RECTIFYING DEFICIENCIES OF REJECTED OFFERS. PG&E communicated early to several Participants about basic deficiencies in their Offer packages and provided them with an opportunity to correct these deficiencies by completing or correcting their original submissions. None of these original deficiencies caused rejection from the short list, as far as Xxxxxx can discern. Many of the issues related to failure to complete an Attachment D offer form fully, using the final version of that form, or omission of the most recent CAISO or PTO interconnection study. Figure 4 PG&E viability score IE viability score Given the robustness of the solicitation and the large number of Offer variants, PG&E did not collect every piece of information required by the protocol from every Participant. Some Participants had obtained interconnection studies for their project but did not submit copies with their proposals. Xxxxxx observes that in these cases the missing information would not have made a difference to the selection decision. PG&E made a concerted effort to obtain copies of these studies for most of these projects. By this point it was evident which Offers had proposed uncompetitive, high prices and were unlikely to be short-listed.

See All (4)

RECTIFYING DEFICIENCIES OF REJECTED OFFERS. As observed previously, PG&E communicated early to several Participants about basic deficiencies in their Offer packages and provided them with an opportunity to correct these deficiencies by completing or correcting their original submissions. None of these original shortfalls in the packages resulted directly in rejection from the short list, as far as can be discerned, except for the two Offers that were rejected for non-conformity with the requirements of the solicitation protocol. Most of the individual rejections of Offers were based on low valuations, low viability, and avoidance of excess supplier concentration. In general, deficiencies preventing Offers from being selected do not appear to be caused by errors or misjudgments by the Participants in drafting the Offer package, but rather by the poor economics of projects or technologies at the MW scale chosen by developers, by insufficient progress by the developer at this point in time in areas such as site control, permitting, demonstration of resource quality, and interconnection (e.g., a “not fully and by the difficulty for some developers in locking down a competitive PPA price when the price of equipment and of contractors are moving targets. Some projects were deeply flawed by site selection at locations where the grid is highly congested, or in foreign control areas where substantial costs would be required to wheel power to the CAISO and to shape and firm it to render it eligible for the RPS program, or in foreign control areas where it is not at all clear that the power can be moved to the CAISO given limited available transmission capability. Other projects were unattractive because of the serious environmental concerns their construction would likely raise. In situations like these, the rejection from the short list would not likely be rectified by any actions PG&E could take to have the developer enhance its Offer package. Some developers seem to have completely mistaken the 2009 RPS RFO for a solicitation for PG&E’s as-yet-unapproved PV Program, and appear to have assumed that PG&E’s proposed tariff price for contracts under that program, $246/MWh, would serve as a winning offer or a “safe harbor” price. In these cases one can imagine how PG&E might have rectified the deficiency of an uncompetitive price by querying the Participants about the basis for their price. However, such a query by PG&E would fall into the category of a request for clarification that could provide one Participa...

