OVERALL FAIRNESS OF ADMINISTRATION Sample Clauses

OVERALL FAIRNESS OF ADMINISTRATION. Despite a variety of minor disagreements and concerns, and two fundamental disagreements, Xxxxxx Seco Consulting’s overall judgment was that PG&E’s administration of its protocols to arrive at a short list for the 2009 RPS RFO was fair, unbiased, consistent, and reasonable. Some of the disagreements between Xxxxxx and the PG&E team fall into the category of choices that Xxxxxx would have not made if it were administering the solicitation, but that Xxxxxx agrees are choices a reasonable person could make if that person had different priorities or emphases regarding the weights assigned to evaluation criteria. Most of PG&E’s decisions to select for the short list Offers whose Project Viability Scores fell below its viability cutoff, on the basis of superior scores on attributes such as RPS Goals, supplier diversity, or technology diversity, fall into this category. Similarly, PG&E’s decision to reject from the short list the highest valued Offers it received on the basis of a preference for early on-line dates is one that Xxxxxx would not have made, but may be a reasonable choice for a utility that has obligations to achieve near-term targets for RPS compliance. PG&E did select for its short list two Offers that, in Xxxxxx’x opinion but not in PG&E’s, are sufficiently low in demonstrated project viability that these choices raise a question about the fairness and consistency of the decisions to select them. This disagreement represents a situation where reasonable observers can arrive at opposing opinions about the viability of a transaction given the same presented facts.
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3See All (8)
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
OVERALL FAIRNESS OF ADMINISTRATION. Despite a variety of minor disagreements, Xxxxxx Seco Consulting’s overall judgment is that PG&E’s administration of its protocols to arrive at a short list for the 2011 RPS RFO was fair, unbiased, consistent, and reasonable. Most disagreements between Xxxxxx and the PG&E team fall into the category of choices that Xxxxxx would have not made if it were administering the solicitation, but that Xxxxxx agrees are choices a reasonable person could make if that person had different priorities or emphases regarding the weights assigned to evaluation criteria. Xxxxxx believes that PG&E’s preferences and its choices are within the realm of “reasonable business judgment” that the CPUC allows IOUs to exercise in energy procurement.
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3See All (4)
OVERALL FAIRNESS OF ADMINISTRATION. Despite a handful of disagreements, Xxxxxx Seco Consulting’s overall judgment is that PG&E’s decisions to select or reject Offers to arrive at a short list for the 2012 RPS RFO was reasonable and justifiable, overall. Most disagreements between Xxxxxx and the PG&E team fall into the category of choices that Xxxxxx would have not made if it were designing and administering the solicitation, but that Xxxxxx agrees are choices a reasonable person could make if that person had different priorities or emphases regarding the weights assigned to evaluation criteria. The choices with which Xxxxxx disagrees reflect (1) PG&E’s view of which utilities’ network upgrade costs should be counted in valuing Offers, (2) the relative priority PG&E assigns to some of the non-quantitative evaluation criteria (such as RFO Goals) vs. valuation, and (3) PG&E’s judgment about how much risk of project failure from viability issues to accept in making short list selections. Xxxxxx believes that in each case, PG&E’s preferences and its choices are within the realm of “reasonable business judgment” that the CPUC allows IOUs to exercise in energy procurement. Xxxxxx’x subjective judgment would differ from PG&E’s in making these choices, as might the judgment of some policymakers and other observers. Participants whose high-value Offers were rejected while lower-valued proposals were shortlisted might perceive PG&E’s choices as unfair, but the utility’s choices were in most cases rooted in evaluation criteria stated in the public solicitation protocol. Xxxxxx doubts however that an IOU should reject a high-valued Offer simply because the size of the proposed project is small, while selecting lower-valued Offers. While Xxxxxx believes that PG&E may be justified in its choice to omit transmission adders when valuing Offers for IID-interconnecting projects because those costs do not directly affect PG&E ratepayers, in Xxxxxx’x opinion the practice is not particularly fair. Also, nothing in PG&E’s public or non-public protocols suggests that the transmission network upgrade cost will not be applied for such projects, so this choice lacks transparency. On that basis, Xxxxxx’x opinion is that PG&E’s administration of its methodology was overall reasonable and justifiable but that the treatment of IID-interconnecting projects was less than fully fair.
Sample 1Sample 2See All (4)
OVERALL FAIRNESS OF ADMINISTRATION. Despite a variety of minor disagreements, Xxxxxx Seco Consulting’s overall judgment is that PG&E’s administration of its protocols to arrive at a short list for the 2011 RPS RFO was fair, unbiased, consistent, and reasonable.
Sample 1

