zilongwang/ReadingBank huggingface dataset:
Early Learning Services Department – Head Start Program Head Start Program Preschool Services by School District 2013 – 2014 Center Name Number of Classrooms Licensing Capacity School District Alum Rock Double Session 1 20 Alum Rock Cinderella Double Session 2 40 Job Corps Double Session / Full Day 2 40 Lyndale Double Session / Full Day 2 48 San Antonio Double Session / Full Day 2 40 Story Road Double Session 2 40 Steindorf Double Session 1 20 Cambrian Chandler Tripp Double Session 2 40 Rainbow Double Session 2 34 Evergreen Rouleau Double Session / Full Day 5 94 Evergreen Daniel Lairon Double Session / Full Day 2 60 Franklin-McKinley Franklin Double Session 3 54 Franklin-McKinley Franklin House Double Session 1 24 Franklin-McKinley Santee Double Session 2 44 Franklin-McKinley Wool Double Session 3 74 Franklin-McKinley Christopher Ranch Full Day 1 24 Glenview Double Session 2 43 Leavesley Double Session 2 43 Hollister Double Session / Full Day 4 77 Hollister
Partners Center Name Number of Classrooms Licensing Capacity School District Eastside CDP Evergreen 2 18 ESUHSD Foothill 3 30 ESUHSD Overfetl 2 20 ESUHSD Kidango, Inc. Kidango Arbuckle Center PS 2 48 Alum Rock Union Kidango Chynoweth 1 40 Alum Rock Union Kidango Goss Center 1 24 Alum Rock Union Kidango Hubbard Center 2 40 Alum Rock Union Kidango Linda Vista PS 2 48 Alum Rock Union Mt. View-Whisman School District Castro 2 48 Mt. Slater 1 24 Mt. Theuerkauf 1 24 Mt. State Preschool Parkway Child Development Center 5 318 Campbell Kennedy Preschool 3 91 Franklin-McKinley McKinley Preschool Program 4 144 Franklin-McKinley Snell State Preschool/Head Start 2 60 San Jose Unified SJB CDC SJB Cassell 2 60 Alum Rock Union SBJ San Juan Bautista 5 120 Alum Rock 9/10/12
Cost Items if you cannot separate User License fees indicate so in notes, however include license pricing for the quantity in Counts column so that the total quantity is 350 Counts Each License Year 1 Total Year 2 Total Year 3 Year 4 Total NOTES Administrative User 20 Technician User 130 Student User 150 Concurrent Licenses 50 350 Total License Fees Professional Service Fees Cost Item ( 1 time fees) Indicate in year 1 unless cost to be distributed over 4 years Year 1 Total Year 2 Total Year 3 Total Year 4 Total NOTES ITSM Implementation Fee SaaS Instantiation Fee Other (explain in notes) Professional Services Fees Training Fees Cost Item ( 1 time fees) Indicate in year 1 unless cost to be distributed over 4 years Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total Year 4 Total NOTES Administrator Training Agent Training (explain in notes) Total Training Fees
Service Criteria Acceptable Performance Compensation / Damages Adherence to University Requirements Reference standard terms, conditions and all articles of RFP Termination of Contract: Reference section 8 of RFP. This termination clause will for insufficient performance of services by vendor at the sole discretion of the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. of Services Reference Sections 1 & 2 of RFP: Description, Overview and Scope Termination of Contract: Reference section 8 of RFP. This termination clause will apply for insufficient performance of services by vendor at the sole discretion of the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. Goals and Deliverables Reference section 14 of RFP: Specifications/Goals and Deliverables Requested Termination of Contract: Reference section 8 of RFP. This termination clause will for insufficient performance of services by vendor at the sole discretion of the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. APPENDIX I: Bidder Information / Vendor References
TOWER WATER SYSTEM TREATMENT Page 16 LOOP WATER SYSTEM TREATMENT Page 18 HOT LOOP WATER SYSTEM TREATMENT Page 19 PRE-BOILER / STEAM BOILER WATER SYSTEM TREATMENT Page 20 PHILOSOPHY STATEMENT Page 21 REQUIRED SUBMITTALS Page 22 EVALUATION CRITERIA Page 23 PRICING SHEETS Page 24 MONITORING SHEETS Page 30 BID SUMMARY FORM (Primary) Page 34 BID SUMMARY FORM (Alternate) Page 35 APPENDICES System Descriptions Page 36 PROPOSED SCHEDULE March 8, 2017 – BID DOCUMENT (RFP) RELEASE TO PUBLIC March 14, 2017 – MANADATORY SITE WALKTHROUGH at 9:30 A.M. (CST). VENDORS NOT IN ATTENDANCE SHALL BE DEEMED NON-RESPONSIVE AND SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED TO BID. March 21, 2017 – CLOSING DATE FOR ALL QUESTIONS – 4:30 P.M. (CST) ALL VENDOR QUESTIONS SHALL BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING VIA EMAIL TO ANDY FLETCHER at PRIOR TO THE CLOSING DATE LISTED ABOVE, MARCH 21, 2017. 4:30 P.M. (CST). March 27, 2017 – ANSWERS TO VENDOR QUESTIONS SHALL BE POSTED ON THE UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS -FAYETTEVILLE PROCUREMENT DEPARTMENT’S HOGBID WEBSITE, BY MARCH 27, 2017 4:30 P.M. (CST) AND SHALL BE FINAL.
