Comparative Analysis. Following receipt of responses (including oral presentations), and completion of evaluation of each eligible individual Quoter’s response, the Government may perform a comparative analysis (comparing Quoter responses to one another) to select the Quoter(s) that are best suited to fulfill the requirements, based on the Quoters’ responses to the factors outlined in this RFQ and their relative importance.
Comparative Analysis. If Customer is utilizing Comparative Analysis, Vendor requires that the Customer meets Vendor’s requirements for a currently supported Operating System and a spatially accurate map. Vendor will have final approval in those requirements and specifications.
Comparative Analysis. Section VII is dedicated to present a comparative analysis of the proposed solution. Here, the proposed scheme is compared with the work done by Xxx et al. [51], Xxxxxx et al. [53], Xxxxx et al. [42] and Xxxxx et al. [54].
Comparative Analysis. A comparative case study of the four settlements – the Lower Pecos, the San Xxxx-Navajo, the Taos, and the Xxxxxx – revealed that although there are significant underlying differences, the agreements have surprising and significant commonalities. All four of the agreements are highly complex and address long-standing entrenched conflicts. They stem from water rights adjudication processes that have been ongoing for decades. The adjudications and associated settlement agreements involve thousands of diverse litigants and stakeholders with a wide variety of interests. Despite the fact that the four agreements were negotiated largely by local people in different basins with substantially different local characteristics and widely varying amounts of water, the overarching outcomes of the settlements are surprisingly similar. To provide some perspective, Table 2 lists some introductory statistics associated with each of the four case studies. Each of the case studies involves water rights adjudication litigation that was filed decades ago, is highly complex, and remains incomplete. All four involve settlement agreements that were signed within a few years of each other, although the length of time to negotiate each settlement varied widely. The basins vary greatly in size, population, and quantity of water involved. There are Native American lands in each of the basins, but only three of the settlements involve tribes. Correspondingly, although all four settlements require significant government funding, funding from federal sources is provided only for the three settlements involving tribes. Table 2. Basic Statistics Lower Pecos San Xxxx- Navajo Taos Xxxxxx Year Adjudication Filed 1956 1975 1969 1966 Number of Water Rights Claimants ~2000+ ~18,000 ~7,000 ~3,000+ Year Settlement Signed 2003 2005 2006 2006 Population of Basin (in 2000) 139,000 97,000 16,000 11,000 Area of Basin (square miles) 16,777 9,762 524 200 Available Water in Basin (AF/yr)* 125,000 1,100,000 68,000 7,000 Water Rights Settled (AF/yr)* 56,000 326,000 ~65,000 ~7,000 Number of Tribes in Basin 1 3 1 4 Number of Tribes Involved in Settlement 0 1 1 4 Federal Funding ** 0 $820M $120M $170M State Funding** $100M+ $25M $14M $50M Local Government Funding** 0 $30M 0 $62M Total Government Funding** $100M+ $875M $134M $282M * Available Water and Water Rights amounts are based on consumption, not diversion, and are rough estimates meant to allow comparison of the cases. ** Funding amounts are estimates as o...
Comparative Analysis. In the following lines a comparative between different programmes is done. As mentioned at the beginning of this section, in order to compare the programmes developed in this project with others implemented some years ago and well setted, two programmes have been taken into account: "Production technology and organisation Bachelor’s degree" from FH Joanneum and "Bachelor's Degree in Process and Product Innovation Engineering" at IMH. At the same time, in order to compare the most dualized possible Bachelor's programmes, from TUV only the “Naval Architecture and Marine Technology” programme will be taken into account. For comparative purposes, the following criteria were defined:
Comparative Analysis. Russia was the first country with whom the EU started a visa dialogue with the long term perspective of visa- free travel, but is not the only one. Most other VFAs also contain a reference to visa liberalisation, except the agreement with Cape Verde. For most of the Western Balkan countries, a visa-free regime is already in place and also with Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia concrete steps have been taken. The road toward the end-goal takes the same route for all these countries: all of the negotiations are centred around the same four blocks as we can find in the Common Steps. The start of the negotiations with the countries from the Western Balkan was made dependent on the fulfilment of technical reforms proposed by the Union, which took the form of a Roadmap. These lists of technical benchmarks were more or less the same for all the Western Balkan countries. With regard to the countries of the Eastern Partnership, the technical reforms were also grouped in a document and similarly divided into four blocks. But since the EU was reluctant to use the term of “Roadmaps” for these documents,478 because of the fact that the Western Balkans have a clear perspective of EU membership, another term was used. The lists of benchmarks receive the label of “Visa Liberalisation Action Plan” or VLAP.479 From the content of these Action Plans, it becomes clear the EU applies a different approach towards the East, compared to the Balkans. The EU opts for the reference to and the implementation of international norms, rather than EU norms. Since the countries of the Eastern Partnership are geographically part of Europe and members of the Council of Europe, the VLAPs refer to norms agreed upon within that context. Next to the four blocks, the VLAPs are also centred around a dual structure or a two phased approach: a first phase of legislative reforms and a second phase of more specific benchmarks. Also the content of the Blocks differs from the Roadmaps. Regarding Block 1, the VLAPs only refer to international norms and not to EU norms. Next to that, the benchmarks are more specific and far-reaching compared to the Roadmaps.480 Concerning the second block of illegal migration, the VLAPs make clear that any progress is conditional upon the implementation of the readmission agreement concluded with the third countries.481 Next to that, some extra measures must be taken, compared with the Roadmaps. Block 3 lists a number of standard adopted by certain international organisations...
