Notice of Non-Compliant Work A Notice of Non-Compliant Work shall be in writing, shall be dated, shall be signed by the Design Professional, and shall be addressed to the Contractor with a copy to the Owner, as set forth in Section 3, Part 4 (Correcting the Work) and Section 6, Part 6 (Correcting the Work after Final Payment).
Conformity to Law This Agreement shall be governed and construed according to the Constitution and Laws of the State of Washington. If any provision of this Agreement, or any application of the Agreement to any employee or groups of employees shall be found contrary to law by a court or administrative agency of competent jurisdiction, such provision or application shall have effect only to the extent permitted by law. All other provisions or applications of the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect. If any provision of this Agreement is held to be contrary to law, the parties shall commence negotiations on said provision as soon thereafter as is reasonably possible.
Final Notice of Non-Compliant Work The Final Notice of Non-Compliant Work issued as a result of the Inspection for Material Completion, also known as the Final Punch List. Upon the completion or correction of this Non- Compliant Work (“punch list” work) the Design Professional will issue the Final Certificate.
Inspection and Rejection of Nonconforming Goods (a) Buyer shall inspect the goods within five days of receipt (“Inspection Period”). Xxxxx will be deemed to have accepted the goods unless it notifies Seller in writing of any Nonconforming Goods during the Inspection Period and furnishes documentation reasonably required by Seller. “
Notice of Non-Compliance If for any reason the Contractor does not comply, or anticipates that it will be unable to comply, with a provision in this Schedule in any respect, the Contractor must promptly notify the Province of the particulars of the non-compliance or anticipated non-compliance and what steps it proposes to take to address, or prevent recurrence of, the non-compliance or anticipated non-compliance.
Retainage for Unacceptable Corrective Action Plan or Plan Failure If the corrective action plan is unacceptable to the Department or Customer, or implementation of the plan fails to remedy the performance deficiencies, the Department or Customer will retain ten percent (10%) of the total invoice amount. The retainage will be withheld until the Contractor resolves the performance deficiencies. If the performance deficiencies are resolved, the Contractor may invoice the Department or Customer for the retained amount. If the Contractor fails to resolve the performance deficiencies, the retained amount will be forfeited to compensate the Department or Customer for the performance deficiencies.
Payment for Material Completion The Contractor may request payment of the remaining contract balance, including retainage, less amounts credited the Owner or incurred as liquidated damages, and less amounts withheld for the Punchlist by reason of Minor Items or Permitted Incomplete Work (See Paragraph 6.5.3.2). Payment for Material Completion shall be made by a check payable jointly to the Contractor and Surety and shall be mailed to the Surety.
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.
Reasonable Suspicion Testing The Employer may, but does not have a legal duty to, request or require an employee to undergo drug and alcohol testing if the Employer or any supervisor of the employee has a reasonable suspicion (a belief based on specific facts and rational inferences drawn from those facts) related to the performance of the job that the employee:
ACCEPTANCE OF INCOMPLETE OR NON-CONFORMING DELIVERABLES If, instead of requiring immediate correction or removal and replacement of defective or non- conforming deliverables, the City prefers to accept it, the City may do so. The Contractor shall pay all claims, costs, losses and damages attributable to the City’s evaluation of and determination to accept such defective or non-conforming deliverables. If any such acceptance occurs prior to final payment, the City may deduct such amounts as are necessary to compensate the City for the diminished value of the defective or non-conforming deliverables. If the acceptance occurs after final payment, such amount will be refunded to the City by the Contractor.
