type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 4.7.2009
 CS
 Úřední věstník Evropské unie
 C 153/41
 Kasační opravný prostředek podaný dne 8. dubna 2009 Komisí Evropských společenství proti rozsudku Soudu pro veřejnou službu ze dne 29. ledna 2009 ve věci F-98/07, Petrilli v. Komise
 (Věc T-143/09 P)
 2009/C 153/80
 Jednací jazyk: francouzština
 Účastnice řízení
 Účastnice řízení podávající kasační opravný prostředek: Komise Evropských společenství (zástupci: D. Martin a B. Eggers, zmocněnci)
 Další účastnice řízení: Nicole Petrilli (Woluwé-Saint-Étienne, Belgie)
 Návrhová žádání účastnice řízení podávající kasační opravný prostředek
 —
 zrušit rozsudek Soudu pro veřejnou službu ze dne 29. ledna 2009 ve věci F-98/07, Petrilli a
 —
 rozhodnout, že každý účastník řízení ponese vlastní náklady řízení související s tímto řízením a s řízením před Soudem pro veřejnou službu.
 Žalobní důvody a hlavní argumenty
 Tímto kasačním opravným prostředkem se Komise domáhá zrušení rozsudku Soudu pro veřejnou službu (SVS) ze dne 29. ledna 2009 vydaného ve věci Petrilli v. Komise, F-98/07, kterým SVS zrušil rozhodnutí Komise ze dne 20. července 2007, kterým byla zamítnuta žádost o prodloužení pracovní smlouvy N. Petrilli jako pomocné smluvní zaměstnankyně.
 Na podporu svéHO kasačního opravného prostředku uvádí Komise tři důvody vycházející
 —
 ze skutečnosti, že SVS měl podle Komise prohlásit žalobu za nepřípustnou vzhledem ke skutečnosti, že zrušené rozhodnutí neobsahovalo žádné skutečné a důkladné přezkoumání osobní situace žalobkyně;
 —
 z nesprávného právního posouzení, jelikož SVS rozhodl, že pravidlo šesti let obsažené v rozhodnutí K(2004)1597/6 ze dne 28. dubna 2004 o maximální délce zaměstnávání dočasných zaměstnanců ve službách Komise (1) porušuje článek 88 pracovního řádu ostatních zaměstnanců Evropských společenství;
 —
 z nesprávného právního posouzení, jelikož SVS rozhodl, že již pouhá protiprávnost pravidla šesti let postačuje pro vznik mimosmluvní odpovědnosti Komise, aniž by navíc ověřoval, zda Komise tím, že neprodloužila pracovní smlouvu žalobkyně, zjevným a závažným způsobem zneužila svou širokou pravomoc při posuzování zájmu služby.
 (1) Zveřejněného v Informations Administratives č. 75-2004 ze dne 24. června 2004.


type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b' The Office of Competitive Sourcing Needs to\n Improve the Planning, Scheduling, and\n Costing of Projects\n\n August 2004\n\n Reference Number: 2004-10-146\n\n\n\n\nThis report has cleared the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration disclosure\nreview process and information determined to be restricted from public release has been\n redacted from this document.\n\n\nRedaction Legend:\n7 = Predecisional staff recommendations or suggestions to agency decision makers.\n\x0c DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY\n WASHINGTON, D.C. 20220\n\n\n\n\nINSPECTOR GENERAL\n for TAX\n ADMINISTRATION\n\n\n\n\n August 26, 2004\n\n\n MEMORANDUM FOR CHIEF, AGENCY-WIDE SHARED SERVICES\n\n\n\n\n FROM: (for) Gordon C. Milbourn III\n Acting Deputy Inspector General for Audit\n\n SUBJECT: Final Audit Report - The Office of Competitive Sourcing Needs to\n Improve the Planning, Scheduling, and Costing of Projects\n (Audit # 200310024)\n\n\n This report represents the results of our audit to evaluate the effectiveness of the\n Internal Revenue Service (IRS) competitive sourcing program in planning, scheduling,\n and costing its projects. Competitive sourcing is one of five Government-wide initiatives\n outlined in the President\xe2\x80\x99s Management Agenda for improving the management and\n performance of the Federal Government.\n In summary, the IRS needs to improve the planning, scheduling, and costing of its\n projects. When an activity is nominated for the competitive sourcing process, resources\n necessary to perform a Business Case Analysis to evaluate the potential costs and\n benefits of competition are committed. However, the IRS does not have adequate\n procedures to assist in selecting activities to nominate for competitive sourcing. Also,\n the Office of Competitive Sourcing made significant revisions to original project\n schedules. As a result, projects went considerably beyond the scheduled dates for\n completion. Finally, the IRS did not use a reliable method to track and compile the\n costs of competitive sourcing. As a result, the costs were understated in\n Fiscal Year 2003 by approximately $1 million.\n We recommended the Chief, Agency-Wide Shared Services (AWSS), develop\n procedures for nominating activities for a Business Case Analysis. In addition, the\n Chief, AWSS, should ensure the Office of Competitive Sourcing establishes realistic\n milestones for competitive sourcing projects by considering relevant factors,\n responsibilities, and historical time periods for similar tasks and incorporate the\n milestones into finalized project schedule guidelines. The Chief, AWSS, in coordination\n with the Chief Financial Officer (CFO), should establish procedures for the reporting of\n\x0c 2\n\ncosts, savings, and other data to the Department of the Treasury and the Congress.\nThe procedures should include the use of the Automated Financial System (AFS)1 to\nrecord and prepare cost information for competitive sourcing.\nManagement\xe2\x80\x99s Response: The Director, Office of Competitive Sourcing, agreed with\nour recommendations. However, the Director noted disagreement with certain facts in\nour report and provided additional perspective on the improvements which have been\nmade in the planning, scheduling, and costing of competitive sourcing projects. The\nOffice of Competitive Sourcing considered the Recommendations 1 and 2 to develop\nprocedures for nominating activities and to establish realistic schedule milestones to be\nfully implemented and will complete corrective action on the two remaining\nrecommendations. Specifically, the Office of Competitive Sourcing, CFO, and budget\ncontacts for the business divisions have been working since May 2003 to ensure\ncompetition costs and savings are accurately captured, updated, standardized, and\nreported regularly in the AFS/Integrated Financial System (IFS). Additional steps have\nbeen initiated to document the procedures for AFS/IFS cost tracking. Procedures will\ninclude unique AFS/IFS project tracking codes to correspond with the Department of the\nTreasury and Office of Management and Budget data call requirements.\nOffice of Audit Comment: We believe the facts in this report are accurate as presented.\nWith respect to Recommendation 1, the Director, Office of Competitive Sourcing, did not\ndifferentiate between the nominating phase and the evaluating phase of competitive\nsourcing. After an activity is nominated for competitive sourcing, it is subjected to a\nBusiness Case Analysis, which requires the IRS to evaluate whether an activity is a\npotential candidate for competitive sourcing. The Office of Competitive Sourcing noted\nthat the Business Case Analyses have been successful and recognized by the\nGovernment Accountability Office.2 However, our recommendation addresses how\nactivities are nominated, which occurs prior to the Business Case Analyses. The IRS\nexpended resources on several Business Case Analyses that were postponed or\ncancelled for reasons that could have been identified prior to beginning the Business\nCase Analyses, such as ensuring the availability of resources. The Office of\nCompetitive Sourcing did not provide documentation on how it applied nominating\ncriteria for Fiscal Years 2002, 2003, and 2004, nor has it revised its procedures to\nensure future activities are nominated based on quantifiable criteria.\nThe Office of Competitive Sourcing considered Recommendation 2 to establish realistic\nschedule milestones to be fully implemented and listed several steps it takes to\nestablish and adjust the project schedules. It also noted that the IRS completes\nprojects in less time compared to other Federal Government activities. However, we did\nnot offer an opinion on the reasonableness of the time it took the IRS to complete\ncompetitive sourcing studies. Our recommendation is to apply lessons learned from\npast projects to develop more realistic project schedules. The Office of Competitive\n\n1\n The IRS uses the AFS to capture cost information. The AFS requires the creation of unique Project Cost\nAccounting System codes, which are used to identify project costs. It will be replaced by the Integrated Financial\nSystem.\n2\n Formerly the General Accounting Office.\n\x0c 3\n\nSourcing has not taken this action. For example, the draft Project Schedule guidelines\nstill recommend 4 months to complete the Performance Work Statement, even though it\ntook 12 months to complete this step for 2 of the 3 competitive sourcing projects we\nreviewed.\nAlthough we disagree that management\xe2\x80\x99s corrective actions fully address\nRecommendations 1 and 2, we do not intend to elevate our disagreement concerning\nthem to the Department of the Treasury for resolution. Management\xe2\x80\x99s complete\nresponse to the draft report is included as Appendix VI.