NEED FOR DISCUSSIONS Sample Clauses

NEED FOR DISCUSSIONS. M.6.1 In accordance with solicitation provision FAR 52.215-1, the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Any communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions. Therefore, offerors are cautioned to provide their best terms for both cost/price and non-priced technical submission within their initial offers. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions, if the Contracting Officer determines that discussions are necessary or are otherwise in the Government’s best interest.
Sample 1Sample 2
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
NEED FOR DISCUSSIONS. In accordance with solicitation provision FAR 52.215-1, the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Any communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions. Therefore, offerors are cautioned to provide their best terms for both cost/price and non-priced technical submission within their initial offers. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions, if the Contracting Officer determines that discussions are necessary or are otherwise in the Government’s best interest. If discussions are determined necessary, the Contracting Officer will include only those firms deemed to be the most highly rated with a reasonable chance for award. In certain circumstances, the Government may limit offers in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated offers. The Government may exclude an offer if it is so deficient as to require extensive discussions and major revisions such as to allow an offeror an unfair advantage over those having competitive offers. If discussions are required, offerors included in the competitive range shall receive a list of the significant weaknesses and deficiencies, found in their proposals. Offerors shall be given an opportunity by the Contracting Officer to respond in writing. Responses, subsequent proposal revisions, and final proposal revisions shall be submitted in both electronic and hard copy format. The Contracting Officer will notify all offerors in the competitive range, in writing, how and when interim revisions and final proposal revisions are to be submitted. If the offeror’s cost/price proposal is revised, the changes in the proposal must be explained, traceable, and understandable. Upon conclusion of discussions, those offerors still within the competitive range will be afforded an opportunity to submit their final revised proposal.
Sample 1
NEED FOR DISCUSSIONS. 5.1 In accordance with solicitation provision FAR 52.215-1, the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without “discussions” with Offerors. The Government however reserves the right to conduct “discussions”, if the Contracting Officer determines that discussions are necessary or are otherwise in the Government's best interest. Considering the foregoing, Offerors are cautioned to provide their best terms for both cost/price and non-cost/price factor submission with their initial offers, and not automatically assume they will be included in the competitive range for “discussions”, if “discussions” are deemed necessary. Note that “clarifications”, as described in FAR 15.306(a), conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors do not constitute “discussions”.
Sample 1

Related to NEED FOR DISCUSSIONS

  • Informal Discussions The employee's concerns will be presented orally by the employee to the appropriate supervisor. Every effort shall be made by all concerned in an informal manner to develop an understanding of the facts and the issues in order to create a climate which will lead to resolution of the problem. If the employee is not satisfied with the informal discussion(s) relative to the matter in question, he/she may proceed to the formal grievance procedure.

  • Mutual Discussions The Employer and the Union acknowledge the mutual benefits to be derived from dialogue between the parties and are prepared to discuss matters of common interest.

  • Formal Discussions Section 3.1.1. Pursuant to 5 USC 7114(a)(2)(A), the Union shall be given the opportunity to be represented at any formal discussion between one or more employees it represents and one or more representatives of the Employer concerning any grievance (to include settlement discussions) or any personnel policy or practice or other general condition of employment. This right to be represented does not extend to informal discussions between an employee and a supervisor concerning a personal problem, or work methods and assignments.

  • Informal Discussion If an employee has a problem relating to a work situation, the employee is encouraged to request a meeting with his or her immediate supervisor to discuss the problem in an effort to clarify the issue and to work cooperatively towards settlement.

  • General Meetings 19. The Academy Trust shall hold an Annual General Meeting each year in addition to any other meetings in that year, and shall specify the meeting as such in the notices calling it; and not more than fifteen months shall elapse between the date of one Annual General Meeting of the Academy Trust and that of the next. Provided that so long as the Academy Trust holds its first Annual General Meeting within eighteen months of its incorporation, it need not hold it in the year of its incorporation or in the following year. The Annual General Meeting shall be held at such time and place as the Governors shall appoint. All meetings other than Annual General Meetings shall be called General Meetings.

  • Informal Meetings The Engineer shall provide technical assistance, preparation of exhibits for, and minutes of informal meetings requested by the public to discuss the pending impacts to neighborhoods and businesses due to roadway shutdowns, detours and access restrictions or as deemed necessary. This is not to be confused with the formal public meetings held during the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process during schematic approval for Public Involvement. It is not anticipated that the Engineer’s participation will be needed for the NEPA process. Assistance (exhibits, attendance, etc.) may be required for a formal public meeting/hearing associated with schematic approval work.

  • Results and Discussion Table 1 (top) shows the root mean square error (RMSE) between the three tests for different numbers of topics. These results show that all three tests largely agree with each other but as the sample size (number of topics) decreases, the agreement decreases. In line with the results found for 50 topics, the randomization and bootstrap tests agree more with the t-test than with each other. We looked at pairwise scatterplots of the three tests at the different topic sizes. While there is some disagreement among the tests at large p-values, i.e. those greater than 0.5, none of the tests would predict such a run pair to have a significant difference. More interesting to us is the behavior of the tests for run pairs with lower p-values. ≥ Table 1 (bottom) shows the RMSE among the three tests for run pairs that all three tests agreed had a p-value greater than 0.0001 and less than 0.5. In contrast to all pairs with p-values 0.0001 (Table 1 top), these run pairs are of more importance to the IR researcher since they are the runs that require a statistical test to judge the significance of the per- formance difference. For these run pairs, the randomization and t tests are much more in agreement with each other than the bootstrap is with either of the other two tests. Looking at scatterplots, we found that the bootstrap tracks the t-test very well but shows a systematic bias to produce p-values smaller than the t-test. As the number of topics de- creases, this bias becomes more pronounced. Figure 1 shows a pairwise scatterplot of the three tests when the number of topics is 10. The randomization test also tends to produce smaller p-values than the t-test for run pairs where the t- test estimated a p-value smaller than 0.1, but at the same time, produces some p-values greater than the t-test’s. As Figure 1 shows, the bootstrap consistently gives smaller p- values than the t-test for these smaller p-values. While the bootstrap and the randomization test disagree with each other more than with the t-test, Figure 1 shows that for a low number of topics, the randomization test shows less noise in its agreement with the bootstrap com- Figure 1: A pairwise comparison of the p-values less than 0.25 produced by the randomization, t-test, and the bootstrap tests for pairs of TREC runs with only 10 topics. The small number of topics high- lights the differences between the three tests. pared to the t-test for small p-values.

  • Settlement Discussions This Agreement is part of a proposed settlement of matters that could otherwise be the subject of litigation among the Parties hereto. Nothing herein shall be deemed an admission of any kind. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 408 and any applicable state rules of evidence, this Agreement and all negotiations relating thereto shall not be admissible into evidence in any proceeding other than to prove the existence of this Agreement or in a proceeding to enforce the terms of this Agreement.

  • Public Meetings The Governing Board is subject to and shall comply with the Open and Public Meetings Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-14-1 et seq., and any subsequent amendment thereof. The Governing Board shall conduct regular meetings consistent with principles of transparency and avoidance of actual or apparent conflicts of interest in the governance of the Charter School.

  • After School Meetings 1. The parties agree that attendance at three (3) PTA meetings or Open Houses shall be required. Employees serving in more than one (1) school building shall not be required to attend more than three (3) meetings. The employee and respective school principals shall arrange an appropriate visitation schedule at alternating sites. The employee will be available for all students under his/her supervision. Attendance at additional PTA meetings shall be by mutual agreement between the faculty and the principal.

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