Risk Evaluation Sample Clauses

Risk Evaluation a. Prohibited/High Risk Merchants and Activities. Entities classified in certain industries or accepting Transactions for certain prohibited activities do not qualify for the American Express OnePoint Program, but may qualify for our standard American Express Card acceptance program. Please contact our agent with any questions about those risk evaluation procedures under the program.
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Risk Evaluation. On the basis of the review of the information described above, and relying solely thereon and upon the knowledge and experience of the Holder in business and financial matters, the Holder has evaluated the merits and risks of investment in the Note and/or the Shares and has determined that he is both willing and able to undertake the economic risk of this investment.
Risk Evaluation. The Offeror’s proposal submitted in response to Technical Factor 1 will be assigned a risk rating based on the proposal risks associated with:  Meeting proposed technical metrics and performance criteria  Probability that the product delivery schedule meets the proposed timeline  Manufacturing approach is sufficient to meet the delivery timelines defined in Section F of the solicitation and submitted IMS, while producing components that meet the SOW and Performance Specification requirements. The assigned Overall Technical Risk will be based on the definitions in Table M2 (above).
Risk Evaluation. The CYCLADES project will develop the service component of an open virtual archive environment. Such component will be built on top of an archive component. The archive component is being developed by the US Open Archive initiative. Therefore, the two activities are complementary in that they address two different but interacting aspects of an open archives environment: the archive environment and the service environment. Obviously, there exists a dependency of the CYCLADES project on the achievements and results of the OAi. We want, here, to evaluate the risk which is inherent in this dependency relationship between the two activities and to identify effective recovery actions. The main risk concerns the fact that OAi lacks an institutional existence which could guarantee organizational stability and evolution of the OAi technical framework. OAi is managed by a Steering Committee (SC) and a Technical Committee (TC). To overcome this problem and make more tight the collaboration between CYCLADES and OAi we have agreed with one of the principal investigators of OAi, Cornell University (Dr. Xxxx Xxxxxx), that a US proposal for funding had to be submitted to NSF (in response to the Cultural Heritage Applications Unit of the EC DG Information Society invitation for EU-US multi-partner, multi-national project proposals). The objectives of this twin proposal are to: Support the evolution and organisational stabilisation of the of the OAi Evaluate the effectiveness and cross-domain applicability of OAi conventions Due to a lack of synchronisation between the NSF and IST Calls this proposal has not yet been submitted. There is, thus, a risk which must be carefully evaluated: the case that the US proposal is not accepted for funding. Even in this worst case the CYCLADES project maintains its validity. Indeed, the OAi has already defined agreements (technical mechanisms and organisational structures) to support interoperability of e-print archives. These agreements are known as “The Santa Fe Convention of the Open Archives Initiative”. The Santa Fe Convention presents a technical and organisational framework designed to facilitate the discovery of content stored in distributed e-print archives. It makes easy-to- implement recommendations for archives that will allow data from e-print archives to become widely available via its inclusion in a variety of end-user services. In addition, the Santa Fe Convention introduces an organisational framework for making informati...
Risk Evaluation. Include an evaluation of the risk of hydraulic fracturing, erosion, contamination of drainage features, heave, or any other damage. This should include:
Risk Evaluation. Article 57 The employer shall issue a general regulation evaluating the risks associated with possible types of dangers and damages for all jobs at the work place and in the working environment, and shall establish manner and measures for removing them. In the case of any new danger and damage, and change in the level of risk in the working process, the employer shall make amendments to the general regulation referred to in paragraph 1 above and remove such risks.
Risk Evaluation. The SUPPLIER shall carry out a risk evaluation of the product to be delivered and of the manufacturing process. The risk evaluation is a part of the documentation the SUPPLIER is obliged to maintain; for archiving and retention, the defined retention periods apply. Both Design- and Process FMEA shall be required as risk analysis where a SUPPLIER delivers products manufactured in accordance with his own construction drawings. Otherwise, a process FMEA shall be undertaken. The SUPPLIER shall maintain a procedure to identify the hazards and evaluate the risks associated with its delivered products throughout their entire lifecycle. Compliance with this procedure shall be regularly monitored and adjusted if necessary. Where the SUPPPLIER identifies risks that are likely to affect the CUSTOMER’s product, it shall inform the CUSTOMER promptly and in writing. This shall also apply to risks which have been identified or which have arisen in similar or similarly constructed products. Decisions on any necessary corrective actions and information related to products in the field / recalls / notification of authorities shall rest with the CUSTOMER. The SUPPLIER shall maintain a system capturing failures / non-conformities as a means to ascertain weaknesses of products or processes. The system shall be used to define all necessary corrective and preventive actions (CAPA=Corrective and Preventive Action).
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Risk Evaluation. The contractor shall state responsibility and procedures to determine the significance, intrinsic worth, and critically of the contractor operations in a manner that proper risk management techniques can be applied and notable safety risk reported to the JSC Health, Safety, and Environmental Compliance Office. The contractor will discuss ranking the risk in a severity classification. Risk evaluation tasks, managing the risks, and documenting the results will be discussed.
Risk Evaluation 

