Scoring Methodology Sample Clauses

Scoring Methodology. For a comprehensive evaluation, the Teacher shall receive a summative score of 1

Scoring Methodology. The State will receive a “pass” or “fail” score for each measure. If the State meets the determined benchmark, it will receive a “pass” for that measure. If the State does not meet the benchmark, it will receive a “fail” for that measure. For the measures based solely on reporting (as indicated in the table above), a “pass” is based on full and accurate reporting. For each measure, receiving a “pass” is contingent on the State attesting to complete and accurate reporting for that measure and subject to CMS validation of the data being reported.

Scoring Methodology. Each Service Element shall have associated with it;

Scoring Methodology. 1. For a comprehensive evaluation, the Teacher shall receive a summative score of 1 (Unsatisfactory), 2 (Basic), 3 (Proficient), or 4 (Distinguished) for each of the eight state criteria. 2. Within each criterion are components, whose purpose is to aid the Evaluator in determining the overall criterion score. In a given criterion, at least half of the components shall be scored in order to arrive upon the overall criterion score. The components to be used to determine the summative criterion score shall be collaboratively determined by the Teacher and Evaluator at or before the mid-year check, with final approval by the Evaluator. The component scores shall be used holistically by the Evaluator to determine the criterion score based upon a preponderance of evidence, limited only by provisions elsewhere in this section. 3. For comprehensive evaluations, the sum of the eight criterion scores shall determine the Teacher’s “preliminary” summative rating, following the scoring bands established by OPSI: ● 8-14—Unsatisfactory ● 15-21—Basic ● 22-28—Proficient ● 29-32—Distinguished 4. For comprehensive evaluations, student growth ratings shall be arrived upon by referring to the state student growth rubrics SG 3.1, SG 3.2, SG 6.1, SG 6.2, and SG 8.1. The sum of these five scoring rubrics shall be used to determine a Teacher’s summative student growth rating, as established by OSPI: ● 5-12—Low ● 13-17—Average ● 18-20—High 5. For comprehensive evaluations, if an employee receives a Distinguished summative score and a Low student growth score, they must be automatically moved to the Proficient level for their summative score. If an employee receives a Low student growth score they must engage in at least one of the following: a. Triangulate student growth measure with other evidence (including observation, artifacts and student evidence) and additional levels of student growth based on classroom, school, District and state-based tools; b. Examine extenuating circumstances possibly including: goal setting process/expectations, student attendance, and curriculum/assessment alignment; c. Conduct two (2) additional thirty-minute (30) observations; d. Schedule monthly conferences with Evaluator to discuss/revise goals, progress toward meeting goals, and best practices; e. Create and implement a professional development plan to address student growth areas. 6. When determining a summative rating for Comprehensive evaluations: a. When there is more than one (1) component, i...

Scoring Methodology. The Parties have prepared the initial KPIs, together with their respective weightings and scoring methodology, set forth in Attachment C.1 attached hereto and made a part hereof (the initial “KPI Table”), and will prepare subsequent KPI Tables annually, with the aim that they be clear, concise, measurable, reflect Company’s business needs and provide an incentive for Provider to provide the best service possible. Each KPI Table will include the following basic components: i. KPI Name. Column 1 sets forth the name of the KPI. ii. Allocated MFAR Portion. Column 2 sets forth the Allocated MFAR Portion for each manufacturing site (AML, ARI, and ACO) and for all remaining GFO & Other Sites. Company shall have 100 percentage points of Management Fee at Risk to allocate to the respective Allocated MFAR Portions for the KPIs. Company, in its sole discretion, may reallocate these 100 percentage points among the individual KPIs by providing Provider with written notice, provided that the weighting of any KPI is reasonably balanced to business needs. Such reallocations shall go into effect in the next Measurement Period following the Measurement Period in which Company provides such notice. iii. MFAR Amount at Risk. Column 3 sets forth the Allocated MFAR Amount at Risk. For each KPI, the “MFAR Amount at Risk” is an amount equal to the Allocated MFAR Portion for such KPI multiplied times the Provider Management Fee at Risk for the applicable Measurement Period. This is the portion of the Management Fee at Risk allocated to the respective KPI for the applicable Measurement Period.

