Cost Considerations. This agreement does not authorize financial expenditures by the COG on behalf of FEMA. The FEMA IPAWS Program is responsible for the costs associated with developing, operating and maintaining the availability of the IPAWS-OPEN system. The COG is responsible for all costs related to providing their users with access to IPAWS- OPEN via the public Internet. These costs may include hardware, software, monthly Internet charges, completion of security awareness training and other related jurisdictional costs.
Cost Considerations. Both parties agree to be responsible for their own systems and costs of the interconnecting mechanism and/or media. No financial commitments to reimburse the other party shall be made without the written concurrence of both parties. Modifications to either system that are necessary to support the interconnection are the responsibility of the respective system/network owners’ organization. This ISA neither authorizes, requires, nor precludes any transfer of funds without the agreement of both parties.
Cost Considerations. The Commission’s library reference PRC– CP2009–13–NP–LR–1 analyzes the financial impact of this of this contract. Library Reference PRC–CP2009–13–NP– LR–1 updates the original data submitted by the Postal Service and provides calculations for revenue per piece for each of the negotiated service agreement’s rate categories. The results show that the updated data do not cause the financial results to vary significantly. Based on the data submitted and the Commission’s analysis shown in Library Reference PRC–CP2009–13–NP–LR–1, the Commission finds that Parcel Select & Parcel Return Service Contract 1 should cover its attributable costs (39 U.S.C. 3633(a)(2)), should not lead to the subsidization of competitive products by market dominant products (39 U.S.C. 3633(a)(1)), and should have a positive effect on competitive products’ contribution to institutional costs (39 U.S.C. 3633(a)(3)). Thus, an initial review of the proposed Parcel Select & Parcel Return Service Contract 1 indicates that it comports with the provisions applicable to rates for competitive products. The Postal Service shall promptly notify the Commission when the contract terminates, but no later than the actual termination date. The Commission will then remove the contract from the Mail Classification Schedule at the earliest possible opportunity. Public Representative comments. As evidenced by filings in other recent negotiated service agreement dockets, it appears that the Postal Service typically has the ability to properly redact files using blackouts while maintaining the documents’ ‘‘searchability’’ characteristics. The Postal Service should strive to ensure that all redacted documents are properly redacted using blackouts unless it specifically justifies the use of other redaction methods in its filings.
Cost Considerations. 1. The plan developed pursuant to Section D.5 shall address at a minimum the following criteria:
Cost Considerations. The Postal Service presents a financial analysis showing that Express Mail & Priority Mail Contract 5 results in cost savings while ensuring that the contract covers its attributable costs, does not result in subsidization of competitive products by market dominant products, and increases contribution from competitive products. Based on the data submitted, the Commission finds that Express Mail & Priority Mail Contract 5 should cover its attributable costs (39 U.S.C. 3633(a)(2)), should not lead to the subsidization of competitive products by market dominant products (39 U.S.C. 3633(a)(1)), and should have a positive effect on competitive products’ contribution to institutional costs (39 U.S.C. 3633(a)(3)). Thus, an initial review of the proposed Express Mail & Priority Mail Contract 5 indicates that it comports with the provisions applicable to rates for competitive products.
Cost Considerations. The stakeholders who have the most interest for BannaTree are the factory and the AD. Farmers will benefit the least from all the stakeholders. However they will still have an incentive to use the application if the AD makes it mandatory as a con- ditional statement for contract farmers. Therefore, the consideration is that Banna- Tree will receive funding from the government. Additionally, the factory could xxxxx- cial the other part of BannaTree. However, this can also be seen as a future scenario. Another scenario for the future could be that the government retreats and that the factory will takeover the entire financial part for BannaTree as the factory can use the BannaTree information service to improve their business. Thus, multiple scenarios can be made up for the cost considerations of the BannaTree service. In section 9, ’Deployment and Sustainability Plan’, the scenarios for the sustainability plans for BannaTree are further elaborated.
Cost Considerations. Both parties agree to share the costs of the interconnecting mechanisms and/or media. Percentage of cost assumed by each organization (e.g., 50/50, 40/60, etc.) must be agreed upon in advance, and no such expenditures or financial commitments shall be made without the written concurrence of both parties. Modifications to either system that are necessary to support the interconnection are the responsibility of the respective system owner’s organization.
