Technical Capacity for purposes of evaluation Clause Samples

The 'Technical Capacity for purposes of evaluation' clause defines the criteria and standards by which a party's technical abilities are assessed during a selection or bidding process. It typically outlines the specific qualifications, experience, or resources that must be demonstrated, such as prior project experience, certifications, or availability of specialized equipment. This clause ensures that only parties with adequate technical expertise are considered, thereby reducing the risk of project failure due to insufficient capability.
Technical Capacity for purposes of evaluation. 3.2.1 Subject to the provisions of Clause 2.2, the following categories of experience would qualify as Technical Capacity and eligible experience (the “Eligible Experience”) in relation to eligible projects as stipulated in Clauses 3.2.3 and 3.2.4 (the “Eligible Projects”): Category 1: Project experience on Eligible Projects in Food Processing Sector that qualify under Clause 3.
View SourceView Similar (7)
Technical Capacity for purposes of evaluation. 3.2.1 An Applicant’s experience shall be measured in terms of meeting the Threshold Technical Capacity stated in Clause 2.2.2(A) and Financial Capacity stated in Clause 2.2.2(B). Overall, eligibility under provisions of Clause 2.2, shall be reckoned as requisite Technical Capacity to qualify as eligible experience (the "Eligible Experience") in relation to eligible projects (the "Eligible Projects"): 3.2.2 Experience for any activity relating to an Eligible Project shall not be claimed by two or more Members of the Consortium. In other words, no double counting by a Consortium in respect of the same experience shall be permitted in any manner whatsoever.
View Source
Technical Capacity for purposes of evaluation. 3.2.1 Subject to the provisions of Clause 2.2, the following categories of experience for Non RDSO approved firms would qualify as Technical Capacity and eligible experience (the "Eligible Experience") in relation to eligible projects as stipulated in Clauses 3.2.3 and 3.2.4 (the "Eligible Projects"): Category 1: Supply of EI to Indian Railways. Category 2: Supply of MSDAC/SSDAC to Indian Railways Category 3: Supply of IPS to Indian Railways. Category 4: Supply of EI to a purchaser other than Indian Railways Category 5: Supply of MSDAC/SSDAC to a purchaser other than Indian Railways Category 6: Supply of IPS to a purchaser other than Indian Railways Applicant shall submit for Electronic Interlocking and Digital Axle Counter documentary proof of Independent validation as per CENELEC standards or equivalent standard with complete safety case and proven track record of working of EI and DAC for passenger services.
View Source
Technical Capacity for purposes of evaluation. 3.2.1 Subject to the provisions of Clause 2.2, the following categories of experience would qualify as Technical Capacity and eligible experience (the “Eligible Experience”) in relation to eligible projects as stipulated in Clauses 3.2.3 and 3.2.4 (the "Eligible Projects”) : Category 1: Design, manufacture and supply of Mainline Diesel Electric Locomotive(s) of 6000 HP and above with AC/AC transmission. Category 2: Design, manufacture and supply of Mainline Diesel Electric Locomotive(s) of 4000 to 6000 HP with AC/AC transmission. Category 3: Design, manufacture and supply of Mainline Diesel Electric Locomotive(s) of 4000 HP and above with AC/DC transmission. Category 4: Design, manufacture and supply of Mainline Diesel Electric Locomotives of less than 4000 HP. 3.2.2 Eligible Experience in respect of each category shall be measured only for Eligible Projects for the past 10 financial years preceding the Application Due Date. 3.2.3 For a project to qualify as an Eligible Project under Categories 1, 2, 3 & 4, the entity claiming experience should have held, in the company supplying the Mainline Diesel Electric Locomotives comprising the Eligible Project, a minimum of 26% (twenty six per cent) equity during the entire year for which Eligible Experience is being claimed. 3.2.4 For a project to qualify as an Eligible Project under Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4, the Applicant should have produced the Mainline Diesel Electric Locomotives based on its (including an Associate) ownership of / unrestricted access to product and process technology for either the complete Mainline Diesel Electric Locomotive or at least its major components (engine with alternator, traction motor, propulsion control system with IGBT and engine control system). . 3.2.5 The Applicant shall quote experience in respect of a particular Eligible Project under any one category only, even though the Applicant (either individually or along with a member of the Consortium) may have played multiple roles in the cited project. Double counting for a particular Eligible Project shall not be permitted in any form. 3.2.6 Subject to the provisions of Clause 3.2.7, an Applicant’s experience shall be measured and stated in terms of a score (the “Experience Score”). The Experience Score shall be computed as one point for each Mainline Diesel Electric Locomotive included in an Eligible Project and then multiplied by the applicable factor in Table 3.2.6 below. In case the Applicant has experience across different...
View Source