Related to Risk Evaluation

  • JOC EVALUATION If any materials being utilized for a project cannot be found in the RS Means Price Book, this question is what is the markup percentage on those materials? When answering this question please insert the number that represents your percentage of proposed markup. Example: if you are proposing a 30 percent markup, please insert the number "30". Remember that this is a ceiling markup. You may markup a lesser percentage to the TIPS Member customer when pricing the project, but not a greater percentage. EXAMPLE: You need special materials that are not in the RS Means Unit Price Book for a project. You would buy the materials and xxxx them up to the TIPS Member customer by the percentage you propose in this question. If the materials cost you, the contractor, $100 and you proposed a markup on this question for the material of 30 percent, then you would charge the TIPS Member customer $130 for the materials. No response TIPS/ESC Region 8 is required by Texas Government Code § 791 to be compensated for its work and thus, failure to agree shall render your response void and it will not be considered. Yes - No Vendor agrees to remit to TIPS the required administration fee or, if resellers are named, guarantee the fee remittance by or for the reseller named by the vendor?

  • JOB EVALUATION The work of the provincial job evaluation steering committee (the JE Committee) will continue during the term of this Framework Agreement. The objectives of the JE Committee are as follows: • Review the results of the phase one and phase two pilots and outcomes of the committee work. Address any anomalies identified with the JE tool, process, or benchmarks. • Rate the provincial benchmarks and create a job hierarchy for the provincial benchmarks. • Gather data from all school districts and match existing job descriptions to the provincial benchmarks. • Identify the job hierarchy for local job descriptions for all school districts. • Compare the local job hierarchy to the benchmark-matched hierarchy. • Develop a methodology to convert points to pay bands - The confirmed method must be supported by current compensation best practices. • Identify training requirements to support implementation of the JE plan and develop training resources as required. Once the objectives outlined above are completed, the JE Committee will mutually determine whether a local, regional or provincial approach to the steps outlined above is appropriate. It is recognized that the work of the committee is technical, complicated, lengthy and onerous. To accomplish the objectives, the parties agree that existing JE funds can be accessed by the JE committee to engage consultant(s) to complete this work. It is further recognized that this process does not impact the established management right of employers to determine local job requirements and job descriptions nor does this process alter any existing collective agreement rights or established practices. When the JE plan is ready to be implemented, and if an amendment to an existing collective agreement is required, the JE Committee will work with the local School District and Local Union to make recommendations for implementation. Any recommendations will also be provided to the Provincial Labour Management Committee (PLMC). As mutually agreed by the provincial parties and the JE Committee, the disbursement of available JE funds shall be retroactive to January 2, 2020. The committee will utilize available funds to provide 50% of the wage differential for the position falling the furthest below the wage rate established by the provincial JE process and will continue this process until all JE fund monies at the time have been disbursed. The committee will follow compensation best practices to avoid problems such as inversion. The committee will report out to the provincial parties regularly during the term of the Framework Agreement. Should any concerns arise during the work of the committee they will be referred to the PLMC. Create a maintenance program to support ongoing implementation of the JE plan at a local, regional or provincial level. The maintenance program will include a process for addressing the wage rates of incumbents in positions which are impacted by implementation of the JE plan. The provincial parties confirm that $4,419,859 of ongoing annual funds will be used to implement the Job Evaluation Plan. Effective July 1, 2022, there will be a one-time pause of the annual $4,419,859 JE funding. This amount has been allocated to the local table bargaining money. The annual funding will recommence July 1, 2023.

  • Self-Evaluation Each regular faculty member shall provide a self-evaluation. It shall address, among other items, the faculty member's fulfillment of professional responsibilities as referenced in Section 18.2.3 and an assessment of his or her own performance. The faculty member will share the self-evaluation with the Faculty Evaluation Committee and the first-level manager or designee. The self-evaluation will become part of the evaluation report.

