Rating System. Unit members’ evaluations will be based on a rubric of four (4) descriptors as follows: Does Not Meet Standards, Developing Practice/Needs to Improve, Meets Standards, or Exemplifies or Exceeds Standards. Definitions of these descriptors are explained in the “Descriptors of Practice” included in the Certificated Evaluation Handbook. The evaluator must include narrative comments in the case of Does Not Meet Standards, Developing Practice/Needs to Improve and Unsatisfactory ratings and is encouraged to make comments on Meets or Exceeds Criteria ratings. For permanent and non-permanent unit members using the Observation Format, a Summary Evaluation which includes two (2) of the five (5) or the three (3) overall categories pertaining to student instruction rated as “Does Not Meet Standards” will equal an overall Unsatisfactory Evaluation. A Summary Evaluation which includes three (3) of the five (5) overall categories pertaining to student instruction rated as “Needs to Improve” will equal an overall Needs to Improve. A Summary Evaluation which includes three (3) of any of the above five (5) categories pertaining to student instruction rated as two (2) or below will equal an overall Needs to Improve.
Rating System. The Employee Performance Report uses a comparison to standard system composed of five (5) ratings. Each rating is explained below: Rating Description Does Not Meet Minimum Standards of Performance The employee’s performance is unacceptable, falling below even minimum standards in most aspects of the rated category. Immediate action should be taken by the employee to improve his/her performance Meets Minimum Standards But Needs To Show Improvement The employee’s performance is in need of improvement. Some aspects of the rated category may meet department standards, but others do not. Meets Standards of Performance The employee’s performance meets or exceeds the department’s expectations. The employee is performing at 100% or more all the time in the rated category. Exceeds Standards of Performance The employee’s performance exceeds the department’s expectations. The Employee is performing at well over 100% most of the time in the rated category. Far Exceeds Standards of Performance The employee’s performance significantly exceeds the department’s expectations. The employee is performing at well over 100% all the time in the rated category. When completing the Employee Performance Report, supervisors must provide clear and concise comments of explanation for all rated categories in which the employee's performance is evaluated as "Does Not Meet Minimum Standards of Performance", "Meets Minimum Standards but Needs to Show Improvement", or "Far Exceeds Standards of Performance". Comments should be written in such a way as to make it clear to the employee what action is required to improve his/her performance to an acceptable level.
Rating System. Unit members’ evaluations will be based on a three-point scale of “Satisfactory,” “Needs Improvement,” or “Unsatisfactory.” The evaluator must include narrative comments in the case of “
Rating System. The TDHE uses a “rating” system for the conduct of inspections. If a Dwelling Unit fails the initial inspection the TDHE will send out a Notice of Termination and will conduct a follow up inspection within thirty (30) days of the initial inspection. If the follow up inspection fails the TDHE shall immediately commence eviction procedures in accordance with Section 10 (E) of the policy.
Rating System. 1. Unsatisfactory - The employee is functioning in a manner far below minimal standards established for the specific descriptor or overall performance. A rating of unsatisfactory requires a detailed explanation of those aspects that are unsatisfactory, and would include specific recommendations for improvement to the employee that will lead to satisfactory performance. A score of .75 or less will result in this rating.