Related to Technical Capacity for purposes of 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.

  • TECHNICAL EVALUATION (a) Detailed technical evaluation shall be carried out by Purchase Committee pursuant to conditions in the tender document to determine the substantial responsiveness of each tender. For this clause, the substantially responsive bid is one that conforms to all the eligibility and terms and condition of the tender without any material deviation. The Institute’s determination of bid’s responsiveness is to be based on the contents of the bid itself without recourse to extrinsic evidence. The Institute shall evaluate the technical bids also to determine whether they are complete, whether required sureties have been furnished, whether the documents have been properly signed and whether the bids are in order. (b) The technical evaluation committee may call the responsive bidders for discussion or presentation to facilitate and assess their understanding of the scope of work and its execution. However, the committee shall have sole discretion to call for discussion / presentation. (c) Financial bids of only those bidders who qualify the technical criteria will be opened provided all other requirements are fulfilled. (d) AIIMS Jodhpur shall have right to accept or reject any or all tenders without assigning any reasons thereof.

  • MANAGEMENT OF EVALUATION OUTCOMES 12.1 Where the Employer is, any time during the Employee’s employment, not satisfied with the Employee’s performance with respect to any matter dealt with in this Agreement, the Employer will give notice to the Employee to attend a meeting; 12.2 The Employee will have the opportunity at the meeting to satisfy the Employer of the measures being taken to ensure that his performance becomes satisfactory and any programme, including any dates, for implementing these measures; 12.3 Where there is a dispute or difference as to the performance of the Employee under this Agreement, the Parties will confer with a view to resolving the dispute or difference; and 12.4 In the case of unacceptable performance, the Employer shall – 12.4.1 Provide systematic remedial or developmental support to assist the Employee to improve his performance; and 12.4.2 After appropriate performance counselling and having provided the necessary guidance and/or support as well as reasonable time for improvement in performance, the Employer may consider steps to terminate the contract of employment of the Employee on grounds of unfitness or incapacity to carry out his or her duties.

  • Contractor Responsibility for System Agency’s Termination Costs If the System Agency terminates the Contract for cause, the Contractor shall be responsible to the System Agency for all costs incurred by the System Agency and the State of Texas to replace the Contractor. These costs include, but are not limited to, the costs of procuring a substitute vendor and the cost of any claim or litigation attributable to Contractor’s failure to perform any Work in accordance with the terms of the Contract.

  • Routing for Operator Services and Directory Assistance Traffic For a Verizon Telecommunications Service dial tone line purchased by VarTec for resale pursuant to the Resale Attachment, upon request by VarTec, Verizon will establish an arrangement that will permit VarTec to route the VarTec Customer’s calls for operator and directory assistance services to a provider of operator and directory assistance services selected by VarTec. Verizon will provide this routing arrangement in accordance with, but only to the extent required by, Applicable Law. Verizon will provide this routing arrangement pursuant to an appropriate written request submitted by VarTec and a mutually agreed-upon schedule. This routing arrangement will be implemented at VarTec's expense, with charges determined on an individual case basis. In addition to charges for initially establishing the routing arrangement, VarTec will be responsible for ongoing monthly and/or usage charges for the routing arrangement. VarTec shall arrange, at its own expense, the trunking and other facilities required to transport traffic to VarTec’s selected provider of operator and directory assistance services.