№ lp_1_2_17610
File format: docx
Character count: 3721
File size: 84 KB
Note:
Year
Topic:
Quality Management, Health and Safety, Environmental Management
Document Type:
Template
Target Audience:
Organisations implementing Integrated Management Systems
Description:
Template for assessing internal QHSE influences, linking internal factors to Quality, Health and Safety, and Environmental outcomes, while supporting alignment with ISO 9001, ISO 45001, and ISO 14001 standards.
Price: 8 / 10 USD
The file will be delivered to the email address provided at checkout within 12 hours.
The file will be delivered to the email address provided at checkout within 12 hours.
Don’t have cryptocurrency yet?
You can still complete your purchase in a few minutes:- Buy Crypto in a trusted app (Coinbase, Kraken, Cash App or any similar service).
- In the app, tap Send.
- Select network, paste our wallet address.
- Send the exact amount shown above.
The final amount may vary slightly depending on the payment method.
The file will be sent to the email address provided at checkout within 24 hours.
The product description is provided for reference. Actual content and formatting may differ slightly.
Year:
2023
Region / city:
Global
Topic:
Mobile device technical adaptation, customisation
Document type:
Industry specification
Organisation / institution:
GSMA
Author:
GSM Association
Target audience:
Manufacturers, MNOs, MVNOs
Period of validity:
Not specified
Approval date:
Not specified
Date of changes:
Not specified
RFP Number:
RFP 2825-2023
Description:
Request for Proposal for the provision, customisation and roll out of an integrated workforce management system in the Limpopo Province Department of Health (LDOH)
Issuing Institution:
State Information Technology Agency (SITA)
Client Institution:
Limpopo Province Department of Health (LDOH)
Country:
Republic of South Africa
Compulsory Briefing Session Date:
09 November 2023
Compulsory Briefing Session Time:
10H00
Briefing Session Platform:
Microsoft Teams
Closing Date for Questions:
16 November 2023
RFP Closing Date:
30 November 2023
RFP Closing Time:
11H00 South African Time
Bid Submission Address:
Tender Office, 459 Tsitsa Street, Erasmuskloof, Pretoria, 0105
RFP Validity Period:
200 days from the closing date
Registration Requirement:
National Treasury Central Supplier Database (CSD)
Applicable Legislation:
Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act 13 of 1993
Procurement Framework:
Preferential Procurement and B-BBEE requirements
Document Sections:
Invitation to Bid, Terms and Conditions, Disclosure Forms, General Conditions of Contract, Local Content Requirements, Annexes
Contact Person:
Mafiwa Malebatja
Contact Telephone:
015-291-8133
Contact Email:
[email protected]
Year:
2024
Region / City:
Global
Theme:
Child and Women Welfare Surveys
Document Type:
Guidelines
Organization / Institution:
UNICEF
Author:
UNICEF
Target Audience:
Government agencies, NGOs, international organizations, and the public
Period of Validity:
2024 and onwards
Approval Date:
2024
Date of Changes:
Not specified
Content Customization:
SFR template
Report Format:
Word document
Report Volume:
One or two volumes
Recommended Languages:
Official language of the country, UN languages (Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, Spanish)
Appendices:
Two appendices with detailed guidelines
SPSS Export:
Transferring SPSS Excel exports to the SFR
Data Visualization:
Layout and appearance based on MICS theme
Document Purpose:
To provide standardised reporting for MICS survey results
Customisation Guidelines:
Specific to each country’s survey results
Use of Template:
Standardised formatting for MICS reports worldwide
Report Structure:
Front cover, back cover, spine
Photo Requirements:
Country-specific, photo credits inside the report
Language Guidelines:
Official language of the country or one of the UN languages
Review Process:
Consult experts and stakeholders for report accuracy
SFR Layout:
Use of UNICEF core colours
Font Size Guidelines:
Standard for logos and country names
Document Format:
A4 size, PDF for front cover
Logo Requirements:
MICS logo must be included
Cover Design:
Consistent across countries for international recognition
Region:
Victoria, Australia
Subject:
Livestock traceability and food safety
Document type:
Informational guidance
Applicable livestock:
Cattle, sheep, goats, pigs
Regulatory context:
Livestock movement and sale requirements
Programs referenced:
