Value Engineering Change Proposals Clause Samples

POPULAR SAMPLE Copied 1 times
Value Engineering Change Proposals. DDOT desires the DB Contractor to have significant flexibility in determining how best to deliver the Project within the parameters established by the Contract Documents. The DB Contractor is encouraged to submit VECPs whenever it identifies potential savings. Notwithstanding the foregoing, DDOT’s Approval is required with respect to any proposed changes in the requirements of the Contract Documents. This Section 15.2 sets forth the requirements applicable to VECPs.
View SourceView Similar (2)
Value Engineering Change Proposals. A. The Contractor may submit to the Authority, in writing, Value Engineering Change Proposals (VECP) for modifying the plans, Scope of Work or other requirements of the Contract for the purpose of reducing the total cost of purchase and/or operations/maintenance and/or improving the quality of the product. The VECP shall not impair, in any manner, the essential functions or characteristic of the project, including, but not limited to safety and design standards, service life, economy of operation, ease of maintenance or desired appearance. Value Engineering Change Proposals shall not be based solely upon a change to the required quantities shown in the Contract. B. Value Engineering Change Proposals shall contain the following information: (1) Description of the existing contract requirements which are involved in the value engineering proposal. (2) Description and justification of the proposal. (3) An itemization of the contract requirements that must be changed if the proposal is adopted. (4) A detailed estimate of the cost of performing the Work under the existing contract and under the proposed change. (5) A detailed estimate of additional costs to the Project attributable to the proposal on their build, revenue operation, and maintenance of the project. (6) A statement of the time within which the Authority must make a decision thereon. (7) The contract items of Work affected by the proposed changes, including any quantity variation attributable thereto. C. If a VECP is accepted by the Authority, the Total Contract Price shall be adjusted based upon a sharing of the net savings by Contractor and the Authority (50% the Authority, 50% Contractor). (1) Net savings are defined as gross savings less Contractor’s costs and less the Authority’s costs. (2) Estimated gross savings to Contractor means the difference between the cost of performing the Work according to the existing requirements and the cost to perform the Work according to the proposed change. In each instance, Contactor’s profit shall not be considered part of the cost. (3) Contractor costs mean reasonable costs incurred by Contractor in preparing the VECP and making the change, such as cancellation or restocking charges. (4) The Authority’s costs means reasonable costs incurred by the Authority and its consultants for evaluating and implementing the change, such as testing, redesign, and effect on other portions of the Work. (5) Contractor is not entitled to share in concurrent, collateral, or...
View Source
Value Engineering Change Proposals. 10.1.1 A Value Engineering Change Proposal (“VECP”) is a proposal developed, prepared, and submitted to UTA by the Contractor, which reduces the cost of the Work without impairing essential functions or characteristics of the Project, as determined by UTA in its sole discretion. UTA encourages Contractor to submit VECPs whenever it identifies potential savings or improvements. UTA may also request the Contractor to develop and submit a specific VECP. 10.1.2 In determining whether a VECP will impair essential functions or characteristics of the Project, UTA may consider: (i) relative service life; (ii) maintenance effort and frequency; (iii) environmental and aesthetic impacts; (iv) system service; (v) effect of other system components; and (vi) other issues as ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ relevant. A VECP must not be based solely on a change in quantities. 10.1.3 Contractor must include the following information in any VECP: 10.1.3.1 A narrative description of the proposed change, 10.1.3.2 A discussion of differences between existing requirements and the proposed change, together with advantages and disadvantages of each changed item; 10.1.3.3 A complete cost analysis, including the cost estimate of any additional rights-of-way or easements required for implementation of the VECP; 10.1.3.4 Justification for changes in function or characteristics of each item and effect of the change on the performance on the end item; 10.1.3.5 A description of any previous use or testing of the proposed approach and the conditions and results. If the VECP was previously submitted on another UTA project, the Contractor shall indicate the date, contract number, and the action taken by UTA; 10.1.3.6 Costs of development and implementation; and 10.1.3.7 Any additional information requested by UTA, which must be provided in a timely manner.
View Source
Value Engineering Change Proposals. 10.1.1 A Value Engineering Change Proposal (“VECP”) is a proposal developed, prepared, and submitted to UTA by the Contractor, which reduces the cost of the Work without impairing essential functions or characteristics of the Project, as determined by UTA in its sole discretion. UTA encourages Contractor to submit VECPs whenever it identifies potential savings or improvements. UTA may also request the Contractor to develop and submit a specific VECP. 10.1.2 In determining whether a VECP will impair essential functions or characteristics of the Project, UTA may consider: (i) relative service life; (ii) maintenance effort and frequency;
View Source
Value Engineering Change Proposals. ‌ A. The Design-Builder, at any time, is encouraged to submit cost reduction proposals that may change the Technical Specifications, Contract Drawings or other requirements of the Contract. Such proposals shall be identified as Value Engineering Change Proposals (“VECP”) and each one shall be individually and sequentially numbered. For a VECP to be acceptable under this General Provision, it shall: (1) be identified by the Design-Builder as a VECP; (2) require a change to this Contract; and (3) decrease the Contract Price.
View Source
Value Engineering Change Proposals. ‌ DGS desires the DB Contractor to have significant flexibility in determining how best to deliver the Project within the parameters established by the Contract Documents. The DB Contractor is encouraged to submit VECPs whenever it identifies potential savings. Notwithstanding the foregoing, DGS’s Approval is required with respect to any proposed changes in the requirements of the Contract Documents. DGS may solicit comment from Project stakeholders including Commission of Fine Arts, National Capitol Planning Commission and DC State Historic Preservation Office, on District approval that applies to VECPs that modify Project visual quality. This Section 15.2 sets forth the requirements applicable to VECPs.
View Source
Value Engineering Change Proposals. (VECPs) VECPs shall be prepared in accordance with the forms and instructions provided in Attachment 5 . The VECP shall address what effect the proposed change will have on the TDP, Performance, Manufacturing, Quality, Maintenance, Packaging, MANPRINT, Logistics, Safety, Transportability, Cost Savings, and Nuclear Survivability (if applicable). It must also address what effect the VECP will have on the current production, Fielding and Retrofit. For VECPs affecting interface control, you shall obtain concurrence from all interface parties and include such concurrences as part of the VECP package (CDRL A00A).
View Source