4 100 Mucinex DM (40/bx) $ $ 5 35 Medique APAP XS, 250/2’s (Each) $ $ 6 50 Medique Mediproxen, 100/1’s (Each) $ $ 7 45 Medi-First Ibuprofen, 250/2’s (Each) $ $ 8 40 ASO EVO Ankle Stabilizer Black, Large (Each) $ $ 9 40 ASO EVO Ankle Stabilizer Black, Extra Large (Each) $ $ 10 350 Vettex Double Mouth Guard with Lip Protection Model MG9 Scarlet (Each) $ $ 11 190 Johnson & Johnson Zonas Porous Tape 1.5” x 15 yds. (32rolls/cs) $ $ 12 50 Johnson & Johnson Zonas Porous Tape 1” x 10 yds. (12 rolls/bx) $ $ 13 525 Kendall Elastic Tape 2” x 7.5 yds. (24 rolls/bx) $ $ 14 700 Kendall Elastic Tape 3” x 7.5 yds. (16 rolls/bx) $ $ 15 400 Cramer Cohesive StretchTape 2” x 6 yds. (24 rolls/bx) $ $
16 150 Andover Powerflex CohesiveTape Any 2” x 6 yds. (24 rolls/cs) $ $ 17 50 Andover Powerflex Cohesive Tape Any 3” x 6 yds. (16 rolls/cs) $ $ 18 15 Hartmann-Conco Deluxe LF Elastic Bandage 6” x 11 yds. (6/bx) $ $ 19 15 Hartmann-Conco Deluxe LF Elastic Bandage 6” x 5 yds. (10/bx) $ $ 20 180 BSN Medical Gelocast Unna’s Boot 3” x 10 yds. (Each) $ $ 21 25 JOBST Medical Legwear Thigh High; 20 – 30 mmHg, Large (2/bx) $ $ 22 25 Medical Legwear Thigh High 20 – 30 mmHg, X-Large (2/bx) $ $ 23 15 Tubigrip Stockinette; Natural, Size B 2 1/2” x 33’ (Each) $ $ 24 15 Tubigrip Stockinette; Natural, Size C 2 3/4” x 33’ (Each) $ $ 25 15 Tubigrip Stockinette Natural, Size D 3” x 33’ (Each) $ $
321 Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 Phone: 479.575.2551 Fax: 479.575.4158 June 8, 2017 RE: Intent to - RFP #638704, NCAA Agreed Upon Procedures Review To All Respondents: The University of Arkansas Procurement Division has received the official recommendation of from the evaluation committee elected to review the proposals requested for the NCAA Agreed Upon Procedures Review RFP. The recommendation for award extends to Beall Barclay & Company. The proposal due date was May 5, 2017. Respectfully, this letter of “Intent to Award” serves as notification that contract negotiations will commence with the successful vendor with the ultimate goal of a Purchase Order/Contract to be issued by the University of Arkansas. The University of Arkansas is thankful for the attention of each respondent, and for the time and effort expended in responding to the RFP. We encourage and appreciate the participation of our vendor community. Thank you for your interest and participation. Best Regards, Ellen Ferguson Ellen Ferguson Procurement Coordinator
Technical support; Monitoring and performance tuning; Troubleshooting, Procedures for handling IAM software updates and all other tasks necessary to provide support for the IAM system; Training on all components of the operating environment that are new to the UA System; and Training on the use of the Contractor’s development tools, system management, and application administration tools. Knowledge Transfer Training The Contractor provide training to core technical, operations, and service desk personnel to facilitate knowledge transfer before conclusion of the Contractor’s post-implementation support responsibilities. Training content should address, but is not limited to: Software configuration; UA System operation procedures for use during the Project; System administration responsibilities, log on/log off procedures, and security; Other topics necessary to educate UA System personnel on ‘system housekeeping’; and Most likely service desk scenarios. The Knowledge Transfer Training should be consistent with the knowledge and skills transfer process described 5.1.1 Deliverables: Comprehensive Technical Training Plan and Training Curriculum Satisfactorily-Delivered Technical and Operations Personnel Training Satisfactorily-Delivered Software and Operations Knowledge Transfer Training Materials Table 8: Technical Training Responsibility Matrix Activity Contractor System Technical Training Needs Assessment Lead Assist Develop Technical Training Strategy Lead Assist Develop Technical Training Plan Lead Assist Provide Enterprise policies applicable to training materials Assist Lead Populate training environment with UA System-specific data and initial transaction data to support training delivery and user scenarios, if needed based on training strategy Lead Assist
Service Criteria Acceptable Performance Compensation / Damages Adherence to University Requirements Reference standard terms, conditions and all articles of RFP Termination of Contract: Reference section 7 of RFP. This termination clause will apply for insufficient performance of services by vendor at the sole discretion of the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. Scope of Services Reference Sections 1 & 2 of RFP: Description, Overview and Scope Termination of Contract: Reference section 7 of RFP. This termination clause will for insufficient performance of services by vendor at the sole discretion of the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. Specifications, Goals and Deliverables Reference section 13 of RFP: Specifications/Goals and Deliverables Termination of Contract: Reference section 7 of RFP. This termination clause will apply for insufficient performance of services by vendor at the sole discretion of the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. APPENDIX I: Bidder Information/Reference Bidder must provide the following information as part of this proposal: 1. Respondent Representative Contact Name Telephone Email Address Address 2. References of your current customer(s) as specified in Section 4 of this RFP document: a. Company/Organization Name: Contact Name Telephone Address Address b. Company/Organization Name: Contact Name Telephone Address Address c. Company/Organization Name: Contact Name Telephone
Name of Business (official name and DBA) Business Headquarters (address, phone and fax) If a Division or Subsidiary of another organization provide the name and address of the parent Billing Address Name of Executive Officer Offeror Contact (name, title, address, phone, toll-free number, fax, and e-mail)