Livestock Production Assurance (LPA), PigPass
Issuing bodies referenced:
Agriculture Victoria, Meat & Livestock Australia, Australian Pork Limited
Intended users:
Livestock producers, buyers, processors, stock agents
Retention requirements:
Seven years for cattle, sheep and goats; two years for pigs
Geographic scope:
Domestic and overseas markets
Document identifier:
GMP 13
Title:
Good Measurement Practice for Ensuring Metrological Traceability
Subject:
Metrological traceability
Type of document:
Good Measurement Practice guideline
Field:
Metrology and measurement science
Issuing organization:
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Referenced standards:
International System of Units (SI)
Referenced publications:
NIST Special Publication 330; NIST Special Publication 811; ILAC P-10:2002
Scope:
Calibration and measurement traceability
Intended users:
Calibration providers and measurement laboratories
Key concepts:
Metrological traceability; calibration hierarchy; measurement uncertainty; measurement assurance
Responsibilities defined:
Calibration provider; user of measurement results
Period of application:
Not specified
Year:
2022
Region / city:
N/A
Topic:
TMT Science Flowdown and Traceability
Document Type:
Technical Report
Organization / Institution:
TMT Observatory
Author:
Warren Skidmore, John Miles, Kayla Hardie, Bart Fordham, Gelys Trancho
Target Audience:
TMT Science Community, TMT Staff, External Review Panels
Effective Period:
N/A
Approval Date:
October 3, 2022
Date of Changes:
N/A
Year:
2010
Region / city:
Europe
Topic:
Grid Security, Traceability, Logging
Document type:
Policy
Organization / institution:
EGI-InSPIRE Collaboration
Author:
David Kelsey
Target audience:
Researchers, Grid administrators, Security officers
Period of validity:
Indefinite
Approval date:
13/07/2010
Document status:
Submitted
Year:
2014
Region / City:
North America
Topic:
Phytosanitary Measures, Traceability
Document Type:
Discussion Paper
Organization / Institution:
International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC)
Author:
North America
Target Audience:
IPPC Strategic Planning Group (SPG), plant protection specialists, industry sector representatives
Period of Application:
Not specified
Approval Date:
September 19, 2014
Date of Changes:
Not specified
Year:
2012
Region:
Coral Triangle
Document type:
Meeting notes
Event:
Coral Triangle Fisher Forum II, Breakout Group B, Day 2
Topic:
Traceability systems, IUU fishing, incentives and industry adoption
Participants:
Fisheries stakeholders, industry representatives, NGOs, government officials
Geographical focus:
Large scale export fisheries and small scale local fisheries in Southeast Asia and Pacific
Key issues addressed:
Traceability implementation, market incentives, consumer demand, regulatory challenges, community engagement
Recommendations:
Incentive mechanisms, education programs, multi-purpose traceability systems, collaboration between government, industry, and communities
Year:
2026
Region / City:
Vietnam
Topic:
Product Traceability
Document Type:
Draft Comments
Organization / Institution:
Comité Européen des Entreprises Vins (CEEV), spiritsEUROPE
Author:
Comité Européen des Entreprises Vins (CEEV), spiritsEUROPE
Target Audience:
European Union authorities, Vietnamese authorities, international stakeholders
Period of Validity:
From 2026 (proposed date for adoption)
Approval Date:
N/A
Date of Amendments:
N/A
Year:
2023
Region / City:
Not specified
Topic:
Project management, testing, requirements traceability
Document Type:
Assessment document
Organization / Institution:
Not specified
Author:
Not specified
Target Audience:
Project Managers, Business Analysts, Testers
Validity Period:
Not specified
Approval Date:
Not specified
Modification Date:
Not specified
Context:
This document is an assessment tool used in project testing, focusing on process modeling, requirements traceability, test planning, and test case matrix creation.
Year:
2026
Region / City:
Goa, India
Subject:
Closed Control Loop traceability
Document Type:
Technical Report
Organization:
3GPP
Author:
Nokia
Target Audience:
3GPP TSG-SA5 members
Period of Validity:
09 – 15 February 2026
Approval Date:
N/A
Change Date:
N/A
Version:
0.2.0
Work Item:
Closed Control Loop Management phase 2
Agenda Item:
6.20.10
Spec:
3GPP TR28.889
Context:
Technical report on adding traceability for automatically triggered Closed Control Loops (CCLs) to improve system visibility.
