Unjustified markings Sample Clauses

Unjustified markings. (1) An un- justified marking is an authorized marking that does not depict accu- rately restrictions applicable to the Government’s use, modification, repro- duction, release, performance, display, or disclosure of the marked technical data. For example, a limited rights leg- end placed on technical data pertaining to items, components, or processes that were developed under a Govern- ment contract either exclusively at Government expense or with mixed funding (situations under which the Government obtains unlimited or gov- ernment purpose rights) is an unjusti- fied marking. (2) Contracting officers have the right to review and challenge the valid- ity of unjustified markings. However, at any time during performance of a contract and notwithstanding exist- ence of a challenge, the contracting of- ficer and the person who has asserted a restrictive marking may agree that the restrictive marking is not justified. Upon such agreement, the contracting officer may, at his or her election, ei- ther— (i) Strike or correct the unjustified marking at that person’s expense; or (ii) Return the technical data to the person asserting the restriction for cor- rection at that person’s expense. If the data are returned and that person fails to correct or strike the unjustified re- striction and return the corrected data to the contracting officer within 60 days following receipt of the data, the unjustified marking shall be corrected or stricken at that person’s expense.
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3See All (4)
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Unjustified markings. (1) An un- justified marking is an authorized marking that does not depict accu- rately restrictions applicable to the Government’s use, modification, repro- duction, release, or disclosure of the marked computer software or com- puter software documentation. For ex- ample, a restricted rights legend placed on computer software developed under a Government contract either exclu- sively at Government expense or with mixed funding (situations under which the Government obtains unlimited or government purpose rights) is an un- justified marking. (2) Contracting officers have the right to review and challenge the valid- ity of unjustified markings. However, at any time during performance of a contract and notwithstanding exist- ence of a challenge, the contracting of- ficer and the person who has asserted a restrictive marking may agree that the restrictive marking is not justified. Upon such agreement, the contracting officer may, at his or her election, ei- ther— (i) Strike or correct the unjustified marking at that person’s expense; or (ii) Return the computer software or computer software documentation to the person asserting the restriction for correction at that person’s expense. If the software or documentation are re- turned and that person fails to correct or strike the unjustified restriction and return the corrected software or documentation to the contracting offi- cer within 60 days following receipt of the software or documentation, the un- justified marking shall be corrected or stricken at that person’s expense.
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3See All (4)
Unjustified markings. The rights and obligations of the parties regarding the validation of restrictive markings on technical data or computer software furnished or to be furnished under this agreement are contained in the Validation of Restrictive Markings on Technical Data and the Validation of Asserted Restrictions - Computer Software articles of this agreement, respectively. Notwithstanding any provision of this agreement concerning inspection and acceptance, the Government may ignore or, at the Contractor's expense, correct or strike a marking if, in accordance with the applicable procedures of those articles, a restrictive marking is determined to be unjustified.
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3
Unjustified markings. (1) An unjustified marking is an authorized marking that does not depict accurately restrictions applicable to the Government's use, modification, reproduction, release, performance, display, or disclosure of the marked technical data. For example, a limited rights legend placed on technical data pertaining to items, components, or processes that were developed under a Government contract either exclusively at Government expense or with mixed funding (situations under which the Government obtains unlimited or government purpose rights) is an unjustified marking. (2) Contracting officers have the right to review and challenge the validity of unjustified markings. However, at any time during performance of a contract and notwithstanding existence of a challenge, the contracting officer and the person who has asserted a restrictive marking may agree that the restrictive marking is not justified. Upon such agreement, the contracting officer may, at his or her election, either— (i) Strike or correct the unjustified marking at that person's expense; or (ii) Return the technical data to the person asserting the restriction for correction at that person's expense. If the data are returned and that person fails to correct or strike the unjustified restriction and return the corrected data to the contracting officer within 60 days following receipt of the data, the unjustified marking shall be corrected or stricken at that person's expense.
Sample 1Sample 2
Unjustified markings. (1) An unjustified marking is an authorized marking that does not depict accurately restrictions applicable to the Government's use, modification, reproduction, release, or disclosure of the marked computer software or computer software documentation. For example, a restricted rights legend placed on computer software developed under a Government contract either exclusively at Government expense or with mixed funding (situations under which the Government obtains unlimited or government purpose rights) is an unjustified marking. (2) Contracting officers have the right to review and challenge the validity of unjustified markings. However, at any time during performance of a contract and notwithstanding existence of a challenge, the contracting officer and the person who has asserted a restrictive marking may agree that the restrictive marking is not justified. Upon such agreement, the contracting officer may, at his or her election, either—
Sample 1Sample 2
Unjustified markings. (1) An un- justified marking is an authorized marking that does not depict accu- rately restrictions applicable to the Government’s use, modification, repro- duction, release, performance, display, or disclosure of the marked technical data. For example, a limited rights leg- end placed on technical data pertaining to items, components, or processes that were developed under a Govern-
Sample 1
Unjustified markings. (1) An un- justified marking is an authorized marking that does not depict accu- rately restrictions applicable to the Government’s use, modification, repro- duction, release, or disclosure of the marked computer software or com- puter software documentation. For ex- ample, a restricted rights legend placed on computer software developed under a Government contract either exclu- sively at Government expense or with mixed funding (situations under which the Government obtains unlimited or government purpose rights) is an un- justified marking. (2) Contracting officers have the right to review and challenge the valid- ity of unjustified markings. However, at any time during performance of a contract and notwithstanding exist- ence of a challenge, the contracting of- ficer and the person who has asserted a restrictive marking may agree that the restrictive marking is not justified. Upon such agreement, the contracting officer may, at his or her election, ei- ther—
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Unjustified markings

