RECTIFYING DEFICIENCIES OF REJECTED OFFERS Sample Clauses

RECTIFYING DEFICIENCIES OF REJECTED OFFERS. As observed previously, PG&E communicated early to several Participants about basic deficiencies in their Offer packages and provided them with an opportunity to correct these deficiencies by completing or correcting their original submissions. None of these original shortfalls in the packages resulted directly in rejection from the short list, as far as can be discerned. Most of the individual rejections of Offers were based on low valuations, low viability, and avoidance of excess supplier concentration. In general deficiencies preventing Offers from being selected do not appear to be caused by errors or misjudgments by the Participants in drafting the Offer package, but rather by the poor economics of projects or technologies at the MW scale chosen by developers, by insufficient progress by the developer at this point in time in areas such as site control, permitting, demonstration of resource quality, and interconnection (e.g., a “not fully baked” project, deficient not in its intrinsic merits but in its degree of advancement to date), and by of equipment and of contractors are moving targets. Xxxxxx cannot identify how PG&E could have rectified the deficiencies associated with rejected Offers while maintaining fairness to Participants whose Offers were selected. The only suggestion Xxxxxx can offer would be to edit future solicitation materials and bidders’ workshop presentations to clarify that the RPS solicitation differs completely from any proposed PV Program.
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3See All (9)
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
RECTIFYING DEFICIENCIES OF REJECTED OFFERS. PG&E communicated early to several Participants about basic deficiencies in their Offer packages and provided them with an opportunity to correct these deficiencies by completing or correcting their original submissions. None of these original deficiencies caused rejection from the short list, as far as Xxxxxx can discern. Many of the issues related to failure to complete an Attachment D offer form fully, using the final version of that form, or omission of the most recent CAISO or PTO interconnection study. Figure 4 PG&E viability score IE viability score Given the robustness of the solicitation and the large number of Offer variants, PG&E did not collect every piece of information required by the protocol from every Participant. Some Participants had obtained interconnection studies for their project but did not submit copies with their proposals. Xxxxxx observes that in these cases the missing information would not have made a difference to the selection decision. PG&E made a concerted effort to obtain copies of these studies for most of these projects. By this point it was evident which Offers had proposed uncompetitive, high prices and were unlikely to be short-listed.
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3See All (5)
RECTIFYING DEFICIENCIES OF REJECTED OFFERS. PG&E communicated early to several Participants about basic deficiencies in their Offer packages and provided them with an opportunity to correct these deficiencies by completing or correcting their original submissions. None of these original deficiencies caused rejection from consideration for the short list once corrected. Most of the deficiencies concerned omissions of required documents from the offer packages, such as interconnection study reports. In a very few cases the deficiencies were clearly beyond remedy, ' In the case of Offers that PG&E rejected for non-compliance with the requirements of the solicitation, Xxxxxx believes that little could have been done by PG&E to help Participants rectify deficiencies in their proposals. ' '
Sample 1
RECTIFYING DEFICIENCIES OF REJECTED OFFERS. As observed previously, PG&E communicated early to several Participants about basic deficiencies in their Offer packages and provided them with an opportunity to correct these deficiencies by completing or correcting their original submissions. None of these original shortfalls in the packages resulted directly in rejection from the short list, as far as can be discerned, except for the two Offers that were rejected for non-conformity with the requirements of the solicitation protocol. Most of the individual rejections of Offers were based on low valuations, low viability, and avoidance of excess supplier concentration. In general, deficiencies preventing Offers from being selected do not appear to be caused by errors or misjudgments by the Participants in drafting the Offer package, but rather by the poor economics of projects or technologies at the MW scale chosen by developers, by insufficient progress by the developer at this point in time in areas such as site control, permitting, demonstration of resource quality, and interconnection (e.g., a “not fully and by the difficulty for some developers in locking down a competitive PPA price when the price of equipment and of contractors are moving targets. Some projects were deeply flawed by site selection at locations where the grid is highly congested, or in foreign control areas where substantial costs would be required to wheel power to the CAISO and to shape and firm it to render it eligible for the RPS program, or in foreign control areas where it is not at all clear that the power can be moved to the CAISO given limited available transmission capability. Other projects were unattractive because of the serious environmental concerns their construction would likely raise. In situations like these, the rejection from the short list would not likely be rectified by any actions PG&E could take to have the developer enhance its Offer package. Some developers seem to have completely mistaken the 2009 RPS RFO for a solicitation for PG&E’s as-yet-unapproved PV Program, and appear to have assumed that PG&E’s proposed tariff price for contracts under that program, $246/MWh, would serve as a winning offer or a “safe harbor” price. In these cases one can imagine how PG&E might have rectified the deficiency of an uncompetitive price by querying the Participants about the basis for their price. However, such a query by PG&E would fall into the category of a request for clarification that could provide one Participa...
Sample 1

