Method 3. Financial offer and quality
(a) Score each tender in respect of the financial offer made and the quality offered in accordance with the provisions of F.3.11.7 and F.3.11.9, rejecting all tender offers that fail to score the minimum number of points for quality stated in the tender data, if any.
(b) Calculate the total number of tender evaluation points (TEV) in accordance with the following formula: TEV = NFO + NQ where: NFO is the number of tender evaluation points awarded for the financial offer made in accordance with F.3.11.7; NQ is the number of tender evaluation points awarded for quality offered in accordance with F.3.11.9.
(c) Rank tender offers from the highest number of tender evaluation points to the lowest.
(d) Recommend tenderer with the highest number of tender evaluation points for the award of the contract, unless there are compelling and justifiable reasons not to do so.
(e) Rescore and re-rank all tenderers should there be compelling and justifiable reasons not to recommend the tenderer with the highest number of tender evaluation points and recommend the tenderer with the highest number of tender evaluation points, unless there are compelling and justifiable reasons not to do so and the process set out in this sub clause is repeated.
Method 3. The amount determined by any reasonable method of allocating income or loss to the Participant’s Excess Aggregate Contributions for the Plan Year and for the gap period, provided the method used is the same method used for allocating income or losses to Participants’ Accounts. This Plan will not fail to use a reasonable method for computing the income allocable to Excess Aggregate Contributions merely because the income allocable to such Excess Aggregate Contributions is determined on a date that is no more than 7 days before the distribution.
Method 3. Financial offer and quality In the case of a financial offer and quality:
a) Score each tender in respect of the financial offer made and the quality offered in accordance with the provisions of F.3.11.7 and F.3.11.9, rejecting all tender offers that fail to score the minimum number of points for quality stated in the tender data, if any.
b) Calculate the total number of tender evaluation points (TEV) in accordance with the following formula:
Method 3. Financial offer and quality
Method 3. Financial offer and quality
a) Score each tender in respect of the financial offer made and the quality offered in accordance with the provisions of F.3.11.7 and F.3.11.9, rejecting all tender offers that fail to score the minimum number of points for quality stated in the tender data, if any.
b) Calculate the total number of tender evaluation points (TEV) in accordance with the following formula: TEV =NFO + NQ where: NFO is the number of tender evaluation points awarded for the financial offer made in accordance with F.3.11.7; NQ is the number of tender evaluation points awarded for quality offered in accordance with F.3.11.9.
c) Rank tender offers from the highest number of tender evaluation points to the lowest.
d) Recommend tenderer with the highest number of tender evaluation points for the award of the contract, unless there are compelling and justifiable reasons not to do so.
e) Rescore and re-rank all tenderers should there be compelling and justifiable reasons not to recommend the tenderer with the highest number of tender evaluation points and recommend the tenderer with the highest number of tender evaluation points, unless there are compelling and justifiable reasons not to do so and the process set out in this sub-clause is repeated.
Method 3. As an alternative to Method 2, replace the original actuating shaft with a new reinforced shaft according to Figure 1. For rigging and derigging procedures, refer to the flight manual, page E12. After accomplishing repairs according to Method 2, or replacement of the actuating shaft according to Method 3, the aileron deflections must be checked. Plates, welding material, and spare parts as mentioned are available from the manufacturer.
Method 3. Census data. The site address must be within an eligible low-income census tract or census block group where at least 50% of the population has income at or below 185 percent of the Federal Poverty Level. If the program is targeting a specific race/ethnicity, the most current data for that group may be used. Use the CalFresh Healthy Living Geographic Information System (CFHL GIS) to identify a qualifying census tract.
Method 3. Figure 3. (Left) Depiction of the methods utilized in the fabrication of the PbI2 dispersion. (Right) Optical microscopic images (magnification 202x) of the corresponding printed PbI2 layers where the printing inks are made following the methods described on the left. In addition to citric acid and ethanol:2-butoxyethanol, several ligands and solvents were also tested. • Ligands: butylamine, octylamine, oleylamine, acetohydroxamic acid, benzhydroxamic acid, polyacrylic acid (PAA) and poly(4-vinyl pyrrolidone) (PVP) • Solvents: EDGA, PGMEA, 2-butoxyethyl acetate and water But none of the listed combinations resulted into a stable dispersion prepared with the Method 2. As it became obvious that ultrasonication was an insufficient way to achieve a stable dispersion, another mixing method was tested. In Method 3 (shown in Figure 3c)), the ink vial was placed on a roller bench where it was rotated for one week at room temperature. This method introduced continuous grinding by the mixing balls (ZrO, d = 0.5 cm) that eventually led to smaller PbI2 particles and smoother printed films. Still, the dispersion was not stable and the surface coverage of the printed PbI2 particles was incomplete (Figure 3c)). At this point, the functionality of citric acid as the ligand was re-evaluated and also other approaches were considered. Several commercial dispersing agents were tested and they are listed in Table 2. The dispersing agent was mixed with the solvent system followed by adding the PbI2-CA powder and mixing on the roller bench.
Method 3. The amount determined by any reasonable method of allocating income or loss to the Participant’s Excess Elective Deferrals for the taxable year and for the gap period, provided the method used is the same method used for allocating income or losses to the Participant’s Account (or any sub-account of the Participant’s Account). This Plan will not fail to use a reasonable method for computing the income allocable to excess deferrals merely because the income allocable to such excess deferrals is determined on a date that is no more than 7 days before the distribution.
Method 3. The surface shall be covered with moist earth not less than 4 hours nor more than 24 hours after the concrete is placed. Earthwork operations that may damage the concrete shall not begin until at least 7 Days after placement of concrete.
