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.
Additional proposals If the Company at any time during the continuance of this Agreement desires to modify expand or otherwise vary its activities carried on pursuant to this Agreement beyond those specified in any approved proposal, it shall give notice of such desire to the Minister and within 2 months after giving such notice shall submit to the Minister detailed proposals in respect of such modifications expansions or variations and such other matters as the Minister may require. The provisions of clause 4 and 5 (including (for the avoidance of doubt) clause 5(9)) shall apply, the necessary changes being made, to proposals submitted pursuant to this clause.
Technical Proposals Technical proposal information will be streamlined, e.g., the Government anticipates written proposals consisting of thirty (30) pages or less stating compliance or exception to requirements, risks, assumptions and conflict of interest issues. Proposals shall not merely restate PWS/SOO requirements. Written technical proposals shall normally address: * Technical Approach and descriptive narrative of the contractor's understanding of the requested effort * PWS in response to a SOO * Integrated Master Plan (if applicable) * Integrated Master Schedule (if applicable) * Key Personnel Assigned * Quantities/Hours of Personnel by Labor Categories and narrative justification (if applicable) * Other Direct Costs (ODCs) (materials and supplies, travel, training, etc.(quantities and types only)) * Period of Performance * Government-Furnished Equipment (GFE)/Government-Furnished Information (GFI) * Security (including clearance level) * Teaming Arrangement (including subcontracting; identify new ACAs) * Small Business Plan (if a large business) * Other Pertinent Data, such as assumptions made.
Revisions With respect to Contracts that are “electronic chattel paper”, the related Receivables have been established in a manner such that (a) all copies or revisions that add or change an identified assignee of the authoritative copy of each such Contract must be made with the participation of the Trust Collateral Agent and (b) all revisions of the authoritative copy of each such Contract are readily identifiable as an authorized or unauthorized revision.
Clarification of Proposals Evaluations will be in accordance with the selection criteria set forth in the proposal request. Upon completion of evaluations, the CO will issue a task order to the contractor whose proposal provides the best value to the Government.
Conclusion and Recommendations D. Evaluations for Offenders without a sex offense conviction shall answer the following additional referral questions in the evaluations:
Annual Negotiations Negotiations will be conducted each year according to the ground rules as mutually agreed upon prior to negotiations. Ground Rules (see APPENDIX F - GROUND RULES) used at the previous year's sessions will serve as the basis for discussing any changes before adopting ground rules for the current negotiating sessions. Such ground rules mutually agreed upon shall assist in the orderly process for negotiations.
Technical Proposal The technical proposal may be presented in free format. It shall not exceed ten pages, not counting the CVs. It shall respect the following page limit and structure: • Technical methodology (max. 7 pages) • Quality management (max. 1 page) • Project management (max. 1 page) • Resource management (proposal (max. 1 page) + CVs of experts)
Hiring Decisions Contractor shall make the final determination of whether an Economically Disadvantaged Individual referred by the System is "qualified" for the position.
