OVERALL EVALUATION Sample Clauses

OVERALL EVALUATION. Proposals will be evaluated in two phases: a technical evaluation to determine the acceptability of the offer to the solicitation technical requirements; and a price evaluation to determine the total evaluated price proposed by each offeror. The "total evaluated price" is the cumulative total of the base year insurance plus all option years for the total estimated quantity specified in Section B. The Government will make a responsibility determination by analyzing whether the apparent successful offeror complies with the requirements of FAR subpart 9.1, including: • Adequate financial resources or the ability to obtain them; • Ability to comply with the required performance period, taking into consideration all existing commercial and governmental business commitments; • Satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics; • Necessary organization, experience, and skills or the ability to obtain them; • Necessary equipment and facilities or the ability to obtain them; and • Be otherwise qualified and eligible to receive an award under applicable laws and regulations.
Sample 1Sample 2See All (7)
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
OVERALL EVALUATION. Proposals will be evaluated in two phases: a technical evaluation to determine the acceptability of the offer to the solicitation technical requirements; and a price evaluation to determine the total evaluated price proposed by each offeror. The "total evaluated price" is the cumulative total of the base year insurance plus all option years for the total estimated quantity specified in Section B. The “total evaluated price” will not include any Rider pricing. The Government will make a responsibility determination by analyzing whether the apparent successful offeror complies with the requirements of FAR subpart 9.1, including: • Adequate financial resources or the ability to obtain them; • Ability to comply with the required performance period, taking into consideration all existing commercial and governmental business commitments; • Satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics; • Necessary organization, experience, and skills or the ability to obtain them; • Necessary equipment and facilities or the ability to obtain them; and • Be otherwise qualified and eligible to receive an award under applicable laws and regulations.
Sample 1Sample 2
OVERALL EVALUATION. The evaluation of the cooperation agreement in the prepress area is considered satisfactory overall after almost three years of operation. Integrating graphic design into the respective Publications Units of the two Committees facilitated the political objective of furthering each Committee's graphic profile and brand image. Structural and operational adjustments were necessary to ensure that the new system functioned smoothly. In spite of some loss of synergy, the decentralisation of prepress activities to the two Committees' Publication Units has made it possible to focus on the particular needs of each Committee. Both CoR and EESC graphic teams strongly recommend not replacing the MAC server with a PC environment since such a change would be detrimental in terms of quality and performance and would bring only minor financial savings. To improve synergies and be able to cope with exceptionally heavy workload periods, deepening cooperation between the two Committees' design teams could be envisaged, as provided for under point 2.4 of the cooperation agreement.
Sample 1
OVERALL EVALUATION. At least one (1) overall evaluation of professional performance will be made and discussed by the teacher and the building Principal, Assistant Principal, or Program Director. The teacher shall have the right to make written comment on the report. Copies of the evaluation signed by the Principal, Assistant Principal or Program Director the evaluator and the teacher shall be prepared for the teacher, Principal and personnel folder.
Sample 1
OVERALL EVALUATION. Recommendation (Contract Employees Only): 2nd Year Contract Employee (Art. 12.3.5.2): 4th Year Contract Employee (Art. 12.3.5.3):
Sample 1
OVERALL EVALUATION. After compilation of the individual scores for the criteria "Price" and "Quality", the Contract- ing Authority will multiply the score obtained for each criterion with the weighting of the criterion in question, and then add the results for the two criteria to arrive at the total, overall score.
Sample 1
OVERALL EVALUATION. At the bottom of the evaluation report the evaluator shall indicate a composite or total evaluation of the unit member by checking one of two ratings:
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
OVERALL EVALUATION. It is mandatory to meet each of the following criteria in order to pass certification  Projects are completed and submitted on time as per the deadlines – if a person does not complete and submit all of their projects they will not pass certification  The project deliverable is satisfactory and complete, as per review and feedback from the Certification Committee members and the business owners who donate a project. (specifics are outlined for each project as per below)  An understanding of the entrepreneur and a willingness to work with them from that place (vs. resisting or pushing back on their request) – if someone is highly resistant to the Certification process and is unwilling to participate they will not pass certification  Asking clarifying questions –in order to clarify expectations and ensure that you have all of the information that you need to successfully complete a project you will need to ask questions of the client. It may not be mandatory in all cases BUT we do require that you actively submit questions at least once in the certification process.  Offering suggestions and ideas to the client throughout the projects, as a demonstration of applying marketing mindset and being willing to “think on behalf of their business.”  Presenting solutions (not just options) to the client, being clear on what you recommend and why you are making that recommendation.
Sample 1

Related to OVERALL EVALUATION

  • Final Evaluation IC must submit a final report and a project evaluation to the Arts Commission within thirty (30) days after the completion of the Services. Any and all unexpended funds from IC must be returned to City no later than sixty (60) days after the completion of the Services.

  • 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 00-00-000, OSHA Strategic Partnership Program for Worker Safety and Health. Xxxxxxxxx & Xxxxxx 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.

  • 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 xxxx 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. No response 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. Yes - No 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?

  • Re-evaluation a) When a job has moved to a higher group as a result of re-evaluation, the resulting rate shall be retroactive from the date that Management or the employee has applied to the Plant Job Review Committee for re-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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • BID EVALUATION The Commissioner reserves the right to accept or reject any and all Bids, or separable portions of Bids, and waive technicalities, irregularities, and omissions if the Commissioner determines the best interests of the State will be served. The Commissioner, in his/her sole discretion, may accept or reject illegible, incomplete or vague Bids and his/her decision shall be final. A conditional or revocable Bid which clearly communicates the terms or limitations of acceptance may be considered, and Contract award may be made in compliance with the Bidder’s conditional or revocable terms in the Bid.

  • Focused Evaluation The Focused Evaluation is used when a teacher is not evaluated using the Comprehensive Evaluation process, and will include evaluation of one of the eight state criteria (student growth impact required). If a non-provisional teacher has scored at Proficient or higher the previous year, they may be moved to Focused Evaluation. The teacher may remain on the Focused Evaluation for five (5) years before returning to the Comprehensive Evaluation. The teacher or the evaluator can initiate a move from the Focused to the Comprehensive Evaluation. A decision to move a teacher from a Focused to a Comprehensive Evaluation must occur by December 15.

  • TEACHER EVALUATION A. All monitoring or observation of the work performance of a teacher shall be conducted openly and with full knowledge of the teacher.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.