Application Award Methodology Sample Clauses

Application Award Methodology. Update of Award Methodology to clarify Application to Agreement timing. 3.1.11
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Application Award Methodology. HCD evaluates projects based on the eligibility requirements as outlined in Section 3 and the required project information detailed in Section 4.1.2. For eligible project applications, HCD reviews special conditions in the Agreement, if applicable and requests any outstanding items to satisfy the special conditions. HCD completes a review of the Eligible Applicant’s allocation and determines whether each Eligible Applicant’s application amount across its projects fall within its allocation amount. HCD notifies jurisdictions if they have exceeded the allocation amount and request application resubmission. Eligible Applicants with submitted applications at or below the allocation amount proceed to award recommendation. If an evaluation of submitted applications by HCD determines that the proposed projects do not result in HCD meeting its grant-wide 70% LMI requirement and program-specific 80% MID requirement funding levels, HCD reserves the right to reevaluate the program and weigh options for ensuring that DR-Infrastructure Program meets HUD requirements.

Related to Application Award Methodology

  • Calculation methodology No adjustment in the Conversion Price need be made unless the adjustment would require an increase or decrease of at least 1% in the Conversion Price then in effect, provided that any adjustment that would otherwise be required to be made shall be carried forward and taken into account in any subsequent adjustment. Except as stated in this Article VI, the Conversion Rate will not be adjusted for the issuance of Common Stock or any securities convertible into or exchangeable for Common Stock or carrying the right to purchase any of the foregoing. Any adjustments that are made shall be carried forward and taken into account in any subsequent adjustment. All calculations under Article V and Section 6.06 hereof and this Section 6.07 shall be made to the nearest cent or to the nearest 1/10,000th of a share, as the case may be.

  • Selection Criteria for Awarding Task Order The Government will award to the offeror whose proposal is deemed most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment using the evaluation criteria. The Government will evaluate proposals against established selection criteria specified in the task order RFP. Generally, the Government's award decision will be based on selection criteria which addresses past performance, technical acceptability, proposal risk and cost. Among other sources, evaluation of past performance may be based on past performance assessments provided by TO Program Managers on individual task orders performed throughout the life of the contract. The order of importance for the factors will be identified in the RFP for the specified task order.

  • Payment Methodology The Contractor shall be compensated based on the Service Rates in Attachment for units of service authorized by the Institution in a total amount not to exceed the Contract Maximum Liability established in Section C.1. The Contractor’s compensation shall be contingent upon the satisfactory completion of units of service or project milestones identified in Attachment B. The Contractor shall submit invoices, in form and substance acceptable to the Institution with all of the necessary supporting documentation, prior to any payment. Such invoices shall be submitted for completed units of service or project milestones for the amount stipulated.

  • Performance Levels (a) The Performance Levels which apply to the performance by the respective Parties of their obligations under this Agreement are set out in Part 1 of Schedule 5. A failure by either Party to achieve the relevant Performance Level will not constitute a breach of this Agreement and the only consequences of such failure as between the Parties shall be the consequences set out in this Clause 5.6.

  • Cost for Service and Charge Methodology – POS to The NWSA Service Area and Department (Acct if appropriate) Service Item (from list above) Method of Charges1 Basis for Charge Hourly Rate, Fixed Percentage or Formula 2021 Budgeted Amount2 Commission Office Dept #1200 3.a Fixed Based upon agreed amount of $250,000 per year. $250,000

  • Performance Schedule The Parties will perform their respective responsibilities in accordance with the Performance Schedule. By executing this Agreement, Customer authorizes Motorola to proceed with contract performance.

  • Performance Indicators The HSP’s delivery of the Services will be measured by the following Indicators, Targets and where applicable Performance Standards. In the following table: n/a meanç ‘not-appIicabIe’, that there iç no defined Performance Standard for the indicator for the applicable year. tbd means a Target, and a Performance Standard, if applicable, will be determined during the applicable year. INDICATOR CATEGORY INDICATOR P = Performance Indicator E = Explanatory Indicator M = Monitoring Indicator 2019/20 PERFORMANCE TARGET STANDARD Organizational Health and Financial Indicators Debt Service Coverage Ratio (P) 1 c1 Total Margin (P) 0 cO Coordination and Access Indicators Percent Resident Days – Long Stay (E) n/a n/a Wait Time from LHIN Determination of Eligibility to LTC Home Response (M) n/a n/a Long-Term Care Home Refusal Rate (E) n/a n/a SCHEDULE D — PERFORMANCE 2/3 INDICATOR CATEGORY Quality and Resident Safety Indicators INDICATOR P = Performance Indicator E = Explanatory Indicator M = Monitoring Indicator Percentage of Residents Who Fell in the Last 30 days (M) 2019/20 PERFORMANCE TARGET STANDARD n/a n/a Percentage of Residents Whose Pressure Ulcer Worsened (M) n/a n/a Percentage of Residents on Antipsychotics Without a Diagnosis of Psychosis (M) n/a n/a Percentage of Residents in Daily Physical Restraints (M) n/a n/a SCHEDULE D — PERFORMANCE 2.0 LHIN-Specific Performance Obligations 3/3

  • Claims Review Methodology a. C laims Review Population. A description of the Population subject to the Quarterly Claims Review.‌

  • Award Criteria 40.1 The Procuring Entity shall award the Contract to the successful tenderer whose tender has been determined to be the Lowest Evaluated Tender in accordance with procedures in Section 3: Evaluation and Qualification Criteria.

  • Particular Methods of Procurement of Goods Works and Services (other than Consultants’ Services)

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.