Reproducibility. The reproduc- ibility of the method has not yet been determined; however it is believed to be appropriate for a screening test which has solely an acceptance but no rejective function.
Reproducibility. All SOQ pages shall be easily reproducible in black and white by standard photocopying machines. 4.6.6 Specifications for SOQs SOQ Section Section Title and Required Information RFQ Reference
Reproducibility. Use of standardized procedures and tools helps to establish group-wide best practises in how data are managed and analysed. RDN provides tools to organise data and data analysis (e.g. Jupyter notebooks). This is a step forward in providing reproducible research results.
Reproducibility. The product must remain with +/- 10% of the stated cut off values. Please clearly state the quality margin for each product and describe the quality control periods providing evidence of sustained product quality.
Reproducibility. The scoring of the Sustainable Development Indicators must be easily reproducible. Scoring shall be supported by convincing argumentation for each indicator, and shall systematically refer to publicly available information sources or to expert opinions. Guidelines are provided in section T.2.4.2 and T.2.6.
Reproducibility. All SOQ pages shall be easily reproducible in black and white by standard photocopying machines. Arizona Department of Transportation Phoenix Metropolitan Area Freeway Lighting Project Page 22 of 5858 Request for Qualifications Project #F014701C Addendum #3, September 14, 2017 4.6.6 Specifications for SOQs SOQ Section Section Title and Required Information RFQ Reference Volume I Legal Information: 5.25.1 a) Form A, Transmittal Letter (to be signed by the Official 5.1.1 Representative of the Proposer or the Proposer’s lead firm); b) Form A-1, SOQ Certification (to be signed by the Official Representative of each other Equity Member); c) Executive Summary; d) Confidential Content Index; 5.1.1 5.1.2 5.1.3 e) Legal Qualifications and Supporting Documents; and 5.1.4 Legal Structure Volume I Supplemental Legal Forms 5.1 5.1.6 5.1.7 5.1.8(a) 5.1.8(b) 5.1.8(c) 5.1.9 Appendix I-A a) Form L-1, Proposer’s Organization Information; b) Form L-2, Certification / Questionnaire; c) Conflict of Interest Statement; d) Affirmation Statement; e) Disclosure and Certification; and f) Powers of Attorney (if applicable). Volume II Financial Information: 5.2 5.2.1 5.2.2 5.2.3 5.2.4 5.2.5 a) Surety Letters; b) Financial Statements (statements mayshall be provided in sealed envelope); c) Credit Rating Information; d) Material Changes in Financial Condition; and e) Financially Responsible Party Letter of Support. Volume III Technical and Commercial Information (40 page 5.3 5.3.1 5.3.2 5.3.3 5.3.4 5.3.5 5.3.6 total): a) Proposer Team Experience and Past Performance: o Project Descriptions; o Relevant Experience - Narrative; and o Experience from other entities. b) Proposer Organization: o Management Structure; and o Organizational Charts. c) Key Personnel: o Express Commitment regarding Key Personnel. d) DBFOM Understanding and Approach: o Narrative of DBFOM projects; and o Narrative of management and organizational approach. e) Financial Approach Arizona Department of Transportation Phoenix Metropolitan Area Freeway Lighting Project Page 23 of 5858 Request for Qualifications Project #F014701C Addendum #3, September 14, 2017 4.6.6 Specifications for SOQs SOQ Section Section Title and Required Information RFQ Reference f) Safety Information
Reproducibility. Fully reproducing the research from scratch could prove to be difficult, as a lot of errors were encountered in utilising Hyperledger Fabric and TPM. Not a lot of online documentation and forums covered these errors. Hence an attempt was made in this paper to describe every step of the process in a detailed yet concise manner. A brief overview of the Hyperledger Fabric as well as TPM functions has been provided to inform the reader on the core topics of this research. Furthermore, the research has been described in such a way that the reader can follow along in the steps taken. A Technology Roadmap is included in Appendix A to show what task has been done on a per week basis. As seen in this report, an explanation of the code has been used to show a general way of how TPM functions can be utilised. This comes accompanied by code fragments written in pseudocode to avoid being language-specific. So readers with no experience with the programming language Go can follow along. Not all code has been described but it is fully available at the Github repository: xxxxx://xxxxxx.xxx/Xxxxx-XX/medical-supply.
Reproducibility. Another subject is reproducibility of results from simulations. Runs with identical input data do not lead to identical output files. The force vector field as well as the scalar field of density do vary potentially up to 10% as shown in Figure 22. Figure 22 Difference in the force field becomes evident between two identical runs, once the values are displayed (left: [9.17e-4, -9.4e-5, 3.57e-4] and right: [1.0e-3, -2.35e-4, 3.96e-4].
Reproducibility. The realization of the proposed activities will increase the number of small and medium enterprises involved in collection and transport of e-waste. This will facilitate an increasing of the number of sustainable green jobs in this filed. On the midterm level we expect that new and proposed models will make sustainable base for the profitable e-waste management. Education and NGO network will have influence the activation of the private owners of the end use computers and peripherals in order to incorporate them in e-waste management system. Establishing the independent control of the e-waste material and financial streams will give strong and sound signal that waste management is real, profitable and sustainable business. This will have an effect on the collection and treatment of the so called historic e-waste which is the one of the greatest problems in Serbia. This will be the first project of its kind in Serbia. Results and analysis of the problems during project realization will make the base for the general improvements in management of all waste streams not only the e-waste. Annex B Project Budget PACE funding Budget line Expenditures [US$] 10 PROJECT PERSONNEL COMPONENT 1100 Project personnel, monitoring One team leader for 24 months 14 600 1199 Sub-total, Professional Staff 14 600 1200 Consultants Activity 1- 1 national expert 2 500 Activity 2- 1 national expert 2 500 Activity 3- 1 national expert 2 500 Activity 4- 1 national expert 2 500 1299 Sub-total, Consultants 10 000 1399 Sub-total Conference services 1600 Travel on Official Business Monitoring of activities - Travels of BCRC- Staff x 2 Terminal expenses (152US$) x 2 times x 2 years = 608 2 days DSA (206US$ for Belgrade, Serbia as of 1 December 2013) x 2 times x 2 years = 1648 500 US$ Plane tickets x 2 times x 2 years = 2 000 8 512 1699 Sub-total Travel on Official Business 8 512 1999 TOTAL PROJECT PERSONNEL COMPONENT 33 112 30 TRAINING COMPONENT 3300 Meetings and Conferences Activity 1- 1 national workshop (rental and logistics) 2 000 Activity1 – 1 day DSA (206US$) + 1 day DSA 100% (206US$) for 12 participants 4 944 Activity 2- 1 national workshop (rental and logistics) 4 000 Activity 2- 1 day DSA (206US$) + 1 day DSA 100% (206US$) for 12 participants 4 944 Activity 2- 1 training (rental and logistics) 6 000 Activity 3- 1 national workshop (rental and logistics) 4 000 Activity 3- 1 day DSA (206US$) + 1 day DSA 100% (206US$) for 12 participants 4 944 Activity 4 – 1 national workshop (rental...
