Representation by Engineer The Engineer represents that its firm has no conflict of interest that would in any way interfere with its or its employees’ performance of services for the department or which in any way conflicts with the interests of the department. The Engineer further certifies that this agreement is not barred because of a conflict of interest pursuant to Texas Government Code, Section 2261.252, between it and the State. Specifically, the Engineer certifies that none of the following individuals, nor any or their family members within the second degree of affinity or consanguinity, owns 1% or more interest, or has a financial interest as defined under Texas Government Code, Section 2261.252(b), in the Engineer: any member of the Texas Transportation Commission, TxDOT’s Executive Director, General Counsel, Chief of Procurement and Field Support Operations, Director of Procurement, or Director of Contract Services. The firm shall exercise reasonable care and diligence to prevent any actions or conditions that could result in a conflict with the department's interests.
ACTION BY BOARD In the absence of a recommendation from the superintendent pursuant to this section, or when the board of education chooses not to accept the superintendent's recommendation, the board may initiate action without such recommendation provided that it adheres to the other provisions of this policy.
Conclusion and Recommendations D. Evaluations for Offenders without a sex offense conviction shall answer the following additional referral questions in the evaluations:
RECOMMENDATION OF LEGAL AND TAX COUNSEL By signing this document, Xxxxx acknowledges that Xxxxxx has 210 advised that this document has important legal consequences and has recommended consultation with legal and tax or other counsel 211 before signing this Buyer Listing Contract.
Updated Information Submission by Developer The updated information submission by the Developer, including manufacturer information, shall occur no later than one hundred eighty (180) Calendar Days prior to the Trial Operation. Developer shall submit a completed copy of the Large Generating Facility data requirements contained in Appendix 1 to the Large Facility Interconnection Procedures. It shall also include any additional information provided to Connecting Transmission Owner for the Interconnection Feasibility Study and Interconnection Facilities Study. Information in this submission shall be the most current Large Generating Facility design or expected performance data. Information submitted for stability models shall be compatible with NYISO standard models. If there is no compatible model, the Developer will work with a consultant mutually agreed to by the Parties to develop and supply a standard model and associated information. If the Developer’s data is different from what was originally provided to Connecting Transmission Owner and NYISO pursuant to an Interconnection Study Agreement among Connecting Transmission Owner, NYISO and Developer and this difference may be reasonably expected to affect the other Parties’ facilities or the New York State Transmission System, but does not require the submission of a new Interconnection Request, then NYISO will conduct appropriate studies to determine the impact on the New York State Transmission System based on the actual data submitted pursuant to this Article 24.3. Such studies will provide an estimate of any additional modifications to the New York State Transmission System, Connecting Transmission Owner’s Attachment Facilities, or System Upgrade Facilities or System Deliverability Upgrades based on the actual data and a good faith estimate of the costs thereof. The Developer shall not begin Trial Operation until such studies are completed. The Developer shall be responsible for the cost of any modifications required by the actual data, including the cost of any required studies.
Recommendation The Sheriff recommends approval of the Board Order. The County Administrator concurs with the recommendation of the Sheriff. Should the Board of Commissioners concur with their recommendations, approval of the Board Order will implement that action. Respectfully submitted, /s/ XXXXX XXXXXX Xxxxx Xxxxxx County Administrator
Termination by Agency Agency and Contractor may agree to terminate the SOC at any time. Agency may terminate the SOC for any reason or no reason immediately upon written notice to Contractor or at such other date as Agency may specify in such notice.
Information Submission by Participating TO The initial information submission by the Participating TO shall occur no later than one hundred eighty (180) Calendar Days prior to Trial Operation and shall include the Participating TO’s Transmission System information necessary to allow the Interconnection Customer to select equipment and meet any system protection and stability requirements, unless otherwise agreed to by the Participating TO and the Interconnection Customer. On a monthly basis the Participating TO shall provide the Interconnection Customer and the CAISO a status report on the construction and installation of the Participating TO’s Interconnection Facilities and Network Upgrades, including, but not limited to, the following information: (1) progress to date; (2) a description of the activities since the last report; (3) a description of the action items for the next period; and (4) the delivery status of equipment ordered.
Conclusions and Recommendations The demonstration and evaluation process provided an opportunity to test community specific tools with a range of end users from the memory institution domain and to gain greater insight into both the current and future evolution of the SHAMAN prototypes for preservation, access and re-use. Xxxx et al. (2000) in their user evaluation study of the Alexandria Digital Library which incorporated the evaluation of a Web prototype by earth scientists, information specialists and educators raised four key questions in relation to their findings that SHAMAN may be well advised to consider, they are paraphrased here with our conclusions from the investigations. What have we learned about our target organizations and potential users? Memory institutions are most definitely not a homogenised group; their needs and requirements differ greatly across the domain. Representatives of the archives community are agreed on the benefits of SHAMAN‟s authenticity validation function. The representatives of government information services remained unconvinced as to the need or benefit of grid technologies or distributed ingest while librarians saw the value of grid access as an asset of the framework. What have we learned about the evaluation approach for digital preservation? Within the limits of the exercise, in terms of time-frame and resources, the approach adopted has generated useful information for the further development of demonstrators and for the development of the SHAMAN framework overall. What have we learned about the SHAMAN ISP1 demonstrator? Respondents to the evaluation questionnaires and the focus groups indicate that, overall, the presentation of the demonstrator worked effectively and that, in general, participants in the demonstration and evaluation events were able to understand the intentions of the demonstration and to apply the ideas presented to their own context. What have we learned about the applicability of the SHAMAN framework to memory institutions? Respondents to the questionnaires and participants in the focus groups readily identified the value of the SHAMAN framework to their own operations. The majority had not yet established a long-term digital preservation policy, but recognized the need. Generally, the concepts of distributed ingest and grid operations found favour. Virtually all practitioners in the focus groups, however, drew attention to need of a lower level demonstration that would be closer to their everyday preservation troubles, especially for digital preservation to be applied to non-textual materials, such as film, photographs and sound archives. In addition to the criteria suggested by Xxxx et al., we can add a further project-related question: What have we learned that has implications for the training and dissemination phase of the Project? It was not part of the remit of the demonstration and evaluation specifically to discover information of relevance to the training and dissemination function. However, a number of factors will affect the efficacy of any training programme in particular. o First, no common understanding of digital preservation can be assumed of the potential target audiences for training. Consequently, it is likely that self-paced learning materials will be most effective in presenting the SHAMAN framework. o Secondly, the aims of SHAMAN as a project must be conveyed clearly: specifically, that it is a kind of „proof-of-concept‟ project and is not intended to deliver a package of programs capable of being implemented by institutions. o Thirdly, it needs to be emphasised that the SHAMAN framework is not limited to text documents; it can be applied to materials of all kinds. However, the demonstrations relate to bodies of material that were actually available for use. o Fourthly, the existing presentation materials are capable of being adapted for use in training activities. o Finally, the target audiences will appreciate the possibility of online access to the demonstrator, which will need to have very great ease of access in order that people with diverse backgrounds are able to use it with equal facility. We believe that, overall, WP14 has met its aims and objectives in this demonstration and evaluation of ISP1. Valuable lessons have been learnt by all parties involved, which will be transferred to the evaluation of ISP2 in the coming months.
SUSPENSION BY STATE FOR CONVEVIENCE 14.4.1 The State may, without cause, order the Contractor in writing to suspend, delay or interrupt the Work in whole or in part for such period of time as the State may determine.
