Evaluation Ratings Sample Clauses
The Evaluation Ratings clause establishes the criteria and methods by which performance or proposals are assessed, typically in the context of contracts, procurement, or employee reviews. It outlines the specific metrics, scoring systems, or qualitative benchmarks that evaluators must use to rate submissions or performance, ensuring that all parties understand how judgments will be made. By providing a standardized framework for evaluation, this clause promotes fairness, transparency, and consistency in decision-making processes.
Evaluation Ratings. 9.10.1 If the “Final Rating” is “Satisfactory,” no other meeting is necessary.
Evaluation Ratings. 10.6.3.1 There are four possible ratings on each objective under the six standards:
10.6.3.2 The level of “Meets Standard” is reached when the majority of the objectives in the standard are rated at “Satisfactory” or above. The majority is defined as:
10.6.3.3 The level of “Does Not Meet Standard” is received when fewer than the majority of the objectives in the standards are rated at “Satisfactory” or above.
10.6.3.4 An overall evaluation rating of “Meets Standards” shall mean that the unit member is performing at the level of “Meets Standard” on at least two (2) of the three (3) selected standards.
Evaluation Ratings a. At the conclusion of the evaluation process the evaluator shall give a rating of Highly Effective/Innovating, Effective/Proficient, Developing/ Professional Support Needed, or Unsatisfactory/Does Not Meet Standard in Standard 5 (Assessment) and each of the two other Standards agreed upon during the Goal Setting Conference. The evaluator may also give ratings in the remaining three Standards, with supporting evidence. In addition, the evaluator will indicate potential direction/focus for subsequent evaluation (see Evaluation Form, Appendix).
b. A teacher who receives an Unsatisfactory rating in any standard shall be re-evaluated annually until he/she achieves a Effective /Proficient rating or is separated from the District pursuant to Education Code and shall enter the Teachers Engaged in Active Mentoring (TEAM) support program.
c. A teacher who receives a Developing rating in any two (2) out of the three standards agreed upon in the goal-setting process shall be re- evaluated for the next year and may be entered into the Teachers Engaged in Active Mentoring (TEAM) support program. A teacher who receives a Developing rating in any three (3) of the standards shall be re-evaluated for the next year and may be entered into the Teachers Engaged in Active Mentoring (TEAM) support program.
d. Teachers referred to the TEAM support program will work with their evaluator and the TEAM Coach to develop and follow a support plan for improvement (TEAM Support Plan, Appendix).
Evaluation Ratings. The Government will evaluate the Contractor’s performance of the SOW and the TPOC will assign a rating of either acceptable or unacceptable. The acceptable quality levels are outlined in Enclosure (1).
Evaluation Ratings. Unit members shall receive an overall rating of “Exceeds Standards (4),” “Meets Standards (3)”, “Growth Expected (2),” or “Does Not Meet Standards (1)” in each of the six standards of the CSTP. It is the intent of the parties to encourage unit members to advance their teaching practice on a continual basis against the standards in the CSTP. The judgments reached by the evaluator are not subject to the grievance procedure. Judgments concerning the professional practice of the unit member shall be reasonably related to multiple sources of information consistent with the standards in the CSTP.
Evaluation Ratings. 14.7.1 At the conclusion of the evaluation process the evaluator shall give a rating of Effective/Proficient, Developing, Professional Support Needed, or Unsatisfactory/Does Not Meet Standard in Standard 5 (Assessment) and the other Standards agreed upon during the Goal Setting Conference. The evaluator may also give ratings in the remaining Standards, with supporting evidence, if the concern had previously been documented with the teacher under Section 14.5.2 (iii) . In addition, the evaluator will indicate potential direction/focus for subsequent evaluation (see Evaluation Form, Appendix D-13).
Evaluation Ratings. Unit members shall receive an overall rating of “Exceeds Competency Standards (4),” “Meets Competency Standards (3)”, “Growth Expected (2),” or “Does Not Meet Competency Standards (1)” in each of the competency areas. Judgments concerning the professional practice of the unit member shall be reasonably related to multiple sources of information consistent with the classified competency areas.
Evaluation Ratings. The Government will review each Offeror’s proposal and utilize a combined technical/risk rating. The following “Risk” descriptions will be used in the combined technical/risk evaluation ratings: Low The Offeror’s Proficiency Demonstration Part C or its personnel satisfy the eligibility criteria in Part B; and Proficiency Part B provides a sufficient approach to deliver on the core competencies identified in Part A. The Self-Scoring Worksheet validation score in any Proficiency Demonstration Parts (A, B and C) for any one Proficiency Area is 5 to 8. Moderate The Offeror’s Proficiency Demonstration in Part C or its personnel somewhat satisfy the eligibility criteria in Part B; and, Proficiency Part B somewhat provides a sufficient approach to deliver on the core competencies identified in Part A. The Self-Scoring Worksheet validation score in all Proficiency Demonstration Parts (A, B and C) for any one Proficiency Area is 4 or higher. High The Offeror’s Proficiency Demonstration Part C or its personnel do not satisfy the eligibility criteria in Part B; or, Proficiency Part B does not provide a sufficient approach to deliver on the core competencies identified in Part A. The Self-Scoring Worksheet validation score in any Proficiency Demonstration Parts (A, B and C) for any one Proficiency Area is 3 or less. The Technical Factor will receive one of the following adjectival ratings, based on the technical/risk evaluation. Color Rating Adjectival RATING DEFINITION Blue Outstanding Proficiency Demonstration Scores for all Parts A, B and C for all Proficiency Areas were successfully validated by the Government; AND the Technical Excellence score for all Proficiency Areas receives the Highest Score; AND the Technical Breadth Cumulative Score within the Market Segment receives the Highest Score; AND risk of unsuccessful performance is low. Purple Good Proficiency Demonstration Scores for all Parts A, B and C for at leastone Proficiency Area were successfully validated by the Government; AND the Technical Excellence score for at least one Proficiency Demonstration is Above Normal or higher; AND the Technical Breadth Cumulative Score within the Market Segment receives an Above Normal Score; AND risk of unsuccessful performance is low. to Green Acceptable Proficiency Demonstration Scores for all Parts A, B and C for at least one Proficiency Area were successfully validated by the Government; AND the Technical Excellence score for at least one Proficiency Demonstration ...
Evaluation Ratings. The Government will review each Offeror’s proposal and utilize a combined technical/risk rating. The following “Risk” descriptions will be used in the combined technical/risk evaluation ratings:
Evaluation Ratings. Substantive performance evaluation ratings and comments shall not be subject to the grievance procedure.