Contingency Plan Contractor is aware that unforeseen circumstances, Including damage to their Facility(ies), equipment breakdowns, weather-related emergencies and other Force Majeur events, may require their participation in non-scheduled operations in order to provide continuous service to the public. Contractor hereby acknowledges that, under this Agreement, they are prepared to commit to participation in training for such emergency scenarios and to provide vehicles and personnel to maintain uninterrupted service during impairment or breakdown of Contractor’s Facility or equipment, and in case of natural disaster or other emergency, Including the events described in Section 14.09.
Contingency Planning The Official Agency in conjunction with the Authority shall ensure that there are contingency plans in place at appropriate levels for dealing with food related crises and incidents. The contingency plan shall be in line with Article 115 of Regulation (EU) 2017/625 and include arrangements for activation of the plan, establishment of a crisis team, communication and information, out of hours contacts and on call services. As part of these plans, the Official Agency will provide the Authority with contact points for both office hours and out of office hours contact for emergency and crisis situations. The Official Agency shall facilitate training of personnel in the operation and exercise of the contingency plans. Periodic review of the plans shall take place in consultation with the Authority. The Official Agency shall implement the agreed Inter-Agency Protocol for the Management of a Food Crisis and guidance on Management of Outbreaks of Foodborne Illness as per Section 1.19.
Emergency Plan LIDDA shall develop and maintain an Emergency Plan as prescribed in section 2.10.6 Attachment A-1, Statement of Work.
Conclusions and Recommendations The demonstration and evaluation process provided an opportunity to test community specific tools with a range of end users from the memory institution domain and to gain greater insight into both the current and future evolution of the SHAMAN prototypes for preservation, access and re-use. Xxxx et al. (2000) in their user evaluation study of the Alexandria Digital Library which incorporated the evaluation of a Web prototype by earth scientists, information specialists and educators raised four key questions in relation to their findings that SHAMAN may be well advised to consider, they are paraphrased here with our conclusions from the investigations. What have we learned about our target organizations and potential users? Memory institutions are most definitely not a homogenised group; their needs and requirements differ greatly across the domain. Representatives of the archives community are agreed on the benefits of SHAMAN‟s authenticity validation function. The representatives of government information services remained unconvinced as to the need or benefit of grid technologies or distributed ingest while librarians saw the value of grid access as an asset of the framework. What have we learned about the evaluation approach for digital preservation? Within the limits of the exercise, in terms of time-frame and resources, the approach adopted has generated useful information for the further development of demonstrators and for the development of the SHAMAN framework overall. What have we learned about the SHAMAN ISP1 demonstrator? Respondents to the evaluation questionnaires and the focus groups indicate that, overall, the presentation of the demonstrator worked effectively and that, in general, participants in the demonstration and evaluation events were able to understand the intentions of the demonstration and to apply the ideas presented to their own context. What have we learned about the applicability of the SHAMAN framework to memory institutions? Respondents to the questionnaires and participants in the focus groups readily identified the value of the SHAMAN framework to their own operations. The majority had not yet established a long-term digital preservation policy, but recognized the need. Generally, the concepts of distributed ingest and grid operations found favour. Virtually all practitioners in the focus groups, however, drew attention to need of a lower level demonstration that would be closer to their everyday preservation troubles, especially for digital preservation to be applied to non-textual materials, such as film, photographs and sound archives. In addition to the criteria suggested by Xxxx et al., we can add a further project-related question: What have we learned that has implications for the training and dissemination phase of the Project? It was not part of the remit of the demonstration and evaluation specifically to discover information of relevance to the training and dissemination function. However, a number of factors will affect the efficacy of any training programme in particular. o First, no common understanding of digital preservation can be assumed of the potential target audiences for training. Consequently, it is likely that self-paced learning materials will be most effective in presenting the SHAMAN framework. o Secondly, the aims of SHAMAN as a project must be conveyed clearly: specifically, that it is a kind of „proof-of-concept‟ project and is not intended to deliver a package of programs capable of being implemented by institutions. o Thirdly, it needs to be emphasised that the SHAMAN framework is not limited to text documents; it can be applied to materials of all kinds. However, the demonstrations relate to bodies of material that were actually available for use. o Fourthly, the existing presentation materials are capable of being adapted for use in training activities. o Finally, the target audiences will appreciate the possibility of online access to the demonstrator, which will need to have very great ease of access in order that people with diverse backgrounds are able to use it with equal facility. We believe that, overall, WP14 has met its aims and objectives in this demonstration and evaluation of ISP1. Valuable lessons have been learnt by all parties involved, which will be transferred to the evaluation of ISP2 in the coming months.
