Criteria for determining Lowest Bid Sample Clauses

Open Split View

Download

Share

Cite

Criteria for determining Lowest Bid a) The lowest bid would be decided on the basis of rates quoted by the firms in total as per enclosure – 3 and 4.

Sample 1

Save

Copy

Related to Criteria for determining Lowest Bid

• Determination of Clearing Price The Selling Shareholder and the Placement Agents shall have determined, in writing, the clearing price for the Securities in the Auction.

• Rate Redetermination for Market Change In the event of delay or interruption, exceeding 90 days, under B8.33, Contracting Officer shall make an appraisal to determine for each species the difference between the appraised unit value of Included Timber immediately prior to the delay or interruption and the appraised unit value of Included Timber immediately after the delay or interruption. The appraisal shall be done after any rate redetermination done pursuant to B3.31, using remaining volumes. Tentative Rates and Flat Rates in effect at the time of delay or interruption or established pursuant to B3.31 will be reduced, if appraised rates declined during the delay or interruption, to become Current Contract Rates. Increases in rates will not be considered. Accordingly, Base Rates shall be adjusted to correspond to the redetermined rates if redetermined rates are less than the original Base Rates, subject to a new Base Rate limitation of the cost of essential reforestation or 25 cents per hundred cubic feet or equivalent, whichever is larger. However, existing Base Indices shall not be changed under this Subsection. Redetermined rates shall be considered established under B3.1 for timber Scaled subsequent to the delay or interruption.

• Supervisory Differential Adjustment 99. The Appointing Officer may adjust the compensation of a supervisory employee whose schedule of compensation is set herein subject to the following conditions:

• Salary Determination 12.5.1 A unit member shall receive a salary not less than the minimum salary nor more than the maximum salary (Articles 12.3 and 12.4) for the rank to which appointed, except as provided in Articles 4.15, 5.6, 10.6.1 or Article 10.6.1.1. The effective dates for salaries shall be the appropriate dates specified in Article 12.2.2.

• Eligibility Determination The State or its designee will make eligibility determinations for each of the HHSC HMO Programs.

• Non pre-priced Adjustment Factor To be applied to Work deemed not to be included in the CTC but within the general scope of the work:

• Criteria for Tenure A. The decision to award tenure to an employee shall be a result of meritorious performance and shall be based on established criteria specified in writing by the University. The decision shall take into account the following:

• Calculation of Annual Leave Pay Annual leave shall be paid at the employee’s ordinary weekly wage rate for ordinary hours for the period of annual leave (excluding shift allowances and weekend payments but including leading hand allowance); plus an amount equal to 17.5% of the amount

• Penalty Determination H&SC section 39619.7 requires CARB to provide information on the basis for the penalties it seeks. This Agreement includes this information, which is also summarized here. The provision of law the penalty is being assessed under and why that provision is most appropriate for that violation. The penalty provision being applied in this case is H&SC section 42402 et seq. because IIT sold, supplied, offered for sale, consumer products for commerce in California in violation of the Consumer Products Regulations (17 CCR section 94507 et seq.). The penalty provisions of H&SC section 42402 et seq. apply to violations of the Consumer Products Regulations because the regulations were adopted under authority of H&SC section 41712, which is in Part 4 of Division 26. The manner in which the penalty amount was determined, including aggravating and mitigating factors and per unit or per vehicle basis for the penalty. H&SC section 42402 et seq. provides strict liability penalties of up to $10,000 per day for violations of the Consumer Product Regulations with each day being a separate violation. In cases like this, involving unintentional violations of the Consumer Products Regulations where the violator cooperates with the investigation, CARB has obtained penalties for selling uncertified charcoal lighter material in California. In this case, the total penalty is $7,500 for selling uncertified charcoal lighter material in California. The penalty in this case was reduced because this was a strict liability first-time violation and IIT made diligent efforts to cooperate with the investigation. To come into compliance, IIT no longer offers Safegel BBQ & Fireplace Lighting Gel Fire Starter for commerce in California. Final penalties were determined based on the unique circumstances of this matter, considered together with the need to remove any economic benefit from noncompliance, the goal of deterring future violations and obtaining swift compliance, the consideration of past penalties in similar negotiated cases, and the potential cost and risk associated with litigating these particular violations. The penalty reflects violations extending over a number of days resulting in quantifiable harm to the environment considered together with the complete circumstances of this case. Penalties in future cases might be smaller or larger on a per ton basis. The final penalty in this case was based in part on confidential financial information or confidential business information provided by IIT that is not retained by CARB in the ordinary course of business. The penalty in this case was also based on confidential settlement communications between CARB and IIT that CARB does not retain in the ordinary course of business. The penalty also reflects CARB’s assessment of the relative strength of its case against IIT, the desire to avoid the uncertainty, burden and expense of litigation, obtain swift compliance with the law and remove any unfair advantage that IIT may have secured from its actions. Is the penalty being assessed under a provision of law that prohibits the emission of pollution at a specified level, and, if so a quantification of excess emissions, if it is practicable to do so. The Consumer Product Regulations do not prohibit emissions above a specified level, but they do limit the concentration of VOCs in regulated products. In this case, a quantification of the excess emissions attributable to the violations was not practicable.

• Criteria for Selection a. The Sabbatical Selection Committee shall use four (4) criteria for selection of academic employees to receive sabbaticals. These are: the merit of the sabbatical project, the applicant’s current and previous contributions to the College community, the proposal’s relevancy to the College’s Strategic Plan and whether or not the applicant has had a previous sabbatical. In instances where these criteria are equal, seniority shall be the determining factor.