DETERMINATION OF HUB PARTICIPATION A firm must be an eligible HUB and perform a professional or technical function relating to the project. Proof of payment, such as copies of canceled checks, properly identifying the Department’s contract number or project number may be required to substantiate the payment, as deemed necessary by the Department. A HUB subprovider, with prior written approval from the Department, may subcontract 70% of a contract as long as the DocuSign Envelope ID: 1FDB1C48-24B1-4C40-8A33-17263E465FE2 HUB subprovider performs a commercially useful function. All subcontracts shall include the provisions required in the subcontract and shall be approved as to form, in writing, by the Department prior to work being performed under the subcontract. A HUB performs a commercially useful function when it is responsible for a distinct element of the work of a contract; and actually manages, supervises, and controls the materials, equipment, employees, and all other business obligations attendant to the satisfactory completion of contracted work. If the subcontractor uses an employee leasing firm for the purpose of providing salary and benefit administration, the employees must in all other respects be supervised and perform on the job as if they were employees of the subcontractor.
DETERMINATION OF DBE PARTICIPATION A firm must be an eligible DBE and perform a professional or technical function relating to the project. Once a firm is determined to be an eligible DBE, the total amount paid to the DBE for work performed with his/her own forces is counted toward the DBE goal. When a DBE subcontracts part of the work of its contract to another firm, the value of the subcontracted work may be counted toward DBE goals only if the subprovider is itself a DBE. Work that a DBE subcontracts to a non-DBE firm does not count toward DBE goals. A DBE subprovider may subcontract no more than 70% of a federal aid contract. The DBE subprovider shall perform not less than 30% of the value of the contract work with assistance of employees employed and paid directly by the DBE; and equipment owned or rented directly by the DBE. DBE subproviders must perform a commercially useful function required in the contract in order for payments to be credited toward meeting the contract goal. A DBE performs a commercially useful function when it is responsible for executing the work of the contract and is carrying out its responsibilities by actually performing, managing, and supervising the work involved. To perform a commercially useful function, the DBE must also be responsible, with respect to materials and supplies used on the contract, for negotiating price, determining quality and quantity, ordering the material, and installing (where applicable) and paying for the material itself . When a DBE is presumed not to be performing a commercially useful function, the DBE may present evidence to rebut this presumption. A Provider may count toward its DBE goal a portion of the total value of the contract amount paid to a DBE joint venture equal to the distinct, clearly defined portion of the work of the contract performed by the DBE. Proof of payment, such as copies of canceled checks, properly identifying the Department’s contract number or project number may be required to substantiate the payment, as deemed necessary by the Department.
Salary Determination 12.5.1 A unit member shall receive a salary not less than the minimum salary nor more than the maximum salary (Articles 12.3 and 12.4) for the rank to which appointed, except as provided in Articles 4.15, 5.6, 10.6.1 or Article 10.6.1.1. The effective dates for salaries shall be the appropriate dates specified in Article 12.2.2.
Expert Determination If a Dispute relates to any aspect of the technology underlying the provision of the Goods and/or Services or otherwise relates to a financial technical or other aspect of a technical nature (as the Parties may agree) and the Dispute has not been resolved by discussion or mediation, then either Party may request (which request will not be unreasonably withheld or delayed) by written notice to the other that the Dispute is referred to an Expert for determination. The Expert shall be appointed by agreement in writing between the Parties, but in the event of a failure to agree within ten (10) Working Days, or if the person appointed is unable or unwilling to act, the Expert shall be appointed on the instructions of the relevant professional body. The Expert shall act on the following basis: he/she shall act as an expert and not as an arbitrator and shall act fairly and impartially; the Expert's determination shall (in the absence of a material failure to follow the agreed procedures) be final and binding on the Parties; the Expert shall decide the procedure to be followed in the determination and shall be requested to make his/her determination within thirty (30) Working Days of his appointment or as soon as reasonably practicable thereafter and the Parties shall assist and provide the documentation that the Expert requires for the purpose of the determination; any amount payable by one Party to another as a result of the Expert's determination shall be due and payable within twenty (20) Working Days of the Expert's determination being notified to the Parties; the process shall be conducted in private and shall be confidential; and the Expert shall determine how and by whom the costs of the determination, including his/her fees and expenses, are to be paid.