\nCopies of this report are also being sent to the IRS managers affected by the report\nrecommendations. Please contact me at (202) 622-6510 if you have questions or\nDaniel R. Devlin, Assistant Inspector General for Audit (Headquarters Operations and\nExempt Organizations Programs), at (202) 622-8500.\n\x0c The Office of Competitive Sourcing Needs to Improve\n the Planning, Scheduling, and Costing of Projects\n\n\n\n\n Table of Contents\n\n\nBackground ............................................................................................... Page 1\nBetter Resource Planning Is Needed Before Starting the\nCompetitive Sourcing Process .................................................................. Page 2\n Recommendation 1: .......................................................................Page 8\n\nSignificant Revisions Were Made to Original Project Schedules............... Page 9\n Recommendation 2: .......................................................................Page 12\n\nThe Method for Compiling the Costs of Competitive Sourcing\nIs Not Accurate or Reliable........................................................................ Page 13\n Recommendations 3 and 4: ...........................................................Page 16\n\nAppendix I \xe2\x80\x93 Detailed Objective, Scope, and Methodology....................... Page 17\nAppendix II \xe2\x80\x93 Major Contributors to This Report ....................................... Page 19\nAppendix III \xe2\x80\x93 Report Distribution List ....................................................... Page 20\nAppendix IV \xe2\x80\x93 Outcome Measures............................................................ Page 21\nAppendix V \xe2\x80\x93 Timeline of Major Events for Three Activities Reviewed ..... Page 22\nAppendix VI \xe2\x80\x93 Management\xe2\x80\x99s Response to the Draft Report .................... Page 24\n\x0c The Office of Competitive Sourcing Needs to Improve\n the Planning, Scheduling, and Costing of Projects\n\n Competitive sourcing is the process for determining whether\nBackground\n a commercial activity1 will be performed by a public or\n private source. It is one of five Government-wide initiatives\n outlined in the President\xe2\x80\x99s Management Agenda for\n improving the management and performance of the Federal\n Government. The President\xe2\x80\x99s Management Agenda noted\n that nearly one-half of all Federal Government employees\n perform tasks that are readily available in the commercial\n marketplace\xe2\x80\x94tasks such as data collection, administrative\n support, and payroll services. Historically, the Federal\n Government has realized cost savings in a range of 20 to\n 50 percent when Federal and private sector service\n providers compete to perform these functions. The\n competitive sourcing initiative is expected to consistently\n generate significant savings and performance\n improvements.\n Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular\n No. A-76, Performance of Commercial Activities,\n establishes Federal Government policy for the competition\n of commercial activities. Agencies are required to follow\n the policies and procedures outlined in the Circular for\n competing commercial activities. In May 2003, the OMB\n published revisions to Circular No. A-76 to improve the\n competitive sourcing process and to set time periods for\n completing competitions.\n The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) established an Office of\n Competitive Sourcing in September 2001. This Office\n centrally manages the competitive sourcing program and has\n the responsibility of providing oversight to ensure quality,\n timeliness, consistency, responsiveness, and coordination.\n In the Fiscal Year (FY) 2002 inventory of activities\n performed by its employees, the IRS estimated\n approximately 20 percent (19,600 of 100,700) of its\n full-time employees perform activities that are commercial\n in nature.\n This review was performed at the Office of Competitive\n Sourcing in Washington, D.C., during the period\n September 2003 through June 2004. The audit was\n\n\n 1\n A commercial activity is the process resulting in a product or service\n that is or could be obtained from a private sector source.\n Page 1\n\x0c The Office of Competitive Sourcing Needs to Improve\n the Planning, Scheduling, and Costing of Projects\n\n conducted in accordance with Government Auditing\n Standards. Detailed information on our audit objective,\n scope, and methodology is presented in Appendix I. Major\n contributors to the report are listed in Appendix II.\n\nBetter Resource Planning Is The Office of Competitive Sourcing developed the\nNeeded Before Starting the following five-step process to support the IRS in using\nCompetitive Sourcing Process competitive sourcing to produce cost savings and\n efficiencies:\n 1. Planning \xe2\x80\x93 the compilation of the IRS-wide inventory\n of commercial activities.2\n 2. Nominating \xe2\x80\x93 the selection of activities as potential\n candidates for competition for the upcoming fiscal\n year.\n 3. Evaluating \xe2\x80\x93 the Business Case Analysis to determine\n the feasibility of subjecting the nominated activities to\n competition.\n 4. Selecting \xe2\x80\x93 based on the Business Case Analysis, the\n Strategy and Resources Committee decides whether to\n compete or not compete the activity.\n 5. Executing \xe2\x80\x93 if the decision is made to compete the\n activity, a Performance Work Statement3 is prepared,\n bids are solicited, and a contract is awarded if a\n commercial vendor is the most efficient provider. This\n step also includes the transition phase.\n Once an activity is nominated, resources are committed to\n perform a Business Case Analysis to evaluate the potential\n costs and benefits of competition. For the 3 projects\n reviewed, the time used by the IRS to complete the steps\n leading up to the actual competition was more than\n 1\xc2\xbd years. Table 1 shows the time used by the IRS for the\n processes leading up to the competition for the\n\n\n\n 2\n As required by the Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act, Pub. L.\n No. 105-270.\n 3\n The Performance Work Statement identifies the technical, functional,\n and performance characteristics of the agency\xe2\x80\x99s (bureau\xe2\x80\x99s) requirements.\n The Performance Work Statement identifies essential outcomes to be\n achieved; specifies the agency\xe2\x80\x99s required performance standards; and\n specifies the location, units, quality, and timeliness of the work.\n Page 2\n\x0cThe Office of Competitive Sourcing Needs to Improve\n the Planning, Scheduling, and Costing of Projects\n\n three projects reviewed. See Appendix V for timeline\n details for the three projects.\n Table 1: Time Spent on Projects Prior to the Competition\n\n Time per Activity (in months)\n 4\n Task Area Campus 7-----------\n Distribution Center ---\n Centers Operations --------------\n\n Conduct Business Case\n 5 5 7-\n Analysis/Make Decision\n Assemble Performance\n 2 4 7-\n Work Statement Team\n Complete Performance\n Work Statement/Issue 12 12 7-5\n Solicitation\n Total Time for\n 19 21 7--6\n Preliminary Steps\n Source: IRS Office of Competitive Sourcing.\n\n Once the solicitation for bids from competitors is\n announced, the IRS has 12 more months to complete the\n competition.7 Overall, it can take 3 years or more to\n complete the entire competitive sourcing process.\n Because of the resources committed, nominating an activity\n for the competitive sourcing program is an important step in\n the process. The Department of the Treasury, the OMB, and\n IRS employees are notified of the activities nominated. In\n its strategic plan, the Office of Competitive Sourcing\n outlined the following criteria to be considered before\n activities are nominated as potential competitive sourcing\n candidates:\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Competition will not negatively affect the mission.\n\n 4\n Campuses are the data processing arm of the IRS. The campuses\n process paper and electronic submissions, correct errors, and forward\n data to the computing centers for analysis and posting to taxpayer\n accounts.\n 5\n 7------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n ---------------------------------------------------.\n 6\n 7-------------------------------------------.\n 7\n OMB Circular No. A-76 (revised in May 2003) states that a standard\n competition shall not exceed 12 months from public announcement\n to performance decision date. The time period may be extended by\n 6 months if the competition is expected to be particularly complex.\n Page 3\n\x0cThe Office of Competitive Sourcing Needs to Improve\n the Planning, Scheduling, and Costing of Projects\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The activity can be competed as a unit and not a\n collection of independent positions.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Activities appear to be readily available and\n economical in the private sector.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Competition would not hinder IRS modernization,\n budget, or workforce planning requirements.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The potential exists for cost efficiencies and savings.\n Other than these general criteria in the strategic plan,\n procedures have not been completed to guide this process.