  • Serious Misconduct In the case of serious misconduct, or for disqualifying crimes as defined in statutes applied to the licensed provision of home care services, each Employer may in its sole discretion, for reasonable cause, bypass any one or all of the steps of progressive discipline. In the case of any form of discipline less than termination, the employee’s disciplinary action shall include a description of the conduct that is the basis for the disciplinary action(s). Each Employer will strive to identify specific corrective action(s) that the employee is expected to take to improve his/her performance.

  • COUNTERFEIT WORK (a) The following definitions apply to this clause:

  • Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation Grantee will; a. take all steps necessary, to protect the health, safety and welfare of its clients and participants. b. develop and implement written policies and procedures for abuse, neglect and exploitation. c. notify appropriate authorities of any allegations of abuse, neglect, or exploitation as required by 25 TAC § 448.703.

  • Convicted, Discriminatory, Antitrust Violator, and Suspended Vendor Lists In accordance with sections 287.133, 287.134, and 287.137, F.S., the Contractor is hereby informed of the provisions of sections 287.133(2)(a), 287.134(2)(a), and 287.137(2)(a), F.S. For purposes of this Contract, a person or affiliate who is on the Convicted Vendor List, the Discriminatory Vendor List, or the Antitrust Violator Vendor List may not perform work as a contractor, supplier, subcontractor, or consultant under the Contract. The Contractor must notify the Department if it or any of its suppliers, subcontractors, or consultants have been placed on the Convicted Vendor List, the Discriminatory Vendor List, or the Antitrust Violator Vendor List during the term of the Contract. In accordance with section 287.1351, F.S., a vendor placed on the Suspended Vendor List may not enter into or renew a contract to provide any goods or services to an agency after its placement on the Suspended Vendor List. A firm or individual placed on the Suspended Vendor List pursuant to section 287.1351, F.S., the Convicted Vendor List pursuant to section 287.133, F.S., the Antitrust Violator Vendor List pursuant to section 287.137, F.S., or the Discriminatory Vendor List pursuant to section 287.134, F.S., is immediately disqualified from Contract eligibility.

  • FLORIDA CONVICTED/SUSPENDED/DISCRIMINATORY COMPLAINTS By submission of an offer, the respondent affirms that it is not currently listed in the Florida Department of Management Services Convicted/Suspended/Discriminatory Complaint Vendor List.

