alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1437.7001 Contractor qualification requirements. ( a ) Prior to award of a contract for real property appraisal services when the services are required in support of court actions, the CO shall coordinate with the appropriate Solicitor's office and obtain written concurrence from the Assistant U.S. Attorney assigned to represent the Government in the matter that the source to be selected possesses the necessary qualifications for adequate contract performance. This requirement shall be treated as a special standard of responsibility (*See* FAR 9.104-2).
( b ) The CO shall include the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section in all solicitations for real property appraisal services which may be subject to future court action.
- Skip to main content
- About Us
- Contact Us
- FAQs
-  Language Assistance ****   - English
  - español
  - 中文: 繁體版
  - Việt-ngữ
  - 한국어
  - Tagalog
  - Русский

U.S. Department of Education

U.S. Department of Education

            - Student Loans
            - Grants
            - Laws
            - Data

Laws & GuidanceGENERAL

Overview | **Guidelines** | Information Correction Requests and Appeals | Contact

## Guidelines

| **You are here:**Guidelines > Information Correction Requests and Appeals |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Effective October 1, 2002 the Department of Education will allow any affected  person to request the correction of information the Department disseminates  that does not comply with applicable OMB and Department of Education information  quality guidelines. An affected person is an individual or an entity that may  use, benefit or be harmed by the disseminated information at issue.

Most Department information products include the names of knowledgeable staff  that can assist users in understanding the information presented, and in determining  whether there is an error that warrants action using the correction process  described in this section. Users of the Department's information should consult  with the contact person listed in the product before filing a formal request  for correction.

- Information Correction Requests
- Review
- Response
- Appeals

|          |
|----------|
| Previous | Table of Contents | Next |

|        |
|--------|
|   | Printable viewShare this page |
|        |

## How Do I Find...

          - Student loans, forgiveness
          - College accreditation
          - Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
          - FERPA
          - FAFSA
          - 1098, tax forms

More >

## Information About...

          - Transforming Teaching
          - Family and Community Engagement
          - Early Learning

 

|  |
|--|
|  |
|  | No Related Topics Found |  |
|  |

----

*Our mission*

Student Loans
Repaying LoansDefaulted LoansLoan ForgivenessLoan Servicers

Grants & Programs
Apply for Pell GrantsGrants ForecastApply for a GrantEligibility for Grants

Laws & Guidance
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)FERPACivil RightsNew IDEA Website

Data & Research
Education StatisticsPostsecondary Education DataED Data ExpressNation's Report CardWhat Works Clearinghouse

About Us
Contact UsED OfficesJobsPress ReleasesFAQsRecursos en españolBudget, PerformancePrivacy ProgramSubscribe to E-Mail Updates

----

          - Notices
          - FOIA
          - Privacy Policy
          - Accessibility
          - Security
          - Information quality
          - Inspector General
          - Whitehouse.gov
          - USA.gov
          - Benefits.gov
          - Regulations.gov
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. William Lupo, Appellant.

In a *coram nobis*proceeding, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated October 9, 1962, which denied without a hearing his application to vacate a judgment of the former County Court, Kings County, rendered April 22, 1958 after a jury trial, convicting him of grand larceny in the first degree and grand larceny in the second degree, and imposing sentence. The judgment of conviction was previously affirmed by this court (13 A D 2d 684, motion for reargument denied 13 A D 2d 803, motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied June 21, 1961 [Ftjld, J,], motion for reargument of this application denied July 31, 1961 and October 25, 1961, cert, denied 369 U. S. 807). Order affirmed. Defendant contends that the District Attorney knowingly suppressed material evidence favorable to him —the defendant. An examination of the trial record, however, clearly discloses that defendant’s attorney not only knew of the existence of the alleged alibi witnesses, but also was aware of the fact that at least one of them had given a statement to the District Attorney which defendant now' claims was suppressed. Under these circumstances, it is our opinion that there is no merit to the defendant’s present claim (of. *People*v. *Byrnes,*18 A D 2d 941) and that the court was justified in denying the application without a hearing thereon *(People*v. *Brown,*7 N Y 2d 359). Beldock, P. J., Kleinfeld, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
#### 1345.107-70 Government furnished property.

