Model Result Comparison. In this section we examine the robustness of our findings proposing first a comparison across direct and indirect economic assessments and then focussing on the two macro- economic models used.
Model Result Comparison Sample Clauses
Related to Model Result Comparison
FALSE STATEMENTS CONCERNING HIGHWAY PROJECTS T h i s p r o v i s i o n i s applicable to all Federal-aid construction contracts and to all related subcontracts. In order to assure high quality and durable construction in conformity with approved plans and specifications and a high degree of reliability on statements and representations made by engineers, contractors, suppliers, and workers on Federal- aid highway projects, it is essential that all persons concerned with the project perform their functions as carefully, thoroughly, and honestly as possible. Willful falsification, distortion, or misrepresentation with respect to any facts related to the project is a violation of Federal law. To prevent any misunderstanding regarding the seriousness of these and similar acts, Form FHWA-1022 shall be posted on each Federal-aid highway project (23 CFR 635) in one or more places where it is readily available to all persons concerned with the project: 18 U.S.C. 1020 reads as follows: "Whoever, being an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, or of any State or Territory, or whoever, whether a person, association, firm, or corporation, knowingly makes any false statement, false representation, or false report as to the character, quality, quantity, or cost of the material used or to be used, or the quantity or quality of the work performed or to be performed, or the cost thereof in connection with the submission of plans, maps, specifications, contracts, or costs of construction on any highway or related project submitted for approval to the Secretary of Transportation; or Whoever knowingly makes any false statement, false representation, false report or false claim with respect to the character, quality, quantity, or cost of any work performed or to be performed, or materials furnished or to be furnished, in connection with the construction of any highway or related project approved by the Secretary of Transportation; or Whoever knowingly makes any false statement or false representation as to material fact in any statement, certificate, or report submitted pursuant to provisions of the Federal-aid Roads Act approved July 1, 1916, (39 Stat. 355), as amended and supplemented; Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years or both."
Budget Narrative Services are strictly paid as cost reimbursement. No funds will be paid for services not provided.
Expected Results VA’s agreement with DoD to provide educational assistance is a statutory requirement of Chapter 1606, Title 10, U.S.C., Chapter 1607, Title 10, U.S.C., Chapter 30, Title 38, U.S.C. and Chapter 33, Title 38, U.S.C (Post-9/11 GI Xxxx). These laws require VA to make payments to eligible veterans, service members, guard, reservist, and family members under the transfer of entitlement provisions. The responsibility of determining basic eligibility for Chapter 1606 is placed on the DoD. The responsibility of determining basic eligibility for Chapter 30 and Chapter 33 is placed on VA, while the responsibility of providing initial eligibility data for Chapter 30 and Chapter 33 is placed on DoD. Thus, the two agencies must exchange data to ensure that VA makes payments only to those who are eligible for a program. Without an exchange of enrollment and eligibility data, VA would not be able to establish or verify applicant and recipient eligibility for the programs. Subject to the due process requirements, set forth in Article VII.B.1., 38 U.S.C. §3684A, VA may suspend, terminate, or make a final denial of any financial assistance on the basis of data produced by a computer matching program with DoD. To minimize administrative costs of implementation of the law and to maximize the service to the veteran or service member, a system of data exchanges and subsequent computer matching programs was developed. The purposes of the computer matching programs are to minimize the costs of administering the Xxxxxxxxxx GI Xxxx — Active Duty, the Xxxxxxxxxx GI Xxxx — Selected Reserve, Reserve Educational Assistance Program, and the Post-9/11 GI Xxxx program; facilitate accurate payment to eligible veterans or service members training under the Chapter of the Xxxxxxxxxx GI Xxxx — Active Duty, the Xxxxxxxxxx GI Xxxx — Selected Reserve, Reserve Educational Assistance Program, and the Post-9/11 GI Xxxx program; and to avoid payment to those who lose eligibility. The current automated systems, both at VA and DoD, have been developed over the last twenty-two years. The systems were specifically designed to utilize computer matching in transferring enrollment and eligibility data to facilitate accurate payments and avoid incorrect payments. The source agency, DMDC, stores eligibility data on its computer based system of record. The cost of providing this data to VA electronically are minimal when compared to the cost DMDC would incur if the data were forwarded to VA in a hard-copy manner. By comparing records electronically, VA avoids the personnel costs of inputting data manually as well as the storage costs of the DMDC documents. This results in a VA estimated annual savings of $26,724,091 to VA in mailing and data entry costs. DoD reported an estimated annual savings of $12,350,000. A cost-benefit analysis is at Attachment 1. In the 32 years since the inception of the Chapter 30 program, the cost savings of using computer matching to administer the benefit payments for these educational assistance programs have remained significant. The implementation of Chapter 33 has impacted the Chapter 30 program over the past 8 years (fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 2017). Statistics show a decrease of 23 percent in the number of persons who ultimately use Chapter 30 from fiscal year 2015 to 2016. The number of persons who use Chapter 33 has consistently been above 700,000 in the past four years. VA foresees continued cost savings due to the number of persons eligible for the education programs.
Justification and Anticipated Results The Privacy Act requires that each matching agreement specify the justification for the program and the anticipated results, including a specific estimate of any savings. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(o)(1)(B).
Results The five values obtained shall be arranged in order and the median value taken as a result of the measurement. This value shall be expressed in Newtons per centimetre of width of the tape. Annex 7 Minimum requirements for sampling by an inspector
Evaluation Results A. Evaluation results shall be used:
Impact direct impact on people does not necessarily require direct contact, for example, environmental health, trading standards and similar officers may have a direct impact on people, through the implementation or enforcement of regulations, without necessarily having direct contact with those who benefit.
Reporting Model 1 FFI The term Reporting Model 1 FFI means a Financial Institution with respect to which a non-U.S. government or agency thereof agrees to obtain and exchange information pursuant to a Model 1 IGA, other than a Financial Institution treated as a Nonparticipating Financial Institution under the Model 1 IGA. For purposes of this definition, the term Model 1 IGA means an arrangement between the United States or the Treasury Department and a non-U.S. government or one or more agencies thereof to implement FATCA through reporting by Financial Institutions to such non-U.S. government or agency thereof, followed by automatic exchange of such reported information with the IRS.
Initial Forecasts/Trunking Requirements Because Verizon’s trunking requirements will, at least during an initial period, be dependent on the Customer segments and service segments within Customer segments to whom CSTC decides to market its services, Verizon will be largely dependent on CSTC to provide accurate trunk forecasts for both inbound (from Verizon) and outbound (to Verizon) traffic. Verizon will, as an initial matter, provide the same number of trunks to terminate Reciprocal Compensation Traffic to CSTC as CSTC provides to terminate Reciprocal Compensation Traffic to Verizon. At Verizon’s discretion, when CSTC expressly identifies particular situations that are expected to produce traffic that is substantially skewed in either the inbound or outbound direction, Verizon will provide the number of trunks CSTC suggests; provided, however, that in all cases Verizon’s provision of the forecasted number of trunks to CSTC is conditioned on the following: that such forecast is based on reasonable engineering criteria, there are no capacity constraints, and CSTC’s previous forecasts have proven to be reliable and accurate.
quarters At the end of each quarter, the Employer may payout any unused overtime down to seventy-five (75) hours.