Conclusion and Recommendations D. Evaluations for Offenders without a sex offense conviction shall answer the following additional referral questions in the evaluations:
Manufacturer's Recommendations All work or materials shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations and requirements. The Contractor shall obtain the manufacturer’s recommendations and requirements, for its use at the Site in executing the Work, copies of bulletins, circulars, catalogues, or other publications bearing the manufacturer’s titles, numbers, editions, dates, etc. If the manufacturer’s recommendations and requirements are not available, the Contractor shall request installation instructions from the Design Professional.
ETHICS IN PUBLIC CONTRACTING This Contract incorporates by reference Article 9 of the Arlington County Purchasing Resolution, as well as all state and federal laws related to ethics, conflicts of interest or bribery, including the State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act (Code of Virginia § 2.2-3100 et seq.), the Virginia Governmental Frauds Act (Code of Virginia § 18.2-498.1 et seq.) and Articles 2 and 3 of Chapter 10 of Title 18.2 of the Code of Virginia, as amended (§ 18.2-438 et seq.). The Contractor certifies that its proposal was made without collusion or fraud; that it has not offered or received any kickbacks or inducements from any other offeror, supplier, manufacturer or subcontractor; and that it has not conferred on any public employee having official responsibility for this procurement any payment, loan, subscription, advance, deposit of money, services or anything of more than nominal value, present or promised, unless consideration of substantially equal or greater value was exchanged.
JOINT SETTLEMENT RECOMMENDATION 2. Staff conducted an investigation of the Respondent’s activities. The investigation disclosed that the Respondent had engaged in activity for which the Respondent could be penalized on the exercise of the discretion of the Hearing Panel pursuant to s. 24.1 of By-law No. 1.
Solid Waste The Licensee shall have to make arrangements for disposal of solid waste, which shall be got removed from the premises on a daily basis to ensure perfect cleanliness as per Corporation of Chennai Norms. The Licensee shall have to make arrangements for the solid waste to be separated into glass, plastic and food waste and for the food waste to be treated in a shredder to be converted into a paste. The waste shall need to be expelled into a common dump or waste area provided/ indicated by CMRL. If solid waste is found disposed of on CMRL land or premises a penalty/fine of Rs.2000/- shall be imposed by CMRL for each occasion.
Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Contractor understands that HHS does not tolerate any type of fraud, waste, or abuse. Violations of law, agency policies, or standards of ethical conduct will be investigated, and appropriate actions will be taken. Pursuant to Texas Government Code, Section 321.022, if the administrative head of a department or entity that is subject to audit by the state auditor has reasonable cause to believe that money received from the state by the department or entity or by a client or contractor of the department or entity may have been lost, misappropriated, or misused, or that other fraudulent or unlawful conduct has occurred in relation to the operation of the department or entity, the administrative head shall report the reason and basis for the belief to the Texas State Auditor’s Office (SAO). All employees or contractors who have reasonable cause to believe that fraud, waste, or abuse has occurred (including misconduct by any HHS employee, Grantee officer, agent, employee, or subcontractor that would constitute fraud, waste, or abuse) are required to immediately report the questioned activity to the Health and Human Services Commission's Office of Inspector General. Contractor agrees to comply with all applicable laws, rules, regulations, and System Agency policies regarding fraud, waste, and abuse including, but not limited to, HHS Circular C-027. A report to the SAO must be made through one of the following avenues: ● SAO Toll Free Hotline: 1-800-TX-AUDIT ● SAO website: xxxx://xxx.xxxxx.xxxxx.xx.xx/ All reports made to the OIG must be made through one of the following avenues: ● OIG Toll Free Hotline 0-000-000-0000 ● OIG Website: XxxxxxXxxxxXxxxx.xxx ● Internal Affairs Email: XxxxxxxxXxxxxxxXxxxxxxx@xxxx.xxxxx.xx.xx ● OIG Hotline Email: XXXXxxxxXxxxxxx@xxxx.xxxxx.xx.xx. ● OIG Mailing Address: Office of Inspector General Attn: Fraud Hotline MC 1300 P.O. Box 85200 Austin, Texas 78708-5200
