Comparative Evaluation of Samples Sample Clauses

Comparative Evaluation of Samples. CEPI may engage one or more independent third party laboratories or collaborators (“Assessors”) to perform additional testing on Project Materials as specified under Clause 12.3c, at CEPI’s expense, in order to provide CEPI with directly comparable evaluations of similar materials produced under CEPI’s portfolio of awarded projects. All such Assessors shall be bound by confidentiality obligations at least as stringent as those contained in Clause 22.4. CEPI shall inform Awardee through the JMAG about potential Assessors prior to their engagement by CEPI. CEPI may not engage Awardee Competitors as Assessors without Awardee’s consent, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld, delayed or conditioned. [***]. CEPI may, in its sole discretion and at its own expense, also engage certain independent third party entities to transport the samples from Awardee to the Assessor, address import/export issues, or provide any documentation CEPI may determine is required for such samples. The results of the testing, analysis, meta-analysis or other assessments (“Results”) will be subject to the confidentiality obligations under this Agreement. CEPI will provide to the Awardee the Results as are relevant to Awardee’s activities under the Project. In no event will CEPI publish or otherwise disclose any Results without Awardee’s consent, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld, delayed or conditioned.
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Comparative Evaluation of Samples. CEPI may engage one or more independent third party laboratories or collaborators (“Assessors”) to perform additional testing on Project Materials, at CEPI’s expense, in order to provide CEPI with directly comparable evaluations of similar materials produced under CEPI’s portfolio of awarded projects. CEPI may, in its sole discretion and at its own expense, also engage certain independent third party entities to transport the samples from Awardee to the Assessor, address import/export issues, or provide any documentation CEPI may determine is required for such samples. The results of the testing, analysis, meta-analysis or other assessments will be subject to the confidentiality obligations under this Agreement. CEPI will provide to the Awardee the results of such data analysis relevant to Awardee’s activities under the Project.

Related to Comparative Evaluation of Samples

  • Annual Performance Evaluation On either a fiscal year or calendar year basis, (consistently applied from year to year), the Bank shall conduct an annual evaluation of Executive’s performance. The annual performance evaluation proceedings shall be included in the minutes of the Board meeting that next follows such annual performance review.

  • JOC EVALUATION If any materials being utilized for a project cannot be found in the RS Means Price Book, this question is what is the markup percentage on those materials? When answering this question please insert the number that represents your percentage of proposed markup. Example: if you are proposing a 30 percent markup, please insert the number "30". Remember that this is a ceiling markup. You may markup a lesser percentage to the TIPS Member customer when pricing the project, but not a greater percentage. EXAMPLE: You need special materials that are not in the RS Means Unit Price Book for a project. You would buy the materials and xxxx them up to the TIPS Member customer by the percentage you propose in this question. If the materials cost you, the contractor, $100 and you proposed a markup on this question for the material of 30 percent, then you would charge the TIPS Member customer $130 for the materials. TIPS/ESC Region 8 is required by Texas Government Code § 791 to be compensated for its work and thus, failure to agree shall render your response void and it will not be considered. Vendor agrees to remit to TIPS the required administration fee or, if resellers are named, guarantee the fee remittance by or for the reseller named by the vendor?

  • Performance Evaluations The Contractor is subject to an annual performance evaluation to be conducted by NYCDOT pursuant to the PPB Rules.

  • Historical Performance Information To the extent agreed upon by the parties, the Sub-Advisor will provide the Trust with historical performance information on similarly managed investment companies or for other accounts to be included in the Prospectus or for any other uses permitted by applicable law.

  • Annual Evaluation The Partnership will be evaluated on an annual basis through the use of the Strategic Partnership Annual Evaluation Format as specified in Appendix C of OSHA Instruction CSP 00-00-000, OSHA Strategic Partnership Program for Worker Safety and Health. The Choate Team will be responsible for gathering required participant data to evaluate and track the overall results and success of the Partnership. This data will be shared with OSHA. OSHA will be responsible for writing and submitting the annual evaluation.

  • Performance Evaluation The Department may conduct a performance evaluation of Contractor’s Services, including Contractor’s Subcontractors. Results of any evaluation may be made available to Contractor upon request.

  • Final Evaluation IC must submit a final report and a project evaluation to the Arts Commission within thirty (30) days after the completion of the Services. Any and all unexpended funds from IC must be returned to City no later than sixty (60) days after the completion of the Services.

  • Annual Evaluations The purpose of the annual evaluation is to assess and communicate the nature and extent of an employee's performance of assigned duties consistent with the criteria specified below in this Policy. Except for those employees who have received notice of non-reappointment pursuant to the BOT- UFF Policy on Non- reappointment, every employee shall be evaluated at least once annually. Personnel decisions shall take such annual evaluations into account, provided that such decisions need not be based solely on written faculty performance evaluations.

  • TECHNICAL EVALUATION (a) Detailed technical evaluation shall be carried out by Purchase Committee pursuant to conditions in the tender document to determine the substantial responsiveness of each tender. For this clause, the substantially responsive bid is one that conforms to all the eligibility and terms and condition of the tender without any material deviation. The Institute’s determination of bid’s responsiveness is to be based on the contents of the bid itself without recourse to extrinsic evidence. The Institute shall evaluate the technical bids also to determine whether they are complete, whether required sureties have been furnished, whether the documents have been properly signed and whether the bids are in order. (b) The technical evaluation committee may call the responsive bidders for discussion or presentation to facilitate and assess their understanding of the scope of work and its execution. However, the committee shall have sole discretion to call for discussion / presentation. (c) Financial bids of only those bidders who qualify the technical criteria will be opened provided all other requirements are fulfilled. (d) AIIMS Jodhpur shall have right to accept or reject any or all tenders without assigning any reasons thereof.

  • Program Evaluation The School District and the College will develop a plan for the evaluation of the Dual Credit program to be completed each year. The evaluation will include, but is not limited to, disaggregated attendance and retention rates, GPA of high-school-credit-only courses and college courses, satisfactory progress in college courses, state assessment results, SAT/ACT, as applicable, TSIA readiness by grade level, and adequate progress toward the college-readiness of the students in the program. The School District commits to collecting longitudinal data as specified by the College, and making data and performance outcomes available to the College upon request. HB 1638 and SACSCOC require the collection of data points to be longitudinally captured by the School District, in collaboration with the College, will include, at minimum: student enrollment, GPA, retention, persistence, completion, transfer and scholarships. School District will provide parent contact and demographic information to the College upon request for targeted marketing of degree completion or workforce development information to parents of Students. School District agrees to obtain valid FERPA releases drafted to support the supply of such data if deemed required by counsel to either School District or the College. The College conducts and reports regular and ongoing evaluations of the Dual Credit program effectiveness and uses the results for continuous improvement.

Draft better contracts in just 5 minutes Get the weekly Law Insider newsletter packed with expert videos, webinars, ebooks, and more!