Certification Regarding Termination of Contract for Non-Compliance (Tex Gov. Code 552.374)
Penalties for Non-compliance to Service Level Agreement Where the Supplier/Service Provider fails to deliver the Goods/Services within the agreed and accepted milestone timelines and provided that the cause of the delay was not due to a fault of Transnet, penalties shall be imposed at …………………………………………………… .
CONTRACT COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT The HUB requirement on this Contract is 0%. The student engagement requirement of this Contract is 0 hours. The Career Education requirement for this Contract is 0 hours. Failure to achieve these requirements may result in the application of some or all of the sanctions set forth in Administrative Policy 3.10, which is hereby incorporated by reference.
Compliance with Accessibility Standards All parties to this Agreement shall ensure that the plans for and the construction of all projects subject to this Agreement are in compliance with standards issued or approved by the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation (TDLR) as meeting or consistent with minimum accessibility requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (P.L. 101-336) (ADA).
Payment of Non-compliance Penalties j) Subject to Clause (i) above, the Service Provider shall pay the Non-compliance Penalty indicated in the Non-compliance Penalty Certificate within 10 (ten) Business Days of Transnet issuing a valid Tax Invoice to the Service Provider for the amount set out in that certificate. If Transnet does not issue a valid Tax Invoice to the Service Provider for Non-compliance Penalties accrued during any relevant period, those Non-compliance Penalties shall be carried forward to the next period.
Status Substantial Compliance Analysis The Compliance Officer found that PPB is in substantial compliance with Paragraph 80. See Sections IV and VII Report, p. 17. COCL carefully outlines the steps PPB has taken—and we, too, have observed—to do so. Id. We agree with the Compliance Officer’s assessment. In 2018, the Training Division provided an extensive, separate analysis of data concerning ECIT training. See Evaluation Report: 2018 Enhanced Crisis Intervention Training, Training usefulness, on-the-job applications, and reinforcing training objectives, February 2019. The Training Division assessed survey data showing broad officer support for the 2018 ECIT training. The survey data also showed a dramatic increase in the proportion of officers who strongly agree that their supervisors are very supportive of the ECIT program, reaching 64.3% in 2018, compared to only 14.3% in 2015: The Training Division analyzed the survey results of the police vehicle operator training and supervisory in-service training, as well. These analyses were helpful in understanding attendees’ impressions of training and its application to their jobs, though the analyses did not reach as far as the ECIT’s analysis of post-training on- the-job assessment. In all three training analyses, Training Division applied a feedback model to shape future training. This feedback loop was the intended purpose of Paragraph 80. PPB’s utilization of feedback shows PPB’s internalization of the remedy. We reviewed surveys of Advanced Academy attendees, as well. Attendees were overwhelmingly positive in response to the content of most classes. Though most respondents agreed on the positive aspects of keeping the selected course in the curriculum, a handful of attendees chose options like “redundant” and “slightly disagree,” indicating that the survey tools could be used for critical assessment and not merely PPB self-validation. We directly observed PPB training and evaluations since our last report. PPB provided training materials to the Compliance Officer and DOJ in advance of training. Where either identified issues, PPB worked through those issues and honed its materials. As Paragraph 80 requires, PPB’s training included competency-based evaluations, namely: knowledge checks (i.e., quizzes on directives), in-class responsive quizzes (using clickers to respond to questions presented to the group); knowledge tests (examinations via links PPB sent to each student’s Bureau-issued iPhone); demonstrated skills and oral examination (officers had to show proficiency in first aid skills, weapons use, and defensive tactics); and scenario evaluations (officers had to explain their reasoning for choices after acting through scenarios). These were the same sort of competency-based evaluations we commended in our last report. In this monitoring period, PPB applied the same type of evaluations to supervisory-level training as well as in-service training for all sworn members. PPB successfully has used the surveys, testing, and the training audit.
CERTIFICATION REGARDING DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE REQUIREMENTS The undersigned (authorized official signing for the contracting organization) certifies that the contractor will, or will continue to, provide a drug-free workplace in accordance with 45 CFR Part 76 by:
ACCEPTABLE USE RESTRICTIONS You must:
Prohibition of Performance Requirements 1. The provisions of the Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures in Annex 1A to the WTO Agreement (TRIMs), which are not specifically mentioned in or modified by this Agreement, shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to this Agreement.
TERMINATION FOR NON-ADHERENCE OF COUNTY LOBBYIST ORDINANCE The Contractor, and each County Lobbyist or County Lobbying firm as defined in County Code Section 2.160.010 retained by the Contractor, shall fully comply with the County’s Lobbyist Ordinance, County Code Chapter