\n There are two important factors which the IRS needs to\n consider before nominating activities for a Business Case\n Analysis: 1) whether people and other resources are\n available to complete the competitive sourcing process and\n 2) how to prioritize projects based on resources and likely\n savings/improved service.\n In FY 2002, the first year it nominated activities for\n competitive sourcing, the IRS identified the resources it\n would need to carry out the competitive sourcing process.\n Competitive sourcing is in process or completed for all of\n these projects. Table 2 shows the status of the projects that\n were nominated in FY 2002.\n\n\n\n\n Page 4\n\x0cThe Office of Competitive Sourcing Needs to Improve\n the Planning, Scheduling, and Costing of Projects\n\n Table 2: Status of Activities Nominated for the\n Competitive Sourcing Program for FY 2002\n\n Number of\n Full-Time\n Activity Status\n Equivalents\n (FTE)8\n Area Distribution Centers 500 Active\n Architects and Engineers 10 Completed\n Field and Headquarters Mailroom Sites 70 Active\n Operation and Maintenance of Delegated\n 100 Active\n Buildings\n Campus Center Operations 350 Active\n Total 1,030\n Source: IRS Office of Competitive Sourcing.\n\n The IRS postponed three of the seven activities nominated\n for FY 2003. 7------------------------------------------------------\n ------------------------------------------------------------------------\n ------------------------------------------------------------------------\n ------------------------------------------------------------------------\n ------------------------------------------------------------------------\n ------. Table 3 shows the status of the projects that were\n nominated in FY 2003.\n\n\n\n\n 8\n A measure of labor hours in which 1 FTE is equal to 8 hours\n multiplied by the number of compensable days in a fiscal year. For\n FY 2004, 1 FTE is equal to 2,096 staff hours. The chart lists the number\n of FTEs that are being studied for each activity.\n Page 5\n\x0cThe Office of Competitive Sourcing Needs to Improve\n the Planning, Scheduling, and Costing of Projects\n\n Table 3: Status of Activities Nominated for the\n Competitive Sourcing Program for FY 2003\n\n Number Status\n Activity\n of FTEs\n 7---------------------9 7--- 7---------\n 7------------------------------------------ 7-- 7------\n 7-------------- 7----- 7------\n\n 7------------------------------ 7--- 7------\n\n 7--------\n 7----\n 7---------------- 7--\n 7--------\n 7---------\n 7------------------------ 7--- 7---------\n 7-------------------------------------------- 7--- 7---------\n Total 2,658\n Source: IRS Office of Competitive Sourcing.\n\n 7-----------------------------------------------------------------------\n ------------------------------------------------------------------------\n ------------------------------------------------------------------------\n ------------------------------------------------------------------------\n ------------------------------------------------------------------------\n ------------------------------------------------------------------------\n ------------------------------------------------------------------------\n ------------------------------------------------------------------------\n ------------------------------------------------------------------------\n ------------------------------------------------------------------------\n ------------------------------------------------------------.\n\n\n\n\n 9\n 7------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.\n Page 6\n\x0cThe Office of Competitive Sourcing Needs to Improve\n the Planning, Scheduling, and Costing of Projects\n\n Table 4: Status of Activities Nominated for the\n Competitive Sourcing Program for FY 2004\n\n Number\n Activity Status\n of FTEs\n 7-------------- 7--- 7---------\n 7--------------------------- 7--- 7---------\n 7----------------- 7--- 7---------\n 7-------------------------------------- 7--- 7------\n 7---------------------------- 7--- 7-----------\n Total 2,201\n Source: IRS Office of Competitive Sourcing.\n\n For 2 of the 6 activities postponed in FYs 2003 and 2004,\n the Business Case Analyses had been completed for\n approximately $600,000 in contractor costs. In addition,\n approximately $180,000 was spent for contractor support\n for the Performance Work Statement for 1 of the postponed\n projects. While the postponed projects can be resumed at a\n later date using much of the work already completed,\n additional time and resources will likely be necessary to\n update the information. Moreover, premature nomination of\n activities can negatively affect morale and job performance.\n The Office of Competitive Sourcing posted a draft guide to\n competitive sourcing on its web site. The guide explains\n competitive sourcing and describes how to accomplish tasks\n required for the IRS competitive sourcing process. The\n guide also includes procedures for the appointment of\n competition officials, communications with and reviews by\n functional executive leadership, budget requests, and\n nondisclosure statements. However, the guide does not\n include any procedures about nominating activities for a\n Business Case Analysis. Without procedures for\n nominating activities, the IRS may commit resources that\n are not available and may not be nominating the best\n candidates for the program.\n\n\n\n\n Page 7\n\x0cThe Office of Competitive Sourcing Needs to Improve\n the Planning, Scheduling, and Costing of Projects\n\n Recommendation\n\n 1. The Chief, Agency-Wide Shared Services, should\n establish procedures for nominating activities for a\n Business Case Analysis.\n Management\xe2\x80\x99s Response: The Office of Competitive\n Sourcing stated that corrective action was completed on\n May 17, 2004. It believes guidelines and practices for the\n project selection process have been established and are\n being followed. During the project selection process, the\n IRS answers the following questions:\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Is the function core to the IRS mission?\n \xe2\x80\xa2 How much does the function cost?\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Is there potential to reduce cost and/or improve\n productivity by competing the function?\n \xe2\x80\xa2 How does the function fit into other current or planned\n strategic projects?\n Based on the responses to these questions along with other\n factors (analysis of current operations, market research, and\n the Most Efficient Organization (MEO)10 design), the IRS\n calculates and considers economic benefits of each potential\n alternative and the upfront and recurring investments\n required to achieve and maintain efficiencies. The IRS\n makes a decision to compete based on strategic business\n alignment, investment risks, return on investment, and\n alignment with the Federal Activity Inventory Reform Act\n and other President\xe2\x80\x99s Management Agenda goals, including\n Human Capital Initiatives.\n Office of Audit Comment: In responding to our report, the\n Director, Office of Competitive Sourcing, did not\n differentiate between the nominating phase and the\n evaluating phase of competitive sourcing. Our\n recommendation focuses on the second stage of the\n competitive sourcing life cycle (nomination), as outlined in\n the IRS Competitive Sourcing Strategic Plan for\n FYs 2002-2005. The Office of Competitive Sourcing stated\n\n 10\n The MEO is the Federal Government\xe2\x80\x99s organizational unit that will\n compete for the work described in the Performance Work Statement.\n Page 8\n\x0c The Office of Competitive Sourcing Needs to Improve\n the Planning, Scheduling, and Costing of Projects\n\n it is following the above criteria for project selection;\n however, much of its discussion appears to be addressing\n steps taken during the Business Case Analysis, not during\n the nominating process. In addition, no documentation was\n available on how the Office of Competitive Sourcing\n applied the criteria in the nomination stage for FYs 2002,\n 2003, and 2004, nor have procedures been established to\n ensure future activities are nominated based on quantifiable\n criteria. Adequate procedures should ensure appropriate\n criteria are applied and documented and resources are\n available to complete the competition.\n The schedule for a competitive sourcing project includes\nSignificant Revisions Were Made\n many variables that can affect the timeline for completion.\nto Original Project Schedules\n The complexity of the project, the availability of internal\n and external resources, the cooperation of the National\n Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), and the number and\n quality of contractor proposals can all affect the schedule for\n conducting studies. In fact, for the three studies reviewed,\n these variables significantly affected the original project\n schedules. As a result, the project completion dates have\n been extended, which complicates transition planning and\n delays cost savings.