Insert clause 1352.245-70, *Government Furnished Property,* when Government property is to be furnished to the contractor and the contractor will be accountable for, and have stewardship of, the property.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-2000
<CASH>                                         799,565
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,221,464
<ALLOWANCES>                                    16,969
<INVENTORY>                                  2,051,251
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,128,383
<PP&E>                                       9,940,110
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,785,777
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,018,356
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,393,221
<BONDS>                                      1,096,473
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     15,010
<COMMON>                                        50,203
<OTHER-SE>                                  23,121,345
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,018,356
<SALES>                                     13,096,449
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            13,096,449
<CGS>                                        9,472,936
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,472,936
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,873,562
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             147,988
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                842,395
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (127,448)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            969,843
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   969,843
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.32


</TABLE>
#### 14.409-2 Award of classified contracts.

In addition to 14.409-1, if classified information was furnished or created in connection with the solicitation, the contracting officer shall advise the unsuccessful bidders, including any who did not bid, to take disposition action in accordance with agency procedures. The name of the successful bidder and the contract price will be furnished to unsuccessful bidders only upon request. Information regarding a classified award shall not be furnished by telephone.

[48 FR 42171, Sept. 19, 1983. Redesignated and amended at 60 FR 34738, July 3, 1995]
(June 18, 1964)

