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 Requirements K. If using volunteers as provided for in this Contract during FY19, which encompasses the Contract term of July 1, 2019 to June 30, 2020, then the Grantee must either:
Proof of Compliance with Disability Benefits Coverage Requirements In order to provide proof of compliance with the requirements of the Workers’ Compensation Law pertaining to disability benefits, a contractor shall:
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.
Policy Compliance Violations The Requester and Approved Users acknowledge that the NIH may terminate the DAR, including this Agreement and immediately revoke or suspend access to all controlled-access datasets subject to the NIH GDS Policy at any time if the Requester is found to be no longer in agreement with the principles outlined in the NIH GDS Policy, the terms described in this Agreement, or the Genomic Data User Code of Conduct. The Requester and PI agree to notify the NIH of any violations of the NIH GDS Policy, this Agreement, or the Genomic Data User Code of Conduct data within 24 hours of when the incident is identified. Repeated violations or unresponsiveness to NIH requests may result in further compliance measures affecting the Requester. The Requester and PI agree to notify the appropriate DAC(s) of any unauthorized data sharing, breaches of data security, or inadvertent data releases that may compromise data confidentiality within 24 hours of when the incident is identified. As permitted by law, notifications should include any known information regarding the incident and a general description of the activities or process in place to define and remediate the situation fully. Within 3 business days of the DAC notification(s), the Requester agrees to submit to the DAC(s) a detailed written report including the date and nature of the event, actions taken or to be taken to remediate the issue(s), and plans or processes developed to prevent further problems, including specific information on timelines anticipated for action. The Requester agrees to provide documentation verifying that the remediation plans have been implemented. Repeated violations or unresponsiveness to NIH requests may result in further compliance measures affecting the Requester. All notifications and written reports of data management incidents should be sent to the DAC(s) indicated in the Addendum to this Agreement. NIH, or another entity designated by NIH may, as permitted by law, also investigate any data security incident or policy violation. Approved Users and their associates agree to support such investigations and provide information, within the limits of applicable local, state, tribal, and federal laws and regulations. In addition, Requester and Approved Users agree to work with the NIH to assure that plans and procedures that are developed to address identified problems are mutually acceptable and consistent with applicable law.
Proof of Compliance with Workers’ Compensation Coverage Requirements An XXXXX form is NOT acceptable proof of workers’ compensation coverage. In order to provide proof of compliance with the requirements of the Workers’ Compensation Law pertaining to workers’ compensation coverage, a contractor shall:
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).
Law Compliance In providing the SOLID WASTE HANDLING SERVICES required by this AGREEMENT, CONTRACTOR shall observe and comply with all applicable federal and, state laws, regulations and codes regarding the provision of the SOLID WASTE HANDLING SERVICES described herein, as such may be amended from time to time, including where required by such laws, the funding and maintenance of sufficient closure and post-closure maintenance financial assurances for any landfill operated or utilized by CONTRACTOR for disposal of the SOLID WASTE. Any violation of this Paragraph shall constitute a major breach.
Deemed Compliance with Proposition 65 The Parties agree that compliance by Xxxxxxxx with this Settlement Agreement constitutes compliance with Proposition 65 with respect to exposure to DEHP from use of the Products.
Certification Regarding Termination of Contract for Non-Compliance (Tex Gov. Code 552.374)
