RISK MODEL Sample Clauses

RISK MODEL. The 2024 Risk model agreed upon by Health Plan, various primary care providers of St. Xxxxxxx Medical Group, Mosaic Medical Group, Praxis Medical Group, and COIPA and also Central Oregon Community Mental Health Programs (“CMHP(s)”) shall contain the following:
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
RISK MODEL. 5.3.1 Risk Analysis The CONSULTANT will incorporate data obtained during the field reconnaissance, desktop and field assessments, and field inspections as well as other assessment data into the risk model. As examples: Assessment or Inspection Source Risk Factor Black & Xxxxxx  LOF 5 – Safety Factor  LOF 10 – Potential for 3rd party damage due to Pipe Depth  LOF 11 – Potential for 3rd Party Damage due to Pipe Location  COF 6 – Traffic Disruption  COF 7 – Proximity to Commercial or Business Areas  COF 11 – Difficulty of Repair Xxxxx Engineering  LOF 2 – Compliance with Current AWWA Design Standards  LOF 8 – Installation Defects XX Xxxxx Xxxxxx DBA DNV GL  COF 4 – Population Impact  COF 5 – Impact to Desired Level of Service KLR Planning  COF 3 – Proximity to Sensitive Areas Allied Geotechnical Xxxxxxxxx  XXX 00 – Soil Type  LOF 14 – Faulting  LOF 15 – Geotechnical/Geologic Hazards XX Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxx  XXX 00 – Soil Xxxxxxxxxxx  XXX 00 – Cathodic Protection Performance Xxxxxxx Construction  COF 1 – Direct Costs of Pipe Repair Xxxxx LDS1000TM Video Xxxxxxxxxx  XXX 0 – Lining Condition  LOF 7 – Joint Condition The CONSULTANT will configure Black & Xxxxxx’x custom Asset Prioritization Tool to be used for this project. This is a custom .NET Add-In file for ArcGIS (v10.1 and higher) and does not require additional licensing. Used to streamline the risk analysis process, the Asset Prioritization Tool assists in determining the most appropriate criteria and weighting factors by enabling the user to save weighting factor scenarios, view risk matrix results, zoom to map location, and export results to Excel. This tool allows the CONSULTANT to package-up the results of the Risk Analysis and enables the City to update this Risk Analysis in- house, as the City’s needs evolve over time. The CONSULTANT will conduct a sensitivity analysis and adjust LOF and COF weighting factors, as necessary, in order for the risk model to produce accurate, repeatable, and defendable results.

Related to RISK MODEL

  • Model List your model number of the product you are bidding.

  • Pricing The Contractor will not exceed the pricing set forth in the Contract documents.

  • Financial Model 37.1 Unless otherwise agreed between the parties, any amendments to the Financial Model shall reflect, be consistent with and be made only in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement, and shall in all cases be subject to the prior written approval of the Authority (such approval not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed). In the event that the parties fail to agree any proposed amendments to the Financial Model, the matter shall be referred for resolution in accordance with Schedule Part 20 (Dispute Resolution Procedure).

  • TIPS Pricing Vendor agrees and understands that for each TIPS Contract that it holds, Vendor submitted, agreed to, and received TIPS’ approval for specific pricing, discounts, and other pricing terms and incentives which make up Vendor’s TIPS Pricing for that TIPS Contract (“TIPS Pricing”). Vendor confirms that Vendor will not add the TIPS Administration Fee as a charge or line-item in a TIPS Sale. Vendor hereby certifies that Vendor shall only offer goods and services through this TIPS Contract if those goods and services are included in or added to Vendor’s TIPS Pricing and approved by TIPS. TIPS reserves the right to review Vendor’s pricing update requests as specifically as line-item by line-item to determine compliance. However, Vendor contractually agrees that all submitted pricing updates shall be within the original terms of the Vendor’s TIPS Pricing (scope, proposed discounts, price increase limitations, and other pricing terms and incentives originally proposed by Vendor) such that TIPS may accept Vendors price increase requests as submitted without additional vetting at TIPS discretion. Any pricing quoted by Vendor to a TIPS Member or on a TIPS Quote shall never exceed Vendor’s TIPS Pricing for any good or service offered through TIPS. Vendor certifies by signing this agreement that Vendor’s TIPS Pricing for all goods and services included in Vendor’s TIPS Pricing shall either be equal to or less than Vendor’s current pricing for that good or service for any other customer. TIPS Pricing price increases and modifications, if permitted, will be honored according to the terms of the solicitation and Vendor’s proposal, incorporated herein by reference.

