Evaluation Results A. Evaluation results shall be used:
Mediation Results Any agreements resulting from mediation shall be memorialized in writing. The results of the mediation shall not be final or binding unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the parties. Mediators shall not be subject to any subpoena or liability, and their actions shall not be subject to discovery.
Justification and Anticipated Results The Privacy Act requires that each matching agreement specify the justification for the program and the anticipated results, including a specific estimate of any savings. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(o)(1)(B).
Expected Results VA’s agreement with DoD to provide educational assistance is a statutory requirement of Chapter 1606, Title 10, U.S.C., Chapter 1607, Title 10, U.S.C., Chapter 30, Title 38, U.S.C. and Chapter 33, Title 38, U.S.C (Post-9/11 GI Xxxx). These laws require VA to make payments to eligible veterans, service members, guard, reservist, and family members under the transfer of entitlement provisions. The responsibility of determining basic eligibility for Chapter 1606 is placed on the DoD. The responsibility of determining basic eligibility for Chapter 30 and Chapter 33 is placed on VA, while the responsibility of providing initial eligibility data for Chapter 30 and Chapter 33 is placed on DoD. Thus, the two agencies must exchange data to ensure that VA makes payments only to those who are eligible for a program. Without an exchange of enrollment and eligibility data, VA would not be able to establish or verify applicant and recipient eligibility for the programs. Subject to the due process requirements, set forth in Article VII.B.1., 38 U.S.C. §3684A, VA may suspend, terminate, or make a final denial of any financial assistance on the basis of data produced by a computer matching program with DoD. To minimize administrative costs of implementation of the law and to maximize the service to the veteran or service member, a system of data exchanges and subsequent computer matching programs was developed. The purposes of the computer matching programs are to minimize the costs of administering the Xxxxxxxxxx GI Xxxx — Active Duty, the Xxxxxxxxxx GI Xxxx — Selected Reserve, Reserve Educational Assistance Program, and the Post-9/11 GI Xxxx program; facilitate accurate payment to eligible veterans or service members training under the Chapter of the Xxxxxxxxxx GI Xxxx — Active Duty, the Xxxxxxxxxx GI Xxxx — Selected Reserve, Reserve Educational Assistance Program, and the Post-9/11 GI Xxxx program; and to avoid payment to those who lose eligibility. The current automated systems, both at VA and DoD, have been developed over the last twenty-two years. The systems were specifically designed to utilize computer matching in transferring enrollment and eligibility data to facilitate accurate payments and avoid incorrect payments. The source agency, DMDC, stores eligibility data on its computer based system of record. The cost of providing this data to VA electronically are minimal when compared to the cost DMDC would incur if the data were forwarded to VA in a hard-copy manner. By comparing records electronically, VA avoids the personnel costs of inputting data manually as well as the storage costs of the DMDC documents. This results in a VA estimated annual savings of $26,724,091 to VA in mailing and data entry costs. DoD reported an estimated annual savings of $12,350,000. A cost-benefit analysis is at Attachment 1. In the 32 years since the inception of the Chapter 30 program, the cost savings of using computer matching to administer the benefit payments for these educational assistance programs have remained significant. The implementation of Chapter 33 has impacted the Chapter 30 program over the past 8 years (fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 2017). Statistics show a decrease of 23 percent in the number of persons who ultimately use Chapter 30 from fiscal year 2015 to 2016. The number of persons who use Chapter 33 has consistently been above 700,000 in the past four years. VA foresees continued cost savings due to the number of persons eligible for the education programs.
Estimates User shall pay to Tenant, in advance on a monthly basis, an amount equal to the estimated Rent for each year of the Use Period or part thereof divided by the number of months therein. Attached as Exhibit B is an budget for the Project prepared by Tenant and approved by User, which reflects a good faith estimate of Rent. Based on Exhibit B, the parties have agreed that User will pay to Tenant the monthly sum allocated to User on Exhibit B, in advance, as Tenant’s initial estimate of Rent. From time to time, Tenant may estimate and re-estimate the amount of Rent to be due and deliver a copy of the estimate or re-estimate to User. Thereafter, the monthly installments of Rent shall be appropriately adjusted in accordance with the estimations so that, by the end of the calendar year in question, User shall have paid all of Rent estimated by Tenant for such calendar year. Any amounts paid based on such an estimate shall be subject to adjustment as herein provided when the actual amount of Rent is available for each calendar year or fraction thereof (in the instance of any partial calendar year).
Audit Results If an audit by a Party determines that an overpayment or an underpayment has occurred, a notice of such overpayment or underpayment shall be given to the other Party together with those records from the audit which support such determination.
Quantitative Results i. Total number and percentage of instances in which the IRO determined that the Paid Claims submitted by CHSI (Claim Submitted) differed from what should have been the correct claim (Correct Claim), regardless of the effect on the payment.
Estimating (2) Marketing and sales:
Cost Estimating The Model may be used to develop cost estimates based on the approximate data provided and conceptual estimating techniques (e.g., volume and quantity of elements or type of system selected).
Estimates and Reconciliation of Estimates Where estimated expenditures are used to determine the amount of the drawdown, the State will indicate in the terms of the State unique funding technique how the estimated amount is determined and when and how the State will reconcile the difference between the estimate and the State's actual expenditures.
