Basis for Evaluation Clause Samples

Basis for Evaluation. The official job description and annual work plan shall be utilized in the evaluation for retention.
View SourceView Similar (3)
Basis for Evaluation. A. The FEC and Chair shall rate faculty members being evaluated as (a) normal, (b) above normal/outstanding, or (c) less than normal in accordance with Section 10.110 of the CBA and the criteria in this section. B. The CBA Section 10.110 description of “normal" is (Section 10.110, 3b): The performance of a majority of faculty members will generally be evaluated as "normal." They will be expected to grow in valueto the institution and will be rewarded with a "normal" increment to their salary. C. The overarching normal criteria for teaching effectiveness are (a) to carry a standard departmental teaching load (unless areassignment of teaching has been approved), and (b) be effective in teaching. 1. A standard load will vary depending on the number of faculty members, the number of courses offered, etc., but, in general, a standard load is approximately the number of courses offered divided by the number of faculty members. 2. Judgment of effectiveness is largely subjective; usually an effective teacher can be recognized by (a) the choice of subject matter and emphasis (i.e. how well the instruction prepares the students for subsequent courses and how well it fulfills the students’ career objectives), (b) systematic organization, (c) performance in helping students learn both in and out of the classroom, (d) the degree to which course material is kept current, (e) judicious experimentation with teaching effectiveness, and (f) rigor, fairness, and thoroughness of assessment and evaluation procedures. Judgment of teaching effectiveness will be based upon student evaluations, inspection of the curriculum, opinions solicited from alumni, and faculty classroom visitations if deemed appropriate by the Chair or the FEC. 3. The department recognizes that faculty members may be assigned to teach courses that may or may not be part of the general education curriculum of the university. Whether or not a course is assigned a general education designation will have no bearing on a faculty member's teaching evaluation outside of the criteria for judgment of effectiveness listed in II. C. 2. D. The overarching normal criteria for research/creative activity effectiveness are based on demonstrable evidence (publications and presentations) that (a) the research has made apositive contribution to the body of knowledge and has received national or international recognition, (b) the faculty member has played a significant leadership role in the conduct of the research, and (c) th...
View SourceView Similar (2)
Basis for Evaluation. This factor considers the past performance of the offeror’s proposed General Contractor and A/E on SPs. For this evaluation factor, Similar Project (SP) means a project that meets all the following: ● Construction was substantially completed within eight years prior to the submission deadline for Phase 1 proposals. ● The SP was contracted using the design-build delivery method. ● Renovation of an existing building for use as an office. ● Project area was not less than 100,000 gross square feet; and ● Contract cost at award was greater than or equal to $20 million.
View Source
Basis for Evaluation. The Department shall evaluate the Contractor’s performance using the output and outcome measures contained in this section as well as the Contractor’s compliance with the terms and conditions herein. Such performance shall be based upon monitoring reports from Department staff and or its third-party contractor. Items to be monitored will include: compliance with licensing standards; compliance with service level standards; and the child’s progress in achieving any applicable behavioral goals as required by Texas Administrative Code, Title 1, Part 15, Chapter 351, Rule 351.13.
View Source
Basis for Evaluation. The objective of this factor is to evaluate the extent to which the Design Concept evidences a satisfactory probability that the Offeror will be able to satisfy the minimum performance requirements set forth in the RFP for Phase 2. Offeror should submit the following:
View Source

Related to Basis for Evaluation

  • 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.

  • Responsibility for Evaluation Within each school the Principal will be responsible for the evaluation of employees assigned to that school. Evaluation will be made by the Principal or a qualified administrator. An employee assigned to more than one school will be evaluated by the Principal of the school in which the employee is assigned for the greater amount of time, with input provided by the Principal of the other school. Any Principal or person charged with the responsibility of evaluation of employees may involve other staff and students in the process if acceptable to the certificated teacher being evaluated.

  • Annual Evaluations The purpose of the annual evaluation is to assess and communicate the nature and extent of an employee's performance of assigned duties consistent with the criteria specified below in this Policy. Except for those employees who have received notice of non-reappointment pursuant to the BOT- UFF Policy on Non- reappointment, every employee shall be evaluated at least once annually. Personnel decisions shall take such annual evaluations into account, provided that such decisions need not be based solely on written faculty performance evaluations.

  • 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.

  • 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.