H5 Disruption H5.1 The Contractor shall take reasonable care to ensure that in the performance of its obligations under the Contract it does not disrupt the operations of the Authority, its employees or any other contractor employed by the Authority.
Disruption 41.1 The Contractor shall take reasonable care to ensure that in the performance of its obligations under the Framework Agreement it does not disrupt the operations of the Authority, its employees or any other Contractor employed by the Authority.
Substantial Completion Date Substantial Completion of the Work as defined in Article 6.1.2 of the General Conditions to the Continuing Contract for Construction Management shall be achieved by July 31, 2022.
INCLEMENT CONDITIONS Section 1.
At Substantial Completion and Final Completion the Contractor shall provide a certification letter certifying that the Work does not contain asbestos as required by the UTUGCs.
Operational Control Directing the operation of the Transmission Facilities Under ISO Operational Control to maintain these facilities in a reliable state, as defined by the Reliability Rules. The ISO shall approve operational decisions concerning these facilities, made by each Transmission Owner before the Transmission Owner implements those decisions. In accordance with ISO Procedures, the ISO shall direct each Transmission Owner to take certain actions to restore the system to the Normal State. Operational Control includes security monitoring, adjustment of generation and transmission resources, coordination and approval of changes in transmission status for maintenance, determination of changes in transmission status for reliability, coordination with other Control Areas, voltage reductions and Load Shedding, except that each Transmission Owner continues to physically operate and maintain its facilities.
Project Completion Date It is agreed between the Parties that the Project Completion Date is <END DATE, YEAR>. If the Project is not completed by such date then, subject to an amendment agreed to between the Parties, Alberta Innovates may elect to terminate this Investment Agreement. In such event, Alberta Innovates will notify the Applicant of its decision to terminate as soon as reasonably practical and shall advise the Applicant of the effective date of termination. Alberta Innovates will have no liability or obligation to reimburse the Applicant for any Project Costs incurred after the effective date of termination and may require the Applicant to return any portions of the Investment which were spent on Ineligible Expenses. Additionally, any portion of the Investment not used and accounted for in accordance with this Agreement as of the Project Completion Date or earlier termination is repayable by the Applicant to AI at AI’s request.
PROJECT CONDITIONS A. The Grantee agrees to the following Project Conditions:
Substantial Completion “Substantial Completion” means the stage in the progress of the Work when the Work, or designated portions thereof, may still require minor modifications or adjustments but, in the Owner’s opinion, the Work has progressed to the point such that all parts of the Work under consideration are fully operational and usable for intended purposes, as evidenced by a Certificate of Substantial Completion approved by the Owner. If a Certificate of Occupancy is required by public authorities having jurisdiction over the Work, said certificate shall be issued before the Work or any portion thereof is considered substantially complete. When the Contractor considers that the Work, or a portion thereof which the Owner agrees to accept separately, is substantially complete, the Contractor shall notify Owner’s Designated Representative (sometimes referred to as the “ODR”) and request a determination as to whether the Work or designated portion thereof is substantially complete. If the ODR does not consider the Work substantially complete, the ODR will notify the Contractor giving reasons therefore. Failure on the Owner’s part to list a reason does not alter the responsibility of the Contractor to complete all Work in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. After satisfactorily completing items identified by Owner’s Designated Representative, the Contractor shall then submit another request for the ODR to determine Substantial Completion. If The ODR considers the Work substantially complete, The ODR will prepare and deliver a certificate of Substantial Completion which shall establish the date of Substantial Completion, shall include a punch list of items to be completed or corrected before final completion and final payment, shall establish the time within which the Contractor shall finish the punch list, and shall establish responsibilities of the Owner and the Contractor for security, maintenance, heat, utilities, damage to the Work, warranty and insurance. Failure to include an item on the punch list does not alter the responsibility of the Contractor to complete all Work in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The certificate of Substantial Completion shall be signed by the Owner and the Contractor to evidence acceptance of the responsibilities assigned to them in such certificate. Substantial Completion (as defined in this agreement) for all stages of the Work shall be achieved on or before the following Substantial Completion date: DATE FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION: TBD Under no circumstances will the time for Substantial Completion exceed this date without a written amendment to this Agreement. THE TIMES SET FORTH IN THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS ARE AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF THE AGREEMENT. TIME LIMITS STATED IN THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS ARE OF THE ESSENCE OF THIS AGREEMENT.
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.