EVALUATOR 3 EVALUATOR 4 EVALUATOR 5 REPEAT AS NECESSARY SCORE: SCORE: SCORE: COST PROPOSAL Maximum Points: 100 SCORE: SCORE: SCORE: PROPOSAL SCORE Maximum Points: 400 TOTAL SCORE: TOTAL SCORE: TOTAL SCORE: ATTACHMENT 6.8 LISTING OF SYSTEM INSTITUTIONS THE UT SYSTEMS OF HIGHER EDUCATION AND STATE OF TENNESSEE Locally Governed Universities Austin Peay State University East Tennessee State University Middle Tennessee State University Tennessee University Tennessee Technological University University of Memphis University of Tennessee – Chattanooga University of Tennessee – Knoxville University of Tennessee – Martin University of Tennessee – Memphis University of Tennessee – Tullahoma Tennessee Board of Regents, System Office Chattanooga Community College Cleveland State Community College TCAT-Athens Columbia State Community College TCAT-Pulaski TCAT-Hohenwald Dyersburg State Community College Jackson Community College TCAT-Jackson TCAT-Whiteville TCAT-Crump TCAT-McKenzie TCAT-Paris TCAT-Newbern TCAT-Ripley TCAT-Covington Motlow State Community College TCAT-Shelbyville TCAT-Murfreesboro TCAT-McMinnville
Architectural / Design / Engineering $2,000,000 30 Construction $2,000,000 30 Educational $1,000,000 9 Finance, Insurance & Real Estate $1,000,000 9 Information Systems / Technology $2,000,000 30 Manufacturing $2,000,000 99 Marketing / Communications / Public Relations $2,000,000 30 Medical / Healthcare $2,000,000 30 Mining $1,000,000 49 Retail Trade $750,000 9 Service Industry $500,000 9 Transportation, Commerce & Utilities $1,000,000 9 Wholesale Trade $1,000,000 19 ATTACHMENT 6.10
ATTACHMENT 6.12 Accessibility Conformance and Remediation Form Vendor/Product Information Vendor Name Product Name Product Version Completion Date Contact Name/Title Contact Email/Phone Specific Issues Issue Description Current Status (Open, Closed, I/P) Disposition (Planned, Deferred, I/P) Remediation Timeline Available Workarounds Comments Images on the landing page lack equivalent alternate text Open Planned Q3, 2015 release (v1.2) Functional images will receive descriptive alternate text; decorative images will receive null alternate text. Additional Information:
shall be deemed the Effective Date. CONTRACTOR STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA <insert business> Acting through its <insert agency> BY: <Signature> BY: <Signature> <Printed Name> <Printed Name> <Title> <Title> Date: Date: APPENDICES 17 BEFORE YOU SUBMIT YOUR RFP …. Was a Letter of Intent to apply submitted by December 23, 2016? Is the application complete and a response prepared for each section? Is the program funding identified in cover letter (APPENDICES 1)? Is the cover letter complete and include signatures (APPENDICES 1)? Are signatures included for the Program Assurance section (APPENDICES 2)? Are signatures included for the Debarment Certification (APPENDICES 3)? If requesting consideration for a admin beyond 5%, is the request complete and signed (APPENDICES 4)? If a consortium is making an application, is the form completed (APPENDICES 5)? If a community-based or faith-based organization, volunteer literacy organizations, or public or private nonprofit agency is applying, was APPENDICES 6 and its requirements included? Was the application submitted prior to February 1, 2017 at 3:00 pm (one hard copy and one electronic copy on a USB flash drive)? Are all signatures provided requested and by the appropriate person? Is the Budget complete and attached (APPENDICES 10)? Is a budget summary included following the RFP guidance and APPENDICES? Does the application include the two required signed Memorandum of Understandings (MOU) – See sample MOU in (APPENDICES 15).
B. Project Related Submission Requirements. Vendor’s response must include: 1. An overview that reflects the vendors’ understanding of the business, operational, technical and product evaluation period requirements described in this RFP; 2. The information requested in the Product Implementation section of this RFP; 3. A detailed explanation of how the Vendor’s product will meet the Project objectives and requirements set forth herein; 4. Information that highlights Vendor’s particular expertise and experience to provide the required services, and how Vendor will structure, develop and manage the project. Please highlight any experience you have working with records or, at a minimum, government data; 5. Total, not-to-exceed cost, including all travel and related expenses, for Vendor’s proposal; 6. Three (3) client references, including contact information, that have had the Vendor’s product in production for at least 6 months, and that can attest to Vendor’s ability to complete work as stated; 7. A statement identifying any conflicts of interest as it relates to this project; 8. All other information required by this RFP. VII. PROPOSAL EVALUATION. A. The State will evaluate all complete proposals received by the deadline. Incomplete proposals, late proposals, or proposals sent to any other address will not be considered. In some instances, an interview or presentation may be part of the evaluation process. B. The evaluation of all proposals be based upon deriving the “Best Value” for the Judicial Branch. Best Value means achieving an appropriate balance between price and other factors that are key to a particular procurement. A procurement that obtains a low price but does not include other necessary qualities and features of the desired product or service does not meet the Best Value criterion. Factors upon which the proposals will be judged include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Vendor’s industry expertise and experience in performing similar work; 2. Thoroughness, quality, specificity, robustness, flexibility of Vendor’s approach/ methodology; 3. Cost estimate;
