Qualitative evaluation Sample Clauses
The Qualitative Evaluation clause establishes a process for assessing the quality or performance of goods, services, or deliverables based on subjective or non-numerical criteria. Typically, this involves evaluating factors such as workmanship, compliance with specifications, or user satisfaction, rather than relying solely on quantitative metrics like numbers or percentages. By incorporating qualitative assessment, the clause ensures that the parties can address aspects of performance that are not easily measured, helping to maintain standards and resolve disputes over quality.
Qualitative evaluation. The SPIFE Lipoprotein Gel may be visually inspected for the presence of bands.
Qualitative evaluation. The QuickGel Lipoprotein Gel may be visually inspected for the presence of bands.
Qualitative evaluation. The QuickGel LD Gel may be visually inspected for the presence of the bands.
Qualitative evaluation. The SPIFE IFE-6 Gel will be automatically scanned. Refer to the QuickScan Touch Plus Operator’s Manual for scanning parameters.
Qualitative evaluation. This is based on analysis of the time-distance graphs. The re-planning performed, and the simulations based on the execution of the new RTTP, can be studied. In a first step the analysis and evaluation are made by the researchers. In a later step the quality of the re-planning decisions will also be evaluated by experienced traffic controller from the TCC in Boden.
Qualitative evaluation. The urine and CSF samples run on the SPIFE Split Beta SPE Gel can only be visually inspected for the presence of the bands.
Qualitative evaluation. 5.6.1 The qualitative evaluation of submissions will assess the responses to the Method Statement (5.3 of the Form of Tender). Method Statements Question Section Maximum score per question Weighting Points Available A1 Workforce 5 5 25 A2 Workforce Y/N n/a A3 Workforce 5 5 25 A4 Workforce 5 5 25 B1 Service Delivery 5 4 20 B2 Service Delivery 5 4 20 B3 Service Delivery 5 4 20 C1 User Focus 5 4 20 C2 User Focus 5 4 20 C3 User Focus 5 4 20 C4 User Focus 5 3 15 D1 Service Monitoring 5 4 20 D2 Service Monitoring 5 2 10 E1 Continuous Improvement 5 3 15 E2 Continuous Improvement 5 3 15 F1 Sustainability 5 4 20 G1 TUPE 5 2 10 H1(a) LOT 1 5 10 50 H2(a) LOT 1 5 10 50 H1(b) LOT 2 5 10 50 H2(b) LOT 2 5 10 50 H1(c) LOT 3 5 10 50 H2(c) LOT 3 5 10 50 H1(d) LOT 4 5 10 50 H2(d) LOT 4 5 10 50 Total Quality 5 80 400 Note: For each of the Lots, the total of 500 marks is available. This consists of: 400 (Quality) + 100 (Price)
5.6.2 The qualitative assessment will form 80 Percentage (400 points) of the award.
5.6.3 In respect of the Method Statements, suitably qualified and experienced officers of the Council will assess the responses provided by the tenderer, and will award scores reflecting their reasoned professional judgement as to the merits of each response. The score for each question will be on a scale of 0 (lowest) to 5 (highest) as follows: Category Marks Result Criteria Unacceptable 0 Fail A question not answered or totally fails to meet contractual requirements for given area - unacceptable. 1 Very Poor Fails significantly to meet the contractual requirements for the given area. Well below adequate contractual requirements across a number of areas. Inadequate 2 Poor Borders the acceptable contractual requirements for the given areas - inadequate in certain minor areas. Adequate 3 Acceptable Meets overall the minimum acceptable contractual requirements for the given area - Satisfactory. Good 4 Good Demonstrated with explanations/examples the extent of the contractual requirements, which will be met with evidence of best practice in some areas. Very Good 5 Very Good Robustly demonstrated with ▇▇▇▇▇▇ explanations/examples the extent of the contractual requirements, which will be met with evidence of best practice in many areas.
5.6.4 The total score from all officers involved will be averaged.
5.6.5 The total score from all officers involved will be averaged and applied to the weighting given to each question.
5.6.6 For the guidance you should note that, each question...
Qualitative evaluation. 3.1. Framework Providers will be required to submit a separate Tender Form for each Contract where they are eligible to bid. Responses need to be specific to the local area. Some local information can be accessed through the web link at paragraph 4.02 of the Specification.
Qualitative evaluation. Data for Impact (D4I) will conduct a qualitative midterm evaluation of GKB-INECD to help understand what has worked, what has been challenging, and why, to enable USAID, and its multiple partners (including GKB-INECD implementers, the Ministry of Health, and social cluster ministries) to use the findings for adaptive programming and to fine tune current investments and prioritize future investments. D4I will focus on examining what facility- and community-based partners have learned through project-supported trainings and activities, how they understand their role and who they work with and how, and how they have operationalized their roles. We will also focus on determining what caregivers are learning through GKB activities about nutrition, ECD, rehabilitation, etc., as well as understanding, from a caregiver perspective, what their journeys have been from assessment/ identification of disability or other rehabilitation needs to referral and access to services, and providing care. This RFA was produced with the support of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) under the terms of the Data for Impact (D4I) associate award 7200AA18LA00008, which is implemented by the Carolina Population Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, in partnership with Palladium International, LLC; ICF Macro, Inc.; ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇, Inc.; and Tulane University. The views expressed in this RFA do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States government. The qualitative midterm evaluation will include case studies of four GKB-INECD districts, one from each cluster (eastern, central, western, southern). These districts will be purposively selected in consultation with USAID, GKB-INECD implementing partners, and the local research partner. Similarly, study participants will be purposively selected in collaboration with GKB-INECD and the local research partner. In addition to focus group discussions (FGDs) with community-based health workers and volunteers and caregivers of children aged 0-59 months, in depth interviews (IDIs) will be conducted with facility based healthcare providers and with caregivers of children with developmental delays and/or rehab/AT needs in each study district. A Most Significant Change (MSC) workshop (12-16 participants, 2 days total) will be held in each district with community- and facility-based health workers, along with GKB and district health staff. MSC is a participatory method in which multiple sta...