Related to RECTIFYING DEFICIENCIES OF REJECTED OFFERS

  • Correction of Deficiencies The contractor must correct promptly any work of his/her own or his/her subcontractors found to be defective or not complying with the terms of the contract.

  • Proposal of Corrective Action Plan In addition to the processes set forth in the Contract (e.g., service level agreements), if the Department or Customer determines that there is a performance deficiency that requires correction by the Contractor, then the Department or Customer will notify the Contractor. The correction must be made within a time-frame specified by the Department or Customer. The Contractor must provide the Department or Customer with a corrective action plan describing how the Contractor will address all performance deficiencies identified by the Department or Customer.

  • Our Liability for Failure to Complete Transactions If we do not properly complete a transaction from your Card on time or in the correct amount according to our Agreement with you, we will be liable for your losses or damages. However, there are some exceptions. We will not be liable, for instance:

  • What if a Prohibited Transaction Occurs If a “prohibited transaction”, as defined in Section 4975 of the Internal Revenue Code, occurs, the Xxxxxxxxx Education Savings Account could be disqualified. Rules similar to those that apply to Traditional IRAs will apply.

  • Why did I get this Notice This is a court-authorized notice of a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, XxXxxxx, et al. v. Veriff, Inc., No. 2021L001202, pending in the Circuit Court of DuPage County, Illinois before the Xxx. Xxxxx Xxxxxxx. The Settlement would resolve a lawsuit brought on behalf of persons who allege that Veriff, Inc., collected individuals’ biometrics in Illinois through its identity-verification technology without first providing the individuals with legally-required written disclosures and obtaining written consent. If you received notice of this Settlement, you have been identified as someone who, at some time between November 12, 2016 and [Preliminary Approval], had biometrics collected, captured, purchased, received through trade, possessed, retained or otherwise obtained while in Illinois by Veriff or its technology for the purposes of identity verification, and whose identity was verified. The Court has granted preliminary approval of the Settlement and has conditionally certified the Settlement Class for purposes of settlement only. This notice explains the nature of the class action lawsuit, the terms of the Settlement, and the legal rights and obligations of the Settlement Class Members. Please read the instructions and explanations below so that you can better understand your legal rights. WHAT IS THIS LAWSUIT ABOUT? The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”), 740 ILCS 14/1, et seq., prohibits private companies from capturing, obtaining, storing, transmitting, and/or using the biometric identifiers and/or information, such as scans of face geometry, of another individual for any purpose without first providing them with certain written disclosures and obtaining written consent. This lawsuit alleges that Defendant violated BIPA by collecting or capturing the scans of face geometry of individuals through identity verification technology in Illinois without first providing the requisite disclosures or obtaining the consent required by BIPA. Defendant contests these claims, denies that it collected or possessed facial biometrics or any other information subject to BIPA, and denies that it violated BIPA. WHY IS THIS A CLASS ACTION? A class action is a lawsuit in which an individual called a “Class Representative” brings a single lawsuit on behalf of other people who have similar claims. All of these people together are a “Class” or “Class Members.” Once a Class is certified, a class action Settlement finally approved by the Court resolves the issues for all Settlement Class Members, except for those who exclude themselves from the Settlement Class. WHY IS THERE A SETTLEMENT? To resolve this matter without the expense, delay, and uncertainties of litigation, the Parties have reached a Settlement, which resolves all claims against Defendant and its affiliated entities. The Settlement requires Defendant to pay money to the Settlement Class, as well as pay settlement administration expenses, attorneys’ fees and costs to Class Counsel, and Incentive Awards to each of the Class Representatives, if approved by the Court. The Settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing by Defendant and does not imply that there has been, or would be, any finding that Defendant violated the law. The Court has already preliminarily approved the Settlement. Nevertheless, because the settlement of a class action determines the rights of all members of the class, the Court overseeing this lawsuit must give final approval to the Settlement before it can be effective. The Court has conditionally certified the Settlement Class for settlement purposes only, so that members of the Settlement Class can be given this notice and the opportunity to exclude themselves from the Settlement Class, to voice their support or opposition to final approval of the Settlement, and to submit a Claim Form to receive the relief offered by the Settlement. If the Court does not give final approval to the Settlement, or if it is terminated by the Parties, the Settlement will be void, and the lawsuit will proceed as if there had been no settlement and no certification of the Settlement Class.

  • Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion - Lower Tier Covered Transactions (a) The prospective lower tier participant certifies, by submission of this proposal, that neither it nor its principals is presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction by any federal department or agency.

  • Reportable Events Involving the Xxxxx Law Notwithstanding the reporting requirements outlined above, any Reportable Event that involves solely a probable violation of section 1877 of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §1395nn (the Xxxxx Law) should be submitted by Practitioner to CMS through the self-referral disclosure protocol (SRDP), with a copy to the OIG. If Practitioner identifies a probable violation of the Xxxxx Law and repays the applicable Overpayment directly to the CMS contractor, then Practitioner is not required by this Section III.G to submit the Reportable Event to CMS through the SRDP.

  • LIABILITY FOR FAILURE TO COMPLETE TRANSACTIONS If We do not properly complete a transaction to or from Your Account according to this Agreement, We will be liable for Your losses or damages. However, We will not be liable if: (a) Your Account does not contain enough available funds to make the transaction through no fault of Ours; (b) the ATM where You are making the transfer does not have enough cash; (c) the terminal was not working properly and You knew about the breakdown when You started the transaction; (d) circumstances beyond Our control prevent the transaction despite reasonable precautions that We have taken; (e) Your Card is retrieved or retained by an ATM;

  • Anti-Deficiency Act The Department's obligations and responsibilities under the terms of the Contract and the Contract Documents are and shall remain subject to the provisions of (i) the federal Anti-Deficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. §§1341, 1342, 1349, 1350, 1351, (ii) the D.C. Code 47-105, (iii) the District of Columbia Anti-Deficiency Act, D.C. Code §§ 47- 355.01 - 355.08, as the foregoing statutes may be amended from time to time, and (iv) Section 446 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act. Neither the Contract nor any of the Contract Documents shall constitute an indebtedness of the Department, nor shall it constitute an obligation for which the Department is obligated to levy or pledge any form of taxation, or for which the Department has levied or pledged any form of taxation. IN ACCORDANCE WITH § 446 OF THE HOME RULE ACT, D.C. CODE § 1-204.46, NO DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OFFICIAL IS AUTHORIZED TO OBLIGATE OR EXPEND ANY AMOUNT UNDER THE CONTRACT OR CONTRACT DOCUMENTS UNLESS SUCH AMOUNT HAS BEEN APPROVED, IS LAWFULLY AVAILABLE AND APPROPRIATED BY ACT OF CONGRESS.

  • Definition of Reportable Event For purposes of this CIA, a “Reportable Event” means anything that involves:

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.