Develop Mitigation Measures/Recommendations Sample Clauses

Develop Mitigation Measures/Recommendations. When the calculated performance of the existing building elements does not achieve the desired level of protection identified above, conceptual mitigation measures are to be developed to achieve the target level of protection. The Contractor shall propose a minimum of three feasible options for representative vulnerable structural elements or façade types and demonstrate the conceptual attachment of these retrofits to the existing structure. The Contractor shall perform blast vulnerability analyses for each of the proposed options in order to quantify the improved level of protection. The Contractor shall also identify any impact of the proposed options on historical/architectural issues, heating/cooling, or environmental concerns. For each retrofit option, the Contractor shall prepare a Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) cost estimate. In cases where the pressures and impulses are found to make retrofits cost prohibitive or not feasible, the Contractor may present other options such as access restrictions or change of function for particular areas. The retrofit options may include:
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Develop Mitigation Measures/Recommendations

  • 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.

  • Conclusion and Recommendations D. Evaluations for Offenders without a sex offense conviction shall answer the following additional referral questions in the evaluations:

  • Mitigation Measures Company shall take commercially reasonable measures (except measures causing it to incur out-of-pocket expenses which BNYM does not agree in advance to reimburse) to mitigate losses or potential losses to BNYM, including taking verification, validation and reconciliation measures that are commercially reasonable or standard practice in the Company’s business.

  • 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.

  • Rights Protection Mechanisms and Abuse Mitigation ­‐ Registry Operator commits to implementing and performing the following protections for the TLD:

  • REGULATORY FILINGS AND CAISO TARIFF COMPLIANCE 3.1 Filing

  • Implementation Plan The Authority shall cause to be prepared an Implementation Plan meeting the requirements of Public Utilities Code Section 366.2 and any applicable Public Utilities Commission regulations as soon after the Effective Date as reasonably practicable. The Implementation Plan shall not be filed with the Public Utilities Commission until it is approved by the Board in the manner provided by Section 4.9.

  • Required Procurement Procedures for Obtaining Goods and Services The Grantee shall provide maximum open competition when procuring goods and services related to the grant-assisted project in accordance with Section 287.057, Florida Statutes.

  • Human and Financial Resources to Implement Safeguards Requirements 6. The Borrower shall make available necessary budgetary and human resources to fully implement the EMP and the RP.

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