Description of PG&E’s LCBF Evaluation Methodology Sample Clauses

Description of PG&E’s LCBF Evaluation Methodology. This section of the report provides an overall description of PG&E’s LCBF evaluation methodology and criteria applicable to the 2009 Renewable Portfolio Standard Solicitation Protocol (“2009 RPS Solicitation”). PG&E evaluates and ranks proposals based on LCBF principles that comply with criteria set forth by the CPUC in D.03-06- 071 and D.▇▇-▇▇-▇▇▇ (“LCBF Decisions”). The LCBF methodology includes evaluation of both quantitative and qualitative aspects of each proposal to estimate its value to PG&E’s customers and relative value in comparison to other proposals. PG&E evaluates each bid in terms of the following attributes: 1. Market Valuation ($/MWh), excluding Transmission Adder 2. Portfolio Fit (Score range 0-100) 3. Credit (Score range 0-100) 4. Project Viability (Score range 0-100) 5. RPS Goals (Score range 0-100) 6. Adjustment for Transmission Cost Adders ($/MWh) Solicited bids are evaluated using the following step-by-step process: 1. The Market Valuation is computed for each Offer. Portfolio Fit is assessed for each Offer. Then, each of the scores for Credit, Project Viability, and RPS Goals are assessed and collected. 2. The Offers are then sorted by transmission cluster and Offers within each cluster are ranked by Market Valuation. 3. The initial ranking results in the allocation of existing transmission and any costs associated with transmission upgrades based on the Transmission Ranking Cost Report (TRCR) to projects with highest market value. Next, the lower of either the cost of a Transmission Adder or an alternative commercial arrangement is included in the bid market valuation. The result is called Net Value. 4. Once the Market Valuation has been adjusted by transmission value, the other attributes are considered and applied to the bid to arrive at its final place in the ranking. After transmission-adjusted Market Valuation, of the remaining attributes, Project Viability has the greatest qualitative effect on the ranking. The set of highest ranked Offers which allow for a reasonable probability of satisfying PG&E’s procurement goal is selected for the short list.

Related to Description of PG&E’s LCBF Evaluation Methodology

  • 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.

  • Methodology 1. The price at which the Assuming Institution sells or disposes of Qualified Financial Contracts will be deemed to be the fair market value of such contracts, if such sale or disposition occurs at prevailing market rates within a predefined timetable as agreed upon by the Assuming Institution and the Receiver. 2. In valuing all other Qualified Financial Contracts, the following principles will apply:

  • 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 ▇▇▇▇ 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. 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. 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?

  • Purpose of Evaluation 10.1.1 It is recognized that a system of evaluation is essential to assist Unit Members in developing competency and realizing their potential. It is further recognized that information gathered through such a system will enable decisions that measure a Unit Member’s performance in a just and equitable manner. 10.1.2 The evaluation procedure is a cooperative process designed to: a. Promote the achievement of goals and objectives of the County Office and its programs through the assessment and evaluation of the staff that perform within that program; b. Provide a formal method of recognizing staff achievement and growth; c. Identify abilities and specific indicators most critical to support job performance; d. Develop suggestions and direction regarding desired performance and improvement based on standards for like positions; e. Increase the employee’s understanding of performance from the supervisor’s viewpoint; and f. Provide a process of two-way communication to evaluate job performance.

  • PROGRESS EVALUATION Engineer shall, from time to time during the progress of the Engineering Services, confer with County at County’s election. Engineer shall prepare and present such information as may be pertinent and necessary, or as may be reasonably requested by County, in order for County to evaluate features of the Engineering Services. At the request of County or Engineer, conferences shall be provided at Engineer's office, the offices of County, or at other locations designated by County. When requested by County, such conferences shall also include evaluation of the Engineering Services. County may, from time to time, require Engineer to appear and provide information to the Williamson County Commissioners Court. Should County determine that the progress in Engineering Services does not satisfy an applicable Work Authorization or any Supplemental Work Authorization related thereto, then County shall review same with Engineer to determine corrective action required. Engineer shall promptly advise County in writing of events which have or may have a significant impact upon the progress of the Engineering Services, including but not limited to the following: A. Problems, delays, adverse conditions which may materially affect the ability to meet the objectives of an applicable Work Authorization or any Supplemental Work Authorization related thereto, or preclude the attainment of Project Engineering Services units by established time periods; and such disclosure shall be accompanied by statement of actions taken or contemplated, and County assistance needed to resolve the situation, if any; and B. Favorable developments or events which enable meeting goals sooner than anticipated in relation to an applicable Work Authorization’s or any Supplemental Work Authorization related thereto.