Termination for Changes in Budget or Law The JBE’s payment obligations under this Agreement are subject to annual appropriation and the availability of funds. Expected or actual funding may be withdrawn, reduced, or limited prior to the expiration or other termination of this Agreement. Funding beyond the current appropriation year is conditioned upon appropriation of sufficient funds to support the activities described in this Agreement. The JBE may terminate this Agreement or limit Contractor’s Services (and reduce proportionately Contractor’s fees) upon Notice to Contractor without prejudice to any right or remedy of the JBE if: (i) expected or actual funding to compensate Contractor is withdrawn, reduced or limited; or (ii) the JBE determines that Contractor’s performance under this Agreement has become infeasible due to changes in applicable laws.
Classification Changes When the University determines that a revision of a class specification for positions covered by this agreement is needed, and such revision affects the collective bargaining unit designation, the University shall notify AFSCME in writing of the proposed change. AFSCME shall notify the University, in writing, within fifteen (15) days of receipt of the proposed changes, of any comments it has concerning the proposed changes or of its desire to discuss the proposed changes.
Plan Changes In the event the Employer modifies its current benefit plans, or provides an alternative plan(s), the Employer will review the plan changes with the Union prior to implementation. The Employer shall notify the Union at least ninety (90) days prior to the intended implementation date. The implementation date is the effective date of the new plan.
ROAD PLAN CHANGES If the Purchaser desires a change from this road plan including, but not limited to, relocation, extension, change in design, or adding roads; a revised road plan must be submitted in writing to the Contract Administrator for consideration. Before work begins, Purchaser shall obtain approval from the State for the submitted plan.
Consolidation of Committees The parties to this Agreement and to the Agreement concerning drug and alcohol testing and EAP between TWU Local 250A and the SFMTA may elect to combine the joint labor- management committee established here and in the Local 250A Agreement.
Changes in Service This Agreement is made in good faith based upon the present and projected conditions and the quality of the equipment and/or Property, as well as its present ownership and management. Should changes in any of these elements occur which the Judicial Council believes may adversely affect the Program, the Judicial Council reserves the right to renegotiate this Agreement or terminate pursuant to the termination for cause provision, as set forth herein, without penalty or prejudice.
DISQUALIFICATION FOR PAST PERFORMANCE AND FINDINGS OF NON RESPONSIBILITY Bidder may be disqualified from receiving awards if Bidder, or anyone in Bidder’s employment, has previously failed to perform satisfactorily in connection with public Bidding or contracts or is deemed non- responsible.
Sole Source as Grounds for Rejection of a Change Order If a Change Order is submitted to Contractor for the purposes of adding a Bulletin to this Contract and said Bulletin designates a Sole Source from which Contractor is required to procure goods or services necessary to perform the Work, which Sole Source has not been designated previously, Contractor shall be entitled to reject the proposed Change Order if the designated Sole Source refuses to provide to Contractor the warranties, bonds, terms or schedule required under the Contract Documents, including any warranty or terms or schedule required by Bulletins referenced in the proposed Change Order. In such event, Contractor shall give written notice to the Owner rejecting the proposed Change Order and, if possible, shall accompany said written notice with a proposal from Contractor for changes or modifications to the Bulletin so as to eliminate the Sole Source designation but to achieve goods or services equal in quality or function. The Owner may then require the Design Professional to revise the subject Bulletin so as to eliminate the designation of the Sole Source by incorporation of Contractor's proposal or otherwise. Upon revision of the Bulletin by the Design Professional and approval thereof by the Owner, the Owner shall again submit to the Contractor a proposed Change Order for the purpose of adding the revised Bulletin to this Contract. If the Owner decides to retain the Sole Source in the Change Order and Contractor cannot acquire the full contractually required warranties from the Sole Source, Contractor shall be held only to the warranty terms and schedule obtainable from the Sole Source.
Conclusions and Recommendations The demonstration and evaluation process provided an opportunity to test community specific tools with a range of end users from the memory institution domain and to gain greater insight into both the current and future evolution of the SHAMAN prototypes for preservation, access and re-use. Xxxx et al. (2000) in their user evaluation study of the Alexandria Digital Library which incorporated the evaluation of a Web prototype by earth scientists, information specialists and educators raised four key questions in relation to their findings that SHAMAN may be well advised to consider, they are paraphrased here with our conclusions from the investigations. What have we learned about our target organizations and potential users? Memory institutions are most definitely not a homogenised group; their needs and requirements differ greatly across the domain. Representatives of the archives community are agreed on the benefits of SHAMAN‟s authenticity validation function. The representatives of government information services remained unconvinced as to the need or benefit of grid technologies or distributed ingest while librarians saw the value of grid access as an asset of the framework. What have we learned about the evaluation approach for digital preservation? Within the limits of the exercise, in terms of time-frame and resources, the approach adopted has generated useful information for the further development of demonstrators and for the development of the SHAMAN framework overall. What have we learned about the SHAMAN ISP1 demonstrator? Respondents to the evaluation questionnaires and the focus groups indicate that, overall, the presentation of the demonstrator worked effectively and that, in general, participants in the demonstration and evaluation events were able to understand the intentions of the demonstration and to apply the ideas presented to their own context. What have we learned about the applicability of the SHAMAN framework to memory institutions? Respondents to the questionnaires and participants in the focus groups readily identified the value of the SHAMAN framework to their own operations. The majority had not yet established a long-term digital preservation policy, but recognized the need. Generally, the concepts of distributed ingest and grid operations found favour. Virtually all practitioners in the focus groups, however, drew attention to need of a lower level demonstration that would be closer to their everyday preservation troubles, especially for digital preservation to be applied to non-textual materials, such as film, photographs and sound archives. In addition to the criteria suggested by Xxxx et al., we can add a further project-related question: What have we learned that has implications for the training and dissemination phase of the Project? It was not part of the remit of the demonstration and evaluation specifically to discover information of relevance to the training and dissemination function. However, a number of factors will affect the efficacy of any training programme in particular. o First, no common understanding of digital preservation can be assumed of the potential target audiences for training. Consequently, it is likely that self-paced learning materials will be most effective in presenting the SHAMAN framework. o Secondly, the aims of SHAMAN as a project must be conveyed clearly: specifically, that it is a kind of „proof-of-concept‟ project and is not intended to deliver a package of programs capable of being implemented by institutions. o Thirdly, it needs to be emphasised that the SHAMAN framework is not limited to text documents; it can be applied to materials of all kinds. However, the demonstrations relate to bodies of material that were actually available for use. o Fourthly, the existing presentation materials are capable of being adapted for use in training activities. o Finally, the target audiences will appreciate the possibility of online access to the demonstrator, which will need to have very great ease of access in order that people with diverse backgrounds are able to use it with equal facility. We believe that, overall, WP14 has met its aims and objectives in this demonstration and evaluation of ISP1. Valuable lessons have been learnt by all parties involved, which will be transferred to the evaluation of ISP2 in the coming months.
MINOR CHANGES IN THE WORK 7.4.1 The Architect will have authority to order minor changes in the Work not involving adjustment in the Contract Sum or extension of the Contract Time and not inconsistent with the intent of the Contract Documents. Such changes shall be effected by written order and shall be binding on the Owner and Contractor. The Contractor shall carry out such written orders without delay.
