Statistical Analysis 31 F-tests and t-tests will be used to analyze OV and Quality Acceptance data. The F-test is a 32 comparison of variances to determine if the OV and Quality Acceptance population variances 33 are equal. The t-test is a comparison of means to determine if the OV and Quality Acceptance 34 population means are equal. In addition to these two types of analyses, independent verification 35 and observation verification will also be used to validate the Quality Acceptance test results.
Evaluation Results A. Evaluation results shall be used:
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).
COMPENSATION ANALYSIS After the expiration of the second (2nd) Renewal Term of this Agreement, if any, a Compensation Analysis may be performed. At such time, based on the reported Total Gross Revenue, performance of the Concession, and/or Department’s existing rates for similarly- performing operations, Department may choose to increase the Concession Payment for the following Renewal Term(s), if any.
Data Analysis In the meeting, the analysis that has led the College President to conclude that a reduction- in-force in the FSA at that College may be necessary will be shared. The analysis will include but is not limited to the following: ● Relationship of the FSA to the mission, vision, values, and strategic plan of the College and district ● External requirement for the services provided by the FSA such as accreditation or intergovernmental agreements ● Annual instructional load (as applicable) ● Percentage of annual instructional load taught by Residential Faculty (as applicable) ● Fall Full-Time Student Equivalent (FFTE) inclusive of dual enrollment ● Number of Residential Faculty teaching/working in the FSA ● Number of Residential Faculty whose primary FSA is the FSA being analyzed ● Revenue trends over five years for the FSA including but not limited to tuition and fees ● Expenditure trends over five years for the FSA including but not limited to personnel and capital ● Account balances for any fees accounts within the FSA ● Cost/benefit analysis of reducing all non-Residential Faculty plus one Residential Faculty within the FSA ● An explanation of the problem that reducing the number of faculty in the FSA would solve ● The list of potential Residential Faculty that are at risk of layoff as determined by the Vice Chancellor of Human Resources ● Other relevant information, as requested
Narrative Results i. A description of Xxxxxxx’x billing and coding system(s), including the identification, by position description, of the personnel involved in coding and billing.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS The goal of this task is to collect operational data from the project, to analyze that data for economic and environmental impacts, and to include the data and analysis in the Final Report. Formulas will be provided for calculations. A Final Report data collection template will be provided by the Energy Commission. The Recipient shall: • Develop data collection test plan. • Troubleshoot any issues identified. • Collect data, information, and analysis and develop a Final Report which includes: o Total gross project costs. o Length of time from award of bus(es) to project completion. o Fuel usage before and after the project.
Narrative Commentary covering site improvements, circulation, organization of building space in relation to program requirements, building materials, special features, building systems (HVAC, plumbing, fire protection, structural, security, and video voice and data).
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.
Analysis LICENSEE represents and agrees that it will only incorporate Components received from authorized suppliers into Licensed Products and for no other purpose, and that LICENSEE will not directly or indirectly attempt to reverse-engineer any material provided to it hereunder by LICENSEE or any supplier of any Component.
