Service Evaluation Clause Samples

POPULAR SAMPLE Copied 2 times
Service Evaluation. Arnerich Massena may assist clients in evaluating other professional services being provided to their accounts. Analysis may cover some or all of the following: cost and fee structure, timeliness, accuracy, quality of work, and level of overall service. Searches for trustees, custodians and administrators are also conducted analyzing these factors and using proprietary due diligence Prow Voting. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ does not exercise proxy voting authority over client securities. The obligation to vote client proxies at all time rests with clients. Clients may contact ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ for advice or information about a particular proxy vote. However, Arnerich Massena will not have proxy voting authority as a result of providing such advice to client. Should Arnerich Massena inadvertently receive proxy information for a security held in a client’s account, Arnerich Massena will forward such information to the client, but will not take any action with respect to the voting of such proxy. Upon termination of its agreement with a client, Arnerich Massena will use reasonable efforts to forward proxy information inadvertently received by it on behalf of the client to the forwarding address provided by the client. Other Services relative to the evaluation and management of investment programs and strategies may also be provided as needs are identified. Fee Schedule - as listed below (varies by client type): For its consulting services, Americh Massena charges clients either an annual retainer fee or a percentage-of-assets fee. The fee schedule specified below is used as a guideline in determining annual retainer fees and percentage-of-assets fees. Both types of fees are negotiable, depending on the range of services to be provided, the degree of customization requested, the nature and size of the account, and other circumstances involved. Private Client Services Group: Account Size Fee as a of Assets Minimum Annual Fee $5 million 45 basis points (0.45%) $ 15,000 Next $5 million 35 basis points (0.35%) Next $10 million 10 basis points (0.10%) $20 million - $39,999,999 20 to 25 basis points on all assets (0.20-0.25%) 40,000 $40 million - $99,999,999 15 to 20 basis points on all assets (0.15-0.20%) 60,000 $100 million+ 10 basis points on all assets (0.10%) Complete amended pages in full, circle amended items and with execution page (page 1). Schedule F of Form ADV Applicant: SEC File Number: Date: not use this Schedule as a continuation sheet for Form ADV Part I or any oth...
View Source
Service Evaluation. The Provider will provide any additional data requested which will allow for evaluation of the service. The Provider will incorporate processes to seek and record consumer consent to participate in evaluation activities undertaken by Central and Eastern Sydney PHN or related third parties. Noting that a consumer response to such request is to no way impact on a consumer’s access to, and quality of services received. The Provider will collect and review consumer experience information as part of quality improvement processes and more formally through evaluation
View Source
Service Evaluation. The District of Sault Ste. ▇▇▇▇▇ Social Services Administration Board will evaluate the services provided by the Service Provider under each of the following categories: a) data collection related to participation in services offered; b) effective participation in community planning tables and activities; c) number of unqualified staff who are actively upgrading their credentials; d) timely, complete and accurate submissions of data and annual reporting requirements; e) participation in and quality of participation in the Quality Assurance Framework, Program Development and Professional Development; f) adhering to mandatory core services and service description; and g) adherence to all DSSMSSAB policies and procedures including Serious Occurrence reporting and Criminal Reference Checks in accordance with legislation. SCHEDULE “B-5" Capacity Building | Quality Assurance | Professional Practice | Mental Health Support
View Source
Service Evaluation. 1.1 The Purchasers’ rights to evaluate
View Source
Service Evaluation. 7 8.1 CONTRACTOR shall be evaluated, on a quarterly basis, on the 8 effectiveness of CONTRACTOR’s service delivery based on, but not limited to, 9 the following:
View Source
Service Evaluation. 5.1 The service provided to you by Research and Statistics will undergo evaluation and quality monitoring. This will be done by customer feedback, evaluation forms at training events and through annual review of operations and services as part of our corporate business planning processes. 5.2 Any queries, concerns or complaints about our products and services should be addressed to: ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇-▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Head of Performance and Statistics 020 8313 4043
View Source
Service Evaluation. The following information as marked must be reported to the Town of ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇: Evaluation of services provided during the reporting period.
View Source
Service Evaluation. 11 ADMINISTRATOR shall evaluate CONTRACTOR’s service delivery based on, but 12 not be limited to, the following: 13 5.1 Number of referred Participants served monthly and quarterly 14 throughout the service period, and the number of service days provided per
View Source
Service Evaluation. The ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Framework will be used as part of the service specification to evaluate and assess the quality of care utilizing the following 3 categories: o “Structure” i.
View Source

Related to Service Evaluation

  • Performance Evaluation The Department may conduct a performance evaluation of Contractor’s Services, including Contractor’s Subcontractors. Results of any evaluation may be made available to Contractor upon request.

