Purchasing Organization Metrics Report

2/20/2020 Rubric Assessment - BMGT 375 6380 Purchasing Management (2202) - UMGC Learning Management System

https://learn.umuc.edu/d2l/lms/competencies/rubric/rubrics_assessment_results.d2l?ou=487048&evalObjectId=921357&evalObjectType=1&userId=173587&viewTypeId=3&rubricId=881966&groupId=0… 1/5

Criteria Outstanding Superior Good Subst

Contract Type

Selected

Potential

Liability

Exposure

2 points

All types of relevant

contracts were discussed

thoroughly and selection

was logically reasoned

using insightful application

of the case study facts and

class materials. Rejection

of other contracts than the

one selected was

comprehensively discussed

and support with case

study facts and class

material.

(1.8-2.0)

1.7 points

All major types of relevant

contracts were discussed and

selection was logically reasoned

by applying the case study facts

and class materials. Rejection of

other contracts than the one

selected was underdeveloped as

to one or two types because

support with case study facts and

class material was minimal.

(1.60-1.799)

1.5 points

Comments generally identified

the major types of contracts

under consideration. Comments

reflect a satisfactory level of

analysis, synthesis, evaluation

and reasoning of the case

material and case study facts.

However, discussion of those

types rejected was too

general leaving the reasoning to

be underdeveloped.

(1.4-1.599)

1.3 p

Comm

minim

the ty

contr

to the

justif

selec

implie

analy

evalu

reaso

case

case

spars

demo

(1.2-1

3 points

Discussion identified

all potential legal liability

for the company. All points

were discussed thoroughly

and selection was logically

reasoned using insightful

application of the case

2.55 points

Discussion identified major

potential legal liability for the

company but one minor area was

missed and or one major area was

underdeveloped. Points discussed

were logically reasoned using a

good application of the case

study facts and class materials.

2.25 points

Discussion identified most major

potential legal liability for the

company but one or two major

points were missed and or

underdeveloped. Points discussed

were logically reasoned mostly

using a application of the case

study facts and class materials.

1.95

An at

to ref

satisf

analy

evalu

poten

liabili

comp

2/20/2020 Rubric Assessment - BMGT 375 6380 Purchasing Management (2202) - UMGC Learning Management System

https://learn.umuc.edu/d2l/lms/competencies/rubric/rubrics_assessment_results.d2l?ou=487048&evalObjectId=921357&evalObjectType=1&userId=173587&viewTypeId=3&rubricId=881966&groupId=0… 2/5

Recommended

terms and

conditions for

the contract

are suggested

Created

study facts and class

materials.

(2.7-3.0)

(2.4-2.699) Comments tended to be

overbroad.

(2.1-2.399)

Howe

reaso

case

case

in mi

of the

used.

majo

liabili

missi

(1.8-2

2.25 points

Comments specifically

identify and

comprehensively explain

the terms and conditions

needed in the contract to

protect the

company. Conclusions

drawn reflected a highly

accomplished level of

analysis, synthesis,

evaluation and reasoning

of the case material and

case study facts resulting

in accurate, thorough, and

soundly reasoned

conclusions

(2.025-2.25)

1.91 points

Comments specifically identify

and explain the terms and

conditions that would most

benefit the company. Comments

demonstrated a good level of

analysis, synthesis, evaluation

and reasoning of the case

material and case study facts

resulting in mostly accurate

reasoned conclusions. One or

two terms while mentioned were

not developed as to why they

would benefit the company.

(1.8-2.024)

1.69 points

Comments identified and

explained most of the major

terms and conditions needed to

benefit the company. Justification

for the selection of the terms was

mostly reasoned from the case

material and case study facts

tended to be overbroad and

rarely discussed specifically why

the terms and conditions were

selected.

(1.575-1.799)

1.46

Comm

to ide

expla

cond

the u

mate

study

suppo

reaso

the c

minim

Justif

selec

implie

discu

may o

list of

cond

expla

(1.35

3 points 2.55 points 2.25 points 1.95

2/20/2020 Rubric Assessment - BMGT 375 6380 Purchasing Management (2202) - UMGC Learning Management System

https://learn.umuc.edu/d2l/lms/competencies/rubric/rubrics_assessment_results.d2l?ou=487048&evalObjectId=921357&evalObjectType=1&userId=173587&viewTypeId=3&rubricId=881966&groupId=0… 3/5

detailed RFB

that includes

discussion of

the enzyme

mixing process

Attention to

Instructions

Writing

Formatting and

development of RFP was

correct and

comprehensively explained.

