GLOSSARY ENTRY (DERIVED FROM QUESTION BELOW) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
13:51 Jul 3, 2018 |
English to Serbian translations [PRO] Law/Patents - Law: Contract(s) / Arbitration proceedings | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| Selected response from: Daryo United Kingdom Local time: 22:32 | ||||
Grading comment
|
Summary of answers provided | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
4 +1 | доње границе прихватљивог извршења [уговорних обавеза] |
| ||
4 -1 | standard kvaliteta (iz)gradnje |
|
Summary of reference entries provided | |||
---|---|---|---|
Performance Evaluation, Monitoring and Rating System etc. |
|
Discussion entries: 1 | |
---|---|
standard kvaliteta (iz)gradnje Explanation: standard kvaliteta je zakonski propisan minimum prihvatljivog kvaliteta http://www.gradjevinarstvo.rs/tekstovi/1549/820/gradjevinski... |
| |
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) |
Minimum Acceptance Performance levels доње границе прихватљивог извршења [уговорних обавеза] Explanation: or any variations thereof прихватљиви минимуми извршења [уговорних обавеза] минимуми прихватљивог извршења ... -------------------------------------------------- Note added at 21 hrs (2018-07-04 11:09:26 GMT) -------------------------------------------------- BTW "Minimum Acceptance Performance" levels / thresholds etc is a very general concept that can be applied to ANY contract, or even to any activity - you can find ghits about "Minimum Acceptance Performance" of school teachers, sales peoples etc etc -------------------------------------------------- Note added at 23 hrs (2018-07-04 13:08:52 GMT) -------------------------------------------------- ... sales people |
| |
Grading comment
| ||
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) |
20 hrs |
Reference: Performance Evaluation, Monitoring and Rating System etc. Reference information: 3.2.8 Scoring Acceptability The minimum acceptance performance score for vendors will be 60%. Any vendor scoring below 40% for a particular contract will be issued warning letters. For vendors whose average scoring based on their performance of contracts falls below 40% can considered for debarment from future contracts. The classification of performance as per the scores achieved is presented in the following table: .... (page 18) 3.3.8 Minimum Performance Score for Every Rating Discipline The minimum acceptance aggregate performance score for the vendors will be 60%. However, determining the scale of performance only based on the aggregate score would have a tendency to neglect the key underperformed indicators at the Rating Discipline level, thus resulting in inappropriate screening. It may happen that for all other Rating Disciplines except Quality, which has been allotted the maximum weightage, vendor has attained minimal scores. In such cases, the vendor may score above 60%, but has underperformed on the most Rating Disciplines. Therefore, we are of the opinion that to avoid negligence of underperformance of KPI, we propose that along with the aggregate scoring threshold of 60%, ... (page 19) 3. The minimum acceptance aggregate performance score for the vendors will be 60%. However, determining the scale of performance only based on the aggregate score would have a tendency to neglect the key underperformed indicators at the Rating Discipline level, thus resulting in inappropriate screening. For example for most of the vendors the Rating Discipline “Quality” has been assigned the highest weightage. It may happen that for all Rating Disciplines except Quality, the vendor scores the maximum grade, but has attained minimal scores for the “Quality” Rating Disciplines. In this case, the vendor may score above 60%, but has underperformed on the most Rating Disciplines. Therefore, we are of the opinion that to avoid negligence of underperformance of KPI, we propose that along with the aggregate scoring threshold of 60%, the vendor must not score a performance score of ‘1’ for more than 10% of the applicable performance indicators and a score of ‘2’ for not more than another 10% of the applicable performance indicators. (page 23) http://202.131.117.249/NHAI_Staging/writereaddata/Portal/Ima... -------------------------------------------------- Note added at 21 hrs (2018-07-04 10:52:23 GMT) -------------------------------------------------- A recent Court of Appeal decision demonstrates a pragmatic approach to the resolution of errors and omissions in the drafting of long-term construction contracts. The decision overturns an earlier TCC decision which had held that the omission of certain parameters had deprived the contract of effect in certain respects. The Court of Appeal’s decision will be of interest to those operating under PFI or other long-term contracts with poorly drafted financial or performance schedules. .... The contract included a right of termination where Rydon’s performance fell below certain Minimum Acceptance Performance levels or “MAPs” for short. MAPs were defined by the contract as being “the minimum level of performance as measured by a KPI (as set out in the KPI Framework) that the Client is prepared to tolerate such that if performance is worse than that level for that KPI the Client can serve a notice [of termination]". The KPI Framework was contained in a schedule to the contract and set out various Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) with targets designed to incentivise Rydon to exceed these targets or penalise them for not achieving them. http://demo.webdefy.com/rilem-new/wp-content/uploads/2016/10... N.B. it's all clearly about the overall performance (=execution) of the whole contract, more precisely a a minimum level of "performing the contract", as measured by various KPI - Key Performance Indicators |
| |
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) |
Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.
You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs (or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.