Year:
2026
Region / City:
Not specified
Subject:
Plastic materials and components
Document Type:
Declaration / Certificate
Organization:
UL (Underwriters Laboratories)
Author:
Molder / Supplier
Intended Audience:
UL certification bodies, manufacturers
Effective Period:
At delivery
Date of Issue:
Not specified
Material Details:
Plastic material, coloring material, lubricant material, molding process, additives, foaming
Order Information:
Part name, part number, quantity, manufacturing date, order number
Traceability:
Lot numbers, UL file numbers, optional certification QMMY2
Context:
Form-type source detailing the materials, processes, and traceability information for plastic parts supplied for UL safety certification.
Author:
Ayumu Inoue
Surname:
Inoue
Given Name:
Ayumu
Organization:
Japan Bioindustry Association
E-mail:
[email protected]
Document reviewed:
Combined study on DSI in public and private databases and DSI traceability
Type of document:
Peer review comment form
Subject:
Digital Sequence Information (DSI), database metadata terminology, and traceability
Related framework:
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
Referenced database collaboration:
International Nucleotide Sequence Database Collaboration (INSDC)
Referenced institution:
National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI)
Reviewed sections:
Multiple pages and paragraphs of the draft study report
Key issues addressed:
terminology corrections, metadata field definitions, clarification of “country of origin” and locality metadata, alignment with CBD Article 15 paragraph 3
Target audience:
CBD stakeholders and authors of the draft study
Submission contact:
[email protected]
Submission method:
email or fax
Fax:
+1 514 288 6588
Year:
2023
Region / City:
Global
Theme:
Product traceability
Document Type:
Procedure
Organization:
[Short Client Name]
Author:
[Author Name]
Target Audience:
All departments handling products, raw materials, and tooling
Effective Period:
Ongoing
Approval Date:
[Date of Issue]
Revision Date:
[Rev Number]
Year:
2026
Region / City:
United States
Topic:
Federal procurement and contract management
Document Type:
Policy/Guidance
Agency / Institution:
GSA (General Services Administration)
Author:
GSA
Target Audience:
Contractors, Government Agencies
Period of Validity:
Ongoing
Approval Date:
N/A
Modification Date:
N/A
) and join the S1NET. For guides with in depth examinations of performance measure definitions, go to:
https://www.milsuite.mil/book/docs/DOC-129783
Table of Contents (Hyperlinks to Sections):
Developing ‘Significant Duties and Responsibilities’ OER Narratives: Notes, Rules, and Instructions OER Narrative Prohibited Techniques, Inconsistencies, No-Go’s: Negative Comment Rules Referred OERs Narrative Comment Examples Block a. APFT and HT/WT Block b. Overall Performance Block c. Character (to include SHARP comments) Block d. Presence Block e. Intellect Block f. Leads Block g. Develops Block h. Achieves Senior Rater Potential Senior Rater Narrative Examples Senior Rater Narrative Comment Examples (for potential, promotion, school, etc.) Successive Assignments Other SR Comments (explanations of anything unusual about OER) Effective Words for Evaluations JUNIOR OFFICER PLATE (DA FORM 67-10-1) NOTE: 2LTs who have NOT completed BOLC, will not receive an OER until they complete BOLC (AC and ARNG; USAR officers can receive an OER before completing BOLC). The FROM date will be their commissioning date. All time until their BOLC graduation will be NONRATED on their first OER. OER PROFILING: OERs: Rater and Senior Rater Profiles are CONSTRAINED, meaning Officers are only allowed to grant 49% of each rank they rate with either an “EXCELS” (as Rater) or “MOST QUALIFIED” (as Senior Rater). HOWEVER, if you have an immature profile, and have only just begun rating/senior rating Officers of a certain rank, you are allowed a ONE TIME option of giving one of the first two evaluations you make at a particular grade, an “EXCELS” (as Rater) or “MOST QUALIFIED” (as Senior Rater). OER (OER SUPPORT FORM) PART III: Developing ‘Significant Duties and Responsibilities’ (blocks a., b., and c.): Refer to DA PAM 611-21 (https://www.milsuite.mil/book/groups/smartbookdapam611-21
) and DA PAM 600-3 (Commissioned Officer Professional Development and Career Management), to assist in the development of PART III, block d. As a minimum, the duty description will include pr:
