be 5% or less annually per question Required Confidentiality Claim Form This completed form is required by TIPS. By submitting a response to this solicitation you agree to download from th e “Attachments” section, complete according to the instructions on the form, then uploading the completed form, wit h any confidential attachments, if applicable, to the “Response Attachments” section titled “Confidentiality Form” in order to provide to TIPS the completed form titled, “CONFIDENTIALITY CLAIM FORM”. By completing this process, you provide us with the information we require to comply with the open record laws of the State of Texas as they ma y apply to your proposal submission. If you do not provide the form with your proposal, an award will not be made if your proposal is qualified for an award, until TIPS has an accurate, completed form from you. Read the form carefully before completing and if you have any questions, email ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ at TIPS at ▇▇▇▇.▇▇▇▇▇▇@t ▇▇▇-▇▇▇.▇▇▇ If the vendor is awarded a contract with TIPS under this solicitation, the vendor agrees to make any Choice of Law c lauses in any contract or agreement entered into between the awarded vendor and with a TIPS member entity to re ad as follows: "Choice of law shall be the laws of the state where the customer resides" or words to that effect. Agreed In the event of litigation or use of any dispute resolution model when resolving disputes with a TIPS member entity a s a result of a transaction between the vendor and TIPS or the TIPS member entity, the Venue for any litigation or ot her agreed upon model shall be in the state and county where the customer resides unless otherwise agreed by the parties at the time the dispute resolution model is decided by the parties. Agreed

  • 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?

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.