T ermination In the event that either party seeks to terminate this DPA, they may do so by mutual written consent and as long as any service agreement or terms of service, to the extent one exists, has lapsed or has been terminated. The LEA may terminate this DPA and any service agreement or contract with the Provider if the Provider breaches any terms of this DPA.
Determination of Fair Market Value For purposes of this Section 10.2, “fair market value” of a share of Common Stock as of a particular date (the “Determination Date”) shall mean:
SETTLEMENT OF DIFFERENCES (1) Differences arising out of the interpretation, operation and implementation of this Agreement, at any and all levels of participation, will be settled amicably through consultation between the Parties.
Determination of Agreement 29. (1) In any of the following events namely if —
Determination by Independent Firm In the event of any question arising with respect to the adjustments provided for in this Article 4 such question shall be conclusively determined by an independent firm of chartered accountants other than the Auditors, who shall have access to all necessary records of the Corporation, and such determination shall be binding upon the Corporation, the Warrant Agent, all holders and all other persons interested therein.
Penalty Determination H&SC section 39619.7 requires CARB to provide information on the basis for the penalties it seeks. This Agreement includes this information, which is also summarized here. The provision of law the penalty is being assessed under and why that provision is most appropriate for that violation. The penalty provision being applied in this case is H&SC section 42402 et seq. because IIT sold, supplied, offered for sale, consumer products for commerce in California in violation of the Consumer Products Regulations (17 CCR section 94507 et seq.). The penalty provisions of H&SC section 42402 et seq. apply to violations of the Consumer Products Regulations because the regulations were adopted under authority of H&SC section 41712, which is in Part 4 of Division 26. The manner in which the penalty amount was determined, including aggravating and mitigating factors and per unit or per vehicle basis for the penalty. H&SC section 42402 et seq. provides strict liability penalties of up to $10,000 per day for violations of the Consumer Product Regulations with each day being a separate violation. In cases like this, involving unintentional violations of the Consumer Products Regulations where the violator cooperates with the investigation, CARB has obtained penalties for selling uncertified charcoal lighter material in California. In this case, the total penalty is $7,500 for selling uncertified charcoal lighter material in California. The penalty in this case was reduced because this was a strict liability first-time violation and IIT made diligent efforts to cooperate with the investigation. To come into compliance, IIT no longer offers Safegel BBQ & Fireplace Lighting Gel Fire Starter for commerce in California. Final penalties were determined based on the unique circumstances of this matter, considered together with the need to remove any economic benefit from noncompliance, the goal of deterring future violations and obtaining swift compliance, the consideration of past penalties in similar negotiated cases, and the potential cost and risk associated with litigating these particular violations. The penalty reflects violations extending over a number of days resulting in quantifiable harm to the environment considered together with the complete circumstances of this case. Penalties in future cases might be smaller or larger on a per ton basis. The final penalty in this case was based in part on confidential financial information or confidential business information provided by IIT that is not retained by CARB in the ordinary course of business. The penalty in this case was also based on confidential settlement communications between CARB and IIT that CARB does not retain in the ordinary course of business. The penalty also reflects CARB’s assessment of the relative strength of its case against IIT, the desire to avoid the uncertainty, burden and expense of litigation, obtain swift compliance with the law and remove any unfair advantage that IIT may have secured from its actions. Is the penalty being assessed under a provision of law that prohibits the emission of pollution at a specified level, and, if so a quantification of excess emissions, if it is practicable to do so. The Consumer Product Regulations do not prohibit emissions above a specified level, but they do limit the concentration of VOCs in regulated products. In this case, a quantification of the excess emissions attributable to the violations was not practicable.