\n The Office of Competitive Sourcing develops the project\n schedules for competitive sourcing studies with input from\n each project team. For the three competitive sourcing\n projects reviewed, changes had to be made to the project\n schedule start and completion dates. Table 5 shows the\n project planned start dates from the August 2002 project\n schedules compared with the actual start dates. For\n purposes of project schedules, the start date is considered\n the date on which the IRS begins to develop its Performance\n Work Statement.\n\n\n\n\n Page 9\n\x0cThe Office of Competitive Sourcing Needs to Improve\n the Planning, Scheduling, and Costing of Projects\n\n Table 5: Comparison of the Project Schedule Start Dates\n and Actual Start Dates\n\n Start date Months\n Activity\n Planned Actual Delayed\n\n Area Distribution\n April 22, 2002 April 22, 2002 \xe2\x80\x94\n Centers\n Campus Center\n September 16, 2002 October 28, 2002 1\n Operations\n 7---------------\n 7---------------- 7------------ 7-\n --------------\n Source: IRS Office of Competitive Sourcing.\n\n 7-----------------------------------------------------------------------\n ------------------------------------------------------------------------\n -----------------------------------------------------------------------.\n Because contractor support was necessary to begin the\n project, the start date was delayed until the contractor\n support could be obtained.\n Project schedules also had to be revised to reflect changes to\n the project completion date. Table 6 shows the changes to\n the completion dates in the project schedules from the dates\n originally planned for three ongoing competitive sourcing\n projects.\n Table 6: Revisions to the Completion Dates in Project Schedules\n\n Completion date Months\n Project\n Delayed\n Planned Revised\n Area Distribution\n September 22, 2003 September 30, 2004 12\n Centers\n Campus Center\n February 9, 2004 December 1, 2004 10\n Operations\n 7---------------\n 7------------ 7---------------- 7-11\n --------------\n Source: IRS Office of Competitive Sourcing.\n\n The Area Distribution Centers project was the IRS\xe2\x80\x99 first\n competitive sourcing project. This is a large, complex\n project which involves approximately 1,300 employees.\n\n 11\n 7-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n --------------------------------------------------.\n Page 10\n\x0cThe Office of Competitive Sourcing Needs to Improve\n the Planning, Scheduling, and Costing of Projects\n\n During the process, the NTEU raised issues related to\n employee rights that the IRS had to address. For example,\n the IRS had to address NTEU questions related to\n employees\xe2\x80\x99 notification and nondisclosure letters,12 which\n caused it to delay the development of the MEO until\n discussions were held with the NTEU. The schedule had to\n be revised because the original project schedule did not\n include sufficient time for these discussions.\n In addition, the Procurement function provided the Office of\n Competitive Sourcing with two possible schedules for the\n Area Distribution Centers project. The longer of the two\n schedules included time to hold discussions with bidders,13\n while the second schedule assumed that discussions would\n not be necessary. The Office of Competitive Sourcing\n managed the project using the schedule that did not allow\n for vendor discussions. For example, in January 2004 the\n Office of Competitive Sourcing briefed the Director, Media\n and Publications, Distribution Division, that the contract\n would be awarded in April 2004, which is the schedule date\n without vendor discussions. The briefing did not include\n the possibility that the award date could be delayed until\n July 2004 if discussions were necessary. However, in\n March 2004, the Procurement function determined that\n vendor discussions would be necessary, and the award date\n was delayed.\n The Office of Competitive Sourcing also underestimated the\n time necessary to develop a Performance Work Statement.\n For the Area Distribution Centers and the Campus Center\n Operations projects, the Office of Competitive Sourcing\n scheduled 5 months and 7 months, respectively, to complete\n the Performance Work Statement. However, the completion\n of the Performance Work Statement took approximately\n 12 months for both projects. 7------------------------------------\n ------------------------------------------------------------------------\n ------------------------------------------------------------------------\n ------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n 12\n The nondisclosure letter addresses an employee\xe2\x80\x99s access to sensitive\n procurement data and the requirement to protect that data.\n 13\n Discussions with prospective vendors are sometimes necessary to\n clarify issues and give the bidders an opportunity to revise their\n proposals.\n Page 11\n\x0cThe Office of Competitive Sourcing Needs to Improve\n the Planning, Scheduling, and Costing of Projects\n\n ------------------------. In addition, the Office of Competitive\n Sourcing underestimated the time necessary to complete the\n independent review of the MEO proposal.\n Future project schedules should take into account the time\n actually required to complete these tasks. Project delays can\n affect employees and the cost to complete the project and\n can postpone cost savings. While some of these delays may\n not have been avoidable, consideration of these potential\n issues should be included in the project schedules. Instead\n of targeting the most optimistic dates, project schedules\n should plan for the most probable dates, so managers are\n aware of the likely time periods and can plan for them\n accordingly.\n The Office of Competitive Sourcing developed draft\n guidelines for competitive sourcing project schedules. The\n purpose of having project schedules is to enable the\n Competitive Sourcing Project Manager and the Office of\n Competitive Sourcing to monitor and evaluate the progress\n of the projects. However, the project schedule guidelines\n are not complete and do not always consider the IRS\xe2\x80\x99\n experience with ongoing projects. For example, although\n both the Area Distribution Centers and Campus Center\n Operations projects took 12 months to complete the\n Performance Work Statements, the January 2004 guidelines\n designate 4 months to complete future Performance Work\n Statements. The IRS needs to update and improve its\n scheduling for competitive sourcing studies to recognize the\n lessons learned from its ongoing projects.\n\n Recommendation\n\n 2. The Chief, Agency-Wide Shared Services, should\n ensure the Office of Competitive Sourcing establishes\n realistic milestones for competitive sourcing projects by\n considering relevant factors, responsibilities, and\n historical time periods for similar tasks and incorporate\n the milestones into finalized project schedule guidelines.\n\n Management\xe2\x80\x99s Response: The Office of Competitive\n Sourcing stated that corrective action was completed on\n June 17, 2004. It is following project management\n disciplines, including planning and scheduling and\n Page 12\n\x0c The Office of Competitive Sourcing Needs to Improve\n the Planning, Scheduling, and Costing of Projects\n\n incorporating lessons learned for competitive sourcing\n competitions. The Office of Competitive Sourcing stated it\n has also taken steps to support compressing of timelines by:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Sharing lessons learned at monthly and biweekly\n meetings.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Expanding information on its web site.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Obtaining expert contractor support for project\n acceleration.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Providing training.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Maintaining knowledge transfer from the Business Case\n Analysis phase to the Performance Work Statement\n phase by keeping the same project leader to assist teams\n in meeting the \xe2\x80\x9cstretch schedule goals.\xe2\x80\x9d\n The Office of Competitive Sourcing stated it would\n continue to refine and condense the project schedules.\n Office of Audit Comment: The draft guidelines for Project\n Schedules in the IRS Guide to Competitive Sourcing do not\n appear to address lessons learned. As we noted, the Office\n of Competitive Sourcing acknowledges that it takes\n 12 months to complete a Performance Work Statement.\n However, the draft guidelines suggest a 4-month timeline\n for the Performance Work Statement. While the IRS may\n be informally sharing information and lessons learned, the\n Office of Competitive Sourcing needs to formalize this\n process and incorporate the results into its written\n guidelines.\n\n In August 2001, the Acting Chief Financial Officer (CFO)\nThe Method for Compiling the\n for the Department of the Treasury issued a memorandum to\nCosts of Competitive Sourcing Is\n all Department of the Treasury bureaus requiring the\nNot Accurate or Reliable\n collection of costs and savings resulting from compliance\n with OMB Circular No. A-76. The purpose of collecting\n these costs is to determine the point at which the savings\n exceed the costs, identify additional funds needed, and\n identify potential areas for reducing costs. Data collection\n was to be implemented in whatever manner was most\n efficient for each bureau. In January 2004, the Consolidated\n\n\n Page 13\n\x0cThe Office of Competitive Sourcing Needs to Improve\n the Planning, Scheduling, and Costing of Projects\n\n Appropriations Act, FY 2004,14 was signed into law. The\n Act includes a Government-wide requirement for each\n agency to report to the Congress on its competitive sourcing\n activities, including the costs and savings, for the prior fiscal\n year.