  • Job Evaluation The work of the provincial job evaluation steering committee (the JE Committee) will continue during the term of this Framework Agreement. The objectives of the JE Committee are as follows: • Review the results of the phase one and phase two pilots and outcomes of the committee work. Address any anomalies identified with the JE tool, process, or benchmarks. • Rate the provincial benchmarks and create a job hierarchy for the provincial benchmarks. • Gather data from all school districts and match existing job descriptions to the provincial benchmarks. • Identify the job hierarchy for local job descriptions for all school districts. • Compare the local job hierarchy to the benchmark-matched hierarchy. • Develop a methodology to convert points to pay bands - The confirmed method must be supported by current compensation best practices. • Identify training requirements to support implementation of the JE plan and develop training resources as required. Once the objectives outlined above are completed, the JE Committee will mutually determine whether a local, regional or provincial approach to the steps outlined above is appropriate. It is recognized that the work of the committee is technical, complicated, lengthy and onerous. To accomplish the objectives, the parties agree that existing JE funds can be accessed by the JE committee to engage consultant(s) to complete this work. It is further recognized that this process does not impact the established management right of employers to determine local job requirements and job descriptions nor does this process alter any existing collective agreement rights or established practices. When the JE plan is ready to be implemented, and if an amendment to an existing collective agreement is required, the JE Committee will work with the local School District and Local Union to make recommendations for implementation. Any recommendations will also be provided to the Provincial Labour Management Committee (PLMC). As mutually agreed by the provincial parties and the JE Committee, the disbursement of available JE funds shall be retroactive to January 2, 2020. The committee will utilize available funds to provide 50% of the wage differential for the position falling the furthest below the wage rate established by the provincial JE process and will continue this process until all JE fund monies at the time have been disbursed. The committee will follow compensation best practices to avoid problems such as inversion. The committee will report out to the provincial parties regularly during the term of the Framework Agreement. Should any concerns arise during the work of the committee they will be referred to the PLMC. Create a maintenance program to support ongoing implementation of the JE plan at a local, regional or provincial level. The maintenance program will include a process for addressing the wage rates of incumbents in positions which are impacted by implementation of the JE plan. The provincial parties confirm that $4,419,859 of ongoing annual funds will be used to implement the Job Evaluation Plan. Effective July 1, 2022, there will be a one-time pause of the annual $4,419,859 JE funding. This amount has been allocated to the local table bargaining money. The annual funding will recommence July 1, 2023.

  • Performance Evaluations Employee performance shall be evaluated and communicated on a yearly basis as required under County policy. Performance evaluations are used to demonstrate to employees that they are valued; record how an employee’s performance meet the requirements of the job; create a job history record; identify employee strengths and areas for enhancement; assist the employee and supervisor in an effort to attain the highest level of performance; and reinforce performance standards. Every effort will be made to include substantiated information within an employee’s performance evaluation. Non-recurring discipline history which is more than two (2) years old will not be referenced in performance evaluations. The County shall ensure employee performance evaluations are conducted in accordance with County and departmental policy. Performance evaluations and disciplinary matters shall only be conducted by County employees. When an employee who does not agree with the overall rating he/she receives on his/her written performance evaluation, he/she shall discuss and attempt to resolve the differences with his/her immediate supervisor. If discussion with his/her immediate supervisor does not result in resolution of the differences, the employee may file a written request to meet with the next level of management. Said request shall state the unresolved issues and the specific changes in the written performance evaluation the employee is seeking. The appropriate manager shall meet with the employee to discuss the unresolved issues. If the issues are not resolved to the employee’s satisfaction following discussion with the appropriate manager, the employee may within thirty (30) working days file a written request for a meeting with the department head. Within fourteen (14) working days of receipt of a written request stating the unresolved issues and the desired changes in the written performance evaluation, the department head shall meet with the employee to discuss the issues. Within ten (10) working days of said meeting, the department head shall respond in writing to the employee. The decision of the Department Head shall be final and not subject to the grievance procedure. An employee may submit a written response to his/her evaluation that shall be placed in his/her personnel file.

  • 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.

  • EMPLOYEE EVALUATION A. Formal evaluation of employees shall be in writing and shall be for the purpose of establishing a record of the employee’s work performance. The evaluation may include but is not limited to: establishing performance standards and outcome measures, recognition of an employee’s efforts, as well as planning for improvement. Issues of attendance and punctuality may be addressed if they have previously been discussed with the employee. The employee’s job description shall be a basis for the evaluation. B. The evaluator shall review the written evaluation with the employee and provide the employee with a copy. The employee shall sign the evaluation acknowledging receipt. If the employee has objections to the evaluation, s/he, may within twenty (20) working days following receipt of the evaluation put such objections in writing and have them attached to the evaluation report and placed in his/her personnel file. C. The frequency of evaluations shall be determined by the District and generally occur every other year by April 1st for bargaining unit employees. If the District chooses to do so, it may conduct formal evaluations on an annual basis. An employee may request to receive one (1) annual evaluation. Such request shall be in writing to the employee’s supervisor with a copy to the Human Resources Department. D. The Human Resources Department will consult with the Federation in developing an outline of best practices to be used in conducting employee evaluations. E. When the District determines that an employee’s work performance is unsatisfactory, it shall inform the employee in writing of any deficiency and the improvement expected and provide the employee with the opportunity to correct the unsatisfactory performance within a reasonable time period established by the District. F. The judgment of an employee’s work performance by an evaluating supervisor shall not be the subject of a grievance. A grievance concerning an evaluation shall be limited to an allegation that the evaluation was done in bad faith or clearly untrue. The burden of proof shall rest with the grievant. Such grievance shall be filed at the next administrative level above that of the evaluator and that administrator shall provide a written decision within ten (10) working days of any hearing. If the grievance is not resolved, it may be appealed by submitting a written statement to the Human Resources Department within ten (10) working days following receipt of the administrative written decision. The written statement must clearly set forth why the previous decision is in error regarding the allegation of bad faith or being clearly untrue. The Director of Labor Relations, or designee, may review the record of the grievance and/or conduct a hearing and shall issue a written decision within ten (10) working days following such review or hearing. Such decision shall be final. G. Effective July 1, 2013, Sign Language Interpreters will be evaluated using the Educational Interpreter Performance Assessment (EIPA) pursuant to OAR 581-015-2035 and/or the District’s evaluation form.