AGENDA Northwest Oregon and Southwest Oregon Combined Regional Forest Practices Committee Meeting ODF Office, 3150 Main Street, Springfield, OR 97477 July 13, 2015 9:00 A.M. – 3:00 P.M 9:00-9:15 Welcome and review of the agenda Chair’s Announcements Housekeeping Approval of December meeting minutes Public Comment Dana Kjos Mike Barnes 9:15-9:30 9:30 – 10:00 10:00-10:15 Introductions – Private Forests Staff reorganization ODF and BOF Update Agency Policy Option Packages Operator of the Year nominations/field tour dates Lena Tucker Peter Daugherty Angie Lane 10:15-12:00 Review Riparian Rule draft language Dana Kjos Mike Barnes 12:00 -12:30 LUNCH 12:30-1:45 Review Riparian Rule draft language (cont.) Process for input to the BOF Next Steps after September BOF meeting Dana Kjos Mike Barnes 1:45 – 2:15 Bald Recommendations for July BOF meeting Jennifer Weikel 2:15 – 2:45 Compliance Audit Update Paul Clements 2:45-3:00 Review Action items and Next Meeting dates For the Good of the Order/Adjourn Dan Kjos Mike Barnes
community-driven and problem-based approach. Professional Development must include both business partner support in working with youth, as well as educator support in linking content to industry needs. Programs that engage educators in industry-based learning opportunities allow them to see workplace skills and how they can be integrated into real-world problem coursework will enhance professional development. Interdisciplinary teams, including business and education professionals, should work together to embed industry experiences and best practices into curriculum and pedagogy. APPENDIX D: Resources Additional CAPS Models Northland CAPS http://www.northlandcaps.org/s/1625/start.aspx Waukee CAPS http://www.waukeecaps.org/ Park City, UT CAPS http://caps.pcschools.us/ Minnetonka CAPS Professional Development Resources (this list will be expanded on the Iowa STEM CAPS website as P.D. opportunities are identified. Please send other relevant STEM CAPS supportive models to Info@IowaSTEM.gov) Blue Valley CAPS Summer Huddle Real World Externship Program Research Experiences for Teachers at Iowa State University STEMInnovator Institute at the University of Iowa http://www.jacobsoninstitute.org/stem_program_institute_2014.html Additional Resources (this list will be expanded on the Iowa STEM CAPS website as resources are identified. Please send other relevant STEM CAPS supportive resources to Info@IowaSTEM.gov) in New York City is garnering national attention as a model partnership between business, K-12 and Higher Ed. The Iowa highlights of team learning. “” is intended to help education leaders at the school and college levels, and business leaders in IT and other sectors, get started on the collaborative process of designing and building a STEM Pathways to College and Careers school (STEM-PCC school). The created“offers a roadmap to establish project-based STEM instruction, leadership development and community support. It was creactical direction that can empower teachers and administrators, schools and districts.” Business Engagement http://www.project10.info/files/School-BusinessGuidingPrinciples.pdf APPENDIX E: PROPOSAL SCORING RUBRIC Phase I:
Checklist of Final Submittals Prior to Award. The Vendor(s) should anticipate that the Letter will require at least the following. Vendors are encouraged to prepare these documents as soon as possible, to eliminate risks of late compliance. Current Seattle Business License and all taxes due have been paid. Current State of Washington Business License. Evidence of Insurance supplied to the City Insurance Broker if applicable. Special Licenses (if any). of certified reseller status (if applicable). Taxpayer Identification Number and W-9 Form. Taxpayer Identification Number and W-9. Unless the apparently successful Vendor has already submitted a executed Taxpayer Identification Number and Certification Request Form (W-9) to the City, the apparently successful Vendor must execute and submit this form prior to the contract execution date. ATTACHMENTS For convenience, the following documents have been embedded in Icon form within this document. To open, simply double click on Icon. Attachment #1 Insurance Requirements Attachment #2: Contract & Terms and Conditions The following will apply for a system with PCI requirements.
Attn: Nicholas Ziesmer 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite #4250 Seattle, Washington, 98104 Seattle Municipal P.O. Box 34214 Seattle, Washington, 98124-4669 Unless authorized by the Project Manager, no other City official or employee may speak for the City regarding this solicitation until award is complete. Any Proposer contacting other City officials or employees does so at Proposer’s own risk. The City is not bound by such information. Table of Contents Purpose and Background. The City of Seattle is a Level 1 Payment Card Industry (PCI) compliant organization. As part of an ongoing compliance effort, the City engages with a PCI Qualified Security Assessor (QSA) annually to determine the City’s compliance with the PCI Data Security Standard (PCI-DSS). The purpose of this solicitation is to select a PCI Subject Matter Expert (SME) consultant who can enhance understanding of the PCI-DSS as it applies to the City, build awareness of PCI compliance requirements, establish higher levels of operational excellence for the PCI program, and facilitate the City’s engagement with and responses to the QSA during the annual assessment process. The long-term vision is to refine the existing PCI compliance program to enhance agility and adapt to changes in the PCI-DSS, develop a more rigorous self-assessment process to identify compliance concerns proactively, and to help in the alignment of PCI compliance requirements with other compliance frameworks. Additional information can be made available following the completion of a non-disclosure agreement (See Attachment A). Performance Schedule. The PCI SME consultant engagement will span from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016 with the option to extend into future years.