\n The IRS began compiling and submitting reports on its\n competitive sourcing costs in FY 2002. The IRS reports the\n following quarterly costs to the Department of the Treasury:\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Cost of managing the competitive sourcing program \xe2\x80\x93\n this includes the administrative duties of the Office of\n Competitive Sourcing and all work associated with the\n Business Case Analysis.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Cost of conducting competitions \xe2\x80\x93 this includes all work\n conducted by the business units subsequent to the\n decision to compete the activity.\n However, the IRS does not have adequate procedures to\n ensure the costs it reports to the Department of the Treasury\n are accurate and reliable. The IRS has a cost accounting\n system15 to collect costs; however, it is not using its system\n to collect all of its costs. Inadequate procedures contributed\n to the IRS underreporting costs to the Department of the\n Treasury by $1 million for FY 2003. This was due to an\n error in consolidating quarterly costs. The Office of the\n CFO corrected the error after we brought it to their\n attention. The costs for FYs 2002 and 2003 are shown in\n Table 7.\n\n\n\n\n 14\n Consolidated Appropriations Act, FY 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-199.\n 15\n The IRS uses the Automated Financial System (AFS) to capture cost\n information. The AFS requires the creation of unique Project Cost\n Accounting System codes, which are used to identify project costs.\n\n\n\n\n Page 14\n\x0cThe Office of Competitive Sourcing Needs to Improve\n the Planning, Scheduling, and Costing of Projects\n\n Table 7: Costs of the IRS Competitive Sourcing Program\n\n Cost (in millions)\n Task\n FY 2002 FY 200316\n Managing the program 3.8 4.9\n Conducting competitions 1.8 5.4\n\n Total $5.6 $10.3\n Source: IRS Office of the CFO.\n\n For FY 2002, the Office of the CFO identified these costs\n by asking the IRS divisions to provide information on costs\n for salary, travel, and training related to competitive\n sourcing and by asking the contractor to provide the costs\n billed to the IRS for the fiscal year. In FY 2003, the Office\n of the CFO began capturing salary, travel, and training costs\n by using its cost accounting system. However, the Office of\n the CFO did not use the system to capture and report the\n contractor costs. Instead, it asked each contractor to provide\n this information each quarter. In the beginning of FY 2002,\n only one contractor was working on competitive sourcing\n initiatives. In FY 2003, 9 contractors worked on various\n aspects of the competitive sourcing program and accounted\n for $4.8 million (47 percent) of the $10.3 million, which\n increases the importance of recording this information on\n the IRS cost accounting system as costs are incurred.\n Proper use of the IRS cost accounting system would\n eliminate the need to manually compile these costs.\n In the future, the IRS will also be expected to report on\n savings resulting from competitions, which will be\n calculated by comparing the previous cost of performing the\n activity with Federal Government resources with the price\n of the winning contractor or Federal Government team\n offer. As of March 2004, there had been no savings; the\n IRS standard competitions were still in process and no\n awards had been announced. According to the Office of the\n CFO, savings are expected to begin in FY 2005.\n\n\n 16\n The IRS originally reported $4.2 million for managing the program\n and $5.1 million for conducting competitions, for a total of $9.3 million.\n The costs in this table represent the costs reported after the IRS made a\n correction.\n Page 15\n\x0cThe Office of Competitive Sourcing Needs to Improve\n the Planning, Scheduling, and Costing of Projects\n\n Recommendations\n\n The Chief, Agency-Wide Shared Services, and the CFO\n should:\n 3. Use the Automated Financial System (AFS)17 to record\n and prepare cost information for competitive sourcing.\n 4. Establish written procedures for reporting costs, savings,\n and other required competitive sourcing data to the\n Department of the Treasury and to the Congress.\n Management\xe2\x80\x99s Response: The Office of Competitive\n Sourcing, CFO, and budget contacts for the business\n divisions have been working since May 2003 to ensure\n competition costs and savings are accurately captured,\n updated, standardized, and reported regularly in the\n AFS/Integrated Financial System (IFS). Additional steps\n have been initiated to document the procedures for AFS/IFS\n cost tracking. Procedures will include unique AFS/IFS\n project tracking codes to correspond with the Department of\n the Treasury Department and Office of Management and\n Budget data call requirements.\n\n\n\n\n 17\n The AFS will be replaced by the Integrated Financial System.\n\n\n Page 16\n\x0c The Office of Competitive Sourcing Needs to Improve\n the Planning, Scheduling, and Costing of Projects\n\n Appendix I\n\n\n Detailed Objective, Scope, and Methodology\n\nThe overall objective of our review was to evaluate the effectiveness of the Internal Revenue\nService (IRS) competitive sourcing program in planning, scheduling, and costing its projects. To\naccomplish our objective, we:\nI. Assessed the process the IRS developed for selecting and competing commercial activities.1\n A. Reviewed the IRS competitive sourcing plan, minutes of the Competitive Sourcing\n Coordination Group, and other documents related to the IRS competitive sourcing\n program.\n B. Obtained criteria established by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the\n Department of the Treasury for developing a competitive sourcing plan and compared the\n IRS competitive sourcing program plan with the criteria.\n C. Discussed the competitive sourcing process with the Director and staff of the Office of\n Competitive Sourcing and with project leaders, team leaders, and team participants in the\n Wage and Investment (W&I) Division, Modernization and Information Technology\n Services (MITS) organization, and Agency-Wide Shared Services (AWSS) organization.\n D. Selected a judgmental sample of three of the eight projects undergoing a full competitive\n sourcing study from the W&I Division, MITS organization, and AWSS organization;\n reviewed the steps taken to select the activities for competition; and evaluated the\n process. We judgmentally selected the sample to obtain one project from each of the\n above divisions.\nII. Reviewed the steps the IRS has taken to meet the standards established for the President\xe2\x80\x99s\n Management Agenda competitive sourcing initiative.\n A. Identified the President\xe2\x80\x99s Management Agenda standards and goals and compared IRS\n performance with the standards and goals.\n B. Discussed the President\xe2\x80\x99s Management Agenda competitive sourcing initiative with the\n Director and staff of the Office of Competitive Sourcing.\nIII. Assessed the method used by the IRS for tracking costs related to the competitive sourcing\n program to determine whether IRS reported costs were accurate.\n A. Obtained the Department of the Treasury\xe2\x80\x99s criteria for tracking costs and compared the\n IRS methodology for tracking costs with the criteria.\n\n\n1\n A commercial activity is the process resulting in a product or service that is or could be obtained from a private\nsector source.\n Page 17\n\x0c The Office of Competitive Sourcing Needs to Improve\n the Planning, Scheduling, and Costing of Projects\n\n B. Discussed the methodology for tracking competitive sourcing programming costs with\n representatives of the Chief Financial Officer organization.\n C. Reviewed documentation related to costs.\nIV. Reviewed the IRS plans to comply with OMB Circular No. A-76, Performance of\n Commercial Activities, including transition issues.\n\n\n\n\n Page 18\n\x0c The Office of Competitive Sourcing Needs to Improve\n the Planning, Scheduling, and Costing of Projects\n\n Appendix II\n\n\n Major Contributors to This Report\n\nDaniel R. Devlin, Assistant Inspector General for Audit (Headquarters Operations and Exempt\nOrganizations Programs)\nMichael E. McKenney, Director\nCarl L. Aley, Audit Manager\nJoan R. Floyd, Lead Auditor\nSusan A. Price, Senior Auditor\nMichael J. Della Ripa, Auditor\n\n\n\n\n Page 19\n\x0c The Office of Competitive Sourcing Needs to Improve\n the Planning, Scheduling, and Costing of Projects\n\n Appendix III\n\n\n Report Distribution List\n\nCommissioner C\nOffice of the Commissioner \xe2\x80\x93 Attn: Chief of Staff C\nDeputy Commissioner for Operations Support OS\nChief Financial Officer OS:CFO\nChief Information Officer OS:CIO\nCommissioner, Wage and Investment Division SE:W\nAssociate Chief Financial Officer for Performance Budgeting OS:CFO:PB\nDirector, Customer Assistance, Relationships, and Education SE:W:CAR\nDirector, Competitive Sourcing OS:A:C\nDirector, Procurement OS:A:P\nDirector, Media and Publications SE:W:CAR:MP\nChief Counsel CC\nNational Taxpayer Advocate TA\nDirector, Office of Legislative Affairs CL:LA\nDirector, Office of Program Evaluation and Risk Analysis RAS:O\nOffice of Management Controls OS:CFO:AR:M\nAudit Liaison: Agency-Wide Shared Services OS:A:F\n\n\n\n\n Page 20\n\x0c The Office of Competitive Sourcing Needs to Improve\n the Planning, Scheduling, and Costing of Projects\n\n Appendix IV\n\n\n Outcome Measures\nThis appendix presents detailed information on the measurable impact that our recommended\ncorrective action will have on tax administration. This benefit will be incorporated into our\nSemiannual Report to the Congress.