№ lp_2_1_18331
File format: docx
Character count: 2162
File size: 1054 KB
This document provides guidelines for signage requirements for various food access programs at farmers markets, outlining where and how to display signs for different programs such as SNAP, WIC, and Senior FMNP.
Year:
2025
Region / City:
Washington State
Topic:
Food Access Programs, Farmers Market Operations
Document Type:
Checklist
Organization:
Washington State Farmers Market Association (WSFMA)
Author:
WSFMA
Target Audience:
Farmers Market Vendors, Market Staff, Shoppers
Effective Period:
Ongoing (specific programs listed may have time limitations)
Approval Date:
February 2025
Modification Date:
Not specified
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:
2018
Region / City:
North Las Vegas, NV
Topic:
Digital Signage, Audio Visual Equipment
Document Type:
Combined Solicitation/Synopsis
Agency:
Department of Veterans Affairs
Author:
Susanne Christen
Target Audience:
Contractors, Suppliers
Period of Action:
September 24, 2018 - September 27, 2018
Approval Date:
September 24, 2018
Date of Changes:
N/A
Year:
2023
Region / City:
Boston
Theme:
Wayfinding, Signage
Document Type:
Technical Specifications
Institution:
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA)
Author:
MBTA Wayfinding Team
Target Audience:
Contractors, Designers, Engineers
Period of Validity:
Not specified
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of Changes:
Not specified
Year:
2018
Region / City:
New Zealand
Topic:
Accessible Signage
Document Type:
Guidelines
Institution:
Blind Low Vision NZ
Author:
Blind Low Vision NZ
Target Audience:
People who are blind, deafblind, or have low vision, as well as building designers and facility managers
Effective Period:
2018-2025
Approval Date:
2018
Amendment Date:
2025
Year:
2016
Region / city:
Not specified
Theme:
ENERGY STAR refrigerator rebate program
Document type:
Instructional guide
Organization / institution:
ENERGY STAR
Author:
Not specified
Target audience:
Retailers and store managers
Period of validity:
Not specified
Approval date:
Not specified
Modification date:
Not specified
Note:
Context description
Year:
2016
Region / City:
United States
Topic:
ENERGY STAR, Refrigerator Recycling
Document Type:
Template Instructions
Organization / Institution:
ENERGY STAR, Home Depot, Best Buy, Sears
Author:
ENERGY STAR
Target Audience:
Retailers, Utility and Government Rebates Managers
Period of Validity:
2016 Refrigerator Rebate Cycle
Approval Date:
Early April 2016
Modification Date:
N/A
Year:
2025
Region/City:
Pawling, NY
Topic:
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
Document Type:
Meeting Minutes
Organization:
Town of Pawling Planning Board
Author:
Town of Pawling Planning Board
Target Audience:
Local residents, business owners, planning professionals
Period of Validity:
N/A
Approval Date:
March 10, 2025
Date of Changes:
N/A
Year:
2018
Edition:
Fifth Edition
ISBN:
978-1-877138-10-2
Country:
New Zealand
Subject:
Accessible signage design standards
Document Type:
Guidelines
Issuing Organization:
Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind
Endorsing Organizations:
Braille Authority of New Zealand Aotearoa Trust (BANZAT); Association of Blind Citizens of New Zealand Incorporated (Blind Citizens NZ)
Legal Reference:
New Zealand Building Code Section F8 Signs Acceptable Solution FS/AS1
Related Standards:
New Zealand Standard 4121:2001 (NZS4121); ISO 10749 (2013)
Applicable Languages:
Unified English Braille (UEB); Te Reo Māori
Target Audience:
Building owners, designers, architects, facility managers
Scope:
Public buildings and facilities in New Zealand
Contact Information:
blindfoundation.org.nz; 0800 24 33 33
Copyright Holder:
Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind
Copyright Year:
2018
Year:
2022
Opportunity Posted:
18 January 2022
Clarification Deadline:
16 February 2022
Quotation Return Date:
12 noon, 1 March 2022
Estimated Contract Value:
£35,000
Contracting Authority:
Hart District Council
Contact Email:
[email protected]
Query Contact:
[email protected]
Procurement Procedure:
Request for Quotation
Contract Type:
Services
Lots:
3
Lot 1 Budget Guide:
£5,000
Lot 2 Budget Guide:
£25,000
Lot 3 Budget Guide:
£5,000
Intended Start Date:
07 March 2022
Lot 1 End Date:
18 April 2022
Lot 2 End Date:
03 June 2022
Lot 3 End Date:
30 April 2022
Extension Option:
Up to 31 March 2023 by mutual agreement
Subject Line Requirement:
Quotation for Identify Signage and style guide - 2022
Governing Law and Jurisdiction:
As specified in Section 23
Year:
2024
Region / City:
Canada
Subject:
Accessible Transportation Regulations, Tactile Signage
Document Type:
Consultation Report
Organization / Institution:
Canadian Transportation Agency
Author:
Canadian Transportation Agency
Target Audience:
Organizations serving persons with disabilities, Canadian transportation stakeholders
Period of Validity:
2024
Approval Date:
April 10, 2024
Date of Changes:
N/A
Year:
2023
Organization:
COMSATS University Islamabad
Location:
Park Road, Islamabad, Pakistan
Document Type:
Tender Document
Subject:
Provision and Installation of Gypsum Tiles, Signage, and Miscellaneous Items
Procurement Method:
Single Stage-Single Envelope
Bid Validity:
60 Days from closing date
Currency:
Pakistani Rupees
Bid Security:
Rs. 28,000 Bank Draft
Submission Deadline:
July 25, 2023, 11:00 hours
Contact Person:
In-Charge (Procurement), COMSATS University Islamabad
Contact Details:
2nd Floor, Faculty Block-II, Park Road, Tarlai Kalan, Islamabad, Tel: 051-90495242, 90495154, 051-90495122, Email: [email protected]
Language:
English
Tender Fee:
Rs. 500
Year:
Not specified
Country:
Canada
Organization:
Canada Border Services Agency
Document type:
Accessibility alternative format document
Subject:
Agriculture product declaration at border entry
Languages:
English and French
Content type:
Text description of border signage
Image title:
Agriculture
Purpose:
Accessibility description of official border declaration sign
Products referenced:
Meat, fish, seafood, eggs, dairy products, fruits, vegetables, seeds, nuts, flowers, insects, bulbs, plants, wood, live animals, animal or plant parts and derivatives
Legal notice:
Failure to declare may lead to a penalty or prosecution
Year:
2026
Region / City:
Glen Carbon, IL
Theme:
Village signage project
Document Type:
Addendum to Bid Documents
Organization / Institution:
Village of Glen Carbon
Author:
Village of Glen Carbon
Target Audience:
Bidders for the signage project
Period of Validity:
Until February 13, 2026
Approval Date:
February 10, 2026
Modification Date:
None
Questions and Answers Deadline:
February 13, 2026, 10:00 AM
Year:
2026
Location:
Stirling, United Kingdom
Type of document:
Design and Access Statement
Organization:
Cashzone
Author:
Cashzone Planning Team
Purpose:
Retention of an Automated Teller Machine and illuminated signage
Building type:
Retail shop
Accessibility considerations:
Wheelchair access, tactile markings for visually impaired
Planning context:
Not in a conservation area, not a listed building
Safety measures:
ATM anchoring, staff and public protection
Year:
2026
Region / City:
Canada
Topic:
Accessibility, Border Services
Document Type:
Policy
Agency / Institution:
Canada Border Services Agency
Author:
Canada Border Services Agency
Target Audience:
General Public, Travelers
Period of Validity:
Indefinite
Approval Date:
2026
Modification Date:
N/A
Year:
2026
Region / City:
Herefordshire & Worcestershire, UK
Subject:
Business signage and road directions
Document type:
Application form
Organization / Institution:
Worcestershire County Council, Economy and Infrastructure Directorate
Author:
Traffic Engineer Team
Intended audience:
Business owners seeking signage approval
Required fee:
£100 non-refundable
Submission method:
Email or postal submission with supporting documents
Supporting documents:
Proof of location, membership, visitor statistics, website information, parking facilities, digital map
Operating days and hours:
As specified by applicant
Relevant roads:
Not on "A" or "B" roads or main village roads
Visitor criteria:
At least 40% of 10,000+ visitors travel more than 15 miles
Note:
Year
Theme:
Child development, Early Years Education
Document type:
Progress Check
Target audience:
Parents, caregivers, childcare providers
Contextual description:
A progress check document assessing the developmental milestones of a child at age two, focusing on key areas such as communication, physical, social, and emotional development, completed by the childcare provider.
Year:
2016
Region / City:
Wisconsin
Topic:
Background Check Consent
Document Type:
Form
Organization / Institution:
Wisconsin Department of Administration
Author:
Wisconsin Department of Administration
Target Audience:
Job applicants in Wisconsin
Effective Period:
Ongoing
Approval Date:
Not specified
Amendment Date:
Not specified
Year:
2020
Region / City:
European Space Agency
Topic:
Space Technology, Business Incubation
Document Type:
Guideline
Organization / Institution:
European Space Agency Business Incubation Centres (ESA BICs)
Author:
European Space Agency
Target Audience:
Entrepreneurs, Start-ups, ESA BIC Applicants
Validity Period:
Not specified
Approval Date:
23/06/2020
Modification Date:
30/09/2022
) 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