Comparative Analysis. This section compares the proposed BioKA-ASVN’s per- formance with other related competing schemes, such as the schemes suggested by Adavoudi-Jolfaei et al. [7], Ma et al. [8], Xxx et al. [9], Xx et al. [10], Xxxx and Xxxx [35], Xxx and Xxx [6], Ever [11], Xxxxxx et al. [25], Xxxxx et al. [37], and Xxxxx et al. [38].
Comparative Analysis. 2.2.1 Initial and actual time schedule TASK A - TASK MANAGEMENT AND REPORTING TO THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION Deliverables Initially scheduled Actually accom- plished Progress Report I 01/04/2010 29/04/2010 Progress report II 01/12/2010 27/12/2010 Final report 31/11/2011 29/02/2012 Minutes Project meeting I (Expert meeting Am- sterdam) Nov.2009 09/02/2010 Minutes Project meeting II (Prague) May 2010 20/05/2010 Minutes Project meeting III (Madrid) Nov. 2010 10/11/2010 Minutes Project meeting IV (ECOTS Vienna) June 2011 03/08/2011 Minutes Kick off meeting Brussels Nov. 2009 Commission TASK B – DISSEMINATION Deliverables Initially scheduled Actually accom- plished In January 2010 the website xxxxxx-xxxx.xx will be adapted to EUTOPA-IP and will be updated continuously 15/01/2010 - 31/08/2011 30/11/2011 Submitting and Publishing Articles 01/09/2010 – 31/08/2011 31/08/2011 Presentation on the 12th European Conference on Traumatic Stress (ECOTS) in Vienna June 2011 06/06/2011 Electronically Newsletter of Impact Three monthly Number 1 dd. 24/03/2010 Number 2 dd. 11/06/2010 Number 3 dd. 05/11/2010 Number 4 dd. 01/04/2011 Number 5 dd. 09/11/2011 TASK C - PROJECT ANALYSIS AND COLLECTION OF DATA REFERRING TO CURRENT STATE OF RESEARCH Deliverables Initially scheduled Actually accom- plished Analysis of knowledge in the field of crisis man- agement and rehabilitation will be integrated in progress and final report 01/04/2010 01/12/2010 01/11/2011 29/04/2010 27/12/2010 30/11/2011 Analysis of the results of national and European projects will be integrated in progress and final report. 01/04/2010 01/12/2010 01/11/2011 30/11/2011 TASK D - EUROPEAN IMPLEMENTATION OF A GUIDELINE FOR EARLY PSYCHOSOCIAL INTERVENTIONS AMONG UNIFORMED SERVICES Deliverables Initially scheduled Actually accom- plished Literature report February 2010 April 2010 Two day seminar (expert meeting April 2010) April 2010 September 2010 Translation of results (evidence report) August 2011 October 2011 TASK E - TGIP-REHABILITATION Deliverables Initially scheduled Actually accom- plished Report on ICF Adaptation in Disaster Manage- ment June 2010 June 2011 Design of Q-FIS November 2010 June 2011 Report on return-to-work programmes in disabil- ity management of uniformed services November 2010 Nov. 2011 TASK F – TRAINING Deliverables Initially scheduled Actually accom- plished Workshop for Mental Health Professionals at the Centre of Psychotraumatology Sept./ Oct. 2009 17/09/2009 (and addi- tionally 4 trainings 2...
Comparative Analysis. Customer shall not utilize the Software to perform any comparative analysis or benchmarking of the capabilities or functionality of the Software without the prior written consent of STS, which STS may withhold in its reasonable discretion, this prohibition shall not include parallel testing or use of any of the Customer’s business requirements in specifying a new product’s performance requirements.
Comparative Analysis. Data provided by the Airport will be augmented with other industry available information. A comparative analysis on comparable airports that have transferred from a local government-run model to an independent authority to analyze the resulting benefits to financial sustainability and business innovation and effectiveness would be conducted. A review of select airports operating under an Authority model will be performed. Deliverable: White paper on comparable airport findings.