- Number of personnel supervised, - Amount of resources under the rated officer’s control, - Scope of responsibilities. 3) Descriptions must be clear and concise with emphasis on specific functions required. 4) Note conditions unique to the assignment; e.g. RA officers assigned to FT support duties with RC units or USAR officers assigned to RA units OER NARRATIVES: Notes, Rules, and Instructions Rater and Senior Rater Narratives: - Requires candor and courage; frank and accurate assessment. - Quantify officer’s value relative to peers and do so in concert with rater/senior rater box check. - Are short; tell a simple story about the quality of officer being evaluated. - Are interesting and compelling. - Are looked at by selection board members when they are looking for in-depth information about a rated officer’s performance and potential. - Numbers; 1-10, write them out (e.g. one, two, ten). 11 or higher, write the number; e.g. 11, 15, 105. Exception, when a 1-10 is WITH an 11 or higher; e.g. “5 tool kits with 20 tools each.” - Fashion the narrative to the officer; double check use of “he/his” vs. “she/hers.” - Awards: Awards and/or special recognition received during the rating period may be cited in evaluation comments (for example, “received the Humanitarian Service Medal” or “named the Instructor of the Year”). - Raters and SR CAN use the officer’s name in the narrative; e.g. “1LT Joe was ….” Rater and Rater Narratives: - Focus on PERFORMANCE; explaining what the rated officer did and how well he/she did it. - Focus on specifics to quantify and qualify performance. - Raters should advocate the rated officer to the SR. - When there is no SR (due to lack of qualifications), rater’s narrative provides the input on both performance and potential. Senior Rater (SR) and SR Narrative (see SR Rater Narrative section for examples): - Focus on POTENTIAL, 3-5 years out (promotions, command, school, & assignments). - Can amplify box checks by using the narrative to clearly send the appropriate message to selection boards. - CANNOT mention Box Check. - Additional information for when SR is also Rater can be found in DA PAM 623-3, pg. 26, “DA Form 67–10–1, part VI: block c—Senior Rater Narrative.” OER Narrative Prohibited Techniques, Inconsistencies, No-Go’s: - School/Course Comments: Bullets about how a Soldier did in a school or course are ONLY allowed if that school did not produce an AER/DA Form 1059. - Narratives are not a laundry list of superlatives – more is not necessarily better. - Brief, unqualified superlatives or phrases, particularly if they may be considered trite. - Excessive use of technical acronyms, or phrases not commonly recognized. - Techniques aimed at making specific words, phrases, or sentences stand out from the rest of the narrative; e.g. excessive use of capital letters; unnecessary quotation marks; repeated use of exclamation points; wide spacing between selected words, phrases, or sentences to include double spacing within a paragraph or between paragraphs. - Inappropriate references to box checks; e.g “Would be TOP BLOCK if profile allowed” or “absolutely far exceeded the standard”. - Trying to quantify (e.g. “top 2% of my captains”) with a small population. - Stay in your lane/level; avoid comments like “Best 1LT in the Army” unless you’re the Army CoS. - Stating “the best ever”; having 10 in the population, 50 in the profile. - Using overused phrases and clichés that are counterproductive or overused; e.g. stellar, historic, “delivered a dazzling performance,” “hit the ground running,” consummate professional, and unlimited potential. - Using specific selection board-type language. Examples of this include, “definitely a 6+ Soldier”. - Don’t exaggerate; “If I could prove it, CPT X is an LTC disguised as a CPT.” - Be mindful of what IS NOT said; it can have the same impact as what is said; e.g. NOT having numbers, or quantifiable points. - Don’t say the sa
Note:
en
Topic:
Officer Evaluation, Narrative Guidelines
Document Type:
Guide
Target Audience:
Raters, Senior Raters
Year:
2023
Region / City:
Washington
Topic:
Road Safety, Litter Prevention
Document Type:
Public Awareness Campaign
Agency:
Washington State Department of Ecology, Washington State Department of Transportation
Author:
Washington State Agencies
Target Audience:
Drivers, Motorists, General Public
Effective Period:
Ongoing
Approval Date:
Not specified
Amendment Date:
Not specified
Note:
Year Group
Year:
2026
Region / city:
UK
Subject:
Electric Vehicle Charge Points, Heat Pumps, and connection procedures
Document Type:
Application form
Organization / institution:
Distribution Network Operators (DNOs)
Author:
Not specified
Target audience:
Individuals or entities installing electric vehicle charge points (EVCP) or heat pumps (HP)
Effective Period:
Ongoing
Approval Date:
Not specified
Modification Date:
Not specified