Price Factor Evaluation Sample Clauses

Price Factor Evaluation. (Up to 780%)‌ The Company will utilize the RFP Base Model to screen the proposals and to evaluate and determine the initial short list. The RFP Base Model is contained in a Microsoft Excel workbook that includes a number of proprietary Visual Basic macros, custom add-ins, and computational code written in C++. RFP Base Model Inputs: • Market Quote Date: The model will pull corresponding forward price, volatilities, and correlation projections for electricity and fuelgas commodities. Treasury and LIBOR discount curves are also included. The same Market Quote Date will be used for all bids during each evaluation phase. • Term: Start and End date • Transmission Cost assumptions • Emission Inputs, Lease Accounting Inputs, • Rate Base Inputs: if applicable • Point of Delivery (POD) and Point of Receipt (POR) • Dispatch Pattern • Limitation of Duct Firing or Power Augmentation Capability (hours per day, hours per year, etc.) • Firm/Unit Contingent • Resource Type • Product Source • Temperature-adjusted undegraded (new and clean) Capacity Curve for Simple Cycle, Combined Cycle, Duct Firing, and Power Augmentation if applicable. • Temperature – adjusted undegraded (new and clean) Heat rate Curve for Simple Cycle, Combined Cycle, Duct Firing, and Power Augmentation, if applicable.
Sample 1Sample 2
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Price Factor Evaluation. (Up to 60%)‌ The Company will utilize a spreadsheet model (“RFP Base Model”) to screen the proposals and to evaluate and determine a short list, and then use a production cost model to determine the final short list and the least-cost/risk resource. A description of the RFP Base Model is outlined below. The Company is evaluating whether the Global Energy Capacity Expansion Model (CEM) is suitable for use as a screening tool instead of the RFP Base Model. However, as of the time this RFP was drafted, the CEM was not deemed appropriate as a screening tool. In the event that the Company and the IE, prior to formally issuing RFP 2009, deem the CEM to be a more accurate and prudent tool for screening the initial bids, then the CEM will be utilized. The following sections are meant to provide a general description of the Company’s RFP Base Model. The Company will not make the RFP Base Model, the CEM, or the production cost model available to Bidders. RFP Base Model Inputs: The General Inputs include: • Market Quote Date: The model will pull corresponding forward price volatility, and correlation projections for electricity and gas commodities, and for Treasury and LIBOR discount curves. The model will also pull the corresponding correlations in the “Correlation Curves” tab. The same Market Quote Date will be used for each bid during each evaluation phase. • Term: Start and End date Transmission Cost assumptions • Emission Inputs, Lease Accounting Inputs, Rate Base Inputs: if applicable • Point of Delivery (POD) and Point of Receipt (POR) • Dispatch Pattern • Limitation of Duct Firing or Power Augmentation Capability (hours per day, hours per year, etc.) • Firm/Unit Contingent • Resource Type • Product Source • Temperature-adjusted undergradated (new and clean) Capacity Curve for Simple Cycle, Combined Cycle, Duct Firing, and Power Augmentation if applicable. Temperature – adjusted undergradated (new and clean) Heat rate Curve for Simple Cycle, Combined Cycle, Duct Firing, and Power Augmentation, if applicable. • MW Degradation Schedule: Simple Cycle, Combined Cycle, Duct Firing, and Power Augmentation, if applicable (Expected and/or Guaranteed), Heat Rate Degradation Schedule: Simple Cycle, Combined Cycle, Duct Firing, and Power Augmentation, if applicable (Expected and/or Guaranteed), Turbine Type: Combined Cycle or Simple Cycle • Variable O&M Payment ($/MWh) o VOM costs ($MWH) o Start-Up Costs ($/MWh) • Fixed O&M Payment ($/KW-mo) • Gas Capacity (MMBtus/day) •...
Sample 1
Price Factor Evaluation. The Price Factor Evaluation will be an evaluated factor; however, it will not be adjectivally rated. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requires that contracts be awarded at fair and reasonable prices. The Government will use price analysis to determine price reasonableness and whether the proposals reflect an understanding of the effort required. The PCO may use additional analysis techniques as determined necessary. In accordance with DFARS clause 252.215-7008, the Government reserves the right to require Certified Cost or Pricing Data in the event that only one offer is received in response to this solicitation.
Sample 1
Price Factor Evaluation. 2.4.1. FACTOR 3: Price. Price will be evaluated in order to determine that it is fair and reasonable utilizing the price analysis techniques found at FAR 15.404(b). Price proposal evaluations will consider the basic price and all option year prices (including FAR 52.217-8 for the maximum potential extension period of 6 months) for a total overall evaluated price. The Government will roll-up CLIN/SubCLIN prices into an overall total price for the overall evaluated price. Price will not receive a color rating or score. The Government price team will evaluate Offeror’s price submission based on the following:
Sample 1

Related to Price Factor 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?

  • 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.

  • Annual Performance Evaluation On either a fiscal year or calendar year basis, (consistently applied from year to year), the Bank shall conduct an annual evaluation of Executive’s performance. The annual performance evaluation proceedings shall be included in the minutes of the Board meeting that next follows such annual performance review.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Performance Evaluations 34.1. The Contractor is subject to an annual performance evaluation to be conducted by NYCDOT pursuant to the PPB Rules.

  • Formal Evaluation All formal evaluations of personnel shall be conducted openly and with full knowledge of the employee concerned by an administrator or supervisor of the District.

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