#### United States Casualty Company, Respondent, v. Theodore Jungreis et al., Appellants.

Order, entered on November 1, 1963, denying defendants-appellants’ motion to dismiss for legal insufficiency the third amended complaint as to such defendants, involving the second to sixth causes of action, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of dismissing the third, fourth, and fifth causes of action, and to that extent the motion is granted, otherwise the order is affirmed, with costs of the appeal and motion to defendants-appellants. In surety bond and third-party beneficiary contract terminology the creditor or obligee is the township. Since plaintiff surety company paid the township, it is subrogated to the rights of the township, but no more. It is not subrogated to the rights of the principal Talacre against third persons. *(State Bank of Albany*v. *Dan-Bar Contr. Co.,*12 A D 2d 416, 418, affd. 12 N Y 2d 804; Restatement, Security, § 141; Simpson, Suretyship, § 47.) Hence, the fourth cause of action, dependent upon subrogation to Talaere’s rights, is legally insufficient. Furthermore, since there is no basis in the complaint or documents to establish any direct third-party beneficiary right in favor of plaintiff surety company, the third and fifth causes of action are legally insufficient. Defendants and Talacre were not contracting for the benefit of plaintiff surety company nor were their agreements to discharge any obligation of Talacre to the surety company (Restatement, Contracts, §§ 135-136). But, if defendant Thomas-Wilton Corp. assumed the obligation of Talacre to render the performance due the township, the township could, as third-party creditor beneficiary, enforce the assumption agreement against defendants-a.ppellants *(Nicholson*v. *300 Broadway Realty Corp.,*7 N Y 2d 240, 246-248; Restatement, Contracts, §§ 133, 136; cf. Third Party Beneficiary on a Contractor’s Surety Bond, 27 Ford. L. Rev. 262, 268-271). Straining to give this complaint every fair inference and intendment, the second and sixth causes of action arguably suffice to allege an assumption agreement by defendants, as obligors and guarantors, enforeible by plaintiff surety company as subrogee of the township. Since third-party beneficiary rights include the right to reformation, the second cause of action is sufficient (see 6 N. Y. Jur., Reformation of Instruments, § 34). However, it is quite unclear from the documents themselves whether defendants as obligors and guarantors assumed Talacre’s obligation to perform or whether their undertaking was restricted to indemnifying Talacre. In other words, it is not clear whether defendants-appellants undertook that the agreement of Talacre with the township would be performed, or whether it was intended to confer on the grantee, Thomas-Wilton Corp., the option to perform or to pay the amount of the indemnity bond. Additional evidence of the surrounding circumstances, which is necessary in this case, may be taken (10 N. Y. Jur., Contracts, § 220). Concur — Breitel, J. P., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Ozzie’s Bar & Grill, Inc., Petitioner, v New York State Liquor Authority, Respondent.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, *inter alia,*to review two determinations of respondent, State Liquor Authority, both dated May 16, 1978, (1) one, *inter alia,*(a) canceling petitioner’s special on-premises liquor license, effective May 23, 1978, and (b) imposing a $1,000 bond claim, and (2) the other, *inter alia,*(a) disapproving petitioner’s renewal application, and (b) recalling the license theretofore issued to petitioner pursuant to a renewal stipulation. As to the first above-*893mentioned determination, petition granted to the extent that the determination is modified, on the law, by annulling (a) respondent’s findings as to Charge No. 2 in the revocation proceeding and (b) the penalties imposed in said proceeding. As so modified, determination confirmed, without costs or disbursements. As to the second above-mentioned determination, petition granted and determination annulled, on the law, without costs or disbursements. The matter is remitted to the respondent to reconsider the penalty to be imposed with regard to the revocation proceeding and to further consider what action should be taken with regard to renewal of the petitioner’s license (see *Matter, of Dixon Tavern v New York State Liq. Auth.,*61 AD2d 768; cf. *Matter of Collins v State Liq. Auth.,*48 AD2d 848). The authority’s finding in the revocation proceeding to the effect that petitioner suffered or permitted the licensed premises to become disorderly, in violation of subdivision 6 of section 106 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, by suffering or permitting the trafficking in narcotics and/or controlled substances on 18 separate occasions is not supported by substantial evidence. To sustain such a charge, under the circumstances of this case, it must be shown that either the licensee’s coprincipal, or its authorized agent, had either actual or constructive knowledge of the alleged narcotics transactions, i.e., knew or should have known of such transactions (see *Matter of Dixon Tavern v New York State Liq. Auth., supra).*It is not disputed in the instant case that the two people in question had no actual knowledge of the alleged transactions; nor do we find evidence in the transcripts of the proceedings which supports the conclusion that both or either of them had any constructive knowledge thereof. However, the remaining charges involving gambling and the sale of alcoholic beverages to a minor were supported by substantial evidence and must be confirmed. Under these circumstances, the authority must consider whether the determination, as modified, supports the penalties imposed in the revocation proceeding. Further, it is our view that the interest of justice requires that the authority also consider whether, in light of the disposition of this proceeding, it still desires to deny petitioner’s renewal application and recall its license. We reach no other issue. Hopkins, J. P., Damiani, Gulotta, Cohalan and Hawkins, JJ., concur.
#### 1552.211-73 Level of effort—cost-reimbursement contract.

As prescribed in 1511.011-73, the contracting officer shall insert the following contract clause in cost-reimbursement contracts including cost contracts without fee, cost-sharing contracts, cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) contracts, cost-plus-incentive-fee contracts (CPIF), and cost-plus-award-fee contracts (CPAF).

# Level of Effort—Cost-Reimbursement Contract (MAY 2016)

(a) The Contractor shall perform all work and provide all required reports within the level of effort specified below. The Contractor shall provide up to ________ direct labor hours for the base period. The Government's best estimate of the level of effort to fulfill these requirements is provided for advisory and estimating purposes. The Government is only obligated to pay for direct labor hours ordered and corresponding fixed fee for labor hours completed.

(b) Direct labor includes personnel such as engineers, scientists, draftsmen, technicians, statisticians, and programmers, and not support personnel such as company management or data entry/word processing/accounting personnel even though such support personnel are normally treated as direct labor by the Contractor. The level of effort specified in paragraph (a) of this section includes Contractor, subcontractor, and consultant non-support labor hours.

