ࡱ> XZUVW'` Rbjbj ;!dR R6&:ܪ̬V"$F ((((-;(.[5$*9h;5Ȭ̬5454WWW (W (WWz# P-=T l%5<6!<n<#6<#ZWHAZZZ55XZZZ6RRd $Fb$ERRbRRR INTERGOVERNMENTAL OCEANOGRAPHIC COMMISSION (OF UNESCO) ___________WORLD METEOROLOGICAL ORGANIZATION _____________DATA BUOY COOPERATION PANEL TWENTY-FIFTH SESSION IOC of UNESCO, PARIS, FRANCE 28 SEPTEMBER 1 OCTOBER 2009DBCP-XXV/Doc.  FORMTEXT 11.1 (03.VI.2009) ITEM:  FORMTEXT 11.1 ENGLISH ONLY JCOMM Observing Programme support Centre (OPSC) (Submitted by the Secretariat) Summary and purpose of the document This document provides for up-to-date information regarding the process for developing an Observing Programme Support Centre (OPSC) to develop the capabilities and safeguard the future of the current JCOMMOPS.  ACTION PROPOSED The Panel will review the information contained in this report and comment and make decisions or recommendations as appropriate. See part A for the details of recommended actions. ______________________ Appendices A. Background information on the establishment of an OPSC B. Existing JCOMMOPS Terms of Reference C. Proposed Terms of Reference for the expanded JCOMMOPS D. Final summary evaluation report for a WMO-IOC ocean Observing Programme Support Centre (OPSC) E. OPSC Science Coordinator Terms of Reference -A- Draft TEXT for inclusion in the final report 11.1.1 The Secretariat reported on the developments during the last intersessional period regarding the selection process for an ocean Observing Programme Support Centre (OPSC) and following a call for proposals issued in xx 2007 by the WMO and IOC to host the future OPSC: Fifteen Letters of Intent (LoI) have been received from 13 countries and an evaluation committee lead by the JCOMM Co-Presidents established. The committee included representatives from the DBCP, Argo, the SOT, and the Secretariat; The evaluation was made in two steps. In the first step, a short list of five candidates was proposed for undergoing further evaluation; In the second step, the evaluation committee was expanded by the JCOMM Management Committee to include representatives from the Argo Steering Team, the DBCP, the SOT, OceanSITES, the IOCCP, GLOSS, WIGOS, the OOPC, and the WMO and IOC Secretariats. Candidates were objectively evaluated against the following criteria (i) scientific activities related to the use of ocean observations; (ii) significant involvement in implementation of ocean observing systems; (iii) operational 24H IT support and GTS access; (iv) cost effectiveness for Members voluntarily contributing financially to the OPSC; (v) commitment to long-term support for the OPSC; and (vi) risks; The CLS/IFREMER (France) proposal came first in total scores, first in scores for 5 out of 6 criteria, and first in overall ranking by 6 out of 8 team members. Other proposals get (not surprisingly) very honourable scores and rankings. The evaluation committee proposed to IOC and WMO to retain the French proposal and to enter into negotiations with CLS/IFREMER on the details of their offer in order to bring further benefits to OPSC and its staff and to clarify the role of the Brest centre in view of the strongly relevant science being pursued there. The committee proposed to; warmly thank the other candidates for their highly relevant proposals, largely in accordance with the requirements of the OPSC, and to, explicitly state the reasons for accepting the CLS/IFREMER proposal over those from NOAA and INCOIS; The evaluation Committee engaged in a negotiation with the selected institution. This resulted in the offering of a part-time science Coordinator by IFREMER to support the Project Office function of the OPSC (see Terms of Reference in Appendix E), as well as some additional IT support by CLS. At the time of writing this report, a formal offer remains to be made by France to the WMO and IOC. Confirmation by the WMO Secretary General, and IOC Executive Secretary regarding the decision remains to be made. Once/if confirmed, the WMO Secretary General, and IOC Executive Secretary would write to the selected institution to, formally inform them about the final decision and the conditions under which a Memorandum of Understanding could be signed. The unsuccessful institutions will also be informed of the decision; The third session of the JCOMM Observations Coordination Group, Paris, France, 9-11 March 2009 will be invited to review the draft Terms of Reference (ToR) for the OPSC, in fact an expanded JCOMMOPS. The proposed draft ToR are provided in Appendix C. 11.1.2 The Panel endorsed actions listed above and recommended that JCOMM-III (Marrakech, 5-12 November 2009) adopt the new Terms of Reference for an expanded JCOMMOPS as reproduced in Appendix C of DBCP-25 preparatory document 11.1. ______________________ Appendices: 5 Background information on the establishment of an ocean Observing Programme Support Centre (OPSC) 1. Introduction 1.1 Technical support towards the implementation of ocean observing programmes was initiated in 1987 through the recruitment of the first Data Buoy Cooperation Panel (DBCP) Technical Coordinator. The latter was based in Toulouse, France from 1987 to 1989, then in Largo, Maryland, USA from 1989 to 1993, then again in Toulouse since 1993. The fourteenth Session of the Data Buoy Cooperation Panel, Marathon, October 1998, and the second Session of the Ship of Opportunity Programme Implementation Panel (SOOPIP), Nouma, New Caledonia, October 1998, agreed that the DBCP Technical Coordinator could also provide part time support to the SOOPIP. The establishment of the Argo Information Centre (AIC) staffed with a full time technical coordinator was discussed at the OceanOBS99 conference in Saint Raphael, 1999, and agreed upon at the second meeting of the Argo Science Team in 2000. 1.2 Thanks to experience gained, the JCOMM in situ Observing Platform Support Centre (JCOMMOPS) was established by the first Session of JCOMM in 2001 based upon coordination facilities provided by the Data Buoy Cooperation Panel (DBCP), the Ship of Opportunity Programme (SOOP), and Argo Pilot Project. The Argo Information Centre became part of JCOMMOPS. Synergy was therefore put in place between these three global marine observational programmes to assist at the international level those in charge of implementing the National components of these programmes. In 2005, JCOMM-II extended the JCOMMOPS Terms of Reference to include coordination for the Ship Observations Team (SOT) as a whole, and to provide information on satellite data requirements (Appendix B). The JCOMMOPS provides with support to programme planning, implementation, and operations including information on (i) observational data requirements, (ii) technology, instrumentation, and costs, (iii) operational status of observing networks (e.g. identification of data sparse area), and (iv) deployment opportunities (by ship and air). 