Selection of Subcontractors, Procurement of Materials and Leasing of Equipment The contractor shall not discriminate on the grounds of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age or disability in the selection and retention of subcontractors, including procurement of materials and leases of equipment. The contractor shall take all necessary and reasonable steps to ensure nondiscrimination in the administration of this contract.
Contractor Certification regarding Business with Certain Countries and Organizations Pursuant to Subchapter F, Chapter 2252, Texas Government Code], Contractor certifies Contractor is not engaged in business with Iran, Sudan, or a foreign terrorist organization. Contractor acknowledges this Agreement may be terminated and payment withheld if this certification is inaccurate.
Certification Regarding Business with Certain Countries and Organizations Pursuant to Subchapter F, Chapter 2252, Texas Government Code, PROVIDER certifies it is not engaged in business with Iran, Sudan, or a foreign terrorist organization. PROVIDER acknowledges this Purchase Order may be terminated if this certification is or becomes inaccurate.
Responsibility for Quality of Materials and Installation Contractor acknowledges that he has full, total, and complete responsibility for providing materials, labor, and all other items necessary for providing the level of quality specified in the Contract Documents. He agrees that this responsibility is indivisible, non-delegable, non- transferable, and not diminished by any inspections provided by the Design Professional or his consulting engineers, nor by any inspections provided by the Owner. In recognition of this, Contractor will prepare for submission and review by the Design Professional, a written program describing the efforts that will be taken to insure the proper quality level is achieved. The program shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a Proceed Order.
Foreign-Owned Companies in Connection with Critical Infrastructure If Texas Government Code, Section 2274.0102(a)(1) (relating to prohibition on contracts with certain foreign-owned companies in connection with critical infrastructure) is applicable to this Contract, pursuant to Government Code Section 2274.0102, Contractor certifies that neither it nor its parent company, nor any affiliate of Contractor or its parent company, is: (1) majority owned or controlled by citizens or governmental entities of China, Iran, North Korea, Russia, or any other country designated by the Governor under Government Code Section 2274.0103, or (2) headquartered in any of those countries.
Project-Related Investments The term “investment” or “invest” as used herein shall include not only investments made by the Company and any Sponsor Affiliates, but also to the fullest extent permitted by law, those investments made by or for the benefit of the Company or any Sponsor Affiliate with respect to the Project through federal, state, or local grants, to the extent such investments are subject to ad valorem taxes or FILOT payments by the Company. [End of Article I] ARTICLE II
CERTIFICATION REGARDING CERTAIN FOREIGN-OWNED COMPANIES IN CONNECTION WITH CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE (Texas law as of September 1, 2021) By submitting a proposal to this Solicitation, you certify that you agree to the following required by Texas law as of September 1, 2021: Proposing Company is prohibited from entering into a contract or other agreement relating to critical infrastructure that would grant to the company direct or remote access to or control of critical infrastructure in this state, excluding access specifically allowed by the Proposing Company for product warranty and support purposes. Company, certifies that neither it nor its parent company nor any affiliate of company or its parent company, is (1) owned by or the majority of stock or other ownership interest of the company is held or controlled by individuals who are citizens of China, Iran, North Korea, Russia, or a designated country; (2) a company or other entity, including governmental entity, that is owned or controlled by citizens of or is directly controlled by the government of China, Iran, North Korea, Russia, or a designated country; or (3) headquartered in China, Iran, North Korea, Russia, or a designated country. For purposes of this contract, “critical infrastructure” means “a communication infrastructure system, cybersecurity system, electric grid, hazardous waste treatment system, or water treatment facility.” See Tex. Gov’t Code § 2274.0101(2) of SB 1226 (87th leg.). The company verifies and certifies that company will not grant direct or remote access to or control of critical infrastructure, except for product warranty and support purposes, to prohibited individuals, companies, or entities, including governmental entities, owned, controlled, or headquartered in China, Iran, North Korea, Russia, or a designated country, as determined by the Governor.
Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion - Lower Tier Covered Transactions (a) The prospective lower tier participant certifies, by submission of this proposal, that neither it nor its principals is presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction by any federal department or agency.
Evaluation of Contractor Performance of the Contractor under this Agreement will be evaluated. The evaluation shall be prepared on Contract/Contractor Evaluation Sheet (STD 4), and maintained in the Agreement file. For consultant agreements, a copy of the evaluation will be sent to the Department of General Services, Office of Legal Services, if it is negative and over $5,000.
Status Substantial Compliance Analysis The Compliance Officer found that PPB is in substantial compliance with Paragraph 80. See Sections IV and VII Report, p. 17. COCL carefully outlines the steps PPB has taken—and we, too, have observed—to do so. Id. We agree with the Compliance Officer’s assessment. In 2018, the Training Division provided an extensive, separate analysis of data concerning ECIT training. See Evaluation Report: 2018 Enhanced Crisis Intervention Training, Training usefulness, on-the-job applications, and reinforcing training objectives, February 2019. The Training Division assessed survey data showing broad officer support for the 2018 ECIT training. The survey data also showed a dramatic increase in the proportion of officers who strongly agree that their supervisors are very supportive of the ECIT program, reaching 64.3% in 2018, compared to only 14.3% in 2015: The Training Division analyzed the survey results of the police vehicle operator training and supervisory in-service training, as well. These analyses were helpful in understanding attendees’ impressions of training and its application to their jobs, though the analyses did not reach as far as the ECIT’s analysis of post-training on- the-job assessment. In all three training analyses, Training Division applied a feedback model to shape future training. This feedback loop was the intended purpose of Paragraph 80. PPB’s utilization of feedback shows PPB’s internalization of the remedy. We reviewed surveys of Advanced Academy attendees, as well. Attendees were overwhelmingly positive in response to the content of most classes. Though most respondents agreed on the positive aspects of keeping the selected course in the curriculum, a handful of attendees chose options like “redundant” and “slightly disagree,” indicating that the survey tools could be used for critical assessment and not merely PPB self-validation. We directly observed PPB training and evaluations since our last report. PPB provided training materials to the Compliance Officer and DOJ in advance of training. Where either identified issues, PPB worked through those issues and honed its materials. As Paragraph 80 requires, PPB’s training included competency-based evaluations, namely: knowledge checks (i.e., quizzes on directives), in-class responsive quizzes (using clickers to respond to questions presented to the group); knowledge tests (examinations via links PPB sent to each student’s Bureau-issued iPhone); demonstrated skills and oral examination (officers had to show proficiency in first aid skills, weapons use, and defensive tactics); and scenario evaluations (officers had to explain their reasoning for choices after acting through scenarios). These were the same sort of competency-based evaluations we commended in our last report. In this monitoring period, PPB applied the same type of evaluations to supervisory-level training as well as in-service training for all sworn members. PPB successfully has used the surveys, testing, and the training audit.