№ lp_1_2_06936
File format: docx
Character count: 282440
File size: 490 KB
The document provides detailed drafting instructions and guidance for using the GC21 (Edition 2) standard form, which is used for managing construction contracts in New South Wales.
Year:
2020
Region / City:
New South Wales
Topic:
Construction Contract Guidelines
Document Type:
User Guidance
Organization / Institution:
NSW Government
Author:
NSW Procurement Service Centre
Target Audience:
Contract drafters, legal teams, construction managers
Period of validity:
Not specified
Date of approval:
Not specified
Date of changes:
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:
2023
Region / City:
New South Wales, Australia
Topic:
Construction Contract Drafting Guidance
Document Type:
User Guide
Organization:
NSW Government
Author:
NSW Government
Target Audience:
Contractors, Designers, Engineers, Specialists
Period of validity:
Indefinite
Date of Approval:
2023
Date of Modifications:
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
Note:
Year
Region / City:
Australia
Subject:
Joint venture formation
Document Type:
Guide
Target Audience:
Solicitors, legal professionals
Year:
2023
Region / city:
California
Topic:
Anti-SLAPP motions
Document type:
Legal guide
Organization / institution:
N/A
Author:
N/A
Target audience:
Legal professionals
Period of validity:
N/A
Approval date:
N/A
Date of amendments:
N/A
Note:
Year
Year:
2006
Region / City:
Victoria
Theme:
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management
Document Type:
Guide
Authority / Institution:
Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic)
Author:
Aboriginal Victoria
Target Audience:
Cultural heritage professionals, Registered Aboriginal Parties (RAPs), heritage advisors, and other stakeholders in Aboriginal heritage management
Period of Application:
Ongoing
Approval Date:
Not specified
Amendment Date:
Not specified
Year:
2026
Region / city:
Tamil Nadu, India
Subject:
Coastal resilience, biodiversity conservation, blue finance
Document type:
Terms of Reference
Agency / institution:
The World Bank, Government of Tamil Nadu
Author:
The World Bank, Government of Tamil Nadu
Target audience:
Consultants, government agencies, environmental organizations, financial institutions
Effective period:
Ongoing
Approval date:
2026
Date of amendments:
None
Year:
2023
Region / City:
Bristol, UK
Theme:
Research, Ethics, Participant Information
Document Type:
Guideline
Organization:
University of the West of England
Author:
University of the West of England Research Team
Target Audience:
Researchers, Participants, Research Supervisors
Period of validity:
Not specified
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of amendments:
Not specified
Institution:
University of Queensland (UQ)
Document type:
Policy drafting guidance
Scope:
University policies
Intended use:
Guidance for development, approval, and management of policies
Key sections covered:
Purpose and scope; principles and key requirements; roles and responsibilities; monitoring and review; appendices; document metadata
Target audience:
Staff involved in policy development and governance
Compliance focus:
Laws, regulations, government policies, and professional standards
Review framework:
Monitoring, assurance, and periodic review requirements
Authorship roles referenced:
Policy owner; unit head; document author; enquiries contact
Note:
Year
Topic:
Hospice Care
Document Type:
Application Guidance
Organization / Institution:
The James Tudor Foundation
Target Audience:
Charities registered with the Charity Commission of England and Wales
Year:
2023
Region / city:
Tasmania
Topic:
Drafting Guide for Technical Documents
Document type:
Guide
Institution:
CROWN SOLICITOR OF TASMANIA
Target audience:
Tasmanian Government Agencies, external advisors
Effective period:
Ongoing
Approval date:
Not specified
Date of changes:
Not specified
Funding Programme:
Mental Health
Year:
N/A
Region / City:
UK
Theme:
Mental Health, Children, Young People, Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs)
Document Type:
Application Form
Organization:
The James Tudor Foundation
Author:
N/A
Target Audience:
Charities and organizations seeking funding
Period of Action:
N/A
Approval Date:
N/A
Amendment Date:
N/A
Year:
2025
Publication month:
July 2025
Subject area:
Drafting and design education
Document type:
Educational standards framework
Industry focus:
Drafting and construction
Geographic reference:
United States
Applicable regulations:
OSHA, EPA, building codes
Credential alignment:
Industry-recognized credentials
Target audience:
Students and educators
Covered disciplines:
Technical drafting, architectural drafting, mechanical drafting, CAD
Standards categories:
Health and safety, technical standards, employability, entrepreneurship, digital literacy
Scope:
Secondary and postsecondary education
Period of relevance:
Contemporary practices as of 2025
Year:
2026
Region / City:
Minnesota
Theme:
Arts funding, Proposal preparation
Document Type:
Guidelines
Organization:
MRAC
Audience:
Applicants seeking funding
Period of validity:
Not specified
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of Changes:
Not specified
Note:
Year
Subject:
Food safety
Document type:
Standard
Agency / institution:
Tanzania Bureau of Standards (TBS)
Year:
2024-25
Region / City:
Local Government Victoria
Theme:
Performance Reporting
Document Type:
Guide
Organization:
Local Government Victoria
Author:
Not specified
Target Audience:
Local government councils and relevant departments
Effective Period:
2024-25
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of Changes:
2022-23 amendments to regulations
Year:
2025
Note:
Region / City
Topic:
Accessibility, Software Compliance
Document Type:
Accessibility Report
Organization / Institution:
The MathWorks, Inc.