№ files_lp_4_process_3_073443
File format: docx
Character count: 268
File size: 13 KB
List of plans considered by the LPA, detailing various drawing numbers and their corresponding titles, including site location, block plans, existing and proposed elevations, floor plans, and impact assessment.
Note:
Year
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:
2020
Region / City:
Global
Subject:
Investment Funds, Limited Partnership Agreement
Document Type:
Term Sheet
Institution:
ILPA (Institutional Limited Partners Association)
Author:
Not specified
Target Audience:
Investors, General Partners, Fund Managers
Period of Action:
From Initial Closing Date, with extensions as per terms
Approval Date:
Not specified
Amendment Date:
Not specified
Note:
Year
Note:
Year
Topic:
Construction, Project Management, Compliance
Document Type:
Checklist
Agency / Organization:
ODOT
Target Audience:
Certified LPAs, Project Managers, Contractors
Year:
2024
Region / City:
N/A
Subject:
Construction Contracting, Local Public Agencies
Document Type:
Checklist
Agency / Organization:
Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT)
Author:
N/A
Target Audience:
Certified Local Public Agencies (LPAs)
Period of Validity:
N/A
Approval Date:
N/A
Date of Amendments:
N/A
Year:
2021
Region / City:
Austin, TX
Field:
Mental Health, Nursing
Document Type:
CV
Organization / Institution:
University of Texas at Austin, Integral Care, Travis County Sheriff’s Office, Austin State Hospital, Bluebonnet Trails Community Services, Texas Workforce Commission, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Catholic Charities
Author:
Kathryn B. Hanley
Target Audience:
Healthcare professionals, potential employers in the mental health field
Period of validity:
N/A
Approval Date:
N/A
Modification Date:
N/A
Note:
Year
Region / City:
Texas / Austin
Theme:
Psychology, Education
Document Type:
Informational Report
Organization / Institution:
Texas Behavioral Health Executive Council
Note:
Year
Tenderer:
Verity Suttor – LPA Learning Content Refresh
Date completed:
5 March 2025
Version:
3 082024
Organization:
Meat & Livestock Australia Limited (MLA)
Associated organization:
Integrity Systems Company Limited
Confidentiality:
Strictly confidential
Submission deadline:
26 March 2025
Applicable law:
Australian law
Document type:
Tender request
Scope:
Review, improve and expand learning content for LPA program
Ownership:
MLA
Intellectual property:
MLA Material and Tenderer IP terms
Evaluation:
Tender assessment criteria included
Sections included:
Introduction and instructions, Specification, MLA Terms, Declaration, Corporate Governance Disclosures Annexure, Modern Slavery Questionnaire
Year:
2023
Region / City:
Shanghai, China
Subject:
Chemosensors, Fluorescence Detection, Metal Ions, L-phenylalanine
Document Type:
Research Article
Institution:
Donghua University
Author:
Gang Zhao, Chunxue Yi, Gang Wei, Rongliang Wu, Zhengye Gu, Shanyi Guang, Hongyao Xu
Target Audience:
Researchers in materials science and analytical chemistry
Period of Validity:
N/A
Date of Approval:
N/A
Date of Revisions:
N/A
Year:
2022
Region / City:
Oregon
Subject:
Project Specifications and Estimates for Federal Funded Projects
Document Type:
Template
Organization / Institution:
Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT)
Author:
Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT)
Target Audience:
Certified Local Public Agencies (LPA) involved in federal funded projects
Period of Validity:
N/A
Approval Date:
2022-05-04
Date of Changes:
N/A
Year:
2022-2027
Region / City:
Oregon
Theme:
Full-Service A&E, Land Surveying, Local Public Agency Projects
Document Type:
Guide
Agency / Institution:
Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT)
Author:
Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT)
Target Audience:
Local Public Agencies (LPAs), A&E Consultants, ODOT staff
Period of validity:
2022-2027
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of amendments:
Not specified
Year:
2021
Region / City:
Not specified
Theme:
Bridge inspection and qualification training
Document Type:
Addendum
Organization / Institution:
FHWA
Author:
Not specified
Target Audience:
Team Leaders, Bridge Inspectors
Effective Period:
11/10/2021 to 12/1/2021
Approval Date:
11/19/2021
Modification Date:
Not specified
Note:
Context Description
Year:
2026
Region / City:
Ohio, USA
Subject:
Transportation project funding and administration
Document Type:
Federal-local agreement
Agency / Institution:
Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT)
Author:
Not specified
Target Audience:
Local Public Agencies (LPA)
Effective Period:
Duration of the specific project phases
Approval Date:
Upon signature of both parties
Funding Amount:
Up to federally approved maximum per phase
Legal References:
2 CFR Part 200, 23 CFR Parts 1, 172, 630, 636, 645, 49 CFR Part 26, 23 USC §112, 40 USC §§1101-1104, ORC 102.03, ORC 153.65–153.71, ORC 5501.03(D), ORC 2921.42, 2921.43
Responsibilities:
Project design, construction, compliance with federal and state laws, environmental oversight, submission of required forms
Project Manager:
Project Design Engineer, registered professional engineer
Funding Type:
Federal funding with local matching requirements
Note:
Year
Theme:
Bridge Inspection, Engineering Services
Document Type:
Request for Proposals (RFP)
Organization / Institution:
Enter LPA Name County Board of Commissioners
Target Audience:
Engineering firms, consultants
Year:
Not provided
Region / City:
Not specified
Topic:
Research ethics, manuscript submission
Document type:
Template
Author:
Not specified
Target audience:
Authors submitting research articles
Period of validity:
Not provided
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:
International
Topic:
Safety transport of radioactive materials
Document type:
Report
Organization / institution:
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Author:
IAEA Secretariat
Target audience:
IAEA members, safety committees, regulators
Period of validity:
Not specified
Date of approval:
Not specified
Date of amendments:
Not specified
Year:
2023
Region / city:
Australia
Topic:
Oncology, Pharmaceuticals
Document Type:
Resubmission
Institution:
Australian Government, Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee
Author:
AstraZeneca Pty Ltd.
Target Audience:
Healthcare professionals, regulatory bodies
Effective Period:
Ongoing
Approval Date:
November 2021
Date of Changes:
November 2021
Year:
2023
Region / City:
Geneva
Topic:
Design Law Treaty
Document Type:
Draft
Organ / Institution:
WIPO
Author:
Secretariat
Target Audience:
Diplomatic Conference Participants, WIPO Member States
Period of Effectiveness:
2023-2024
Approval Date:
N/A
Date of Changes:
N/A
Year:
2025
Region / city:
Geneva
Topic:
Electric Vehicles, Battery Durability, Heavy Duty Vehicles
Document Type:
Informal Document
Organization / Institution:
United Nations, Economic Commission for Europe
Author:
Informal Working Group on Electric Vehicles and the Environment (EVE)
Target Audience:
Governments, regulators, and manufacturers involved in vehicle regulations
Period of validity:
2025-2026
Approval Date:
13 January 2025