  • Methodology 1. The price at which the Assuming Institution sells or disposes of Qualified Financial Contracts will be deemed to be the fair market value of such contracts, if such sale or disposition occurs at prevailing market rates within a predefined timetable as agreed upon by the Assuming Institution and the Receiver.

  • Our pricing The Contract Price of a Margin FX Contract will be a bid or offer price (whichever is applicable) calculated by us by applying our markup to the rates provided to us by third party provides.

  • GSA Benchmarked Pricing Additionally, where the NYS Net Price is based upon an approved GSA Supply Schedule:

  • Reporting Model 1 FFI The term Reporting Model 1 FFI means a Financial Institution with respect to which a non-U.S. government or agency thereof agrees to obtain and exchange information pursuant to a Model 1 IGA, other than a Financial Institution treated as a Nonparticipating Financial Institution under the Model 1 IGA. For purposes of this definition, the term Model 1 IGA means an arrangement between the United States or the Treasury Department and a non-U.S. government or one or more agencies thereof to implement FATCA through reporting by Financial Institutions to such non-U.S. government or agency thereof, followed by automatic exchange of such reported information with the IRS.

  • Parameters In calculating the MtM Exposure for each Transaction, the following parameters are set on the Transaction Date: ▪ On-Peak Initial Xxxx Xxxxx ▪ Off-Peak/On-Peak Price Ratio ▪ Off-Peak Initial Xxxx Xxxxx ▪ MW-Measure: initial Capacity PLC Per Tranche ▪ On-Peak Estimated Energy Quantity Per MW-Measure for each of the twelve calendar months ▪ Off-Peak Estimated Energy Quantity Per MW-Measure for each of the twelve calendar months ▪ Number of awarded Tranches In calculating the MtM Exposure for each Transaction, the following parameters are set each Trading Day subsequent to the Transaction Date: ▪ On-Peak Forward Price ▪ Off-Peak Forward Price ▪ Current Capacity PLC Per Tranche ▪ On-Peak Estimated Energy Quantity ▪ Off-Peak Estimated Energy Quantity Process to Update the On-Peak Initial Mark Prices and Off-Peak Initial Mark Prices on a Daily Basis On each Trading Day subsequent to the Transaction Date, the Pricing Agent will contact four Reference Market-Makers to obtain price quotes for on-peak and off-peak energy for PJM Western Hub. The Pricing Agent may not rely upon quotes from Seller or any Affiliate of Seller. The updated mark for a month will be equal to the average mark for that month over all sources from which a quote is available. If a monthly quote is available from any source, only the monthly quote or monthly quotes shall be used. Where quotes provide a bid and ask, the average shall be used. Where a quote for an individual month is unavailable, but the month is quoted as part of a “packaged” quote (e.g., January 2011 is only available in the form of a January/February 2011 “packaged” quote or an annual quote): ▪ If the other month/months of the package quote is/are also unavailable, then the marks for all months of the package will be calculated by multiplying the packaged quote by the ratio of the corresponding month to the corresponding calculated package quote from the previous day. Example: There are no On-Peak quotes available on day X during the contract for July 2011 or August 2011. However, there is an On-Peak July/August 2011 packaged quote of $73.00/MWh available. The On-Peak marks from day X-1 for July 2011 and August 2011 were $73.50/MWh and $76.50/MWh respectively. The day X On-Peak mark for July 2011 is set at 73.00 * [73.50] / [( (73.50 * 352) + (76.50 * 336) ) / (352+336) ] = 73 * (73.50/ 74.97) = $71.57/MWh. The day X On-Peak mark for August 2011 is set at 73.00 * [76.50] / [( (73.50 * 352) + (76.50*336) ) / (352+336) ] = 73 * (76.50 / 74.97) = $74.49/MWh. ▪ If the other month/months of the package quote is/are available, then the mark for the month will be set such that the average of the month and the other month(s) (weighted for either the On-Peak Hours or Off-Peak Hours as applicable) equals the packaged quote (see calculation example below).

  • Inputs 921 The following resources constitute a suitable, but neither exhaustive nor normative suite of the process inputs:

Draft better contracts in just 5 minutes Get the weekly Law Insider newsletter packed with expert videos, webinars, ebooks, and more!