  • Violence (a) The parties agree that violence shall be defined as any incident in which an employee is abused, threatened or assaulted while performing his or her work. The parties agree it includes the application of force, threats with or without weapons and severe verbal abuse. The parties agree that such incidents will not be condoned. Any employee who believes he/she has been subjected to such incident shall report this to a supervisor who will make every reasonable effort to rectify the situation. For purposes of sub- article (a) only, employees as referred to herein shall mean all employees of the Employer. (b) The Employer agrees to develop formalized policies and procedures in consultation with the Joint Health and Safety Committee to deal with workplace violence. The policy will address the prevention of violence and the management of violent situations and support to employees who have faced workplace violence. These policies and procedures shall be communicated to all employees. (c) The Employer will report all incidents of violence as defined herein to the Joint Health and Safety Committee for review. (d) The Employer agrees to provide training and information on the prevention of violence to all employees who come into contact with potentially aggressive persons. This training will be done during a new employee’s orientation and updated as required. (e) Subject to appropriate legislation, and with the employee’s consent, the Employer will inform the Union within three (3) days of any employee who has been subjected to violence while performing his/her work. Such information shall be submitted in writing to the Union as soon as practicable.

  • Malicious Software The Contractor or subcontractors that discover and isolate malicious software in connection with a reported cyber incident shall submit the malicious software in accordance with instructions provided by the Contracting Officer.

  • Vandalism Or Malicious Mischief This peril does not include loss to property on the "residence premises", and any ensuing loss caused by any intentional and wrongful act com- mitted in the course of the vandalism or malicious mischief, if the dwelling has been vacant for more than 60 consecutive days immediately before the loss. A dwelling being constructed is not consid- ered vacant.

  • COUNTERFEIT GOODS Seller agrees that it will not furnish to Jeppesen Goods or separately-identifiable items or components of Goods that: (i) are an unauthorized copy or substitute of an “Original Equipment Manufacturer” or “Original Component Manufacturer” (collectively, “OEM”) item; (ii) are not traceable to an OEM sufficient to ensure authenticity in OEM design and manufacture; (iii) do not contain proper external or internal materials or components required by the OEM or are not constructed in accordance with OEM design; (iv) have been re- worked, re-marked, re-labeled, repaired, refurbished, or otherwise modified from OEM design but not disclosed as such or are represented as OEM authentic or new; or (v) have not passed successfully all OEM required testing, verification, screening, and quality control processes, (collectively “Counterfeit Goods”). Notwithstanding the foregoing, Goods or items that contain modifications, repairs, re-work, or re-marking as a result of Seller’s or its subcontractor’s design authority, material review procedures, quality control processes or parts management plans, and that have not been misrepresented or mismarked without legal right to do so, will not be deemed Counterfeit Goods. Counterfeit Goods will be deemed nonconforming for this PO under which they were delivered. Seller will implement and/or maintain an appropriate strategy to ensure that Goods furnished to Jeppesen under this PO are not Counterfeit Goods. Seller’s strategy will include, but is not limited to, the direct procurement of items from OEMs or authorized suppliers, conducting approved testing or inspection to ensure the authenticity of items, and, when items are to be procured from non-authorized suppliers, obtaining from such non-authorized suppliers appropriate certificates of conformance that provide one or more of the following: (i) the OEM’s original certificate of conformance for the item; (ii) sufficient records providing unbroken supply chain traceability to the OEM; or (iii) test and inspection records demonstrating the item’s authenticity. If Seller becomes aware or suspects that it has furnished Counterfeit Goods to Jeppesen under this PO, Seller promptly, but in no case later than thirty (30) days from discovery, will notify Jeppesen in writing and replace, at Seller’s expense, such Counterfeit Goods with OEM or Jeppesen- approved Goods that conform to the requirements of this PO. Seller will be liable for all costs related to the replacement of Counterfeit Goods, installation of authentic Goods, and any testing or validation necessitated by the installation of authentic Goods after the Counterfeit Goods have been replaced. Seller bears responsibility for procuring authentic Goods or items from its subcontractors and will ensure that all such subcontractors comply with the requirements of this Section.

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