\nType and Value of Outcome Measure:\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Reliability of Information \xe2\x80\x93 Actual; $1 million understatement in costs of the competitive\n sourcing program reported to the Department of the Treasury for Fiscal Year 2003\n (see page 13).\n Methodology Used to Measure the Reported Benefit:\nWe reviewed the consolidated and quarterly cost reports the IRS sent to the Department of the\nTreasury for Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003. We also reviewed the process for assembling the\nreports and determined that inadequate procedures contributed to the understatement.\n\n\n\n\n Page 21\n\x0c The Office of Competitive Sourcing Needs to Improve\n the Planning, Scheduling, and Costing of Projects\n\n Appendix V\n\n\n Timeline of Major Events for\n Three Activities Reviewed\n\n Area Distribution Centers\n\nDate Event\nSeptember 2001 Business Case Analysis (BCA) team began its work.\nFebruary 22, 2002 Results of the BCA were presented to the Competitive Sourcing\n Executive Steering Committee. The Committee approved the\n recommendation to conduct a competition.\nApril 2002 Performance Work Statement (PWS) team began its work.\nNovember 2002 Management Plan team informally began its work.\nNovember 13, 2002 Request for Information and the draft PWS were issued.\nDecember 13, 2002 Comments to the draft PWS were due and received.\nFebruary 2003 Management Plan team formally began its work.\nApril 25, 2003 Request for Proposal or solicitation was issued.\nSeptember 5, 2003 Original due date for proposals that was established in the\n solicitation.\nSeptember 17, 2003 Independent Review Officer startup meeting was held.\nNovember 18, 2003 Independent Review Officer certified the Internal Revenue Service\xe2\x80\x99s\n (IRS) cost comparison form.\nNovember 25, 2003 Revised due date for proposals that was changed by amendments to\n the solicitation. Also the received date for proposals and the date the\n IRS\xe2\x80\x99 bid was sealed.\nApril 2004 The award decision was expected.\nAugust 2004 The revised date for the award decision.\n\n\n\n\n Page 22\n\x0c The Office of Competitive Sourcing Needs to Improve\n the Planning, Scheduling, and Costing of Projects\n\n\n\n Campus1 Center Operations\n\n Date Event\n January 2002 The BCA team began its work.\n June 17, 2002 Results of the BCA were presented to the Competitive Sourcing\n Executive Steering Committee. The Committee approved the\n recommendation to conduct a competition.\n October 2002 The PWS team began its work.\n April 28, 2003 Request for Information and the draft PWS were issued.\n May 12, 2003 Comments to the draft were due and received.\n June 2003 Most Efficient Organization (MEO)2 team began its work.\n October 1, 2003 Request for Proposal or solicitation was issued.\n January 29, 2004 Original due date for proposals that was established in the solicitation.\n February 26, 2004 Revised due date for proposals that was changed by an amendment to\n the solicitation. Also the received date for proposals.\n July \xe2\x80\x93 September The performance decision is expected.\n 2004\n\n\n 7------------------------------\n\n 7---- 7-----\n 7--------- 7----------------------------\n 7------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n ---------------------------------------\n 7--------- 7---------------------------\n 7---------- 7--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n1\n Campuses are the data processing arm of the IRS. The campuses process paper and electronic submissions, correct\nerrors, and forward data to the computing centers for analysis and posting to taxpayer accounts.\n2\n The MEO is the Federal Government\xe2\x80\x99s organizational unit that will compete for the work described in the PWS.\n Page 23\n\x0cThe Office of Competitive Sourcing Needs to Improve\n the Planning, Scheduling, and Costing of Projects\n\n Appendix VI\n\n\n Management\xe2\x80\x99s Response to the Draft Report\n\n\n\n\n Page 24\n\x0cThe Office of Competitive Sourcing Needs to Improve\n the Planning, Scheduling, and Costing of Projects\n\n\n\n\n Page 25\n\x0cThe Office of Competitive Sourcing Needs to Improve\n the Planning, Scheduling, and Costing of Projects\n\n\n\n\n Page 26\n\x0cThe Office of Competitive Sourcing Needs to Improve\n the Planning, Scheduling, and Costing of Projects\n\n\n\n\n Page 27\n\x0cThe Office of Competitive Sourcing Needs to Improve\n the Planning, Scheduling, and Costing of Projects\n\n\n\n\n Page 28\n\x0cThe Office of Competitive Sourcing Needs to Improve\n the Planning, Scheduling, and Costing of Projects\n\n\n\n\n Page 29\n\x0c'


text:
Connect Station CS100 - Nuotraukų saugojimas - Canon Lietuvos
 Paprastas būdas vienoje vietoje saugoti, peržiūrėti ir dalytis nuotraukomis bei vaizdo įrašais
 Atraskite lengvą būdą laikyti, peržiūrėti ir bendrinti nuotraukas ir filmus namuose. Perkelkite naujausius nuotykius vienu NFC fotoaparato bakstelėjimu arba lengvai įkelkite ar atsisiųskite nuotraukas iš išmaniojo įrenginio per programą „Connect Station“. Tada žiūrėkite jas savo HD televizoriuje arba dalykitės su šeima ir draugais internete.
 Be vargo perkelkite nuotraukas ir filmus iš fotoaparato, kompiuterio ar kortelės
 Lengvai bendrinkite tarp išmaniųjų įrenginių su programa „Connect Station“
 Laikykite nuotraukas ir vaizdo įrašus iš skirtingų įrenginių vienoje vietoje
 Užmegzkite ryšį naudodami „Canon“ įrenginius
 Sužinokite, kaip mūsų išmoningai sujungti fotoaparatai, spausdintuvai ir „Connect Station CS100“ leidžia paprasčiau nei bet kada lig šiol dalytis, spausdinti, atsargai kopijuoti ir peržiūrėti savo nuotraukas ir vaizdo įrašus.
 Lengvai įkelkite visus vaizdus iš kelių įrenginių
 Vaizdus iš kelių įrenginių lengva įkelti dėl „Connect Station“ NFC ir „Wi-Fi“ ryšio, išmaniųjų įrenginių programos „Connect Station“, USB jungties ir atminties korteles lizdo. HDMI išvestis leidžia per televizorių mėgautis „Full HD“ atvaizdais. .
 „Connect Station“ 1 TB standžiajame diske saugokite nuotraukas ir filmus iš savo fotoaparato ir asmeninio kompiuterio, taip pat nuotraukas iš išmaniojo telefono ir kitų įrenginių.
 Dalykitės atvaizdais bendruomeniniuose tinkluose, debesijos paslaugose ar su kitu „Connect Station“ įrenginiu
 Patogiai peržiūrėkite „Full HD“ atvaizdus, o tada sparčiai ir paprastai dalykitės jais bendruomeniniuose tinkluose, debesijos paslaugose ar su kitais „Connect Station“ įrenginiais.
 Lengvas vaizdo perdavimas
 Greitai importuokite vaizdus iš savo NFC fotoaparato, asmeninio kompiuterio, atminties kortelių ir USB įrenginių
 Su NFC ir „Wi-Fi“ technologija vos vienu bakstelėjimu galite lengvai perkelti naujausias savo nuotraukas ir filmus iš „Canon“ NFC funkciją palaikančio fotoaparato ar vaizdo kameros į „Connect Station“. Belaidžiu būdu importuokite vaizdus iš savo asmeninio kompiuterio bibliotekos per namų „Wi-Fi“ tinklą arba naudokite atminties kortelių lizdus ir USB jungtį, kad importuotumėte naujausius savo kūrinius iš kelių įrenginių. Taigi vos po kelių akimirkų jau galėsite mėgautis sau brangiausiomis akimirkomis per didįjį namų ekraną.
 Speciali išmaniųjų įrenginių programa
 Greitas ir lengvas failų atsiuntimas ir įkėlimas iš išmaniųjų įrenginių
 Atsisiųskite nemokamą programą „Connect Station“ „iOS“ ir „Android“ įrenginiams ir automatiškai prisijunkite prie išmaniojo įrenginio, kad galėtumėte jame greitai ir lengvai naršyti po failus, juos perkelti ir bendrinti. Per paprastą naudoti sąsają, kuri pritaikyta ir planšetiniams kompiuteriams, ir išmaniesiems telefonams, programoje „Connect Station“ galėsite be vargo atsisiųsti ir įkelti nuotraukas ir filmus*, juos peržiūrėti ir tvarkyti.
 Tegul viskas būna savo vietose
 Pasinaudokite „Connect Station“ 1 TB standžiuoju disku ir jungtimis su daugeliu įrenginių ir laikykite visas savo nuotraukas ir filmus vienoje vietoje. Lengvai naudojamoje sąsajoje galėsite paprastai surūšiuoti nuotraukas į albumus ir peržiūrėti filmus ar nuotraukas. Kad būtų dar ramiau, galite sukurti atsarginę kopiją 1 TB išoriniame standžiajame diske.
 Greitai ir paprastai dalykitės nuotraukomis ir filmais socialiniuose tinkluose arba su kitu „Connect Station“ įrenginiu. Galite įkelti turinį į debesijos paslaugas arba socialinius tinklus, pvz., „Flickr®“, „FacebookTM“, „GoogleTM“ ir „irista“, kad galėtumėte lengvai sukurti jo atsarginę kopiją ir bendrinti. Naudodamiesi HDMI išvestimi su šeima ir draugais galite žiūrėti „Full HD“ vaizdus televizoriuje.