Related to Value Engineering Change Proposals

  • Engineering Changes Customer may request that Flextronics incorporate engineering changes into the Product by providing Flextronics with a description of the proposed engineering change sufficient to permit Flextronics to evaluate its feasibility and cost. Flextronics will proceed with engineering changes when the parties have agreed upon the changes to the Specifications, delivery schedule and Product pricing and the Customer has issued a purchase order for the implementation costs.

  • Benchmark Replacement Conforming Changes In connection with the implementation of a Benchmark Replacement, the Administrative Agent will have the right to make Benchmark Replacement Conforming Changes from time to time and, notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein or in any other Loan Document, any amendments implementing such Benchmark Replacement Conforming Changes will become effective without any further action or consent of any other party to this Agreement or any other Loan Document.

  • Term SOFR Conforming Changes In connection with the use or administration of Term SOFR, the Administrative Agent will have the right to make Conforming Changes from time to time and, notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein or in any other Loan Document, any amendments implementing such Conforming Changes will become effective without any further action or consent of any other party to this Agreement or any other Loan Document. The Administrative Agent will promptly notify the Borrower and the Lenders of the effectiveness of any Conforming Changes in connection with the use or administration of Term SOFR.

  • Staffing Changes The Director’s prior written approval is required for the Consultant to remove, replace or add to any of its staffing identified in Attachment B of an Approved Service Order.

  • Superior Proposals Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth in Section 6.3(b), from the date hereof until the Offer Acceptance Time, solely in response to a bona fide written Acquisition Proposal that did not result from a breach of the obligations set forth in Section 6.3(b), (i) the Company may, directly or indirectly, through one or more of their Representatives (including the Advisor), contact the Person or group of Persons making such Acquisition Proposal solely to clarify any ambiguous terms and conditions thereof so as to determine whether such Acquisition Proposal constitutes, or would reasonably be expected to constitute, a Superior Proposal, and (ii) the Company may, upon a good faith determination by the Company Board (after consultation with its financial advisor and outside legal counsel) that the failure to do so would be or would reasonably be expected to be inconsistent with its fiduciary duties under applicable Law, participate or engage in discussions or negotiations with, furnish any non-public information relating to the Company Group to, or afford access to the business, properties, assets, books, records or other non-public information, or to any personnel, of the Company Group pursuant to an Acceptable Confidentiality Agreement to any Person or its Representatives that has made or delivered to the Company such Acquisition Proposal, and otherwise facilitate such Acquisition Proposal or assist such Person (and its Representatives, prospective debt and equity financing sources and/or their respective Representatives) with such Acquisition Proposal (in each case, if requested by such Person); provided, that, prior to taking any action described in this Section 6.3(c)(ii), the Company Board (or a committee thereof) has determined in good faith (after consultation with its financial advisor and outside legal counsel) that such Acquisition Proposal either constitutes a Superior Proposal or would reasonably be expected to lead to a Superior Proposal; provided, however, that (x) the Company will substantially concurrently provide to Parent and its Representatives any non-public information that is provided to any Person or its Representatives given such access in connection with the actions permitted by this Section 6.3(c)(ii) that was not previously made available to Parent and (y) the Company Group shall not provide (and shall not permit any of their respective Representatives to provide) any competitively sensitive non-public information to any Person who is or whose Affiliates are a competitor of the Company Group in connection with the actions permitted by this Section 6.3(c)(ii), except in accordance with customary “clean room” or other similar procedures designed to manage the disclosure of competitively sensitive information.