Related to RECTIFYING DEFICIENCIES OF REJECTED OFFERS

Correction of Deficiencies The contractor must correct promptly any work of his/her own or his/her subcontractors found to be defective or not complying with the terms of the contract.
Proposal of Corrective Action Plan In addition to the processes set forth in the Contract (e.g., service level agreements), if the Department or Customer determines that there is a performance deficiency that requires correction by the Contractor, then the Department or Customer will notify the Contractor. The correction must be made within a time-frame specified by the Department or Customer. The Contractor must provide the Department or Customer with a corrective action plan describing how the Contractor will address all performance deficiencies identified by the Department or Customer.
Our Liability for Failure to Complete Transactions If we do not properly complete a transaction from your Card on time or in the correct amount according to our Agreement with you, we will be liable for your losses or damages. However, there are some exceptions. We will not be liable, for instance:
Why did I get this Notice This is a court-authorized notice of a proposed Settlement in a class action lawsuit, Xxxxxxx, et al. v. Personnel Staffing Group, LLC dba MVP Staffing, Case No. 20-CH-473, pending in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. The Settlement would resolve a lawsuit brought on behalf of persons who allege that Personnel Staffing Group, LLC dba MVP Staffing (“PSG” or “Defendant”) required workers to provide their biometric identifiers and/or biometric information for timekeeping without first providing them with legally-required written disclosures and obtaining written consent, in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”). Defendant contests these claims and denies it violated BIPA. If you received this Notice, you have been identified as a member of the Settlement Class. The Court has granted preliminary approval of the Settlement and has conditionally certified the Settlement Class for purposes of Settlement only. This Notice explains the nature of the class action lawsuit, the terms of the Settlement, and the legal rights and obligations of the Settlement Class Members. Please read the instructions and explanations below so that you can better understand your legal rights. WHAT IS THIS LAWSUIT ABOUT? The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”), 740 ILCS 14/1, et seq., prohibits private companies from capturing, obtaining, storing, transferring, and/or using the biometric identifiers and/or information, such as fingerprints, of another individual for any purpose, including timekeeping, without first providing such individual with certain written disclosures and obtaining written consent. This lawsuit alleges that Defendant violated BIPA by requiring current and former workers to submit their fingerprint for employee timekeeping purposes between January 14, 2015 and January 4, 2016 without first providing the requisite disclosures or obtaining the requisite consent. Defendant contests these claims and deny that it violated BIPA. WHY IS THIS A CLASS ACTION? A class action is a lawsuit in which an individual called a “Class Representative” brings a single lawsuit on behalf of other people who have similar claims. All of these people together are a “Class” or “Class Members.” Once a Class is certified, a class action Settlement finally approved by the Court resolves the issues for all Settlement Class Members, except for those who exclude themselves from the Settlement Class. WHY IS THERE A SETTLEMENT? To resolve this matter without the expense, delay, and uncertainties of litigation, the Parties have reached a Settlement, which resolves all claims against Defendant. The Settlement requires Defendant to pay money to the Settlement Class, as well as pay settlement administration expenses, attorneys’ fees and costs to Class Counsel, and an incentive award to the Class Representatives, if approved by the Court. The Settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing by Defendant and does not imply that there has been, or would be, any finding that Defendant violated the law. FILED DATE: 11/23/2021 12:32 PM 2020CH00473 The Court has already preliminarily approved the Settlement. Nevertheless, because the settlement of a class action determines the rights of all members of the class, the Court overseeing this lawsuit must give final approval to the Settlement before it can be effective. The Court has conditionally certified the Settlement Class for settlement purposes only, so that members of the Settlement Class can be given this Notice and the opportunity to exclude themselves from the Settlement Class, and to voice their support or opposition to final approval of the Settlement. If the Court does not give final approval to the Settlement, or if it is terminated by the Parties, the Settlement will be void, and the lawsuit will proceed as if there had been no settlement and no certification of the Settlement Class.
Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion - Lower Tier Covered Transactions (a) The prospective lower tier participant certifies, by submission of this proposal, that neither it nor its principals is presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction by any federal department or agency.
Reportable Events Involving the Xxxxx Law Notwithstanding the reporting requirements outlined above, any Reportable Event that involves solely a probable violation of section 1877 of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §1395nn (the Xxxxx Law) should be submitted by Practitioner to CMS through the self-referral disclosure protocol (SRDP), with a copy to the OIG. If Practitioner identifies a probable violation of the Xxxxx Law and repays the applicable Overpayment directly to the CMS contractor, then Practitioner is not required by this Section III.G to submit the Reportable Event to CMS through the SRDP.
LIABILITY FOR FAILURE TO COMPLETE TRANSACTIONS If We do not properly complete a transaction to or from Your Account according to this Agreement, We will be liable for Your losses or damages. However, We will not be liable if: (a) Your Account does not contain enough available funds to make the transaction through no fault of Ours; (b) the ATM where You are making the transfer does not have enough cash; (c) the terminal was not working properly and You knew about the breakdown when You started the transaction; (d) circumstances beyond Our control prevent the transaction despite reasonable precautions that We have taken; (e) Your Card is retrieved or retained by an ATM;
Anti-Deficiency Act The Department's obligations and responsibilities under the terms of the Contract and the Contract Documents are and shall remain subject to the provisions of (i) the federal Anti-Deficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. §§1341, 1342, 1349, 1350, 1351, (ii) the D.C. Code 47-105, (iii) the District of Columbia Anti-Deficiency Act, D.C. Code §§ 47- 355.01 - 355.08, as the foregoing statutes may be amended from time to time, and (iv) Section 446 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act. Neither the Contract nor any of the Contract Documents shall constitute an indebtedness of the Department, nor shall it constitute an obligation for which the Department is obligated to levy or pledge any form of taxation, or for which the Department has levied or pledged any form of taxation. IN ACCORDANCE WITH § 446 OF THE HOME RULE ACT, D.C. CODE § 1-204.46, NO DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OFFICIAL IS AUTHORIZED TO OBLIGATE OR EXPEND ANY AMOUNT UNDER THE CONTRACT OR CONTRACT DOCUMENTS UNLESS SUCH AMOUNT HAS BEEN APPROVED, IS LAWFULLY AVAILABLE AND APPROPRIATED BY ACT OF CONGRESS.
Definition of Reportable Event For purposes of this CIA, a “Reportable Event” means anything that involves:

RECTIFYING DEFICIENCIES OF REJECTED OFFERS Sample Clauses

Filter & Search

Related Clauses

Parent Clauses

Related to RECTIFYING DEFICIENCIES OF REJECTED OFFERS