4 BASE PERSONNEL SERVICES, TEMPORARY: ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY - OVERTIME HOURLY RATE: HR 1 5 BASE PERSONNEL SERVICES, TEMPORARY: AUDIO/VIDEO TECHNICIAN - HOURLY RATE: HR 1 6 BASE PERSONNEL SERVICES, TEMPORARY: AUDIO/VIDEO TECHNICIAN - OVERTIME HOURLY RATE: HR 1 BASE PERSONNEL SERVICES, TEMPORARY: BACKSTAGE CREW ATTENDANT - HOURLY RATE: HR 1 8 BASE PERSONNEL SERVICES, TEMPORARY: BACKSTAGE CREW ATTENDANT - OVERTIME HOURLY RATE: HR 1 BASE PERSONNEL SERVICES, TEMPORARY: CASHIER - HOURLY RATE: HR 1 10 BASE PERSONNEL SERVICES, TEMPORARY: CASHIER - OVERTIME HOURLY RATE: HR 1 11 BASE PERSONNEL SERVICES, TEMPORARY: CUSTODIAN - HOURLY RATE: HR 1 12 BASE PERSONNEL SERVICES, TEMPORARY: CUSTODIAN - OVERTIME HOURLY RATE: HR 1 13 BASE PERSONNEL SERVICES, TEMPORARY: DATA ENTRY CLERK - HOURLY RATE: HR 1 14 BASE PERSONNEL SERVICES, TEMPORARY: DATA ENTRY CLERK - OVERTIME HOURLY RATE: HR 1 15 BASE PERSONNEL SERVICES, TEMPORARY: GENERAL CLERICAL - HOURLY RATE: HR 1 16 BASE PERSONNEL SERVICES, TEMPORARY: GENERAL CLERICAL - OVERTIME HOURLY RATE: HR 1 17 BASE PERSONNEL SERVICES, TEMPORARY: GROUNDSKEEPER - HOURLY RATE: HR 1 18 BASE PERSONNEL SERVICES, TEMPORARY: GROUNDSKEEPER - OVERTIME HOURLY RATE: HR 1 19 BASE PERSONNEL SERVICES, TEMPORARY: MAINTENANCE WORKER- HOURLY RATE: HR 1 20 BASE PERSONNEL SERVICES, TEMPORARY: MAINTENANCE WORKER- OVERTIME HOURLY RATE: HR 1 21 BASE PERSONNEL SERVICES, TEMPORARY: OPERATIONS ATTENDANT - HOURLY RATE: HR 1 22 BASE PERSONNEL SERVICES, TEMPORARY: OPERATIONS ATTENDANT - OVERTIME HOURLY RATE: HR 1 PROPOSAL FORM FOR REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT SERVICES Continued:
ITEM INTERNAL REF NUMBER TYPE DESCRIPTION UOM QTY 23 BASE PERSONNEL SERVICES, TEMPORARY: RECEPTIONIST - HOURLY RATE: HR 1 24 BASE PERSONNEL SERVICES, TEMPORARY: RECEPTIONIST - OVERTIME HOURLY RATE: HR 1 25 BASE PERSONNEL SERVICES, TEMPORARY: RESTROOM ATTENDANT - HOURLY RATE: HR 1 26 BASE PERSONNEL SERVICES, TEMPORARY: RESTROOM ATTENDANT - OVERTIME HOURLY RATE: HR 1 27 BASE PERSONNEL SERVICES, TEMPORARY: SECRETARY - HOURLY RATE: HR 1 28 BASE PERSONNEL SERVICES, TEMPORARY: SECRETARY - OVERTIME HOURLY RATE: HR 1 29 BASE PERSONNEL SERVICES, TEMPORARY: TICKET BOX OFFICE AGENT - HOURLY RATE: HR 1 30 BASE PERSONNEL SERVICES, TEMPORARY: TICKET BOX OFFICE AGENT - OVERTIME HOURLY RATE: HR 1 31 BASE PERSONNEL SERVICES, TEMPORARY: USHERS - HOURLY RATE: HR 1 32 BASE PERSONNEL SERVICES, TEMPORARY: USHERS - OVERTIME HOURLY RATE: HR 1 33 BASE PERSONNEL SERVICES, TEMPORARY: WELDER - HOURLY RATE: HR 1 34 BASE PERSONNEL SERVICES, TEMPORARY: WELDER - OVERTIME HOURLY RATE: HR 1 35 BASE PERSONNEL SERVICES, TEMPORARY: SMALL ENGINE MECHANIC - HOURLY RATE: HR 1 36 BASE PERSONNEL SERVICES TEMPORARY: SMALL ENGINE MECHANIC – OVERTIME HOURLY RATE: HR 1 37 963-39-01001 BASE CHARGE, AFFORDABLE CARE ACT (ACA) CHARGE HR 1 PROPOSAL FORM FOR REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT SERVICES Continued: The undersigned hereby declares that after examining the Proposal Solicitation Documents does hereby submit a response to the solicitation and warrants that: a. She/He is an officer of the organization. b. She/He is authorized to offer a proposal in full compliance with all
of Contents I. Introduction - Summary of the Intended Procurement 1 1.1 Issuing Body and Coordinated Procurement 1 1.2 Historical Data 1 1.3 Project Overview 2 II. Procurement And Evaluation Process 3 2.1 Procurement Schedule and General Instructions 3 2.2 Mandatory Pre-Proposal Conference 4 2.3 Evaluation Process 4 2.4 Evaluation Criteria 5 2.5 Interviews and Negotiations 6 2.6 Award 6 III. Proposal Format and Content 8 3.1 Information/Contact 8 3.2 Authorized Signatures, Validity Period of Proposals 8 3.3 Proposal Contents 8 3.4 Project Pricing 12 3.5 Acceptance of Terms 12 IV. Statement Of Work 12 4.1 Required Account Services 12 4.2 Advertising and Marketing Campaign 14 4.3 On-site Personnel (At Option of Participating Entity) 13 4.4 Reporting Requirements 15 4.5 Contractor Computer Systems 17 4.6 Transition Services 17 4.7 Procurement Process – Use of Master Agreement 18
The Formal Proposal Response: Section 1 - Consultant Qualifications: As part of your response, please provide examples and reference information (including company name, project name, company contact name, number, e-mail address) demonstrating experience in the areas listed below: Provide examples of your work with non-profit, public sector, higher education, and/or Library organizations. Provide examples of work that helped organizations solve complex needs aligned with the project scope of services. Provide examples of your clear, data and research-driven methodology for assessing agency need, determining where they are being met by existing systems and what gaps exist in potential levels of ILS performance. Provide a resume for the consultant’s project manager showing relevant experience for the required scope of services. For those consultants with more than one individual on the project team, provide an organizational chart of the team members, descriptions of each team member’s responsibilities and skills relevant to the scope of services and their respective resumes. Section 2 - Prior Work Experience: Provide a listing of projects within the past 3 years which are similar to the requested scope of services. Provide a narrative for each project encompassing the of the project, challenges to the work and describe the results of the solutions provided. For each project provide a point of contact, their title, telephone number and email address. Section 3 – Work Plan & Schedule: Provide a narrative of how you will provide a of services which meets the goals of this project request. Detail how your plan will meet the timeline limits required by this project. Section 4 – Cost Proposal for Services: Detail your costs for the scope of the services. Provide a “lump-sum” total cost for the consultant work as described by the scope of services and the resultant deliverables. Additionally, provide “lump-sum” for each of the phases for the purpose of compensation. Described your proposed invoicing methods for compensation be they monthly, based or other. Please not that any proposal requesting advance payments will not be considered. Describe any prompt payment discounts and any other terms with which you are offering your services. At additional related services may be required by the Library. To facilitate a process to negotiate necessary supplementary services, provide a table fee rates, hourly or lump-sum, for any supplementary services which are not necessary for the completion of the scope of work as described by this RFP.