Scoring Methodology. The State will receive a “met” or “not met” score for each measure. If the State meets the determined benchmark or improvement goal, it will receive a “met” for that measure. If the State does not meet the benchmark or improvement goal, it will receive a “not met” for that measure. For the measures based solely on reporting (as indicated in the tables above), a “met” is based on full and accurate reporting. For each measure, receiving a “met” is contingent on the State attesting to complete and accurate reporting for that measure and subject to CMS validation of the data being reported.

Scoring Methodology. All technical proposals will be evaluated using the evaluation criteria as indicated below. Bidders are advised to devote chapters of their submissions to demonstrating each of the criteria and be consistent with the tasks detailed in the ToR. Bidders are advised to avoid submitting brochures and pamphlets that have no direct bearing on the requirements under this RFP. Technical Criteria Technical Sub-Criteria Maximum Points Overall presentation and quality of the proposal Clarity and completeness of response; 5 Understanding of the requirements and the desired outcomes; 5 Total 10

Scoring Methodology. Excellent - meets expectations and the required standard in all material respects, supported by a high level of detail and evidence, and is extremely likely to deliver the required output/outcome (and in certain instances where data coverage has been requested, where it significantly exceeds the minimum requested requirements). 5 Good - The response meets the required standard and some detail or evidence is provided to support this, however it is lacking or inconsistent in some minor respects. (and in certain instances where data coverage has been requested, where it moderately exceeds the minimum requested requirements). 4 Satisfactory - the response appears to meet the required standard. However, there is insufficient detail or evidence to support this (and in certain instances where data coverage has been requested, where it meets the minimum requested requirements). 3 Weak - The response falls short of achieving the required standard in a number of identifiable respects, lacking details on how the requirement will be fulfilled in certain areas (and in certain instances where data coverage has been requested, where it is moderately short of the minimum requested requirements). 2 Very Weak - almost unacceptable. The response significantly fails to meet the standards required, contains significant shortcomings. Response is partially relevant but generally poor. The response may address some elements of the requirement but contains insufficient/limited detail or explanation to demonstrate how the requirement will be fulfilled (and in certain instances where data coverage has been requested, where it is significantly short of the minimum requested requirements). 1 Unacceptable - Nil or inadequate response. Fails to demonstrate an ability to meet the requirement, irrelevant to the question asked. 0

Scoring Methodology. Specific Expertise and Service Delivery will be scored on a 0 to 5 scale as detailed below. Score Explanation 5 Excellent submission that addresses and meets all of, the requirements outlined in the ITT including supporting information for that question, with full details (and full and relevant evidence) provided; provides full confidence with no reservations whatsoever as to the relevant ability, understanding, expertise, skills and / or resources to deliver the requirements. 4 Good submission that addresses and meets the majority of, the requirements outlined in the ITT and supporting information for that question, with detail (and reasonable evidence) provided. Minor reservations or weaknesses exist in a few areas in respect of relevant ability, understanding, expertise, skills and / or resources to deliver the requirements. 3 Reasonable submission that meets many of the requirements outlined in the ITT and supporting information for that question, with some detail (and limited evidence) provided. Reservations or weaknesses exist in some areas in respect of relevant ability, understanding, expertise, skills and / or resources to deliver the requirements. 2 Basic submission which fails to meet a number of requirements outlined in the ITT and supporting information for that question. Limited detail (and little evidence) provided to demonstrate that the Applicant will be able to provide the Services. Reservations or weaknesses exist in several areas in respect of relevant ability, understanding, expertise, skills and/or resources to deliver the requirements. 1 Substantially unacceptable submission which fails to meet the majority of the requirements outlined in the ITT and supporting information for that question, with little or no detail (and no evidence) provided to support and demonstrate that the Applicant will be able to provide the Services. Significant reservations or weaknesses exist in respect of relevant ability, understanding, expertise, skills and/or resources to deliver the requirements. 0 No response at all, or insufficient information provided in the response such that the solution is totally un-assessable and/or incomprehensible. Proposals must be submitted through the Bravo eProcurement system • Pricing Schedule – This schedule is under the Commercial Envelope / section in BRAVO, click on paperclip icon to access and download. Upload to return in the same envelope. • Specification - Technical Envelope / section in BRAVO. Click on paperclip...