Unit of Measure Sample Clauses

Unit of Measure. (e) For embedded subassemblies, components, and parts that require DoD unique item identification under paragraph (c)(1)(iii) of this clause, the Contractor shall report as part of, or associated with the Material Inspection and Receiving Report specified elsewhere in this contract, the following information:
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Unit of Measure. Number (of OPI and OCA score) Disaggregated by: OPI and XXX Rationale or Management Utility, Integration Approach (optional): A strong and self sustaining organization can achieve the desired outcomes of project activities, which becomes instrumental to achieve overall organizational goal. Even in the case of project implementation, a competent and robust organization is mandatory. This is linked with output 4 and overall goal of the organization. PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY USAID Activities/Implementing Mechanisms: Board, Management and Staffs Data Source: OPI and OCA re-assessment score Method of Data Acquisition: USAID assess the OPI and OCA score at the end of the project Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Annual Individual(s) Responsible for Data at USAID : Xxxxxx Xxxx-Xxxxx (AOR), Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx (AAOR) Individual(s) Responsible for Providing Data to USAID (optional):Xxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx/Pro Public Location of Data Storage (optional): Pro Public's excel sheet DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Most Recent Data Quality Assessment and Name(s) of Reviewer(s): XX Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional):TBD Potential Data Limitations and Significance (optional):Since the data collected for this indicator is based on a self-assessment there are some limitations to its independence/legitimacy. Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations (optional): PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis (optional): This information will inform organizational capacity of Pro Public in terms of achieve the organizational goals and objectives. Analysis should be carried out across various indicators as listed in OCA and OPI reference sheets. Mission/Team Review (optional): BASELINE AND TARGETS Baseline Timeframe (optional): 2016/ 2.73 (OCA) and 53 % (OPI) Rationale for Targets (optional): 3.50 for (OCA) 65 % for (OPI) Other Notes (optional): GEOGRAPHIC DIMENSION Data Reporting Units: Baseline Units (optional):
Unit of Measure. The unit of measure applicable to the service/feature being offered by the Contractor.
Unit of Measure. In general, unless specified otherwise in the XXXX for the applicable SUSE Product or other written agree- ment between the parties, the unit of measure for a Subscription Offering is the metric specified in Exhibit A (“Unit”).
Unit of Measure. Number of individuals / people Disaggregated by: This indicator will be disaggregated by gender and age (Children and adults). Justification/Management Utility: .This is very important indicator as it contributes to the IWRM strategy / approach of this program and also to the relationship between water for domestic use and water for production use. PLAN FOR DATA ACQUISITION BY USAID Data Collection Method: Data for this indicator will be collected from the Akanyaru and Akagera Sub-Basins on local communities. Data in quarterly and annual reports will also indicate when these services are provided and accessed. Data Source(s): Project activity reports/implementing partners reports Frequency/Timing of Data Acquisition: Quarterly Estimated Cost of Data Acquisition: Low Responsible Individual(s) at USAID: AOTR PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis: Internal and external reviews, briefings, and reports Presentation of Data: Data presented in quarterly and annual reports Review of Data: AOTR and MEMS Review of reports Reporting of Data: Annual report DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment: End of third quarter year 2 (June 2012) Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: Annually (June 2013) Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments: Annual review by COP and M&E Specialist (Home office and Program office) BASELINE AND TARGETS: No baseline data. 80,000 individuals with access to multiple water uses services Location of Data Storage: TBD and hard copies THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: January 2012 Number of people receiving USG supported training in water supply, sanitation, and hygiene
Unit of Measure. Completed CSC Activity (that is either exclusively focused on gender-sensitive component, or which includes gender-sensitivity as part of the assessment). Disaggregated by: Justification and Management Utility: Plan for Data Acquisition (Source, Collection and Collation) Data Source: Data are collected from “score cards” completed by community members in Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) as they evaluate the different services providers under the guidance of a community facilitator. Suggested FGDs include women, men, youth, children, community leaders, PLWH/A, health center committee, etc. FGDs will use complete the score card, which has an indicator (in this case an indicator relevant to gender programming, such as 1) decision making around household assets, 2) parity in access to income generating activities, and/or 3) how a service positively affects a client’s livelihoods options, etc. It is important that these indicators be linked in some way to issues raised by the gender assessment conducted as part of the Situational Analysis (SA) as described in LIFT II Indicator 2.3.0, as this allows for a comparison of service adequacy and gender-sensitivity over time. The complete CSC methodology also allows for service providers to complete score cards which can then be used to facilitate dialogue between clients (demand) and service providers (supply). If followed, these data can be presented at an “interface meeting” which can be used for action planning amongst referral network members. For more information on CSC visit xxxx://xxx.xxxx.xxx/sites/default/files/documents/FP-2013- CARE_CommunityScoreCardToolkit.pdf Data Collection Method: Data are collected in several stages in the CSC method (these are detailed in the CSC Toolkit in Stage 3: Developing the community’s Score Card): 1) local stakeholders must generate and prioritize issues, 2) each of the most relevant issues must be transformed into an indicator, 3) indicators must be put onto a matrix where they can be ranked on a Likert scale of 1-5 (along with an area for notes), 4) the score card is used in FGDs with clients, 5) optional: the score card is used in discussions with service providers, 6) optional: the clients and service providers use the score card results in a facilitated discussion that leads to 7) an interface meeting and/or action planning. Data Collation Method: Data collation is a simple task of reporting average scores for each indicator on the score card. Where there are clear diverge...
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Unit of Measure f) Requested Deliver Time or Date
Unit of Measure. 1. Visits to Courtrooms, by Location.
Unit of Measure. Individuals Disaggregated by: Age(10-14 [if applicable], 15-19, 20-24, 25-29, 30-39, 40+), Sex (Male/Female and Other), Caste/Ethnicity Composition ( Dalit, Muslim, Brahmin/Chhetri, Newar, Janajati, and Other) Rationale or Management Utility, Integration Approach (optional): Training individuals in dialogue facilitation and mediation skills or consensus building techniques will increase the possibility that collaborative process will result in promoting social harmony and peace. Contributes to collaborative efforts between ex-combatants and community members in peace building. PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY USAID Activities/Implementing Mechanisms: Pro Public Data Source: Training Reports Method of Data Acquisition: Training Coordinator will submit data after the each training events Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Event based Individual(s) Responsible for Data at USAID : Xxxxxx Xxxx-Xxxxx (AOR), Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx (AAOR) Individual(s) Responsible for Providing Data to USAID (optional):Xxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx/Pro Public Location of Data Storage (optional):Pro Public's excel sheet DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Most Recent Data Quality Assessment and Name(s) of Reviewer(s): Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional):TBD Potential Data Limitations and Significance (optional): The number of individuals doesn't directly indicate their knowledge and skills they achieved from the training. Counting individuals does not measure level of trainings, duration or size of training. Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations (optional):Pro Public should count quality of trainings separately. Pro Public should track number of individuals trained in various rounds of trainings and retain attendance sheets for official records. The knowledge and skills of DFs will be assessed separately. PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis (optional): The number of individuals trained should correspond with meetings of social dialogue groups meetings; analysis between number of individuals trained and number of social dialogue meetings should be carried out. Mission/Team Review (optional): BASELINE AND TARGETS Baseline Timeframe (optional): 2015 Rationale for Targets (optional): 104 ( 48 Basic, advanced and refresher and 56 for advanced refresher) Other Notes (optional):
Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.