Solicitation Objectives. The Seattle Office of Sustainability and Environment seeks a skilled consultant to achieve the following outcomes through this consultant solicitation: to filter, cleanse and analyze collected energy performance data, to identify key findings, develop recommendations to improve the quality and application of collected benchmarking data, and produce a reader-friendly summary report. Minimum Qualifications. Minimum qualifications are required for a Consultant to be eligible to submit a RFP response. Your submittal response must show compliance to these minimum qualifications. Those that are not responsive to these qualifications shall be rejected by the City without further consideration: Consultant must have successfully performed at least one contract with a public or private agency of similar size to the City of Seattle, with services similar to those expected by the City for this contract. Consultant must be willing to make all data and models used in the calculation public per Washington State’s public records law. Demonstrated expertise in energy analysis. Applied knowledge of statistics, quantitative and qualitative research methods. Proficiency using statistical database software including Tableau software. Demonstrated experience producing reader-friendly analysis summary reports. Excellent oral and written communication skills. Scope of Work. The consultant will conduct building characteristic and energy performance data analysis. This analysis should evaluate data accuracy, summarize building characteristics, and identify data trends and changes in building performance. The study should also analyze the data by different building types, geographic sectors of the City, and other variables. Define methodology and analysis approach The City will provide collected energy benchmarking data reported for 2012 and 2013 via MS Access (preferred) or MS and other Access exports. Annually, approximately 3,300 buildings are required to report benchmarking data to the City of Seattle. The City will provide data collected from King County Assessor records, interactions with building owners and data reported via web services from EPA’s Portfolio Manager. Review and summarize data analysis approaches used by other cities collecting and analyzing energy performance data. Review City of Seattle data analysis approach used for the 2011/2012 Benchmarking Analysis Report and identify gaps and potential revisions. Develop a methodology for the analysis study, including an approach to validate data and identify poor performing buildings. Below are the anticipated key tasks: Data cleaning
STATE OF MAINE Department of Labor Division for the Blind and Visually Impaired RFP#201602035 Payroll Services RFP Coordinator: Brenda Drummond 45 Commerce Drive, Augusta ME Tel: 207-623-7954 E-mail: From the time this RFP is issued until award notification is made, all contact with the State regarding this RFP must be made through the aforementioned RFP Coordinator. No other person / State employee is empowered to make binding statements regarding this RFP. Violation of this provision may lead to disqualification from the bidding process, at the State’s discretion. Deadline for Submitted Questions: 2, 2016, 5:00 p.m. local time Proposals Due: March 15, 2016, not later than 2:00 p.m. local time Submit to: Division of Purchases Burton M. Cross Building, 111 Sewall Street, 4th Floor 9 State House Station, Augusta ME 04333-0009
Funding Board Members in Attendance Professor Jane Noyes - Chair Professor Simon Jones – Deputy Chair Professor Deborah Fitzsimmons – Board Member Professor Ruth Northway – Board Member Professor Julius Sim – Board Member Professor Colin Dayan – Board Member Mr Chris Foy – Board Member Professor Tim Peters – Board Member Dr Colin Powell – Board Member Professor Steve Conlan – Board Member Ms Rosemary Greenwood – Board Member Mr David Gillespie – Board Member Dr Joanna Charles – Member Professor Neil Thomas – Board Member Ms Dawn Craig – Board Member Mrs Gillian Thomas - PPI Mrs Scrase - PPI Mr Michael Bowdery – Non Voting Member Apologies Professor Zwiggelaar Professor Richard Body Dr Jamie Duckers Dr John Ingram Dr Martyn Further information on the RfPPB Funding Board including current members, selection and Conflict of Interest policies are available here [insert Funding Board document link].