1.3 It maintains information on relevant data requirements for observations in support of GOOS, GCOS, and the WWW as provided by the appropriate international scientific panels and JCOMM Expert Teams and Groups, and routinely provides information on the functional status of the observing systems (buoys, XBTs, profiling floats). It also encourages platform operators to share the data and distribute them in real-time (e.g. technical assistance regarding satellite data acquisition, automatic data processing and Global Telecommunication System (GTS) distribution of the data). JCOMMOPS also provides a mechanism for relaying quality information from data centres and users worldwide back to platform national operators. The JCOMMOPS acts as a focal point for implementation and operation of relevant observing platforms. 2. Present status of JCOMMOPS 2.1 JCOMMOPS is located in Toulouse, France, is staffed with two full-time Technical Coordinators, Ms Hester Viola (recruited in 2006 and provides support to the DBCP and the SOT), and Mr Mathieu Belbeoch (runs the Argo Information Centre which is part of JCOMMOPS since 2001) and is funded through voluntary contributions from Member States, the marine observing programme and panels such as the DBCP and Argo. Its Terms of References include support for the implementation of the DBCP, Argo, and the SOT, and the JCOMM Cross-Cutting Team on Satellite Data Requirements. A modern and efficient Information System, including a database (containing observational programme status, platforms operational status, and contact points), a dynamic web site, and a Geographical Information System (GIS) has been developed to facilitate the services provided by JCOMMOPS. 3. Review of JCOMMOPS 3.1 It its second session, JCOMM proposed a review of JCOMMOPS activities and the submission of a report at JCOMM-III. 3.2 An informal JCOMMOPS Strategy Roundtable meeting was held in Silver Spring, MD, USA, on 9 May 2006 (outcome reported at DBCP-23). The purpose of the meeting was to bring together representatives of the programmes that are presently using JCOMMOPS and other global programmes that could potentially benefit from using the JCOMMOPS, for strategic long-range brainstorming. Representatives from the OCG, DBCP, SOT, GLOSS, Argo, OceanSITES, IOCCP and POGO participated in the event. The Group generally agreed that there is an urgent need for an expanded observing programme support centre (OPSC). This should include system performance monitoring, system design evaluation, and authority to suggest deployments to improve system and efficiency and effectiveness. This could provide synergies for functions that are now distributed, and provide a more integrated framework for the deployment and further development of ocean observing networks. The Group had discussed future staffing (seven persons required), and hosting requirements (with preferably an operational agency) for the JCOMMOPS. The Roundtable recommended that the OCG should develop a requirements specification for the centre. 4. Expanding JCOMMOPS into an ocean Observing Programme Support Centre (OPSC) 4.1 At its fifth Session, Geneva, Switzerland, 5-7 October 2007, the JCOMM Management Committee endorsed the recommendations from the JCOMMOPS roundtable. Based on these requirements, the management committee put the JCOMM Observations Coordination Group (OCG) in charge of developing the plan to the point where a letter of invitation and specification could be sent to possible future OPSC hosts. 4.2 The second Session of the JCOMM Observations Coordination Group (OCG), Geneva, Switzerland, 23-25 April 2007 also reviewed the outcome from the informal JCOMMOPS roundtable discussion, and a draft specification of requirements for the evolution of JCOMMOPS over the next few years into an expanded Observing Programme Support Centre (OPSC) for the integrated support of all the global observing implementation programmes. The OCG developed a draft specification and solicitation for proposals from institutions interested in hosting this Centre. It was also agreed that the approach to potential hosts should be in the form of a Joint Circular Letter to the member states of IOC and the permanent representatives of members of WMO. The letter would explain the background and justification for an OPSC specify the requirements that the host should meet, and solicit a letter of intent from prospective hosts. 4.3 On 24 September 2007, the Secretariat issued a joint WMO-IOC circular letter to the Member States of IOC and the Members of WMO, with an announcement and call for Letters of Intent (LOI) to host an OPSC. The letter explained the background and justification for an OPSC, specified the requirements that the host should meet, and solicited a letter of intent from prospective hosts. The deadline for response was 15 November 2007. The letter was presented at DBCP-24. 4.4 This process was reported at the sixth Session of the JCOMM Management Committee, Paris, France, 3-6 December 2007, and agreed upon. The Management committee agreed that the review of JCOMMOPS requested by JCOMM-II had been effectively completed through the OPSC process and actions detailed above, the value and need for JCOMMOPS confirmed (in fact, the need for an expanded JCOMMOPS). 5. Evaluation of potential OPSC hosts 5.1 Fifteen letters of intent from Members/Member states have been received. A meeting of the Evaluation Committee to review and evaluate the Letters of Intent received by the WMO and IOC Secretariat for hosting an Observing Programme Support Centre (OPSC) was held in Paris, France, on 11 April 2008. The Committee was lead by the JCOMM Co-president, Dr Jean-Louis Fellous, and was comprised of the other JCOMM Co-president, Dr Peter Dexter, and representatives from the DBCP, Mr Jean Rolland, and the Argos Steering Team, Dr Breck Owens. The Committee recalled the role foreseen for a future OPSC, stressing technical and practical support for the implementation of the in situ ocean observing systems and the need for full operational support to be provided by the future host in terms of IT support and GTS / WIS access. This support is essential to provide assistance for observing platform deployment opportunities and the coordination of logistical support for those deployments as required. It is also essential for the routine monitoring function of the OPSC together with ensuring the link between data users and data providers in terms of quality monitoring. The host would therefore have to: (i) be strongly involved in operational (or quasi-operational) activities with regard to the deployment of ocean observing platforms in the open-ocean (e.g., Argo floats, drifters, VOS ships, SOO); (ii) be strongly connected to the international WMO and IOC communities; and (iii) the capability to provide full 24-hour operational IT support and GTS access. 