No Substantial Project Sample Clauses

No Substantial Project. Reimbursement Request (SPRR) as defined and detailed in the RSP Policies and Procedures, has been submitted to MAG for a period of 20 months from the date of the last PRR, or the effective date of this Agreement, whichever is later; or
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to No Substantial Project

  • No Subsidiaries The Fund has no subsidiaries.

  • No Sub-Division Not to sub-divide the said Apartment and the Common Areas, under any circumstances.

  • Responsibility for Quality of Materials and Installation Contractor acknowledges that he has full, total, and complete responsibility for providing materials, labor, and all other items necessary for providing the level of quality specified in the Contract Documents. He agrees that this responsibility is indivisible, non-delegable, non- transferable, and not diminished by any inspections provided by the Design Professional or his consulting engineers, nor by any inspections provided by the Owner. In recognition of this, Contractor will prepare for submission and review by the Design Professional, a written program describing the efforts that will be taken to insure the proper quality level is achieved. The program shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a Proceed Order.

  • 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.

  • Obligations relating to Change in Ownership 5.3.1 The Concessionaire shall not undertake or permit any Change in Ownership, except with the prior approval of the Authority.

  • Selection of Subcontractors, Procurement of Materials and Leasing of Equipment The contractor shall not discriminate on the grounds of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age or disability in the selection and retention of subcontractors, including procurement of materials and leases of equipment. The contractor shall take all necessary and reasonable steps to ensure nondiscrimination in the administration of this contract.

  • Upon Substantial Completion of the Work or designated portion thereof and upon application by the Contractor and certification by the Architect, the State shall make payment, reflecting adjustment in retainage, if any, for such Work or portion thereof, as provided in the Contract Documents.

  • After Substantial Completion § 12.2.2.1 In addition to the Contractor’s obligations under Section 3.5, if, within one year after the date of Substantial Completion of the Work or designated portion thereof or after the date for commencement of warranties established under Section 9.9.1, or by terms of any applicable special warranty required by the Contract Documents, any of the Work is found to be not in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents, the Contractor shall correct it promptly after receipt of notice from the Owner to do so, unless the Owner has previously given the Contractor a written acceptance of such condition. The Owner shall give such notice promptly after discovery of the condition. During the one-year period for correction of Work, if the Owner fails to notify the Contractor and give the Contractor an opportunity to make the correction, the Owner waives the rights to require correction by the Contractor and to make a claim for breach of warranty. If the Contractor fails to correct nonconforming Work within a reasonable time during that period after receipt of notice from the Owner or Architect, the Owner may correct it in accordance with Section 2.5.

  • Evaluation of Contractor Performance of the Contractor under this Agreement will be evaluated. The evaluation shall be prepared on Contract/Contractor Evaluation Sheet (STD 4), and maintained in the Agreement file. For consultant agreements, a copy of the evaluation will be sent to the Department of General Services, Office of Legal Services, if it is negative and over $5,000.

  • No Support NVIDIA is under no obligation to provide support for the Licensed Software or to provide any error corrections or updates to the Licensed Software under this XXXX.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.