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.
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.
Representations and Recommendations Unless otherwise stated in writing, neither Xxxxxxxx Realty Inc, nor its brokers or licensees have made, on their own behalf, any representations or warranties, express or implied, with respect to any element of the Property including but not limited to, the legal sufficiency, legal effect, or tax consequences of this transaction. Any information furnished by either party should be independently verified before that party relies on such information. Xxxxxxxx Realty Inc. recommends that Buyer consult its attorneys and accountants before signing this Agreement regarding the terms and conditions herein and that Seller satisfy itself as to the financial ability of Buyer to perform.
Conclusion and Recommendations D. Evaluations for Offenders without a sex offense conviction shall answer the following additional referral questions in the evaluations:
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.
Proposal Work Authorizations The State may issue a proposal work authorization under which the Engineer will submit a proposal for additional work. The proposal must be for additional work that is within the defined scope of work under this contract. The amount to be paid for a proposal work authorization will be a lump sum for each proposal. The lump sum payment will be no less than two percent (2%) and no more than four percent (4%) of the State's estimate of the cost of the additional work. The Engineer may elect without penalty not to submit a proposal in response to a proposal work authorization. Any proposal submitted in response to a proposal work authorization will be the sole property of the State. The State may, at its option, issue similar or identical proposal work authorizations under other contracts, and the proposals submitted in response to the various proposal work authorizations may be compared by the State for the purpose of determining the contract under which the work will be awarded. The determination of the contract under which the work will be awarded will be based on the design characteristics of the proposal and the Engineer's qualifications and will not consider the Engineer's rates.
Supplemental Work Authorizations Before additional work may be performed or additional costs incurred, a change in a work authorization shall be enacted by a written supplemental work authorization in the form identified and attached hereto as Attachment D. Both parties must execute a supplemental work authorization within the period of performance specified in the work authorization. The State shall not be responsible for actions by the Engineer or any costs incurred by the Engineer relating to additional work not directly associated with the performance or prior to the execution of the work authorization. The Engineer shall allow adequate time for review and approval of the supplemental work authorization by the State prior to expiration of the work authorization. Any supplemental work authorization must be executed by both parties within the time period established in Article 2 of the contract, (Contract Period). Under no circumstances will a work authorization be allowed to extend beyond the contract's expiration date or will the total amount of funds exceed the maximum amount payable set forth in Article 3A of the contract (Compensation).
SUPPLIER PUBLICATIONS 4.1 Any marketing materials in relation to this Framework Agreement that that Supplier produces must comply in all respects with the Branding Guidance. The Supplier will periodically update and revise such marketing materials.
Recommendations It is recommended that:
Additional proposals If the Company at any time during the continuance of this Agreement desires to modify expand or otherwise vary its activities carried on pursuant to this Agreement beyond those specified in any approved proposal, it shall give notice of such desire to the Minister and within 2 months after giving such notice shall submit to the Minister detailed proposals in respect of such modifications expansions or variations and such other matters as the Minister may require. The provisions of clause 4 and 5 (including (for the avoidance of doubt) clause 5(9)) shall apply, the necessary changes being made, to proposals submitted pursuant to this clause.