(c) If the Contractor provides less than 90 percent of the level of effort specified for the base period or any optional period exercised, an equitable downward adjustment of the fixed fee, if any, for that period will be made. The downward adjustment will reduce the fixed fee by the percentage by which the total expended level of effort is less than 100% of that specified in paragraph (a). (For instance, if a hypothetical base-period LOE of 100,000 hours is being reduced to 70,000, the fixed fee shall also be reduced by the same 30%. Using a corresponding hypothetical base-period fixed fee pool of $300,000, the reduced fixed-fee amount is calculated as: $300,000 × (70,000 hours/100,000 hours) = $210,000.)

(d) The Government may require the Contractor to provide additional effort up to 110 percent of the level of effort for any period until the estimated cost for that period has been reached. However, this additional effort shall not result in any increase in the fixed fee, if any.

(e) If this is a cost-plus-incentive-fee (CPIF) contract, the term “fee” in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section means “base fee and incentive fee.” If this is a cost-plus-award-fee (CPAF) contract, the term “fee” in paragraphs (c) and (d) means “base fee and award fee.”

(f) If the level of effort specified to be ordered during a given base or option period is not ordered during that period, that level of effort may not be accumulated and ordered during a subsequent period.

(g) These terms and conditions do not supersede the requirements of either the “Limitation of Cost” or “Limitation of Funds” clauses.

(End of clause)

[81 FR 31866, May 20, 2016]
Greg Darnieder Office of the Secretary

Dan Madzelan Office of Postsecondary Education

David Bergeron Office of Postsecondary Education

Fred Marinucci Office of General Counsel

Vaughn Collar University of Phoenix - Little Rock

Sandra Busby University of Phoenix - Little Rock

Salvador Diaz University of Phoenix - Little Rock

Christine Johnson Capell University

Ronald Blumenthal Kaplan Higher Education

Jose Campazano DeVry University

Margaret Owens University of Phoenix - Little Rock

Cheryl Smith University of Phoenix

Rob Glessner University of Phoenix

Kocysha White University of Phoenix - Little Rock

Jackie Brubaker Mid-South Community College

Herb Brubaker First Security Bank

Jim Purcell Arkansas Department of Education

Lori Jordan University of Phoenix

Charles Camp Remington College

Carlia Smith University of Arkansas System

Mary Lyn Hammer Champion College Services

Karen Hulsey University of Arkansas - Little Rock

David Page Philander Smith College

Tammy Harrison University of Arkansas - Little Rock

Elizabeth Tatum University of Arkansas - Little Rock

Reagan McKinley University of Arkansas - Little Rock

Carol Nivado University of Arkansas - Little Rock/Veterans Affairs

Stephanie Conrad University of Arkansas - Little Rock

Teresa Avery Ouachita Technical College

Department of Education - Public Hearing

Little Rock, AR - June 18, 2009

U.S. Department of Education Panel

Presenters
#### 1352.216-71 Level of effort (cost-plus-fixed-fee, term contract).

As prescribed in [48 CFR 1316.307(b)](/on/2024-09-16/title-48/section-1316.307#p-1316.307(b)), insert the following clause:

# Level of Effort (Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee, Term Contract) (Date)

(a) In performance of the effort directed in this contract, the contractor shall provide the total of Direct Productive Labor Hours (DPLH) as specified in Part I, Section B during the term specified in Section \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. DPLH is defined as actual work hours exclusive of vacation, holidays, sick leave, and other absences.

(b) Only the DPLH categories indicated below shall be charged directly to the contract. It is estimated that the DPLH will be expended approximately as follows:

| Labor category | Base period | Option period I | Option period II | Option period III |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| xxxxxxxxxx | xxxx | xxxx | xxxx | xxxx |
| xxxxxxxxxx | xxxx | xxxx | xxxx | xxxx |
| Total Direct Labor | xxxx | xxxx | xxxx | xxxx |

(c) The hours specified above are provided as estimates only. If the actual amount of hours incurred falls within 90% to 110% of this estimate, the fee shall not be adjusted.