Rating System. It is imperative that all members of the review panel score applications based on the criteria stipulated in the announcement. They will rate each evaluation criteria with the following adjectival descriptions and notate the strengths and weaknesses: OUTSTANDING - Information submitted demonstrates potential to significantly exceed performance or capability standards. The applicant clearly demonstrates understanding of all aspects of the requirements to the extent that timely and highest quality performance is anticipated. The applicant shows exceptional strengths that will significantly benefit the Government and meet the fullest expectations of the Government. The applicant convincingly demonstrates the ability to implement programmatic goals and objectives. An assigned rating within "outstanding" indicates the application contains essentially no significant weaknesses, deficiencies, or disadvantages and shows a very high probability of success. GOOD - Information submitted demonstrates potential to exceed performance or capability standards. The applicant has one or more strengths that will benefit the Government. A high level of efficiency or productivity or quality is anticipated. The applicant shows only minor (but no major) deficiencies. The applicant shows the ability to implement programmatic goals and objectives. An assigned rating with "Good" is used when there are no indications of exceptional features or innovations that could prove to be beneficial, or contrarily, weaknesses that could diminish the quality of the effort or increase the risks of failure. Disadvantages are minimal and there is high probability of exceeding the requirements. SATISFACTORY - Information submitted demonstrates potential to meet performance or capability standards. Applicant shows ability to meet minimum standard requirements and adequately meet programmatic goals and objectives. Applicant demonstrates few or no advantages or strengths and displays weaknesses in several areas that are not offset by strengths in other areas. A rating of "Satisfactory" equates to a neutral rating. There is a good probability of success as sufficient confidence that a fully compliant level of performance will be achieved. There are no significant advantages or disadvantages. MARGINAL - Information submitted demonstrates potential to marginally meet performance or capability standards necessary for minimal, but acceptable contract performance. The application is not adequately responsiv...
Rating System. After listing proposal strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies, the SSEB will assign an adjective rating of “Outstanding”, “Good”, “Acceptable”, “Marginal”, or “Unacceptable” to each factor and sub-factor to reflect the Government's confidence in each offeror's technical ability, as demonstrated in its proposal, to perform the requirements stated in the RFP. The adjectival ratings shall be assigned, using the following criteria, which incorporate a proposal risk assessment: TECHNICAL MERIT RATING DEFINITIONS Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low. Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate. Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate. Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high. Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in completing projects that are similar to the solicitation requirements. A relevancy rating of very relevant, relevant, somewhat relevant, or not relevant will first be assigned for projects submitted under specialized experience and past performance. Past Performance Relevancy Rating Definitions Adjectival Rating Description Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.
Rating System. The Platform uses a one-way rating system whereby Clients can rate the Professionals based on chat interactions and task/Tasks performed (“Rating System”). Clients can also leave review and comments about the Professionals and Professional Services. Please be fair in your rating and appraisal of the Professionals. Client may give ratings to each other within 14 days, the term of which commences on the completion of a Task, on the Platform (“Rating Period”). In the event a Client omits to provide ratings using the Rating System, the Client will not be able to give or receive any ratings on the expiry of the Rating Period. Alzare Technologies reserves the right to remove any rating from the Platform in its sole discretion. If a Professional thinks that a Client has given an unfair rating, please write to us at xxxxx@xxxxxx.xxx so that we may get to know your side of the story and investigate further if the need arises (in our sole discretion). We shall take appropriate action against users who misuse our Rating System.
Rating System. In order to provide employees with a clear understanding of what are acceptable and unacceptable numbers of days absent and late, the following standards are established: Number of days absent or late in the six month period: up to 2 days Superior 3 to 4 days Above Average 5 to 6 days Satisfactory 7 or more days Unsatisfactory * In some cases, when there is an insufficient base of remaining days to determine a rating, a "not applicable" score results. At the end of each six month evaluation period, the HACP tabulates the number of days absent and late for each employee. (Since vacation, personal business leave, jury duty and military duty require “prior approved" leaves, such absences are not counted for the purpose of the evaluation; only sick days and days docked are considered "absent".) As is the case with overall performance evaluation results, attendance and promptness ratings are taken into account in the consideration for promotions, appointments and other personnel actions.
Rating System. After listing proposal strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies, the SSEB will assign an adjective rating of “Outstanding”, “Good”, “Acceptable”, “Marginal”, or “Unacceptable” to each factor and element to reflect the Government's confidence in each offeror's technical ability, as demonstrated in its proposal, to perform the requirements stated in the RFP. The adjectival ratings shall be assigned, using the following criteria, which incorporate a proposal risk assessment: TECHNICAL MERIT RATING DEFINITIONS Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low. Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate. Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate. Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high. Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.