Related to OVERALL FAIRNESS OF ADMINISTRATION

  • Settlement Administration The Settlement Administrator will conduct a skip trace for the address of all former employee Class Members. The Settlement Administrator will mail the Notice by first class U.S. mail to all Class Members at the address Defendants have on file for those Class Members and to all former employee Class Members at the address resulting from the skip trace. The Notice will inform Class Members that they have until the Response Deadline to either object to the Settlement or to opt-out of the Settlement. Any Class Member who does not receive Notice after the steps outlined above have been taken will still be bound by the Settlement and/or judgment.

  • Records Administration and Audit 14.1.1 The Contractor shall maintain books, records, documents, and other evidence pertaining to this Master Agreement and Orders placed by Purchasing Entities under it to the extent and in such detail as will adequately reflect performance and administration of payments and fees. Contractor shall permit the Lead State, a Participating Entity, a Purchasing Entity, the federal government (including its grant awarding entities and the U.S. Comptroller General), and any other duly authorized agent of a governmental agency, to audit, inspect, examine, copy and/or transcribe Contractor's books, documents, papers and records directly pertinent to this Master Agreement or orders placed by a Purchasing Entity under it for the purpose of making audits, examinations, excerpts, and transcriptions. This right will survive for a period of six (6) years following termination of this Agreement or final payment for any order placed by a Purchasing Entity against this Master Agreement, whichever is later, or such longer period as is required by the Purchasing Entity’s state statutes, to assure compliance with the terms hereof or to evaluate performance hereunder.

  • RECORDS ADMINISTRATION Contractor shall maintain or supervise the maintenance of all records necessary to properly account for Contractor’s performance and the payments made by the State Entity to Contractor under this Contract. These records shall be retained by Contractor for at least six (6) years after final payment, or until all audits initiated within the six (6) years have been completed, whichever is later. Contractor agrees to allow, at no additional cost, State of Utah and federal auditors, and State Entity staff, access to all such records.

  • Financial Management System Subrecipient shall establish and maintain a sound financial management system, based upon generally accepted accounting principles. Contractor’s system shall provide fiscal control and accounting procedures that will include the following:

  • Administration of Medication CONTRACTOR shall comply with the requirements of California Education Code section 49423 when CONTRACTOR serves a student that is required to take prescription and/or over-the-counter medication during the school day. CONTRACTOR may designate personnel to assist the student with the administration of such medication after the student’s parent(s) provides to CONTRACTOR: (a) a written statement from a physician detailing the type, administration method, amount, and time schedules by which such medication shall be taken; and (b) a written statement from the student’s parent(s) granting CONTRACTOR permission to administer medication(s) as specified in the physician’s statement. CONTRACTOR shall maintain, and provide to LEA upon request, copies of such written statements. CONTRACTOR shall maintain a written log for each student to whom medication is administered. Such written log shall specify the student’s name; the type of medication; the date, time, and amount of each administration; and the name of CONTRACTOR’s employee who administered the medication. CONTRACTOR maintains full responsibility for assuring appropriate staff training in the administration of such medication consistent with physician’s written orders. Any change in medication type, administration method, amount or schedule must be authorized by both a licensed physician and parent.

  • Agreement Administration SBBC has delegated authority to the Superintendent of Schools or his/her designee to take any actions necessary to implement and administer this Agreement.

  • Grant Administration Grantee shall use the Grant funds only for the activities described in the approved Scope of Work. Grantee shall maintain financial records relating to the receipt and expenditure of all Grant funds in accordance with the terms set forth under this Agreement for a period of seven (7) years starting on the first day after final payment under the Agreement.

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