 Spausdinkite be laidų
 Spausdinkite tiesiai iš „Connect Station“ belaidžio ryšio spausdintuvu
 Naršykite. Pasirinkite. Spausdinkite. „Connect Station“ prisijungia prie jūsų belaidžio ryšio spausdintuvų ir suteikia jums laisvę spausdinti atvaizdus, kuriais norite papuošti namus ar dalytis su šeima ir draugais. Paprasčiausiai peržiūrėkite savo nuotraukas televizoriuje ir išsirinkite mėgstamiausias, kurias norite spausdinti.
 * Filmų bendrinimas per programą „Connect Station“ nuo 2017 m. pavasario
 Sužinokite daugiau apie „Connect Station CS100“ funkcijas ir pajėgumus.
 Įkelkite nuotraukas ir vaizdo įrašus per „Wi-Fi“ ir NFC
 Siųskite ir gaukite medžiagą iš kitų „Connect Station“ įrenginių
 Visapusiškas ryšys
 1 TB atminties
 Kaip parengti „Connect Station CS100“
 Kaip parengti ir naudotis „Connect Station CS100“
 Ši vaizdo įrašų serija pademonstruos, kaip parengti, prisijungti, perkelti, peržiūrėti, dalintis brangiais prisiminimais ir sukurti atsarginę jų kopiją.


type: legislation

text:
 1.8.2015
 PL
 Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej
 L 206/12
 ROZPORZĄDZENIE WYKONAWCZE RADY (UE) 2015/1325
 z dnia 31 lipca 2015 r.
 dotyczące wykonania art. 2 ust. 3 rozporządzenia (WE) nr 2580/2001 w sprawie szczególnych środków restrykcyjnych skierowanych przeciwko niektórym osobom i podmiotom mających na celu zwalczanie terroryzmu oraz uchylające rozporządzenie wykonawcze (UE) 2015/513
 RADA UNII EUROPEJSKIEJ,
 uwzględniając Traktat o funkcjonowaniu Unii Europejskiej,
 uwzględniając rozporządzenie Rady (WE) nr 2580/2001 z dnia 27 grudnia 2001 r. w sprawie szczególnych środków restrykcyjnych skierowanych przeciwko niektórym osobom i podmiotom mających na celu zwalczanie terroryzmu (1), w szczególności jego art. 2 ust. 3,
 a także mając na uwadze, co następuje:
 (1)
 W dniu 26 marca 2015 r. Rada przyjęła rozporządzenie wykonawcze (UE) 2015/513 (2) dotyczące wykonania art. 2 ust. 3 rozporządzenia (WE) nr 2580/2001, ustanawiające uaktualniony wykaz osób, grup i podmiotów, do których zastosowanie ma rozporządzenie (WE) nr 2580/2001 (zwany dalej „wykazem”).
 (2)
 Rada przedstawiła, gdy było to wykonalne, wszystkim osobom, grupom i podmiotom uzasadnienie umieszczenia ich w wykazie.
 (3)
 W ogłoszeniu opublikowanym w Dzienniku Urzędowym Unii Europejskiej Rada poinformowała osoby, grupy i podmioty wymienione w wykazie, że postanowiła pozostawić je w wykazie. Rada poinformowała również osoby, grupy i podmioty, których to dotyczy, że możliwe jest zwrócenie się do Rady o uzasadnienie umieszczenia ich w wykazie, o ile takie uzasadnienie nie zostało im wcześniej przekazane.
 (4)
 Rada dokonała przeglądu wykazu zgodnie z wymogiem przewidzianym w art. 2 ust. 3 rozporządzenia (WE) nr 2580/2001. Dokonując tego przeglądu, Rada uwzględniła uwagi przedłożone jej przez zainteresowanych oraz uaktualnione informacje otrzymane od właściwych organów krajowych, dotyczące statusu osób i podmiotów umieszczonych w wykazie na szczeblu krajowym.
 (5)
 Rada sprawdziła, że właściwe władze w rozumieniu art. 1 ust. 4 wspólnego stanowiska 2001/931/WPZiB (3) podjęły decyzje w odniesieniu do osób, grup i podmiotów umieszczonych w wykazie, z których wynika ich uczestnictwo w aktach terrorystycznych w rozumieniu art. 1 ust. 2 i 3 tego wspólnego stanowiska. Rada uznała także, że osoby, grupy i podmioty, do których mają zastosowanie art. 2, 3, i 4 wspólnego stanowiska 2001/931/WPZiB, powinny nadal być objęte szczególnymi środkami ograniczającymi przewidzianymi w rozporządzeniu (WE) nr 2580/2001.
 (6)
 Należy odpowiednio zaktualizować wykaz oraz uchylić rozporządzenie wykonawcze (UE) 2015/513,
 PRZYJMUJE NINIEJSZE ROZPORZĄDZENIE:
 Artykuł 1
 Wykaz przewidziany w art. 2 ust. 3 rozporządzenia (WE) nr 2580/2001 określony jest w załączniku do niniejszego rozporządzenia.
 Artykuł 2
 Rozporządzenie wykonawcze (UE) 2015/513 niniejszym traci moc.
 Artykuł 3
 Niniejsze rozporządzenie wchodzi w życie następnego dnia po jego opublikowaniu w Dzienniku Urzędowym Unii Europejskiej.
 Niniejsze rozporządzenie wiąże w całości i jest bezpośrednio stosowane we wszystkich państwach członkowskich.
 Sporządzono w Brukseli dnia 31 lipca 2015 r.
 W imieniu Rady
 J. ASSELBORN
 Przewodniczący
 (1) Dz.U. L 344 z 28.12.2001, s. 70.
 (2) Rozporządzenie wykonawcze Rady (UE) 2015/513 z dnia 26 marca 2015 r. dotyczące wykonania art. 2 ust. 3 rozporządzenia (WE) nr 2580/2001 w sprawie szczególnych środków restrykcyjnych skierowanych przeciwko niektórym osobom i podmiotom mających na celu zwalczanie terroryzmu oraz uchylenia rozporządzenia wykonawczego (UE) nr 790/2014 (Dz.U. L 82 z 27.3.2015, s. 1).
 (3) Wspólne stanowisko Rady 2001/931/WPZiB z dnia 27 grudnia 2001 r. w sprawie zastosowania szczególnych środków w celu zwalczania terroryzmu (Dz.U. L 344 z 28.12.2001, s. 93).
 ZAŁĄCZNIK
 WYKAZ OSÓB, GRUP I PODMIOTÓW, O KTÓRYM MOWA W ART. 1
 I. OSOBY
 1.
 ABDOLLAHI, Hamed (alias Mustafa Abdullahi), ur. 11.8.1960 r. w Iranie. Nr paszportu: D9004878.
 2.
 AL-NASSER, Abdelkarim Hussein Mohamed, ur. w Al-Ihsa (Arabia Saudyjska), obywatel Arabii Saudyjskiej.
 3.
 AL YACOUB, Ibrahim Salih Mohammed, ur. 16.10.1966 r. w Tarut (Arabia Saudyjska), obywatel Arabii Saudyjskiej.
 4.
 ARBABSIAR, Manssor (alias Mansour Arbabsiar), ur. 6 lub 15.3.1955 r. w Iranie. Obywatel Iranu i USA. Nr paszportu: C2002515 (Iran); nr paszportu: 477845448 (USA). Nr krajowego dowodu tożsamości: 07442833, ważny do 15 marca 2016 r. (prawo jazdy USA).
 5.
 BOUYERI, Mohammed (alias: Abu ZUBAIR; SOBIAR; Abu ZOUBAIR), ur. 8.3.1978 r. w Amsterdamie (Niderlandy) – członek grupy Hofstadgroep.
 6.
 IZZ-AL-DIN, Hasan (alias: GARBAYA, Ahmed; SA-ID; SALWWAN, Samir), ur. w 1963 r. w Libanie, obywatel Libanu.
 7.
 MOHAMMED, Khalid Shaikh (alias: ALI, Salem; BIN KHALID, Fahd Bin Adballah; HENIN, Ashraf Refaat Nabith; WADOOD, Khalid Adbul), ur. 14.4.1965 r. lub 1.3.1964 r. w Pakistanie, nr paszportu: 488555.
 8.
 SHAHLAI, Abdul Reza (alias: Abdol Reza Shala'i; Abd-al Reza Shalai; Abdorreza Shahlai; Abdolreza Shahla'i; Abdul-Reza Shahlaee; Hajj Yusef; Haji Yusif; Hajji Yasir; Hajji Yusif, Yusuf Abu-al-Karkh), ur. ok. 1957 r. w Iranie. Adresy: 1) Kermanszah, Iran; 2) Mehran Military Base (Baza Wojskowa Mehran), Prowincja Ilam, Iran.