Mixture process was

detailed as to all four

materials. Each element

of the report defined the

conclusions drawn

reflecting a highly

accomplished level of

analysis, synthesis,

evaluation and reasoning

of the case material and

case study facts resulting

in accurate, thorough, and

soundly reasoned

conclusions

(2.7-3.0)

Formatting and development

of RFP reports was correct

and explained. Each element

of the report defined

the conclusions drawn reflecting

a good level of analysis,

synthesis, evaluation and

reasoning of the case material

and case study facts resulting in

accurate, and logically reasoned

conclusions. However,

development of the mixing

process was not fully explained

and or supported by class

material.

(2.4-2.699)

RFP report was created and all

elements were present.

Comments identified

elements but had 3-4 mistakes in

the discussion of the mixing

process. Comments reflect a

satisfactory level of analysis,

synthesis, evaluation and

reasoning of the case material

and case study facts. Discussion

was general as a result.

(2.1-2.399)

An at

made

RFP r

eleme

prese

Comm

some

eleme

in the

only w

suppo

eithe

unde

reaso

(1.8-2

2.25 points

Demonstrates exceptional

understanding of

requirements responding

completely to each aspect

of assignment including

minor aspects of the

assignment such as using

third person writing,

required use of course

readings, and assignment

format.

(2.025-2.25)

1.91 points

Demonstrates excellent

understanding of requirements;

missed one minor aspect of

assignment.

(1.8-2.024)

1.69 points

Demonstrates satisfactory

understanding of requirements;

missed a key element or two

minor aspects of assignment.

(1.575-1.799)

1.46

Fails

unde

requi

misse

eleme

mino

assig

(1.35

2 points 1.7 points 1.5 points 1.3 p

2/20/2020 Rubric Assessment - BMGT 375 6380 Purchasing Management (2202) - UMGC Learning Management System

https://learn.umuc.edu/d2l/lms/competencies/rubric/rubrics_assessment_results.d2l?ou=487048&evalObjectId=921357&evalObjectType=1&userId=173587&viewTypeId=3&rubricId=881966&groupId=0… 4/5

Total / 15

Overall Score

Mechanics

Adherence to

APA Style (6th

ed.)

Strictly adheres to standard

usage rules of written

English, including but not

limited to capitalization,

punctuation, run-on

sentences, missing or extra

words, stylistic errors,

spelling and grammatical

errors. No errors found. No

contractions or jargon

used.

(1.8 - 2)

Excellently adheres to standard

usage of mechanics: conventions

of written English, including

capitalization, punctuation, and

spelling. One to three errors

found.

(1.6 - 1.799)

Satisfactorily adheres to standard

usage rules of mechanics:

conventions of English, including

capitalization, punctuation, and

spelling. Four to 10 errors found.

(1.4 - 1.599)

Minim

to sta

rules

conve

writte

includ

capita

punct

spelli

10 er

(1.2 -

0.5 points

No APA style or usage

errors; Proper citation of

source material is used

throughout paper;

Reference titles follow APA

with only the first word,

the first word after a colon

and proper nouns

capitalized.

(0.45 - 0.5)

0.425 points

Attempts in-text citations and

reference list but one or two APA

style errors noted or fails to use

APA citations when appropriate

1-2 times.

(0.40 - 0.44)

0.375 points

Attempts in-text citations and

reference lists; APA style errors

are noted throughout document;

Fails to use APA citations when

appropriate 3 times in document.

(0.35 - 0.39)

0.325

Attem

citati

refere

to us

when

5 tim

only

citati

refere

pape

APA

throu

docu

(0.30

2/20/2020 Rubric Assessment - BMGT 375 6380 Purchasing Management (2202) - UMGC Learning Management System

https://learn.umuc.edu/d2l/lms/competencies/rubric/rubrics_assessment_results.d2l?ou=487048&evalObjectId=921357&evalObjectType=1&userId=173587&viewTypeId=3&rubricId=881966&groupId=0… 5/5

Close

Outstanding 13.5 points minimum

Superior 12 points minimum

Good 10.5 points minimum

Substandard 9 points minimum

Failure 0 points minimum