5.2 The Committee agreed that the host should also be strongly involved in scientific activities related to ocean observations in order for the scientific aspects and user requirements to be taken into account properly. The Committee also agreed that financial impact should be a criterion for selecting the Centre. It noted that the different LOIs did not provide the same level of support for in kind commitments (e.g., office space; IT staff provided free of charge to the OPSC), and financial resources to host the future Centre. Some overhead charges were also noted for some proposals. The Committee agreed that the potential risks associated with the transition of JCOMMOPS into a new OPSC would have to be considered in evaluating the proposals. 5.3 Based on these discussions, after the criteria was agreed upon, and after careful review of all proposals, the Committee selected five out of the fifteen Letters of Intent for a short list to undergo further evaluation. The Committee agreed that it would be useful for the evaluation to ask the remaining potential hosts to fill in technical and administrative questionnaires in order to clarify some of the issues. Through this process, by the 15 November 2008 deadline, three questionnaires were completed and returned to the Secretariat. One candidate declined its offer, and two of the proposals decided to submit a joint application. Hence, only three proposals remain at this point (IFREMER-CLS of France, NOAA of USA, and INCOIS of India). 5.4 The Seventh Session of the JCOMM Management Committee, Melbourne, Australia, 8-12 December 2008, expanded the membership of the evaluation committee for the assessment of the institutions of the short listed candidates. The expanded committee included the representatives of observing programmes that potentially would contribute to and benefit from the future OPSC. The Terms of Reference of the review committee with membership are reproduced in Annex I of Appendix D. 5.5 The Management Committee noted that, the increasing requirements from the user community, the future OPSC would need to consider enhancing links to the satellite information services, and suggested drafting/updating the ToR of a future OPSC (by JCOMM-III). 5.6 The expanded evaluation committee worked primarily via email in the period December 2008 to February 2009, and evaluated the proposals against the following criteria (i) scientific activities related to the use of ocean observations; (ii) significant involvement in implementation of ocean observing systems; (iii) operational 24H IT support and GTS access; (iv) cost effectiveness for Members voluntarily contributing financially to the OPSC; (v) commitment to long-term support for the OPSC; and (vi) risks. The CLS/IFREMER proposal came first in total scores, first in scores for 5 out of 6 criteria, and first in overall ranking by 6 out of 8 team members. Other proposals get (not surprisingly) very honourable scores and rankings. 5.7 The evaluation committee proposed to IOC and WMO to retain the French proposal and to enter into negotiations with CLS/IFREMER on the details of their offer in order to bring further benefits to OPSC and its staff and to clarify the role of the Brest centre in view of the strongly relevant science being pursued by them. The committee proposed to; warmly thank the other candidates for their highly relevant proposals, largely in accordance with the requirements for the OPSC, and to, explicitly state the reasons for accepting the CLS/IFREMER proposal over those from NOAA and INCOIS. The final summary evaluation report for a WMO-IOC ocean Observing Programme Support Centre (OPSC) is provided in Appendix D. 5.8. The third session of the JCOMM Observations Coordination Group, Paris, France, 9-11 March 2009 was invited to review the draft Terms of Reference (ToR) for the OPSC. The draft ToR are provided in Appendix C. 6. Future steps 6.1. At this point, negotiations with the selected institution have been completed in consultation with the evaluation committee. This resulted in the offering of a part-time science Coordinator by IFREMER to support the Project Office function of the OPSC (see Terms of Reference in Appendix E), as well as some additional IT support by CLS. At the time of writing this report, a formal offer remains to be made by France to the WMO and IOC. Confirmation by the WMO Secretary General, and IOC Executive Secretary regarding the decision remains to be made. Once/if confirmed, the WMO Secretary General, and IOC Executive Secretary would write to the selected institution to, formally inform them about the final decision and the conditions under which a Memorandum of Understanding could be signed. The unsuccessful institutions will also be informed of the decision; 6.2. These activities and actions will be presented to the third Session of JCOMM (JCOMM-III), Marrakech, 5-12 November 2009. JCOMM-III will be invited to agree on the Terms of Reference for the OPSC or extended JCOMMOPS. ______________________ Existing Terms of Reference of JCOMMOPS RECOMMENDATION 4 (JCOMM-II) NEW TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR JCOMMOPS THE JOINT WMO/IOC TECHNICAL COMMISSION FOR OCEANOGRAPHY AND MARINE METEOROLOGY, NOTING: (1) The JCOMM Terms of Reference and especially those related to the development of observing networks, (2) Recommendation 6 (JCOMM-I) Establishment of a JCOMM in situ Observing Platform Support Centre (JCOMMOPS), (3) The final report of the first session of the Ship Observations Team, JCOMM Meeting Report No. 11, (4) The final report of the first session of the Observations Coordination Group, JCOMM Meeting Report No. 13, (5) The final report of the second session of the Ship Observations Team, JCOMM Meeting Report No. 24, (6) The final report of the twentieth session of the Data Buoy Cooperation Panel, JCOMM Meeting Report No. 33, (7) The final report of the fourth session of the JCOMM Management Committee, JCOMM Meeting Report No. 34, (8) The final report of the third session of the Ship Observations Team, JCOMM Meeting Report No. 35, CONSIDERING: (1) The requirement for JCOMM to be active in a process, in which oceanographic and marine meteorological observing system elements make the transition to a fully integrated system, (2) The need to integrate at the international level a number