Background Review. The CONSULTANT will review current county organizational information available, including department home pages, budget information, ordinances, and other related documents and information.
Background Review. The Water Provider shall ensure that it has thoroughly investigated the employees who are given access to the system. The Water Provider will not grant access to employees whose background suggests they will be unable to meet the data security requirements of this Agreement. Specifically, employees whose background checks reveal fraud, identity theft, or substance abuse shall not be allowed to access this data. DUI convictions for all substances other than alcohol shall disqualify an employee from access.
Background Review. The Consultant will begin by gathering background information about how the City of Durham has addressed capital project prioritization in the past. Previous bicycle, pedestrian, congestion management, and transit access plans will be reviewed for discussion of public values and community priorities that reflect on the potential prioritization factors that may be employed in the model. These documents will also be reviewed for information that can inform the weighting of these factors. Potential factors include the following: Stakeholder Input, Safety, Existing Conditions, Demand, Connectivity, Equity and Compliance; other factors may be added at the Client’s discretion. Additionally, information gathered in the public outreach efforts of this project will be reviewed by the Consultant for expressions of values and viewpoints that are relevant to this prioritization process. The Client will also be interviewed so that Consultant can understand the Client’s recent experiences with prioritization processes for capital improvement projects. The Client will also be consulted about the types and quality of data that are available that can be used to measure the potential prioritization factors. All GIS and other data required to utilize the APT will be supplied by the city or obtained from existing data sources, such as NCDOT and the U.S. Census, including demographic data, sidewalk coverage, previous project lists, crash locations, etc.
Background Review. Working closely with City staff and using most recent Annual Progress Report, the R+A team will review the current Housing Element and identify Milpitas’ success in accomplishing/implementing the identified goals, policies, and programs and provide explanations and updates where goals, policies, or programs are in progress, have been abandoned, or have not proven effective. The R+A team will also review the City’s new General Plan for any housing-related policies, the Transit Area Specific Plan (Metro Plan), the Milpitas Midtown Specific Plan (Gateway Plan), the Zoning Code, the Affordable Housing Ordinance, the forthcoming Assessment of Fair Housing, and other related documents/policies as appropriate.
Background Review. A comprehensive review of available background literature and studies will update our understanding of Xxxxxx Paipoonge’s economy. The project team’s familiarity with Xxxxxx Paipoonge and experience in Northwestern Ontario will lessen time required for this step. This reconnaissance will identify historic and emerging market conditions impacting the town and competitive position within the regional, provincial, national and international economies. This analysis informs our view of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats related to the community’s ability to retain, expand and attract new business investment. Particular attention will be given to reports and publications that provide insight into trends that are impacting economic opportunities. This includes any relevant municipal documents, regional and provincial industry sector publications, professional reports, labour market reports, Statistics Canada data (and Census of Agriculture in particular), and other data sources (e.g. the most current Canadian Business Patterns data). We will ensure all documents provided by the Municipality, including studies regarding the impact of Highway 11/17 relocation, 2001 Strategic Economic Development Plan, and others are thoroughly reviewed. Relevant data, supporting evidence and recommendations from these reports will be incorporated into the Strategy and Action Plans.
Background Review. Partnering has been viewed as an effective tool in successful delivery of projects across many countries including UK (Xxxxx 2003; Xxxx and Xxxxx 2005), Europe (Xxxxxxxx and Xxxxxx 1993), Hong Kong (Xxxxxx and Xxxxxxxxxxx 2002) and Singapore (Xxxx and Xxxxx 2001). There is an increasing perception that partnering could help managing risks and uncertainties and thereby improve productivity in projects (Xxxxxxx and Xxxxxxxx 2000; Xxxx 2001; Xxxxxx et al. 2006). Given the nature of modern construction projects where involvement of multitude of contracting parties result very high risks, partnering based on relationship agreements and cooperative teamwork perceived to be an effective medium for managing conflicts between diverse participants (Xxxxxx and Xxxxxxxxxxx 2002). Traditional procurement methods generally produce a culture of defensiveness, with each party spending significant amounts of time on money on protecting its contractual position. Even where the parties are on relatively good terms, management cost will include full detailed documentation in the case of dispute (Xxxxx 2001). In case of a dispute, the general focus of each party is on blame allocation, rather than finding a workable solution for the problem. The constant threat of a dispute xxxxxxx creates a defensiveness in the general context of contractual negations in which each party attempts to transfer more risk onto the other. Traditional delivery methods generally select the lowest tender bid in order to reduce the costs associated with the project, however, it is often the case that lowest tender bid is incorrect. Incorrect tender bids, combined with management decisions to exclude profit and even overheads when desperate to win a tender, can result in contractors work being of substandard quality. Incorrect bids may also result in the contractor pursuing claims and inflated measurements to recover losses, both of which can result in disputes between the contractor and the client, causing unwarranted cost over-run and program delays to the project (Xxxxx 2000). A lack of vision on behalf of the client and failure to take into account any factors other than the tender price can also lead to substandard quality of the work and poor OHS practices if the contractor selected is not experienced or suited to the particular project. Traditional Procurement Methods may also result in a lack of value management and design innovation as builders are restricted to pricing a predetermined solutio...
Background Review. Prior to conducting a site visit, CONSULTANT will review all relevant background information concerning biological resources in the project area, including prior work in and around the City of Milpitas; US Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps; US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory Maps; the CNDDB; species data compiled by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS), the National Audubon Society, or other public interest group; and resource agency data.
Background Review. In the event County cannot hire an Applicant on initial review of City information and needs additional due diligence, Applicants will be required to submit to a normal and full County background investigation process.
Background Review. Consultant shall become familiar with the operating procedures and systems relevant to the Project by reviewing and analyzing existing background information provided by the City; reviewing previous assumptions; visiting the RWF to confirm site conditions and conducting interviews with RWF staff. The City will provide copies of available record drawings, reports, Computerized Maintenance Management System (“CMMS”) data, historical operational and maintenance data, condition assessments, and any other existing documents pertaining to the Project. The reference documents will include:
Background Review i. The Consultant shall review existing the existing Visual Hydraulics (VH) model of the Primary Clarifiers provided by the City. The Consultant shall then assess the suitability of the VH model for the hydraulic capacity analysis, identify data gaps and recommend model updates. Consultant shall agree with the City as to which model updates shall be performed.