 9.
 SHAKURI, Ali Gholam, ur. ok. 1965 r. w Teheranie, Iran.
 10.
 SOLEIMANI, Qasem (alias: Ghasem Soleymani; Qasmi Sulayman; Qasem Soleymani; Qasem Solaimani; Qasem Salimani; Qasem Solemani; Qasem Sulaimani; Qasem Sulemani), ur. 11.3.1957 r. w Iranie. Obywatel Iranu. Nr paszportu: 008827 (irański paszport dyplomatyczny), wyd. w 1999 r. Tytuł: generał dywizji.
 II. GRUPY I PODMIOTY
 1.
 „Abu Nidal Organisation” – „ANO” (Organizacja Abu Nidala) [alias: „Fatah Revolutionary Council” („Rewolucyjna Rada Fatah”); „Arab Revolutionary Brigades” („Rewolucyjne Brygady Arabskie”); „Black September” („Czarny Wrzesień”); „Revolutionary Organisation of Socialist Muslims” („Rewolucyjna Organizacja Muzułmańskich Socjalistów”)].
 2.
 „Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade” („Brygady Męczenników Al-Aksy”).
 3.
 „Al Aqsa e.V.” (Stowarzyszenie Al-Aksa).
 4.
 „Babbar Khalsa” („Babbar Chalsa”).
 5.
 „Communist Party of the Philippines” („Komunistyczna Partia Filipin”) wraz z „New People's Army” – „NPA” („Nowa Armia Ludowa”); Filipiny.
 6.
 „Gama'a al-Islamiyya” („Dżama'a al Islamija”) [alias „Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya” („Al Dżama'a al Islamija”)] („Grupa Islamska” – „GI”).
 7.
 „İslami Büyük Doğu Akıncılar Cephes” – „IBDA-C” („Islamski Front Bojowników o Wielki Wschód”).
 8.
 „Hamas” wraz z „Hamas-Izz al-Din al-Qassem”.
 9.
 „Hizballah Military Wing” (Wojskowe Skrzydło Hizballah) [alias: „Hezbollah Military Wing” (Wojskowe Skrzydło Hezbollah), „Hizbullah Military Wing” (Wojskowe Skrzydło Hizbullah), „Hizbollah Military Wing” (Wojskowe Skrzydło Hizbollah), „Hezballah Military Wing” (Wojskowe Skrzydło Hezballah), „Hisbollah Military Wing” (Wojskowe Skrzydło Hisbollah), „Hizbu'llah Military Wing” (Wojskowe Skrzydło Hizbu'llah), „Hizb Allah Military Wing” (Wojskowe Skrzydło Hizb Allah), „Jihad Council” (Rada Dżihadu) (i wszystkie jednostki mu podlegające, w tym „External Security Organisation” – Organizacja Bezpieczeństwa Zewnętrznego)].
 10.
 „Hizbul Mujahideen” – „HM” („Hizbul Mudżahedin”).
 11.
 „Hofstadgroep”.
 12.
 „International Sikh Youth Federation” – „ISYF” („Międzynarodowa Federacja Młodzieży Sikhijskiej”).
 13.
 „Khalistan Zindabad Force” – „KZF” („Siły Chalistan Zindabad”).
 14.
 „Kurdistan Workers' Party” – „PKK” („Partia Pracujących Kurdystanu”) (alias: „KADEK”; „KONGRA-GEL”).
 15.
 „Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam” – „LTTE” („Tygrysy – Wyzwoliciele Tamilskiego Ilamu”).
 16.
 „Ejército de Liberación Nacional” („Narodowa Armia Wyzwolenia”).
 17.
 „Palestinian Islamic Jihad” – „PIJ” („Palestyński Islamski Dżihad”).
 18.
 „Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine” – „PFLP” („Ludowy Front Wyzwolenia Palestyny”).
 19.
 „Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine” – „General Command” („Ludowy Front Wyzwolenia Palestyny” – Naczelne Dowództwo) (alias „PFLP – Naczelne Dowództwo”).
 20.
 „Fuerzas armadas revolucionarias de Colombia” – „FARC” („Rewolucyjne Siły Zbrojne Kolumbii”).
 21.
 „Devrimci Halk Kurtuluș Partisi-Cephesi” – „DHKP/C” („Rewolucyjna Ludowa Partia/Front/Armia Wyzwolenia”) (alias: „Devrimci Sol” („Lewica Rewolucyjna”), Dev Sol.).
 22.
 „Sendero Luminoso” – „SL” („Świetlisty Szlak”).
 23.
 „Teyrbazen Azadiya Kurdistan” – „TAK” [alias: „Kurdistan Freedom Falcons” („Sokoły Wolności Kurdystanu”), „Kurdistan Freedom Hawks” („Jastrzębie Wolności Kurdystanu”)].


text:
 15.8.2008
 LV
 Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis
 C 209/49
 Pirmās instances tiesas 2008. gada 8. jūlija spriedums — Komisija/Economidis
 (Lieta T-56/07 P) (1)
 (Apelācijas sūdzība - Civildienests - Ierēdņi - Komisijas lēmuma par struktūrvienības vadītāja iecelšanu amatā atcelšana pirmajā instancē - Prasītāja kandidatūras noraidīšana - Cita kandidāta iecelšana amatā - Piešķiramā amata līmeņa noteikšana paziņojumā par vakanci - Amata un pakāpes nošķiršanas princips - Pamatota apelācijas sūdzība - Iztiesājama lieta - Prasības noraidīšana)
 (2008/C 209/86)
 Tiesvedības valoda — franču
 Lietas dalībnieki
 Prasītāja: Eiropas Kopienu Komisija (pārstāvji — J. Currall un G. Berscheid)
 Pretējā puse procesā: Ioannis Economidis, Woluwé-Saint-Étienne (Beļģija) (pārstāvji — S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis un E. Marchal, advokāti)
 Personas, kas iestājušās lietā, atbalstot prasītāju: Eiropas Parlaments (pārstāvji — C. Burgos un A. Lukošiūtė), Eiropas Savienības Padome (pārstāvji — M. Simm un I. Šulce) un Eiropas Revīzijas palāta (pārstāvji — T. Kennedy, J.-M. Stenier un B. Schäfer)
 Priekšmets
 Apelācija, kas iesniegta par Eiropas Savienības Civildienesta tiesas (otrā palāta) 2006. gada 14. decembra spriedumu lietā F-122/05 Economidis/Komisija (Krājumā vēl nav publicēts), lūdzot atcelt šo spriedumu.
 Rezolutīvā daļa:
 1)
 atcelt Eiropas Savienības Civildienesta tiesas 2006. gada 14. decembra spriedumu lietā F-122/05 Economidis/Komisija (Krājumā vēl nav publicēts);
 2)
 noraidīt Ioannis Economidis celto prasību Civildienesta tiesā lietā F-122/05;
 3)
 Economidis un Komisija sedz savus tiesāšanās izdevumus paši gan attiecībā uz procesu Civildienesta tiesā, gan attiecībā uz šo procesu;
 4)
 Eiropas Parlaments, Eiropas Savienības Padome un Eiropas Revīzijas palāta sedz savus tiesāšanās izdevumus pašas.
 (1) OV C 95, 28.4.2007.


type: wikipedia

text:
Santa Fe de Nuevo México was een provincie van Nieuw-Spanje, en na de onafhankelijkheid een territorium van Mexico. Het centrum was de huidige staat New Mexico, maar het territorium strekte zich ook uit over Texas, Colorado, Arizona en Utah.
 In 1595 werd het gebied door de Spanjaarden gekoloniseerd, en het werd een onderdeel van Nieuw-Spanje. In 1610 werd de hoofdstad Santa Fe gesticht. Na de onafhankelijkheid van Mexico werd het volgens de grondwet van 1824 een federaal bestuurd territorium. In 1836 ging het oostelijke deel verloren aan de Republiek Texas. Tijdens de Amerikaans-Mexicaanse Oorlog werd het hele gebied bezet door de Verenigde Staten. In 1848 werd het officieel opgeheven en aan de VS overgedragen. Het Amerikaanse New Mexico Territory besloeg ongeveer hetzelfde gebied.
 Voormalige staat van Mexico
 Geschiedenis van New Mexico