of activities regarding operation and implementation of in situ marine observing systems, (3) The success of JCOMMOPS development and work, based on DBCP, SOOP and Argo technical coordination facilities, thanks to resources provided by Members/Member States through the DBCP, SOOPIP and Argo, (4) The potential value of extending JCOMMOPS activities to include some services to support SOT Coordination, as proposed by the second session of the Ship Observations Team, (5) The need to make satellite information available, and, in particular, results from the work of the Cross-cutting Team on Satellite Data Requirements, RECOMMENDS: (1) That the JCOMMOPS Terms of Reference should be modified to enable the provision of extended support to SOT Coordination and the dissemination on the Web site of information provided by the Crosscutting Team on Satellite Data Requirements; (2) That the new JCOMMOPS Terms of Reference should be as given in the annex to this recommendation; (3) That JCOMMOPS should continue to be based in Toulouse, under the day-to-day supervision of the WMO and IOC Secretariats; REQUESTS Members/Member States, where possible, to commit the resources required to support JCOMMOPS. ________________ NOTE: This recommendation replaces Recommendation 6 (JCOMM-I), which is no longer in force. ANNEX TO RECOMMENDATION 4 (JCOMM-II) TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE JCOMM IN SITU OBSERVING PLATFORM SUPPORT CENTRE (JCOMMOPS) Under the overall guidance of the JCOMM Observations Coordination Group and following the direction of the Data Buoy Cooperation Panel, the Ship Observations Team, the Argo Steering Team, and the Cross-cutting Team on Satellite Data Requirements, the JCOMMOPS shall: (i) Act as a focal point for implementation and coordination of observing platforms monitored by the above programmes and provide assistance to platform operators for free and unrestricted exchange of data by, inter alia, providing information on telecommunications systems, clarifying and resolving issues between platform operators and telecommunications system operators, and encouraging the implementation of standard formats; (ii) Maintain information on relevant data requirements for observations in support of GOOS, GCOS, and the WWW as provided by the appropriate international scientific panels and JCOMM Expert Teams and Groups, and routinely provide information on the functional status of the observing systems (iii) Provide a gateway for information on instrumentation deployment and servicing opportunities, and on operator contact information and (iv) Provide information on the observational programme, including on instrumentation, on instrument evaluation, and on data quality. ______________________ Proposed new Terms of Reference for the expanded JCOMM IN SITU OBSERVATIONS PROGRAMME SUPPORT CENTRE (JCOMMOPS) DRAFT RECOMMENDATION Rec.  FORMTEXT 6.4 (JCOMM-III) TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR the expanded JCOMM IN SITU OBSERVATIONS PROGRAMME SUPPORT CENTRE (JCOMMOPS) THE JOINT WMO/IOC TECHNICAL COMMISSION FOR OCEANOGRAPHY AND MARINE METEOROLOGY, Noting: (1) The JCOMM Terms of Reference and especially those related to the development of observing networks (2) Recommendation 4 (JCOMM-II) New Terms of Reference for the JCOMM in situ Observing Platform Support Centre (JCOMMOPS) (3) The final report of the fifth Session of the JCOMM Management Committee, Geneva, Switzerland, 5-7 October 2006, JCOMM Meeting Report No. 45 (4) The final report of the twenty-second Session of the Data Buoy Cooperation Panel (DBCP), La Jolla, USA, October 2006, JCOMM Meeting Report No. 42 (5) The final report of the fourth Session of the JCOMM Ship Observations Team (SOT), Geneva, Switzerland, 16-21 April 2007, JCOMM Meeting Report No. 52 (6) The final report of the second session of the Observations Coordination Group, JCOMM Meeting Report No. 53 (7) The final report of the twenty third session of the Data Buoy Cooperation Panel (DBCP), Jeju, Republic of Korea, 15-19 October 2007, JCOMM Meeting Report No. 54 (8) The final report of the sixth Session of the JCOMM Management Committee, Paris, France, 3-6 December 2007, JCOMM Meeting Report No. 55 (9) The final report of the twenty-fourth Session of the Data Buoy Cooperation Panel, Cape Town, Republic of South Africa, 13-16 October 2008, JCOMM Meeting Report No. 61 (10) The final report of the seventh Session of the JCOMM Management Committee, Melbourne, Australia, 8-12 December 2008, JCOMM Meeting Report No. 62 (11) The joint WMO-IOC Circular Letter JCOMM No. 07-27 dated 24 September 2007 with the announcement and call for Letters of Intent to host an Observing Programme support Centre (OPSC), the resulting evaluation process of the Letters of Intent, and the recommendation from the OPSC evaluation Committee (12) The decision by the WMO Secretary General, and the IOC Executive Secretary regarding the Member/Member State and institution selected to host the OPSC. Considering: (1) The requirement for JCOMM to be active in a process in which oceanographic and marine meteorological observing system elements make the transition to a fully integrated system; (2) The need to integrate at the international level a number of activities regarding operation and implementation of in situ marine observing systems; (3) The success of the JCOMM in situ Observing Platform Support Centre (JCOMMOPS) development and work, based on DBCP, SOT, and Argo technical coordination facilities, thanks to resources provided by Members/Member States through the DBCP, SOT, and Argo; (4) The potential value of extending JCOMMOPS activities to include services to support coordination for the Ocean Sustained Interdisciplinary Timeseries Environment observation System (OceanSITES), the International Ocean Carbon Coordination Project (IOCCP), and the Global Sea-level Observing System (GLOSS); (5) The recommendation by the Management Committee to consider enhancing links to the satellite information services. Recommends: (1) That the JCOMMOPS should expand its activities to enable (i) the provision of support to the DBCP, Argo, the SOT, the IOCCP, GLOSS, and the OceanSITES Coordination, and (ii) the dissemination on the Web site of information on Satellite Data Requirements, and satellite information services; (2) That the Terms of Reference of the expanded JCOMMOPS should be as given in the annex to this recommendation; (3) That JCOMMOPS should be based in France, under the day-to-day supervision of the WMO and IOC Secretariats; Invites: (1) France to consider increasing its support to JCOMMOPS through national mechanisms; Requests Members/Member States, where possible, to