Review of Proposals. Every project will be evaluated for the value of its aesthetic improvement, extent/scope of work proposed and its potential economic impact. The staff review will consider the following aspects for its proposal review:
Review of Proposals. Review and approve or disapprove within seven (7) business days from receipt of Owner’s written proposal any proposed changes suggested by Owner, pursuant to Section 5(a)(viii), unless Harbor informs Owner prior to the lapse of that time, that additional time is needed to make such determination. In the event additional time is required, any decision must be made without unnecessary delay, and in any case, within ten (10) business days of the original, written Owner proposal. If Harbor does not provide Owner with its approval, disapproval or request for additional time within the time period provided, then such proposed change shall be deemed accepted and approved.
Review of Proposals i) Upon receipt of a complete Proposal, Owner shall have the option to review each pole Licensee seeks to occupy to determine whether such pole can accommodate the proposed Attachment (“Engineering Review”) and to then notify Licensee whether such Attachment can commence without modifications or rearrangement of the pole or whether certain actions must be undertaken prior to Licensee’s construction of the proposed Attachment. Owner shall provide Licensee Notice within fifteen (15) days after submission of a Proposal if it believes the Proposal is incomplete or if Owner elects to forgo conducting the Engineering Review.
ii) If Owner elects to forego conducting the Engineering Review or has not completed it within forty-five (45) days of Owner’s receipt of the Proposal, then Licensee shall submit such Proposal to a contractor which Owner has approved to conduct Engineering Reviews and make ready work (an “Approved Contractor”). Licensee shall notify Owner if an Approved Contractor has been utilized for such Engineering Review within fifteen (15) days of submission to such approved contractor.
iii) Owner, or the Approved Contractor, shall then conduct such Engineering Review in accordance with all applicable design standards set forth within regulations or codes promulgated by any federal, state, local or other governmental authority having jurisdiction, the National Electrical Safety Code (NESC), and Owner’s design standards (the “Standards”). Where one standard is more restrictive than the other standard, the most restrictive standard shall be applied. When an Approved Contractor is utilized, the Approved Contractor shall then submit such Engineering Review to Owner for further action and review.
Review of Proposals. DHS, ONA will convene a review committee of public employees to review the recommendations and make final award decisions. The bidder is advised that the contract award may be conditional upon final contract and budget negotiation. Additionally, if a bidder is determined, in DHS/ONA’s sole discretion, to be insolvent or to present insolvency for this project, DHS/ONA will deem the proposal ineligible for grant award. DHS/ONA reserves the right to reject any and all proposals when circumstances indicate that it is in its best interest to do so. DHS/XXX’s best interests in this context include, but are not limited to, loss of funding, inability of the bidder(s) to achieve performance, an indication of misrepresentation of information and/or non-compliance with State and federal laws and regulations, existing DHS contracts, and procedures set forth in DHS Policy Circular P1.04(xxxx://xxx.xx.xxx/humanservices/olra/ocpm/resources/manuals/). DHS/ONA will notify all bidders of grant awards, contingent upon the satisfactory final negotiation of a contract, by October 8, 2021.
Review of Proposals. Subject to instruction and oversight by the Research Board, the GoMRI Administrative Unit shall provide administrative support for the Research Board review of Proposals submitted by Research Consortia in response to RFPs. GoMRI Administrative Unit activities in this capacity shall include (a) receiving and responding to letters of intent and Proposals; (b) arranging for and managing the timely peer review of the Proposals pursuant to the NSB Peer Evaluation Process, including the recruitment of highly-qualified technical reviewers to perform such review; (c) sorting and compiling the peer review results into formats requested by the Research Board; and (d) providing the Research Board with any additional information requested by the Research Board during the review process. Discretionary decisions regarding funding contained in Proposals shall be made under the peer review process described in this Section 5.4. These review activities shall be conducted in accordance with applicable NSF standards, and the GoMRI Administrative Unit shall ensure that all Proposals and associated reviews and discussions of such Proposals are handled on a strictly confidential basis, in satisfaction of all applicable legal requirements.
Review of Proposals. Subject to instruction and oversight by the Research Board, the GoMRI Administrative Unit shall provide administrative support for the Research Board review of Proposals submitted by Research Consortia in response to RFPs. GoMRI Administrative Unit activities in this capacity shall include (a) receiving and responding to letters of intent and Proposals; (b) arranging for and managing the timely peer review of the Proposals pursuant to the NSB Peer Evaluation Process, including the recruitment of highly-qualified technical reviewers to perform such review; (c) sorting and compiling the peer review results into formats requested by the Research Board; (d) providing the Research Board with any additional information requested by the Research Board during the review process. Discretionary decisions regarding funding contained in Proposals shall be made under the peer review process described in this Section 5.4, and (e) performing any functions required pursuant to the conflict of interest policy described in 3.2.1. These review activities shall be conducted in accordance with applicable NSF standards, and the GoMRI Administrative Unit shall ensure that all Proposals and associated reviews and discussions of such Proposals are handled on a strictly confidential basis, in satisfaction of all applicable legal requirements.
Review of Proposals. Department staff will independently review and evaluate the proposals based on criteria which will include the following:
a. The demonstrated compatibility of the proposed sponsor’s mission with that of the Department and the Florida Park Service.
b. The sponsorship entity’s proposed level of sponsorship funding.
c. The length of time the proposed Sponsor is willing to enter into a sponsorship agreement.
d. The extent of cross-promotional opportunities proposed that provide for the mission and/or managed areas of the Florida Park Service to be promoted by the proposed sponsor.
e. The standing public image of the sponsorship entity, giving consideration to any known controversial or illegal activities Following review of the Proposals, the Department will determine the Proposal(s) that have the greatest benefit to the Department.
Review of Proposals. Review and approve or disapprove within seven (7) business days from receipt of Owner’s written proposal submitted pursuant to Section 5(a)(viii), unless Solomon informs Owner prior to the lapse of that time, that additional time is needed to make such determination. In the event additional time is required, any decision must be made without unnecessary delay, and in any case, within ten (10) business days of the original, written Owner proposal. If Solomon does not provide Owner with its approval, disapproval or request for additional time within the time period provided, then such proposed change shall be deemed accepted and approved.
Review of Proposals. The Evaluation Committee will use a points formula during the review process to score proposals. Each member of the Evaluation Committee will first score each technical proposal by each of the criteria described in Section 6.3
Review of Proposals. The department chair shall make a recommendation on whether the university should support the proposal. The college committee (described in 20.14 below) shall make its recommendations on whether the university should grant the award. The xxxx will make decisions on which proposals to approve and which to deny. A faculty member denied for whatever reason is free to submit a new proposal the following year. Terms and conditions. The terms and conditions for the professional development programs shall be the same as for sabbaticals as specified in Section 20.7.