Cost Considerations. Provide annual fee for services identified in the Scope of Work for each year of the contract term (5 fiscal years – July to June). The proposed fees include all costs (i.e. miscellaneous administrative, travel, etc.) and the services identified in the Scope of Services. Total Cost Not to Exceed: July 2020 – June 2021 (Annual Fee) $59,000 July 2021 – June 2022 (Annual Fee) $60,000 July 2022 – June 2023 (Annual Fee) $61,000 July 2023 – June 2024 (Annual Fee) $62,000 July 2024 – June 2025 (Annual Fee) $63,000 • Provide separate fees for any additional services that may be required outside the annual fee (i.e., Actuarial Analysis, TPA Audit). Actuarial Analysis $7,500 - $15,000 Conduct TPA Audit $10,000 - $15,000 D. Conformance to RFP • Failure to provide all requested information may result in firm’s proposal being rejected as non-responsive. • Complete and return all City forms. • Exceptions – Any exceptions to any part of the RFP must be clearly noted and identified. The above “Conformance to RFP” requirements have been reviewed and confirmed. THANK YOU Access your employee benefits anytime, anywhere! Xxxx Companies offers Mobile Benefits Solutions to provide your employees with 24/7 access to employee benefit information from any mobile device. The app is designed to help employees easily use and better understand their benefits, saving both the member and company valuable time and money. KEY APP FEATURES > Benefits & Coverage Information > Medical ID Cards > Benefit Forms & Documents > Educational Videos > Provider Directories > Service Contact Information > Wellness Plans > Accessible on Mobile, Tablet & Desktop > Customized Branded Design Do I have to download an app to use it? No, when you access the website address for the app with your mobile device, you will be automatically directed to the mobile app. The app is a web app, which means there is nothing to download, no need to access an app store, etc...it’s ready for use when you access the site address from your device. But, what if I want an “app-like” icon on my home screen? You can add an icon to your Home Screen by clicking the Add to Homescreen icon when you are on the app’s home page. Mobile Compatibility Contact your Hays Consultant for more information today! iOS (iPhone/iPad), Android, and Windows City of ABC 2019-2020 Plan Year - Renewal Projection February 1, 2019 XXXX COMPANIES OF ARIZONA | 0000 X XXXXXXXXX XX | Suite 129 | Phoenix | AZ | 85018 V1.3 $666 $1,441 $1,208 $2,069 $146 $360 ...
Cost Considerations. The Commission reviews competitive product prices to ensure that each product covers its attributable costs, does not cause market dominant products to subsidize competitive products, and contributes to the Postal Service’s institutional costs. 39 U.S.C. § 3633(a); 39 C.F.R. §§ 3015.5 and 3015.7. As long as the revenue generated by the product exceeds its attributable costs, the product is unlikely to reduce the contribution of competitive products as a whole or to adversely affect the ability of competitive products as a whole to contribute an appropriate share of institutional costs. In other words, if a product covers its attributable costs, it is likely to comply with 39 U.S.C. § 3633(a). The Amendment replaces sections 1.B., I.F., 1.G., and II of the contract. Notice, Attachment A at 1. The Amendment implements price changes as contemplated by the contract’s terms. It also extends the terms of the contract to encompass an additional service. Based on a review of the record, the Commission finds that the Existing Agreement, as amended, should cover its attributable costs. 39 U.S.C. § 3633(a)(2). For this reason, it finds that the Existing Agreement, as amended, should not result in competitive products as a whole being subsidized by market dominant products, in accordance with 39 U.S.C. § 3633(a)(1). Similarly, it finds the amended agreement is unlikely to prevent competitive products as a whole from contributing an appropriate share of institutional costs, consistent with 39 U.S.C. § 3633(a)(3). See also 39 C.F.R. § 3015.7(c). Accordingly, a preliminary review of the Amendment indicates it is consistent with section 3633(a). The annual rate adjustment provision in section I.G. of the amended agreement should allow the amended agreement’s revenues to cover costs for the duration of its term. The Commission will continue to review the cost coverage of the amended agreement in its Annual Compliance Determination to ensure that rates cover costs.
Cost Considerations. 2.1 * Should PUCKA request the additional support, the cost shall be paid for these services under the provisions of the basic AGREEMENT.