commit the resources required to support JCOMMOPS. ________________ NOTE: This recommendation replaces Recommendation 4 (JCOMM-II), which is no longer in force. ANNEX TO RECOMMENDATION 6.4 (JCOMM-III) TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE expanded JCOMM IN SITU OBSERVATIONS PROGRAMME SUPPORT CENTRE (JCOMMOPS) Under the overall guidance of the JCOMM Observations Coordination Group and following the direction of the Data Buoy Cooperation Panel, the Ship Observations Team, the Argo Steering Team, the OceanSITES Science Team, the Global Sea Level Observing System Group of Experts (GLOSS), the International Ocean Carbon Coordination Project (IOOCP), and the CBS Expert Team on Satellite Utilization and Products (ET-SUP), the JCOMMOPS shall promote an integrated framework for deployment and further development of ocean observing networks. Specifically, JCOMMOPS shall: Act as a focal point for implementation and coordination of observing programmes by clarifying and assisting in resolving technical issues between platform operators, data centres, manufacturers, and satellite data telecommunication providers; Assist demonstrating the scientific value of global ocean observing programmes in support of WMO and IOC Programmes and co-sponsored Programmes by compiling materials and assisting ocean observation science teams as appropriate; Maintain information on relevant observational requirements in support of GOOS, GCOS, and the WWW as provided by the appropriate international scientific panels, JCOMM experts participating in the CBS ET-SUP, and other JCOMM Expert Teams and Groups; Routinely collect and distribute information on (a) the performance of the observing system networks relative to requirements, in cooperation with the Observing System Monitoring Center, (b) instrumentation and telecommunication systems, and (c) functional status and (data quality of individual observing platforms; Act as a focal point for instrument and data management standardization by collecting and distributing information on current and best practices from across all elements of the observing system and by representing the observing system interest in international standardization processes; Facilitate free and unrestricted data and metadata exchange in real-time, by providing appropriate technical assistance to platform operators, and serving as a collection and distribution point for select platform/instrument metadata and as a source of information on other metadata and data distribution services; Facilitate the flow of data and metadata to the archiving centres; Provide a gateway for information on observing platform deployment plans and servicing opportunities, and on operator contact information, to maximize deployment opportunities and sharing of resources; Encourage cooperation between communities, observing programmes, and Member/Member States to develop synergies between, and to promote the observing systems. ______________________ Final summary evaluation report for a WMO-IOC ocean Observing Programme Support Centre (OPSC) (by the OPSC evaluation committee, January 2009) 1. Background 1.1 A joint WMO-IOC Circular Letter was issued on 24 September 2007 to call for the submission of Letters of Intent (LOIs) to host JCOMM Observing Programme Support Centre (OPSC). The OPSC will include the existing JCOMM in situ Observing Platform Support Centre (JCOMMOPS) and in addition will serve the growing requirements of the several international programmes that are working to coordinate implementation of the sustained Global Ocean Observing System. 1.2 Fifteen Letters of Intent (LoIs) for hosting an Observing Programme Support Centre (OPSC) were received by the WMO and IOC by December 2007. An evaluation committee which was led by Dr Jean-Louis Fellous (JCOMM co-president) and comprised of Dr Peter Dexter (JCOMM Co-president), Mr Jean Rolland (DBCP representative), and Dr Breck Owens (Argo representative) met in Paris on 11 April 2008, in order to review and evaluate the LoIs. The LoI review committee finally selected five LoIs out of the fifteen, for a short list to undergo further evaluation. As the next step, two questionnaires to obtain more details on technical and administrative support were sent to those short-listed institutions for further evaluation. Through this process, three questionnaires were completed and returned to the Secretariat (IFREMER-CLS of France, NOAA of USA, and INCOIS of India). 1.3 The Seventh Session of the JCOMM Management Committee (Melbourne, Australia, 8-12 December 2008) decided to expand the membership of the review committee for evaluating the three remaining short listed candidate institutions. The expanded committee includes representatives of observing programmes that potentially would contribute to and benefit from the future OPSC. The draft Terms of Reference of the review committee with membership are reproduced in Annex I. 1.4 The review committee was invited to review and rate the three proposals received from CLS/IFREMER, NOAA and INCOIS by January 16. Some of the Team members (Ball, Merrifield and Sabine) did not send their evaluation in time, so that the present report is based on nine out of twelve evaluator reports. 2. Overall appreciation 2.1 Ratings 2.1.1 Evaluators were invited to rate the proposals with notes between 0 and 10 against the 6 criteria defined in Annex I (for the last criterion, risks, a higher mark meant less risk). 2.1.2 One evaluator did not provide ratings but made general comments and raised some questions. A summary of the eight ratings received (without weighting) gives the results presented in Annex II. 2.1.3 The CLS/IFREMER proposal obtains a total of 413 (against a maximum of 480), followed by NOAA (372 and INCOIS (330). It is ranked first for 5 out of the 6 criteria, which means that it is unlikely that weighting the various criteria would reverse this ranking. NOAA comes first for two criteria (ex-aequo in one case with CLS/IFREMER). 2.1.4 Among various comments on the criteria provided by the evaluators, one can note in particular: Scientific activities 2.1.5 All candidates are strong for scientific activities although their perspectives are somehow different leading to different types of interactions with the future OPSC in case they would be chosen. One committee member introduced a personality criterion in his evaluation, taking into account stakeholders assumed wish for the OPSC. In any case, details of the candidates offers can still be negotiated to bring further benefits to OPSC and its staff. 