№ lp_1_2_03922
File format: docx
Character count: 27474
File size: 86 KB
This document is a template for developing a Request for Proposals (RFP) to procure professional services under the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program.
Year:
2026
Region / City:
[Municipality Name], Wisconsin
Theme:
Professional Services Procurement for CDBG-funded Projects
Document Type:
Template
Organ / Institution:
[Municipality Name]
Author:
[Author Name or Organization]
Target Audience:
Applicants and grantees for CDBG programs
Effective Period:
[Effective Period, if specified]
Approval Date:
[Approval Date, if specified]
Amendment Date:
[Amendment Date, if specified]
Scope of Services:
Consulting services for [Project Title/Type, e.g., Washington Street Water & Sewer Upgrades]
Deadline for Submission:
[Submission Deadline, if specified]
Evaluation Criteria:
[Criteria, if 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.
Note:
Year
Region / City:
Mumbai, India
Topic:
Education, Alumni Services
Document Type:
Application Form
Organization:
Tata Institute of Social Sciences
Author:
TISS-SSE
Target Audience:
Alumni
Period of Validity:
Not specified
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of Amendments:
Not specified
Year:
2026
Region / city:
Not specified
Topic:
Academic paper template
Document Type:
Template
Author:
Not specified
Target Audience:
Researchers, academics, authors submitting manuscripts
Period of Action:
Not specified
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of Changes:
Not specified
) 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:
2024
Region / city:
Kyoto
Theme:
Admissions
Document type:
Evaluation form
Organization / institution:
Kyoto iUP Admissions Office
Author:
Kyoto iUP Admissions Office
Target audience:
Secondary/high school applicants and evaluators
Period of validity:
Until applicants’ screening results are announced
Approval date:
N/A
Modification date:
N/A
Note:
Date
Declaration:
All the above facts stated are true and correct to best of my / our knowledge and belief.
Year:
Not specified
Region / City:
Not specified
Theme:
Wood doors specification for construction projects
Document Type:
Specification
Organization / Institution:
Simpson Door Company
Author:
Not specified
Target Audience:
Designers and builders
Period of validity:
Not specified
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of amendments:
Not specified
Year:
2021
Region / city:
USA
Topic:
Greenhouse Gas Inventory
Document type:
Template
Agency / organization:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Author:
EPA
Target audience:
National inventory teams, environmental policy makers
Validity period:
Not specified
Approval date:
Not specified
Date of changes:
Not specified
Year:
2024
Region / city:
Not specified
Topic:
Academic Article
Document Type:
Research Article
Organization:
Not specified
Author:
Firstname Lastname 1, Firstname Lastname 2, Firstname Lastname 2
Target Audience:
Researchers
Period of validity:
Not specified
Approval Date:
Not specified
Modification Date:
Not specified
Abstract:
A single paragraph of about 200 words maximum.
Keywords:
keyword 1; keyword 2; keyword 3
Correspondence:
[email protected]
; Tel.:
(optional; include country code; if there are multiple corresponding authors, add author initials)
Year:
2026
Note:
Region / City
Document Type:
Article
Year:
2026
Region / city:
Not specified
Subject:
Research paper, scientific article
Document Type:
Article
Organization / institution:
Not specified
Author:
Firstname Lastname, Firstname Lastname, Firstname Lastname
Target audience:
Researchers and academics
Period of validity:
Not specified
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of changes:
Not specified
Year:
Not specified
Region / City:
Mumbai
Subject:
Issuance of CSR (Amendment)
Document Type:
Checklist
Organization / Institution:
Mercantile Marine Department (MMD)
Author:
Not specified
Target Audience:
Companies applying for CSR amendments
Effective Period:
Not specified
Approval Date:
Not specified
Amendment Date:
Not specified
Year:
2025
Region / City:
Kyoto
Subject:
Education, University Admissions
Document Type:
Evaluation Form
Institution:
Kyoto iUP Admissions Office
Author:
Kyoto University
Target Audience:
Secondary/high school evaluators, university admissions office
Period of Validity:
Until the applicants’ screening results are announced
Date of Approval:
Not specified
Date of Modifications:
Not specified
Year:
2024
Region / City:
N/A
Topic:
Digest submission guidelines for Evolution Conference
Document Type:
Academic submission guidelines
Organization / Institution:
Evolution Conference Technical Program Committee
Author:
N/A
Target Audience:
Authors submitting to the Evolution Conference
Period of validity:
N/A
Approval Date:
N/A
Amendment Date:
N/A
Year:
2025
Region / City:
N/A
Topic:
Energy Market Settlements
Document Type:
Technical Report
Organization:
IESO (Independent Electricity System Operator)
Author:
N/A
Target Audience:
Market Participants, Stakeholders in Energy Sector
Effective Period:
N/A
Approval Date:
N/A
Revision Date:
N/A
Context:
Technical documentation detailing charge types and equations used in the IESO settlements process for market participants.
Note:
Year
Region / City:
Wisconsin
Subject:
Family and Paternity Cases
Document Type:
Addendum
Agency / Organization:
Wisconsin Circuit Court
Target Audience:
Parties involved in family or paternity cases
Year:
2022-2024 (ongoing)
Region / City:
ATU (Atlantic Technological University)
Topic:
Assessment and Learning Resources
Document Type:
Case Study
Institution:
Atlantic Technological University (ATU)
Author:
Emma McDonald
Target Audience:
Educators and staff at ATU
Period of Activity:
Academic Year 2022-2024 and ongoing
Approval Date:
15/11/2024
Date of Updates:
Ongoing
Note:
Year
Year:
2015
Region / City:
State of Georgia
Topic:
Insurance, Bonding, Procurement Guidelines
Document Type:
Guidelines
Author:
Risk Management Services
Target Audience:
State of Georgia Entities, Purchasing Officers, and Designated Buyers
Period of Validity:
November 2015 onwards
Approval Date:
November 2015
Date of Changes:
Not specified