Sub-factor 1a – Technical Experience Sample Clauses

Sub-factor 1a – Technical Experience. The compactness of the NW development/release cycles (software drops and integration activities occurring twice yearly tied to major Army Capability Integration Evaluation (CIE) / Army Warfighter Assessment (AWA) events to validate NW performance) and short notice production/fielding timelines require the contractor to provide a stable/agile workforce with the required technical skill sets. The Offeror shall explain how they will meet the PWS requirements (PWS Section C.3.0, C.3.1, C.3.2, C.3.3 and associated sub paragraphs) based on the Offeror’s technical experience in the last three (3) years providing contract support in the following five (5) competency areas:  Soldier-borne equipment integration of hardware and software;  Software Development/Coding/Integration on Android operating system mobile handheld devices using software sprints, Nett Warrior or Android Tactical Assault kit (ATAK) software development kit and agile software development techniques;  Integrating mobile handheld devices with PRC154A, PRC 152A or other Tactical radios, and developing Variable Message Format (VMF) message software that runs on mobile handheld devices that is interoperable with Joint Battle Command-Platform (JBCP) / Joint Capabilities Release (JCR) mission command systems;  Leveraging commercial technologies or software and migrating onto or integration with Army and U.S. Army Special Operations Command (USASOC) dismounted mobile handheld devices; and  Leveraging DoD Risk Management framework and assisting in obtaining Soldier-borne equipment accreditation for Secret use. In order for a contract effort (related to competency stated above in this section) to be considered under this factor, the proposal must confirm that the prime or subcontractor that has experience in the competency areas identified will support the same competency areas if the Offeror receives the resultant award.
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Sub-factor 1a – Technical Experience

  • TECHNICAL EVALUATION (a) Detailed technical evaluation shall be carried out by Purchase Committee pursuant to conditions in the tender document to determine the substantial responsiveness of each tender. For this clause, the substantially responsive bid is one that conforms to all the eligibility and terms and condition of the tender without any material deviation. The Institute’s determination of bid’s responsiveness is to be based on the contents of the bid itself without recourse to extrinsic evidence. The Institute shall evaluate the technical bids also to determine whether they are complete, whether required sureties have been furnished, whether the documents have been properly signed and whether the bids are in order.

  • Technical Feasibility of String While ICANN has encouraged and will continue to encourage universal acceptance of all top-­‐level domain strings across the Internet, certain top-­‐level domain strings may encounter difficulty in acceptance by ISPs and webhosters and/or validation by web applications. Registry Operator shall be responsible for ensuring to its satisfaction the technical feasibility of the TLD string prior to entering into this Agreement.

  • TECHNICAL TASKS Products that require a draft version are indicated by marking “(draft and final)” after the product name in the “Products” section of the task/subtask. If “(draft and final)” does not appear after the product name, only a final version of the product is required. Subtask 1.1 (Products) describes the procedure for submitting products to the CAM.

  • Using Student feedback in Educator Evaluation ESE will provide model contract language, direction and guidance on using student feedback in Educator Evaluation by June 30, 2013. Upon receiving this model contract language, direction and guidance, the parties agree to bargain with respect to this matter.

  • Completion of Evaluation Cycle 1. The summative evaluation rating shall be based upon a preponderance of the evidence, assessed in a holistic manner, that is aligned to the Ohio Educator Standards. Only evidence gathered during the walkthroughs and formal observations that are conducted for the current school year may be used.

  • For Product Development Projects and Project Demonstrations  Published documents, including date, title, and periodical name.  Estimated or actual energy and cost savings, and estimated statewide energy savings once market potential has been realized. Identify all assumptions used in the estimates.  Greenhouse gas and criteria emissions reductions.  Other non-energy benefits such as reliability, public safety, lower operational cost, environmental improvement, indoor environmental quality, and societal benefits.  Data on potential job creation, market potential, economic development, and increased state revenue as a result of the project.  A discussion of project product downloads from websites, and publications in technical journals.  A comparison of project expectations and performance. Discuss whether the goals and objectives of the Agreement have been met and what improvements are needed, if any.

  • Multi-year Planning Targets Schedule A may reflect an allocation for the first Funding Year of this Agreement as well as planning targets for up to two additional years, consistent with the term of this Agreement. In such an event, the HSP acknowledges that if it is provided with planning targets, these targets:

  • Power Factor Design Criteria (Reactive Power A wind generating plant shall maintain a power factor within the range of 0.95 leading to 0.95 lagging, measured at the Point of Interconnection as defined in this LGIA, if the ISO’s System Reliability Impact Study shows that such a requirement is necessary to ensure safety or reliability. The power factor range standards can be met using, for example without limitation, power electronics designed to supply this level of reactive capability (taking into account any limitations due to voltage level, real power output, etc.) or fixed and switched capacitors if agreed to by the Connecting Transmission Owner for the Transmission District to which the wind generating plant will be interconnected, or a combination of the two. The Developer shall not disable power factor equipment while the wind plant is in operation. Wind plants shall also be able to provide sufficient dynamic voltage support in lieu of the power system stabilizer and automatic voltage regulation at the generator excitation system if the System Reliability Impact Study shows this to be required for system safety or reliability.

  • Power Factor Design Criteria Developer shall design the Large Generating Facility to maintain an effective power delivery at demonstrated maximum net capability at the Point of Interconnection at a power factor within the range established by the Connecting Transmission Owner on a comparable basis, until NYISO has established different requirements that apply to all generators in the New York Control Area on a comparable basis. The Developer shall design and maintain the plant auxiliary systems to operate safely throughout the entire real and reactive power design range. The Connecting Transmission Owner shall not unreasonably restrict or condition the reactive power production or absorption of the Large Generating Facility in accordance with Good Utility Practice.

  • DEVELOPMENT OR ASSISTANCE IN DEVELOPMENT OF SPECIFICATIONS REQUIREMENTS/ STATEMENTS OF WORK Firms and/or individuals that assisted in the development or drafting of the specifications, requirements, statements of work, or solicitation documents contained herein are excluded from competing for this solicitation. This shall not be applicable to firms and/or individuals providing responses to a publicly posted Request for Information (RFI) associated with a solicitation.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.