2.1.6 The committee felt that NOAA provides for a considerable governmental capability (tempered by a sometimes tense co-existence with the non-governmental science community), is strong in administrative/organizational aspects (OCO), and in operational maintenance (NDBC), but it lacks somewhat the scientific underpinning. 2.1.7 INCOIS is much smaller than NOAA but a very active scientific hot-house. One evaluator saw it as very attractive for a prominent scientist willing to lead OPSC. 2.1.8 IFREMER has first class ocean observations-related science activities, and CLS involvement in operational oceanography and close links with Mercator (ocean modelling) and CNES (space observations) makes the CLS/IFREMER offer very strong. Involvement in implementation of ocean observing systems 2.1.9 This was a difficult item to evaluate because of the many aspects of implementation: funding, manufacture, deployment, communications, data management, etc. One evaluator failed to separate the proposals. Overall, the committee recognized the strong involvement of the NOAA consortium in the implementation of all relevant observing systems (Argo, drifters, moorings, XBTs, hydrography, pCO2, etc.) through funding, management, and follow up of implementation aspects, including internationally. INCOIS was seen as a centre more dedicated to data management and analysis where the implementation of the observing systems is operated by other national agencies. While CLS is not directly involved in observational programme implementation, it is closely related to scientific and operational users worldwide implementing them, and IFREMER is involved in the implementation of Argo and other ocean observing systems. Operational 24H IT support and GTS access 2.1.10 While noting that NDBC offered full 24H IT support and GTS access, the committee expressed some concerns regarding the NOAA IT restrictions as well as the distance between OCO (where the OPSC would be located) and NDBC. INCOIS does not have GTS connectivity at present and some concerns were expressed regarding its web connectivity. The committee noted that CLS/IFREMER offered full 24H IT support and GTS access but also noted that IFREMER might lack weekend support. Cost effectiveness 2.1.11 The committee expressed some disappointment that none of the proposals committed anything impressive, at least in terms of new commitments. 2.1.12 Despite the excellent existing financial contribution from NOAA, and the new in kind support for office space and logistics, some concerns were noted that the US host scenario may jeopardize the perception that this is a multinational effort. In particular it may restrict our ability to continue to attract funding to support this office from other countries. It was also noted that the NOAA bid mechanisms as outlined may become time-consuming and cumbersome. 2.1.13 CLS was perceived as the best offer, with the offer of zero cost expansion and zero relocation/mirroring expenses. The established ability of the French arrangement to work well deserves extra credit. Commitment to long-term support 2.1.14 Evaluators had difficulties in ranking some of the proposals in the absence of any hard data. So some evaluators assumed that all of the proponents were committed and proposed identical ratings. It was noted, however, that NOAA & CLS long term support was proven by experience through their commitments to JCOMMOPS. Risks 2.1.15 This was felt to be an important criteria for the committee. The committee agreed that the current arrangements with CLS for JCOMMOPS was working well, and none of the other offers were sufficiently attractive to justify risking a change. For comparison Belgium provides ~one million dollars per year and ~1000 square metres to host the IODE office in Oostende. None of the offers on hand for OPSC come close to this, which the committee viewed as the minimum required level of host country engagement that would justify moving a working operation. However, it was noted that CLS was associated with a commercial entity whose mission has to be to make profit, but the global observing system is not a profit-making operation. Also, Toulouse and even so more Brest are harder to reach by air travel than the other 2 locations (which do have many direct international flights). 2.1.16 The committee noted that visa and international image issues are negative for the US (e.g. difficulties have been noted for Chinese scientists to visit the US while China contributes funds to maintain the office). NOAA has the risk of alienating other members since there may be too much perceived US dominance in the system balanced by the fact that its huge funding share in the observing system would have the largest interest in making the OPSC work and making it expand. 2.1.17 For INCOIS the risk comes from an apparent lack of understanding of the main issues in hosting. Lifestyle and relocation may be too big a challenge for existing and/or future staff to move to India (but it could be a positive challenge!). INCOIS has a somewhat larger risk since it may not be as mainstream/accepted as the others (this may be based on prejudices but nonetheless poses a risk) and it would be harder to relocate staff or attract new people to that location. 2.2 Detailed Reports 2.2.1 In addition to the specific comments mentioned above several evaluators provided additional comments and explanations in support of their ranking. The following was noted: Lack of information on INCOIS, indicative of lack of understanding of the complexity of the issues under consideration. Proposed functional split between OCO and NDBC does not inspire confidence. Potential loss of support from CLS for the IT engineer if OPSC goes to NOAA (but uncertainty on continued NOAA support with OPSC remaining in CLS). Additional cost for extra office space under NOAA (not apparent for CLS). The differences between the NOAA and CLS-IFREMER bids do not appear significant at either the financial or technical levels while not detecting any substantive issues with the ongoing hosting of JCOMMOPS by CLS, and the CLS bid for OPSC retains all current features, with potential additional support, both explicit and implicit. Should the committee recommend to IOC and WMO to accept the CLS proposal, in the subsequent letter to NOAA, we should be explicit in stating the reasons for accepting the CLS proposal over that from NOAA, noting that the latter was nevertheless largely in accordance with the requirements for the OPSC. Irrespective of whether a proposal is accepted, the committee agreed that general understanding and agreement was needed on matters such as: Who is going to decide how to allocate the efforts of the staff involved? How will decisions be taken about priority activities? If additional funds are needed to meet