4.2 Aims and Objectives (Limit: 3500 characters) Please note the All Prioritisation Panel (AWPP) will use this section of the form to assess the importance of the proposal to the NHS, patients and the public in Wales. You must complete this section of the form in an anonymised format i.e. there must not be any information that enables any individual, team or institution associated with your application to be identified. Any identifiable text will be redacted before it is assessed. Please note that this section of the application form will not be seen by the Scientific Board. You should ensure details you wish the board to consider are included in your research plan. Please summarise the key aims and objectives of your project and provide a concise statement of the proposed research. 4.3 Application Type 50 characters) Please state the type of application you are submitting; primary or secondary research. You should also state if your application is for a pilot or feasibility study. 4.4 History of Application 1500 characters) Please state ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ and indicate whether this or a similar application has previously been submitted to this or any other funding body. Where a proposal like this, or with similar content, has been submitted to this organisation or elsewhere please complete the necessary information. We are keen to know if the proposal has been submitted elsewhere and you must be as open this as possible. This includes, but is not limited to, any facts that, should they come to light at a future date, would embarrass either the programme or the individual who withheld the fact (e.g. if a member of the team holds a patent or has a financial interest within the research area). Failure to disclose accurately or fully will be considered by the programme as academic misconduct and as such treated seriously. You should also include in this section information on whether this or a similar application has been submitted to any programme previously, or to any other funder. You should name, and provide dates and outcomes of these. 4.5 Background and Rationale (Limit: 5000 characters)
Region 5 Region 5 – County Incorporated Jurisdictions Mitigation Plan Status Expiration Date Fremont Lander, Riverton, Dubois, Hudson, Pavillion, Shoshoni Current-Approved July 13, 2017 Sublette Pinedale, Marbleton, Big Piney, Bondurant, Boulder, Cora, Daniel Expired August 21, 2013 Region 6 Region 6 – County Incorporated Jurisdictions Mitigation Plan Status Expiration Date Big Horn Basin, Burlington, Byron, Cowley, Deaver, Frannie, Greybull, Lovell, Manderson Expired- Update Approvable Pending Adoption as of 2/5/2016 January 28, 2016 Hot Springs Thermopolis, East Thermopolis, No Plan n/a Park Cody, Powell, Frannie, Meeteetse Current-Approved November 21, 2016 Washakie Worland, Ten Current-Approved September 19, 2016 Region 7 Region 7 – County Incorporated Jurisdictions Mitigation Plan Status Expiration Date Goshen Torrington, Fort Laramie, La Grange, Lingle, Yoder Expired January 9, 2012 Laramie Cheyenne, Albin, Burns, Pine Bluffs Current-Approved February 26, 2018 Platte Wheatland, Chugwater, Glendo, Guernsey, Hartville No Plan n/a Region 8 Region 8 – County Incorporated Jurisdictions Mitigation Plan Status Expiration Date Teton Jackson Expired-Update Approvable Pending Adoption as of 1/15/16 February 25, 2015
Region 1 Region 1 – County Incorporated Jurisdictions Mitigation Plan Status Expiration Date Campbell Gillette, Wright Current-Approved November 21, 2016 Crook Sundance, Hulett, Moorcroft, Pine Haven Current-Approved December 22, 2018 Johnson Buffalo, Kaycee Current-Approved October 13, 2018 Sheridan Sheridan, Clearmont, Dayton, Ranchester Current-Approved May 14, 2019 Weston Newcastle, Upton No Plan n/a Region 2 Region 2 – County Incorporated Jurisdictions Mitigation Plan Status Expiration Date Converse Douglas, Glenrock, Lost Springs, Rolling Hills Current-Approved February 28, 2017 Natrona Casper, Bar Nunn, Edgerton, Evansville, Midwest, Mills Current-Approved September 19, 2016 Niobrara Lusk, Manville, Van Tassell Current-Approved December 6, 2020 Region 3 Region 3 – County Incorporated Jurisdictions Mitigation Plan Status Expiration Date Albany Laramie, Rock River Current-Approved July 7, 2020 Carbon Rawlins, Baggs, Dixon, Elk Mountain, Grand Encampment, Hanna, Medicine Bow, Riverside, Saratoga, Sinclair Approvable- Pending Adoption July 21, 2014 Region 4 Region 4 – County Incorporated Jurisdictions Mitigation Plan Status Expiration Date Lincoln Kemmerer, Afton, Alpine, Cokeville, Diamondville, La Barge, Opal, Star Valley Ranch, Thayne Expired August 6, 2012 Uinta Evanston, Bear River, Lyman, Mountain View Current-Approved September 30, 2016 Sweetwater Green River, Rock Springs, Bairoil, Granger, Superior, Wamsutter No Plan n/a
Region 5 Region 5 – County Incorporated Jurisdictions Mitigation Plan Status Expiration Date Fremont Lander, Riverton, Dubois, Hudson, Pavillion, Shoshoni Current-Approved July 13, 2017 Sublette Pinedale, Marbleton, Big Bondurant, Boulder, Cora, Daniel Expired August 21, 2013 Region 6 Region 6 – County Incorporated Jurisdictions Mitigation Plan Status Expiration Date Big Horn Basin, Burlington, Byron, Cowley, Deaver, Frannie, Greybull, Lovell, Manderson Expired- Update Approvable Pending Adoption as of 2/5/2016 January 28, 2016 Hot Springs Thermopolis, East Thermopolis, Kirby No Plan n/a Park Cody, Powell, Frannie, Meeteetse Current-Approved November 21, 2016 Washakie Worland, Ten Sleep Current-Approved September 19, 2016 Region 7 Region 7 – County Incorporated Jurisdictions Mitigation Plan Status Expiration Date Goshen Torrington, Fort Laramie, La Grange, Lingle, Yoder Expired January 9, 2012 Laramie Cheyenne, Albin, Burns, Pine Bluffs Current-Approved February 26, 2018 Platte Wheatland, Chugwater, Glendo, Guernsey, Hartville No Plan n/a Region 8 Region 8 – County Incorporated Jurisdictions Mitigation Plan Status Expiration Date Teton Jackson Expired-Update Approvable Pending Adoption as of 1/15/16 February 25, 2015
