COST CONSIDERATIONS. This agreement does not authorize financial expenditures by the COG on behalf of FEMA. The FEMA IPAWS Program is responsible for the costs associated with developing, operating and maintaining the availability of the IPAWS-OPEN system. The COG is responsible for all costs related to providing their users with access to IPAWS- OPEN via the public Internet. These costs may include hardware, software, monthly Internet charges, completion of security awareness training and other related jurisdictional costs.
COST CONSIDERATIONS. 1. The plan developed pursuant to Section D.5 shall address at a minimum the following criteria:
COST CONSIDERATIONS. Both parties agree to be responsible for their own systems and costs of the interconnecting mechanism and/or media. No financial commitments to reimburse the other party shall be made without the written concurrence of both parties. Modifications to either system that are necessary to support the interconnection are the responsibility of the respective system/network owners’ organization. This ISA neither authorizes, requires, nor precludes any transfer of funds without the agreement of both parties.
COST CONSIDERATIONS. The Commission’s library reference PRC– CP2009–13–NP–LR–1 analyzes the financial impact of this of this contract. Library Reference PRC–CP2009–13–NP– LR–1 updates the original data submitted by the Postal Service and provides calculations for revenue per piece for each of the negotiated service agreement’s rate categories. The results show that the updated data do not cause the financial results to vary significantly. Based on the data submitted and the Commission’s analysis shown in Library Reference PRC–CP2009–13–NP–LR–1, the Commission finds that Parcel Select & Parcel Return Service Contract 1 should cover its attributable costs (39 U.S.C. 3633(a)(2)), should not lead to the subsidization of competitive products by market dominant products (39 U.S.C. 3633(a)(1)), and should have a positive effect on competitive products’ contribution to institutional costs (39 U.S.C. 3633(a)(3)). Thus, an initial review of the proposed Parcel Select & Parcel Return Service Contract 1 indicates that it comports with the provisions applicable to rates for competitive products. The Postal Service shall promptly notify the Commission when the contract terminates, but no later than the actual termination date. The Commission will then remove the contract from the Mail Classification Schedule at the earliest possible opportunity. Public Representative comments. As evidenced by filings in other recent negotiated service agreement dockets, it appears that the Postal Service typically has the ability to properly redact files using blackouts while maintaining the documents’ ‘‘searchability’’ characteristics. The Postal Service should strive to ensure that all redacted documents are properly redacted using blackouts unless it specifically justifies the use of other redaction methods in its filings.
COST CONSIDERATIONS. The Postal Service presents a financial analysis showing that Express Mail & Priority Mail Contract 5 results in cost savings while ensuring that the contract covers its attributable costs, does not result in subsidization of competitive products by market dominant products, and increases contribution from competitive products. Based on the data submitted, the Commission finds that Express Mail & Priority Mail Contract 5 should cover its attributable costs (39 U.S.C. 3633(a)(2)), should not lead to the subsidization of competitive products by market dominant products (39 U.S.C. 3633(a)(1)), and should have a positive effect on competitive products’ contribution to institutional costs (39 U.S.C. 3633(a)(3)). Thus, an initial review of the proposed Express Mail & Priority Mail Contract 5 indicates that it comports with the provisions applicable to rates for competitive products.
COST CONSIDERATIONS. Both parties agree to share the costs of the interconnecting mechanisms and/or media. Percentage of cost assumed by each organization (e.g., 50/50, 40/60, etc.) must be agreed upon in advance, and no such expenditures or financial commitments shall be made without the written concurrence of both parties. Modifications to either system that are necessary to support the interconnection are the responsibility of the respective system owner’s organization.
COST CONSIDERATIONS. 1. Software development is likely the greatest initial cost in transitioning to electronic data collection. Observers presently use 16 separate data forms (Appendix 1), many of which are multi-page, so data entry screens for as many as 30 different pages would be needed. Because observers need to be able to fill various forms concurrently during a set, it will be critical that this software allow quick and efficient transitions among forms, while auto-saving the data recorded. Additionally, since observers also make hand-written notes and sketches, reliable handwriting recognition will be needed. No such software exists, and would need to be developed before even a pilot study can be conducted. No quotes have been solicited from potential vendors yet because of the significant amount of staff time required to develop a specification. However, given the scope of the task, the number of forms involved, and the transition efficiency required, the cost will likely be substantial: US$ 150,000, assuming a conservative rate of US$ 50/hour for development and 3,000 hours, and could well be higher. It should also be noted that observer forms evolve, in accordance with the requirements of the scientists using the information and the demands for data by governments. Modifying paper forms is simple; modifying electronic forms requires greater expertise, and is therefore more expensive. Instruction in data collection is the most time-consuming part of observer training. Electronic data collection would require additional training, and thus additional expense. Observers would still need to be trained to use paper forms, because electronic equipment can malfunction, and paper forms would be needed as a back-up at sea.
COST CONSIDERATIONS. The costs and investments for this option are considerable, but much less than for Option 1. Electronic forms would not be needed, and the data entry software used by IATTC staff on land could be used. Suitable laptop computers cost much less than tablets (as little as US$ 850); with the same data transmission equipment as for Option 1 (US$ 660), the initial equipment cost per observer (without a backup system) would be at least US$ 1,510, or US$ 15,100 for a pilot project with ten observers, or about US$ 151,000 for the entire IATTC observer program. Data transmission rates would be the same as for Option 1, although some of the data, such as drawings and written descriptions, would not be entered, and so the total amount of data would be less. Other costs would include training observers to digitize their own data, although, if this option were adopted, this would eventually become part of the regular training courses. This option shares most, but not all, of the advantages and disadvantages of Option 1.
COST CONSIDERATIONS. The Lebanon Police Department and the Lebanon School District shall equally share expenses that are not grant related for the SRO salary, and necessary training requirements. The Lebanon Police Department will pay any expenses that are strictly police related, and in turn, the Lebanon School District will pay any expenses that are strictly school related.
COST CONSIDERATIONS. 2.1 * Should PUCKA request the additional support, the cost shall be paid for these services under the provisions of the basic AGREEMENT.