expectations, whose responsibility is it? How will promotion/evaluation/reviews of staff and overall performance be carried out? The IFREMER/CLS bid is satisfactory in almost all respects and has no significant down-side, the others are good but have faults. One committee member proposed that should we proceed to negotiations with France on a site, it might be desired to move the office from Toulouse to Brest because of the strongly relevant active science being pursued there. The environment would be more stimulating and is more likely to attract good international applicants for positions that might arise. Brest/IFREMER is the home of the IMBER Secretariat, a putative OPSC must have enormous common ground with IMBER and it should be possible to share resources for the benefit of each. 2.2.2 In total, and without taking into account the vote of the Lead co-president, i.e., with eight evaluators, the overall ranking appears as follows: CLS/IFREMER is ranked #1 by 6 team members (in one case ex aequo with NOAA), #2 by 1 team member and #3 also by one team member. NOAA is ranked #1 by 3 team members (in one case ex aequo with CLS/IFREMER), #2 by 3 team members, and #3 by 2 team members. INCOIS is never ranked #1, and is ranked #2 by 3 team members and #3 by 5 team members. 2.2.3 The Lead co-president also provided a detailed analysis of the proposals, and also concluded in favour of the CLS/IFREMER proposal. He however noted that his past affiliation with IFREMER in 2001-2005 could be seen as a conflict of interest and proposed not to take his vote into account. 2.2.4 Nevertheless it appears that it would neither modify significantly nor reverse this ranking. 2.2.5 Due to annual leave during the evaluation period, Graeme Ball, SOT Chairperson, was not in a position to submit an evaluation report. He however agreed with the conclusions of the evaluation committee. 3. Conclusion 3.1 As summarized above the CLS/IFREMER proposal comes first in total scores, first in scores for 5 out of 6 criteria, and first in overall ranking by 6 out of 8 team members. Other proposals get (not surprisingly) very honourable scores and rankings. 3.2 In conclusion the evaluation committee proposes to IOC and WMO to retain the French proposal and to enter into negotiations with CLS/IFREMER on the details of their offer in order to bring further benefits to OPSC and its staff and to clarify the role of the Brest centre in view of the strongly relevant science being pursued there, as per some of the recommendations mentioned above. 3.3 The committee proposes to warmly thank the other candidates for their highly relevant proposals, largely in accordance with the requirements for the OPSC, and to state explicitly the reasons for accepting the CLS/IFREMER proposal over those from NOAA and INCOIS. ___________________ Annex I Terms of Reference and membership of the OPSC review committee The review committee for OPSC candidates shall: 1. Work by email; 2. Review all 3 OPSC remaining candidates from the short list who replied to the questionnaires; 3. Request additional/complementary information about the candidates from the WMO and IOC secretariat contact members if required; 4. Objectively evaluate each candidate according to the following criteria and quantify this evaluation accordingly: Scientific activities related to the use of ocean observations Significant involvement in implementation of ocean observing systems Operational 24H IT support and GTS access Cost effectiveness for Members voluntarily contributing financially to the OPSC Commitment to long-term support for the OPSC Risks 5. Will excuse themselves from this committee if there is any danger of a perceived conflict of interest regarding one or more candidates 6. Will not contact any of the candidates directly on an individual basis. 7. Rank each candidate on each of the following six factors with a 1-10 scale to provide a synthesis of their relative strengths and weaknesses. 8. Submit an evaluation report to the WMO and IOC Secretariats each before 15 January 2009 for final decision. Membership: The two JCOMM Co-presidents (Jean-Louis Fellous, Lead, and Peter Dexter); Representative of the Argo Steering Team (Howard Freeland); Representative of the DBCP (David Meldrum); Representative of the SOT (Graeme Ball); Representative of OceanSITES (Uwe Send); Representative of IOCCP (Chris Sabine); Representative of GLOSS (Mark Merrifield); Representative of WIGOS (Nicola Scott); Representative of the OOPC (Ed Harrison); Representative from the IOC Secretariat (Keith Alverson); and Representative from the WMO Secretariat (Etienne Charpentier). ___________________ Annex II Summary of the ratings for the six criteria (bold types indicate first rank) CriteriaCLS/IFREMERNOAAINCOISScientific activities related to the use of ocean observations665661Significant involvement in implementation of ocean observing systems677755Operational 24H IT support and GTS access747052Cost effectiveness for Members voluntarily contributing financially to the OPSC614655Commitment to long-term support for the OPSC737366Risks725041Total413372330 ___________________ OPSC science coordinator Terms of Reference Ifremer/Coriolis is offering a science coordinator as a contribution in kind to the OPSC. The OPSC Science Coordinator shall: Facilitate dialogue between the OPSC and the Ifremer and Coriolis teams in Brest so that the OPSC will be in a position to take ocean observations scientific requirements into account when conducting its mission; Respond to requests from the OPSC staff concerning relevant scientific issues; Liaise between OPSC and Ifremer and Coriolis teams; Interact with the chairs of Argo and OceanSites science team and JCOMM OCG when needed/appropriate; Work part-time at a level of 25% for the OPSC. After a one year period, the science coordinator terms of reference will be revisited based on feedback from the community. ___________________     DBCP-25/Doc.  REF DOC_NO \h 11.1, p.  PAGE 2 DMCG-III/Doc.  REF DOC_NO \h 11.1, Appendix A, p.  PAGE 2 Appendix A DBCP-25/Doc.  REF DOC_NO \h 11.1, Appendix B, p.  PAGE 3 APPENDIX B DBCP-25/Doc.  REF DOC_NO \h 11.1, Appendix C, p.  PAGE 3 Appendix C DBCP-25/Doc.  REF DOC_NO \h 11.1, Appendix D, p.  PAGE 7 Appendix D Appendix E DEvw뻨}c}L6#c%hGih=vB*CJOJQJ^Jph*h=vB*CJOJQJ^JnHo(phtH-hGih=vB*CJOJQJ^JmH phsH 2h=vB*CJOJQJ^JmH nHo(phsH tH'h=vB*CJOJQJ^JmH phsH -hXhSB*CJOJQJ^JmH phsH %hXhSB*CJ^JmH phsH -hXhSB*CJOJQJ^JmH phsH 0hXhS5B*CJOJQJ^JmH phsH (hXhS5B*CJ^JmH phsH  DEvwscccWW $$Ifa$gd=v$  $Ifa$gd $$If]a$gd ]kd$$IfxF %S    4 xax $$Ifa$gd $x$If]a$gd !    