Vendor Encouraging Members to bypass TIPS agreement Encouraging entities to purchase directly from the Vendor or through another agreement, when the Member has requested using the TIPS cooperative Agreement or price, and thereby bypassing the TIPS Agreement is a violation of the terms and conditions of this Agreement and will result in removal of the Vendor from the TIPS Program.
Manufacturer's Recommendations All work or materials shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations and requirements. The Contractor shall obtain the manufacturer’s recommendations and requirements, for its use at the Site in executing the Work, copies of bulletins, circulars, catalogues, or other publications bearing the manufacturer’s titles, numbers, editions, dates, etc. If the manufacturer’s recommendations and requirements are not available, the Contractor shall request installation instructions from the Design Professional.
Unbundled Copper Loop – Non-Designed (UCL-ND 2.4.3.1 The UCL–ND is provisioned as a dedicated 2-wire metallic transmission facility from BellSouth’s Main Distribution Frame (MDF) to a customer’s premises (including the NID). The UCL-ND will be a “dry copper” facility in that it will not have any intervening equipment such as load coils, repeaters, or digital access main lines (DAMLs), and may have up to 6,000 feet of bridged tap between the End User’s premises and the serving wire center. The UCL-ND typically will be 1300 Ohms resistance and in most cases will not exceed 18,000 feet in length, although the UCL-ND will not have a specific length limitation. For Loops less than 18,000 feet and with less than 1300 Ohms resistance, the Loop will provide a voice grade transmission channel suitable for Loop start signaling and the transport of analog voice grade signals. The UCL-ND will not be designed and will not be provisioned with either a DLR or a test point.
Ownership, Use and Return of Offering Materials The Offering Materials shall continue to be the property of the Owner and HFF. The Offering Materials will be used by the Potential Investor solely for the purpose of evaluating the possible acquisition of the Property and not for any purpose unrelated to the possible acquisition of the Property. The Offering Materials may not be copied or duplicated without the Owner's and HFF’s prior written consent, and must be returned to HFF (or with HFF’s permission, destroyed by Potential Investor and any Related Party, and in such instance Potential Investor shall certify in writing to HFF and Owner that such information has been so destroyed) immediately upon request or when the Potential Investor declines to make an offer for the Property or terminates any discussions or negotiations with respect to the Property.
Conclusion and Recommendations D. Evaluations for Offenders without a sex offense conviction shall answer the following additional referral questions in the evaluations:
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.
PRICING for Markup of Non-Prepriced Items in RS Means Unit Price Book What is your proposed Markup Percentage on materials not found in the RS Means Price Book? If any materials being utilized for a project cannot be found in the RS Means Price Book, this question is what is the markup percentage on those materials? When answering this question please insert the number that represents your percentage of proposed markup. Example: if you are proposing a 30 percent markup, please insert the number "30". Remember that this is a ceiling markup. You may markup a lesser percentage to the TIPS Member customer when pricing the project, but not a greater percentage. EXAMPLE: You need special materials that are not in the RS Means Unit Price Book for a project. You would buy the materials and mark them up to the TIPS Member customer by the percentage you propose in this question. If the materials cost you, the contractor, $100 and you proposed a markup on this question for the material of 30 percent, then you would charge the TIPS Member customer $130 for the materials.
Amendment of Bidding Documents 10.1 Before the deadline for submission of bids, the Employer may modify the bidding documents by issuing addenda.
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.
Content of Bidding Documents 8.1 The set of bidding documents comprises the documents listed in the table below and addenda issued in accordance with Clause 10. Invitation for Bids