  • Program Evaluation The School District and the College will develop a plan for the evaluation of the Dual Credit program to be completed each year. The evaluation will include, but is not limited to, disaggregated attendance and retention rates, GPA of high-school-credit-only courses and college courses, satisfactory progress in college courses, state assessment results, SAT/ACT, as applicable, TSIA readiness by grade level, and adequate progress toward the college-readiness of the students in the program. The School District commits to collecting longitudinal data as specified by the College, and making data and performance outcomes available to the College upon request. HB 1638 and SACSCOC require the collection of data points to be longitudinally captured by the School District, in collaboration with the College, will include, at minimum: student enrollment, GPA, retention, persistence, completion, transfer and scholarships. School District will provide parent contact and demographic information to the College upon request for targeted marketing of degree completion or workforce development information to parents of Students. School District agrees to obtain valid FERPA releases drafted to support the supply of such data if deemed required by counsel to either School District or the College. The College conducts and reports regular and ongoing evaluations of the Dual Credit program effectiveness and uses the results for continuous improvement.

  • Final Evaluation IC must submit a final report and a project evaluation to the Arts Commission within thirty (30) days after the completion of the Services. Any and all unexpended funds from IC must be returned to City no later than sixty (60) days after the completion of the Services.

  • TECHNICAL EVALUATION (a) Detailed technical evaluation shall be carried out by Purchase Committee pursuant to conditions in the tender document to determine the substantial responsiveness of each tender. For this clause, the substantially responsive bid is one that conforms to all the eligibility and terms and condition of the tender without any material deviation. The Institute’s determination of bid’s responsiveness is to be based on the contents of the bid itself without recourse to extrinsic evidence. The Institute shall evaluate the technical bids also to determine whether they are complete, whether required sureties have been furnished, whether the documents have been properly signed and whether the bids are in order.

  • TEACHER EVALUATION A. All monitoring or observation of the work performance of a teacher shall be conducted openly and with full knowledge of the teacher.

  • FINANCIAL EVALUATION (a) The financial bid shall be opened of only those bidders who have been found to be technically eligible. The financial bids shall be opened in presence of representatives of technically eligible bidders, who may like to be present. The institute shall inform the date, place and time for opening of financial bid.

  • BID EVALUATION The Commissioner reserves the right to accept or reject any and all Bids, or separable portions of Bids, and waive technicalities, irregularities, and omissions if the Commissioner determines the best interests of the State will be served. The Commissioner, in his/her sole discretion, may accept or reject illegible, incomplete or vague Bids and his/her decision shall be final. A conditional or revocable Bid which clearly communicates the terms or limitations of acceptance may be considered, and Contract award may be made in compliance with the Bidder’s conditional or revocable terms in the Bid.

  • Trust Evaluation As of the Evaluation Time (a) on the last Business Day of each year, (b) on the day on which any Unit is tendered for redemption and (c) on any other day desired by the Trustee or requested by the Depositor, the Trustee shall: Add (i) all moneys on deposit in a Trust (excluding (1) cash, cash equivalents or Letters of Credit deposited pursuant to Section 2.01 hereof for the purchase of Contract Securities, unless such cash or Letters of Credit have been deposited in the Interest and Principal Accounts because of failure to apply such moneys to the purchase of Contract Securities pursuant to the provisions of Sections 2.01, 3.03 and 3.04 hereof and (2) moneys credited to the Reserve Account pursuant to Section 3.05 hereof), plus (ii) the aggregate Evaluation of all Securities (including Contract Securities and Reinvestment Securities) on deposit in such Trust as is determined by the Evaluator (such evaluations shall take into account and itemize separately (i) the cash on hand in the Trust or moneys in the process of being collected from matured interest coupons or bonds matured or called for redemption prior to maturity, (ii) the value of each issue of the Securities in the Trust on the bid side of the market as determined by the Evaluator pursuant to Section 4.01, and (iii) interest accrued thereon not subject to collection and distribution). For each such Evaluation there shall be deducted from the sum of the above (i) amounts representing any applicable taxes or governmental charges payable out of the respective Trust and for which no deductions shall have previously been made for the purpose of addition to the Reserve Account, (ii) amounts representing estimated accrued fees of the Trust and expenses of such Trust including but not limited to unpaid fees and expenses of the Trustee, the Evaluator, the Supervisor, the Depositor and bond counsel, in each case as reported by the Trustee to the Evaluator on or prior to the date of evaluation, (iii) any moneys identified by the Trustee, as of the date of the Evaluation, as held for distribution to Unitholders of record as of a Record Date or for payment of the Redemption Value of Units tendered prior to such date and (iv) unpaid organization costs in the estimated amount per Unit set forth in the Prospectus. The resulting figure is herein called a "Trust Fund Evaluation." The value of the pro rata share of each Unit of the respective Trust determined on the basis of any such evaluation shall be referred to herein as the "Unit Value."

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