(d) In the event that the contractor shall be required to provide less than 90% of the estimated DPLH, the fixed fee of the contract shall be equitably adjusted by unilateral modification to the contract. The fixed fee adjustment shall be based solely upon the difference between the DPLH actually provided and 90% of the estimated DPLH, calculated as follows:

Adjusted Fixed Fee = (Actual DPLH/(.9 × Estimated DPLH)) × Specified Fixed Fee

(e) In the event that the contractor shall be required to provide more than 110% of the estimated DPLH, the fixed fee of the Contract shall be equitably adjusted by unilateral modification to the Contract. The fixed fee adjustment shall be based solely upon the difference between the DPLH actually provided and 110% of the estimated DPLH, calculated as follows:

Adjusted Fixed Fee = (Actual DPLH/(1.1 × Estimated DPLH)) × Specified Fixed Fee

(f) These terms and conditions do not supersede the requirements of either FAR clause 52.232-20 “Limitation of Cost” or FAR clause 52.232-22 “Limitation of Funds.”

(End of clause)
Appeal No. 75-10.

#### Martin Malinou, *Public Administrator v.*Rhode Island Hospital Trust National Bank, *Administrator of Estate of Ernest V. Beazley.*

*Martin Malinou,*plaintiff, pro se. *Swan, Keeney, Jenckes & Asquith, Henry M. Swan,*for defendant.

Motion of defendant to affirm judgment below pursuant to Rule 16(g) is denied.
2.000 Scope of part. ( a ) This part— ( 1 ) Defines words and terms that are frequently used in the FAR;
( 2 ) Provides cross-references to other definitions in the FAR of the same word or term; and
( 3 ) Provides for the incorporation of these definitions in solicitations and contracts by reference.
( b ) Other parts, subparts, and sections of this regulation (48 CFR chapter 1) may define other words or terms and those definitions only apply to the part, subpart, or section where the word or term is defined.
[66 FR 2118, Jan. 10, 2001, as amended at 78 FR 6191, Jan. 29, 2013]
-       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2023-08-30T17:36:14-0400
      - Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20401
      - Government Publishing Office
      - Government Publishing Office attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by Government Publishing Office
#### 2009.500 Scope of subpart.

In accordance with 42 U.S.C. 2210a., NRC acquisitions are processed in accordance with 2009.570, which takes precedence over FAR 9.5 with respect to organizational conflicts of interest. Where non-conflicting guidance appears in FAR 9.5, that guidance must be followed.
1815.209-70 NASA solicitation provisions. ( a ) The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 1852.215-77, Preproposal/Pre-bid Conference, in competitive requests for proposals and invitations for bids where the Government intends to conduct a prepoposal or pre-bid conference. Insert the appropriate specific information relating to the conference.
( b ) When it is not in the Government's best interest to make award for less than the specified quantities solicited for certain items or groupings of items, the contracting officer shall insert the provision at 1852.214-71, Grouping for Aggregate Award. *See* 1814.201-670(b).
( c ) When award will be made only on the full quantities solicited, the contracting officer shall insert the provision at 1852.214-72, Full Quantities. *See* 1814.201-670(c).
( d ) The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 1852.215-81, Proposal Page Limitations, in all competitive requests for proposals.
[63 FR 9954, Feb. 27, 1998, as amended at 67 FR 50824, Aug. 6, 2002]
#### Hollywood Shoe Polish, Inc., Appellant, v. Boyle-Midway, Inc., Respondent.

Motion to dispense with printing of certain exhibits granted as to all the exhibits enumerated in the list annexed to the moving affidavit on condition that upon argument or submission of the appeal, all of the original exhibits be submitted together with four copies or replicas of the following exhibits: Plaintiff’s Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, 8 and 9; and defendant’s Exhibits B, C, D, E, H, I and 0. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Christ, JJ., concur.