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.
NOTIFICATIONS AND SUBMISSION OF REPORTS Unless otherwise stated in writing after the Effective Date, all notifications and reports required under this IA shall be submitted to the following entities: OIG: Administrative and Civil Remedies Branch Office of Counsel to the Inspector General Office of Inspector General U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Xxxxx Building, Room 5527 000 Xxxxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxx, XX Xxxxxxxxxx, XX 00000 Telephone: (000) 000-0000 Facsimile: (000) 000-0000 LFAC: Xxxxxxx X. Xxxxx, DPM 0000 Xxxxxxxxxxx Xx. X-000 Xxxxxxxxx, XX 00000 Telephone: (000) 000-0000 Email: xx.xxxxx@xxxxx.xxx Unless otherwise specified, all notifications and reports required by this IA may be made by electronic mail, overnight mail, hand delivery, or other means, provided that there is proof that such notification was received. Upon request by OIG, LFAC may be required to provide OIG with an additional copy of each notification or report required by this IA in OIG’s requested format (electronic or paper).
Submission of Certified Payroll Transcripts for Public Works Contracts Only Contractors and Subcontractors on public works projects must submit monthly payroll transcripts to the Authorized User that has prepared or directs the preparation of the plans and specifications for a public works project, as set forth in the Bid Specifications. For Mini-Bid solicitations, the payroll records must be submitted to the entity preparing the agency Mini-Bid project specification. For “agency specific” Bids, the payroll records should be submitted to the entity issuing the purchase order. For all other OGS Centralized Contracts, such records should be submitted to the individual agency issuing the purchase order(s) for the work. Upon mutual agreement of the Contractor and the Authorized User, the form of submission may be submitted in a specified disk format acceptable to the Department of Labor provided: 1) the Contractor/Subcontractor retains the original records; and, (2) an original signed letter by a duly authorized individual of the Contractor or Subcontractor attesting to the truth and accuracy of the records accompanies the disk. This provision does not apply to Article 9 of the Labor Law building services contracts.
Hiring Decisions Contractor shall make the final determination of whether an Economically Disadvantaged Individual referred by the System is "qualified" for the position.
Decisions by Members Whenever in this Agreement reference is made to the decision, consent, approval, judgment, or action of the Members, unless otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, such decision, consent, approval, judgment, or action shall mean a Majority of the Members.
REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS Any revisions or amendments to this Agreement must be made in writing and signed by both parties.
Submissions on Behalf of Others Should You wish to submit work that is not Your original creation, You may submit it to OIDF separately from any Contribution, identifying the complete details of its source and of any license or other restriction (including, but not limited to, related patents, trademarks, and license agreements) of which you are personally aware, and conspicuously marking the work as "Submitted on behalf of a third-party: [named here]".
Conclusion and Recommendations D. Evaluations for Offenders without a sex offense conviction shall answer the following additional referral questions in the evaluations:
Impartial Decisions The Design Professional is the interpreter of the conditions of the Construction Contract and the judge of its performance, in the first instance. The Design Professional shall side neither with the Owner nor with the Contractor, but shall use its powers to enforce performance by both.
Office of Inspector General Investigative Findings Expert Review In accordance with Senate Bill 799, Acts 2021, 87th Leg., R.S., if Texas Government Code, Section 531.102(m-1)(2) is applicable to this Contract, Contractor affirms that it possesses the necessary occupational licenses and experience.