Content Management: Course authoring (template driven); Collaborative content development; Workflow integration. Talent Management: Applicant tracking; recruitment; On-boarding; Compensation management; Succession Planning (Career Ladder identification; Institutional knowledge transfer). Performance Management: Online appraisals; Skills-gap analysis; Individual development plans linked to performance review; Competency-based learning to fill knowledge gaps. Web-based Training: Online library of professional development topics. Services As part of the contract scope, the City requires system implementation and integration services to configure the selected software for City Light. Both software and services must be included in the winning proposal. Multiple Vendors may be included in the proposal for execution of the various proposal components, but proposals that include multiple Vendors must clearly identify one Vendor as the “prime contractor” and all others as subcontractors. The prime contractor will retain ultimate responsibility for the entire contract and its successful execution. SCL will partner with the chosen Vendor during implementation, both to assist with the transition, and to ensure sufficient knowledge transfer for SCL to be fully capable of assuming its role for on-going management of system content. The Statement of Work (Section 5.0 of this RFP) provides more details on the City’s preferred implementation phasing approach and expectations regarding project approach and deliverables. 1.5 Current System Overview is no current automated system that this new system will replace. The functions to be automated by a new Learning and Talent Management System are currently performed manually. 1.6 Computing Standards The Vendor-hosted system must be available and functional on standard City of Seattle desktop, laptop, and tablet computers running Windows 7. 1.7 Interfaces Proposers should evaluate the following list of minimally required interfaces. Proposer’s cost proposal must include developing and implementing all of the following interfaces. Required Interfaces Vendor / Application Name Direction (relative to LTMS) Interface Description CoS HR Systems (Oracle PeopleSoft for HRIS and ADP EV5 for Payroll) Inbound Changes to employee positions/roles New employees Terminations Retirements Outbound N/A MS Outlook 2010 Inbound Calendar schedules Outbound Inspection appointments Intake appointments Review appointments trial
Pricing Proposal: This response is mandatory. City’s Contract Terms & Conditions. Acceptance of Contract & Conditions: Provide a one-page statement that confirms acceptance of the City Contract (including Terms & Conditions), and represents complete review as needed by the Vendor. If the Vendor has a legal office that must review contract prior to signature, the Vendor must clearly confirm that such review is complete. If Vendor desires exceptions to the City Contract, attach the City Contract that shows the alternative contract language (print out a version with your suggested new language clearly displayed in a track changes mode). You must provide the alternative language, and not simply list an exception you wish to discuss. You may attach a narrative of why each change is to the benefit of the City and any financial impact. Also attach any licensing or maintenance agreement supplements. As stated earlier in the RFP instructions, the City will not allow a Best and Final Offer. The City will review the proposed language, and will thereupon either accept or reject the language. The City will then issue a contract for signature reflecting City decisions. Any exceptions or licensing and maintenance agreements that are unacceptable to the City may be grounds for rejection of the proposal. Submittal Checklist: Each complete proposal submittal to the City must contain the following: Cover Letter Legal Name Vendor Questionnaire Mandatory Inclusion Plan Mandatory Minimum Qualifications Mandatory Mandatory Technical Requirements Mandatory Technical Response 1.Vendor Solution 2. RFP Pay Station Technical Requirements Mandatory Pricing Proposal Mandatory
The following documents have been embedded within this document. To open, double click on Icon. Attachment #1 Insurance Requirements Attachment #2 Contract Terms and Conditions Attachment #3 – Data Formatting Requirements for Parking Studies Program Attachment #4 – System Rate Map Attachment #5-25 – System Neighborhood Maps Attachment #26 – Samples of Parking Studies Program Attachment #27 – Revenue and Statistics Report Attachment #28 – Citation Application Design Document Attachment #29 – Bolt Patterns for Existing Seattle Pay Stations Attachment #30 – 2012 Rate and Time Limit Changes Attachment #31 – 2012 Changes Methodology
9. Deliverable Issues : Apart from the regular assignments, the service provider shall complete the thematic studies and submit the report within ten weeks from the date of assignment on priority basis, on top ten service sectors which contribute considerable revenue to the ex-chequer. The sectors will be finalized in consultancy with the CTD. Other deliverable issues with time lines will be communicated as per the need and necessity. Section E: Technical and Functional Criteria for Evaluation Project Evaluation Committee (PEC)(i.e CTD) will evaluate the Technical Proposals of the bidders as per the following criteria: S.No Evaluation Parameter Description Max. Minimum marks to be scored to qualify Document Criteria 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 Methodology & Proposed Work Plan The Bidder shall submit his methods and procedures and a work plan to achieve the desired objectives as stated in scope of work. 15 7.5 In a bounded book,. 2 Technical Presentation The Bidder shall present a Power Point Presentation with brief notes on how he is technically competent to execute the assignment 15 7.5 A presentation for a duration of 30 minutes before PEC 3 Project Experience as service tax consultant It is to evaluate the bidder’s past exposure to the organizational environment 20 10 Details to be submitted in Form - T#06(1)(a) &
Date: Address: Form–P#05: General Profile of the Bidder 1. a) Name and address of the Company / Firm b)GSTN: : 2. a Address of the Office in Andhra Pradesh. : 2.b b) GSTIN 3. Telephone Number(s)(Andhra Pradesh) : Phone: Fax: 4. : 5. Web-Site : 6a Legal Status : Public Ltd Company / Private Ltd/ etc.. 6b Registration No. Indian 1956companies Act/Companies Act,2013) : 7. Date of Establishment : 8. (Details of Valid Quality Certification i.e ISO 9001:2008 certificate as on bid calling date & other quality certifications if any, attained by the firm) Details of Valid Quality Certification as approved by ISO and other credentials if any, attained by the firm as on bid submission date. : 9. Name of the Contact Person Details for future correspondence Name: e-mail: Phone: : 10. EMD details : Name of the Bank: No. Rs: EMD Valid up to : 11. Others :
Note: The bidder should submit Self-Certification by the authorized signatory. Place: Bidder’s Signature Date: with Seal Form–T#09: Training Experience for 2016-17 Form – S.No No.of organizations in which training conducted from 1st April 2016 to bid (calling) submission date. No.of people trained in PSUs’ / Government Agencies.( from 1st April 2016 to bid (calling) submission date. No.of people trained in MNCs’ and organizations ( other than Col.3 ). .( from 1st April 2016 to bid (calling) submission date. Total people trained .( from 1st April 2016 to bid (calling) submission date. 1 2 3 4 5 Note: The bidder should submit Self-Certification by the authorized signatory. Place: Bidder’s Signature Date: with Seal Form –T#09(b) Sl. No. Name of the organisation trained Type of organisation (PSU/Govt/ MNCs/others) Number of people trained Core topics trained Supporting documents (Ex: Training material / photographs/