We therefore intend to deliver to [BANK], ten (10) business days after receipt by Allscripts of this notice, a Reduction Notice instructing [BANK] to reduce the maximum guarantee amount of the [PLR Bank Guarantee] [Historic Tax Guarantee] to $ in accordance with Section [•] of the Framework Agreement. Or [For any termination of a guarantee:]
We therefore cannot accept the interpretation of the applicant that condition as referred to in point number (iii) in the preceding para 4.5 is applicable in respect of supplies provided to 'Governmental Authorities' or 'Government Entities' only.
We therefore recognise the need to manage the information referred to in Clause 9.4 above in a way which maximises the opportunity for either of US to take part in competitions by putting in place appropriate procedures, such as non-disclosure or confidentiality agreements.
We therefore anticipate 2006-07 focussing the Partnership’s efforts in the following areas: ▪ Sustaining and, wherever possible, improving response times. ▪ Provision of information to inform choice. ▪ Increasing the numbers of direct payments and individual budgets. ▪ Continuing to invest in preventive services and social inclusion. ▪ Delivering efficiencies.
We therefore consider a Delay Percentile Contract that imposes a penalty term when the non-contract customers receive better service than contract customers. Specifically, suppose the penalty reflects the squared difference between W2 and W1 when it is positive. (For simplicity we assume a square term as opposed to a general convex function; the results would be similar.) This contract is more complex than the previous ones considered as it requires reporting on the wait times for both contract and non-contract customers. We include it here for comparative purposes, noting actual implementation and monitoring would be difficult. The problem for a firm that seeks to minimize the wait times of non-contract customers under a Delay Difference contract is: minπ∈Π c1E[((W1 − W2)+)2] + c2E[W2]
