Evaluation for Selection of Eligible Countries for a Sample Clauses

Evaluation for Selection of Eligible Countries for a. First Compact When selecting eligible countries for a compact, the Board looks at all three legislatively-mandated aspects described in the previous section: (1) Policy performance, first and foremost as measured by the scorecards and bolstered through additional information (as described in the previous section); (2) the opportunity to reduce poverty and generate economic growth, examined through the use of other supporting information (as described in the previous section); and
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Evaluation for Selection of Eligible Countries for a. Second or Subsequent Compact Section 609(l) of the Act specifically authorizes MCC to enter into ‘‘one or more subsequent Compacts.’’ MCC does not consider the eligibility of a country for a subsequent compact, however, before the country has completed its compact or is within 18 months of compact completion, (e.g., a second compact if it has completed or is within 18 months of completing its first compact). Selection for a subsequent compact is not automatic and is intended only for countries that (1) exhibit successful performance on their previous compact; (2) exhibit improved scorecard policy performance during the partnership; and (3) exhibit a continued commitment to further their sector reform efforts in any subsequent partnership. As a result, the Board has an even higher standard when selecting countries for subsequent compacts.

Related to Evaluation for Selection of Eligible Countries for a

  • Criteria for Selection a. The Sabbatical Selection Committee shall use four (4) criteria for selection of academic employees to receive sabbaticals. These are: the merit of the sabbatical project, the applicant’s current and previous contributions to the College community, the proposal’s relevancy to the College’s Strategic Plan and whether or not the applicant has had a previous sabbatical. In instances where these criteria are equal, seniority shall be the determining factor.

  • Selection Criteria for Awarding Task Order The Government will award to the offeror whose proposal is deemed most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment using the evaluation criteria. The Government will evaluate proposals against established selection criteria specified in the task order RFP. Generally, the Government's award decision will be based on selection criteria which addresses past performance, technical acceptability, proposal risk and cost. Among other sources, evaluation of past performance may be based on past performance assessments provided by TO Program Managers on individual task orders performed throughout the life of the contract. The order of importance for the factors will be identified in the RFP for the specified task order.

  • Application for Service (a) You must comply with any application form or process we specify.

  • Examination of an application for an industrial design 1. A formal examination of the application for an industrial design received by the federal executive authority for intellectual property is carried out which includes checks on presence of the documents specified in clause 2 of Article 1377 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and its compliance with the established requirements. If the result of the formal examination is positive, then a substantive examination of an application for an industrial design is carried out, which includes: information search in relation to the claimed industrial design to determine the publicly available information, which shall be taken into account when examining the design patentability; examination of the claimed industrial design for the compliance with the requirements under Article 1231.1, clause 4 of Article 1349 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, and the patentability criteria under the first paragraph of clause 1, clause 5 of Article 1352 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation; examination of the claimed industrial design for the compliance with the patentability criteria under the second paragraph of clause 1 of Article 1352 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. An information search in relation to the objects specified in sub-clause 4 of clause 4 of Article 1349 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation shall not be carried out, and the federal executive authority on intellectual property notifies the applicant about it. 2. If, as a result of the substantive examination of an application for an industrial design, it is found that the claimed industrial design represented on the reproductions of an external appearance of the article does not relate to the objects specified in Article 1231.1 or clause 4 of Article 1349 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and meets the patentability criteria under Article 1352 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the federal executive authority for intellectual property makes a decision to grant a patent for an industrial design. The date of filing of the application for the industrial design and the priority date of the industrial design shall be specified in the decision. If, during the process of substantive examination of an application for an industrial design, it is found that the claimed object does not meet at least one of the requirements or patentability criteria specified in paragraph one of this clause, the federal executive authority for intellectual property makes a decision to refuse the issuance of a patent.

  • Time for Submission Except as specified below, any claim by Contractor for a change in the Contract Time or the Material Completion and Occupancy Date shall be made within fourteen days of the day on which the Contractor becomes aware of the event on which the claim is based or, if the Contract Documents specify a shorter or longer period with respect to such event, within the period specified by the Contract Documents.

  • DISQUALIFICATION FOR PAST PERFORMANCE AND FINDINGS OF NON RESPONSIBILITY Bidder may be disqualified from receiving awards if Bidder, or anyone in Bidder’s employment, has previously failed to perform satisfactorily in connection with public Bidding or contracts or is deemed non- responsible.

  • Venue Limitation for TIPS Sales Vendor agrees that if any "Venue" provision is included in any TIPS Sale Agreement/contract between Vendor and a TIPS Member, that clause must provide that the "Venue" for any litigation or alternative dispute resolution shall be in the state and county where the TIPS Member operates unless the TIPS Member expressly agrees otherwise. Any TIPS Sale Supplemental Agreement containing a “Venue” clause that conflicts with these terms is rendered void and unenforceable.

  • Deadline for Submission of Bids 19.1 Bids must be received by the Purchaser at the address specified under ITB Clause 18.2 no later than the time and date specified in the Bid Data Sheet. 19.2 The Purchaser may, at its discretion, extend this deadline for the submission of bids by amending the bidding documents in accordance with ITB Clause 7, in which case all rights and obligations of the Purchaser and bidders previously subject to the deadline will thereafter be subject to the deadline as extended.

  • Determination of Service for Sick Leave with Pay Actual time worked and all leave with pay, except for educational leave, shall be included in determining the pro rata accrual of sick leave credits each month, provided that the employee works thirty-two (32) hours or more in that month.

  • Calculation of Service 25.7 For purposes of calculating continuous service and active service, a year shall be deemed to consist of two hundred and sixty-one (261) working days.

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