3 4 5 B  n$If^ngd n$If^ngd  n$If^ngd  n$If^ngd$:$Ifa$gd $  :$Ifa$gd=v $$Ifa$gd=v       ͶͶ͟pbXDb5b͟hCJOJQJmHnHu'jhh^CJOJQJUhCJOJQJjhCJOJQJU'hSB*CJOJQJ^JmH phsH 5hXhSB*CJOJQJ^JmH nHphsH tH-hXhSB*CJOJQJ^JmH phsH -hGih=vB*CJOJQJ^JmH phsH 2h=vB*CJOJQJ^JmH nHo(phsH tH/h=vB*CJOJQJ^JmH nHphsH tH    ! + , - 1 2 B C D E t ѺzkTC9*h5;CJOJQJaJh< CJOJQJ hSh< CJOJQJmH sH -hXhSB*CJOJQJ^JmH phsH hCJOJQJmHnHu'jhh^CJOJQJUhCJOJQJjhCJOJQJU'hSB*CJOJQJ^JmH phsH -hXhSB*CJOJQJ^JmH phsH 2h=vB*CJOJQJ^JmH nHo(phsH tH'h=vB*CJOJQJ^JmH phsH B C D E u v }} $$Ifa$ d]$If$a$gd$a$$a$]kd$$IfxF %S    4 xaxt u v Z 伱ucQ?1hTCJOJQJ^JaJ"hUCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH "hSCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH "hTCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH hCJOJQJ"hCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH (h_ohCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH h< 5CJOJQJh)V5CJOJQJhT5CJOJQJ"hh6CJOJQJ]aJh< 6CJOJQJh< CJOJQJ"hPSh< 5;CJOJQJaJ [ \ ] t u qq ^`gd$^a$$a$gd]gdU$N^N`a$$a$6kd $$IfTxB4 xaT $$Ifa$ $$Ifa$gd Z [ \ ] u     ӽlZH6"h!5CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH "hKh;(CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH (h8>hCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH "h;(CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH (h_ohCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH +h_oh5CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH h< 5CJOJQJh< CJOJQJhCJOJQJhUCJOJQJ^JaJ   g0c^_IJ $ & F/a$gd<% $ & F/a$gd*u $ & F/a$gd!5$a$gd!5 $1$7$8$H$a$gdKQ 1$7$8$H$gdI ^`gdKh8>CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH "h*uCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH (h8>hGzCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH (h8>hCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH "h!5CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH (h_ohCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH "hCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH "hGzCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH (h_ohRCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH hGzhGzCJOJQJaJVz4= <@AFIbc齧{e{{eeP;(h8>hCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH (h8>hGzCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH + *h8>hGzCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH + *h8>hCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH + *h8>h8>CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH + *h8>h!5CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH + *h*uh!5CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH + *h*uh*uCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH + *h*uh8>CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH  )[\]^_dey"GIJKapqrt֠nf]fUfMhIOJQJh!5OJQJhT5OJQJh< OJQJ h!5h-CJOJQJ^JaJ(h_oh!5CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH hGzCJOJQJaJh!5CJOJQJaJ(h8>h!5CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH (h8>hKhCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH (h8>h<%CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH JKbcrstubc""$[$\$a$gdgdgd $ a$gd$a$gd$a$ 67nJ ^`$ 67nJ ^`a$ 67nJ ^`gd!5tu%&&&&&2'9'''o)))e**N+ǼǫLJLJLJLJqXBX+hKh*uCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH + *h8>h*uCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH + *h*uh*uCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH (h*uh*uCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH (h*uhCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH (h*uh8>CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH  QQQQQBRKRRRUUUUVV Y,Y[[[}[[[[ĬoZEo(h_ohCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH (h5CJOJQJ\^JaJmH sH "hCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH +h_oh6CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH (h_ohCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH .h_oh5CJOJQJ\^JaJmH sH +hh5CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH #h<%h<%5CJOJQJ^JaJ&h<%h<%5;CJOJQJ^JaJLRRR%S&SSSSSeTfTTTAUBUUUUUnVoVWWWWXXY 7$8$H$gd $7$8$H$a$gdY Y,Y-Y Z!ZZZ[[k[l[}[[[\\*\+\X\Y\d]e]__ $7$8$H$a$gd$a$gdgd 7$8$H$gd $7$8$H$a$gd[\"\)\Y\MaNadaeafagaaaaaaѸѣ|dG*G9h<%h56CJOJQJ\^JaJmH nH sH tH 9hh5CJOJQJ\]^JaJmH nH sH tH .h_oh5;CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH h8KOJQJh OJQJhOJQJhT5CJOJQJh(h_ohCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH 1h_oh56CJOJQJ\^JaJmH sH .h_oh5CJOJQJ\^JaJmH sH +h_oh5CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH _:`;```MaNaeafagaaaaaaaa9bxbyb`gd8> * ^* `gd8>$a$gd8>2gd8>2@&gd8>gd$a$gdgd $a$gd 7$8$H$gd $7$8$H$a$gdaaaaaabbbbbb0bȰcM41h_oh8>5;CJOJQJ\^JaJmH sH +h8>5OJQJ\^JmHnHsH tH u=j~h8>hFA[5OJQJU\^JmH nH sH tH (h8>5OJQJ\^JmH nH sH tH 1jh8>5OJQJU\^JmH nH sH tH .hTqh8>5OJQJ\^JmH nH sH tH hTqh8>mH sH (hhCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH .hh5;CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH  0b9bwbybbbbbbccij-j.j8j:jgknkkk9n:nCn˳ydNdCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH +h_oh8>6CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH (h_oh8>CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH (h8>5CJOJQJ\^JaJmH sH  hR*bh8>CJOJQJ^JaJ&hTqh8>5OJQJ\^JmH sH .hTqh8>5OJQJ\^JmH nH sH tH 9h_oh8>5CJOJQJ\]^JaJmH nH sH tH .h_oh8>5CJOJQJ\^JaJmH sH ybbbbb:c;cccHdIdddyezeeeffgggg^h_hii $7$8$H$a$gd8> 7$8$H$gd8>gd8>i,j-j:j;jjjkkllmm8n9nEnFnmonoooOpPpYpZpppqq $7$8$H$a$gd8>CnEnp pMpNpOpPpYpppppp*qqqqqqqqlVB&h_oh8>5CJOJQJ\^JaJ+h_oh8>5CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH %h8>5CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH (h_oh8>CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH (h8>5CJOJQJ\^JaJmH sH .hR*bh8>5CJOJQJ\^JaJmH sH "h8>CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH (h_oh8>CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH .h_oh8>5CJOJQJ\^JaJmH sH q*qqqqqrr,tJtKt@uAu&v'v!w$ & F21$7$8$H$a$gd8>$ 8801$7$8$H$^8`0a$gd8>$x7$8$H$a$gd8> $7$8$H$a$gd8> $7$8$H$a$gd8>$a$gd8>gd8>$a$gd8> 7$8$H$gd8>qrrossssItBuuuu$v%v&v'vvv;x]x{{j|ȴ{`{`{`{`{M{{<{ hN`h8>OJQJ^JmH sH %h8>CJOJQJ]^JaJmH sH 4hdh8>CJOJPJQJ^JaJmH nH sH tH .h8>CJOJPJQJ^JaJmH nH sH tH #hh8>CJOJQJ]^JaJh8>CJOJQJ]^JaJ&h8>CJOJPJQJ^JaJnH tH 3h_oh8>CJOJQJ]^JaJmH nH sH tH 9h_oh8>5CJOJQJ\]^JaJmH nH sH tH !w"w`xaxyyzz{{{{k|l|||||}}"}#}~gdK $1$7$8$H$a$gd8>j|k|l||||||}}"}}~~J~~~~d9ĹuauJu55(hKOJQJ^JmH sH ~~[\12cd|}DE abLjȈވ߈.gdK*(hKh!5CJOJQJ^JaJ#h!55;CJOJQJ\^JaJ)h!5h!55;CJOJQJ\^JaJ"h!5CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH .hK$a$gd8> 7$8$H$gd8>gd!5"}ǻ^ !"$%'(*+-34:;JKLDzxkx_xM_#jhhKQOJQJUjhKQOJQJUhKQOJQJnHo(tHhKQOJQJhujhuU h!5h!5CJOJQJ^JaJ(hKh!5CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH  h8>h[@CJOJQJ^JaJ h8>h8>CJOJQJ^JaJ,h8>h8>CJOJPJQJ^JaJnHtHLPQVW]^_`acqr½ýҽ޿ޭޣ޿tghKQOJQJnHo(tHhhKQCJaJ!hhKQ0J5;CJ\aJ%hhKQ5;CJOJQJ\aJhKQCJOJQJ#jhhKQOJQJUhKQhL 0JmHnHu hKQ0JjhKQ0JUhKQOJQJjhKQOJQJUhKQOJQJmHnHu$-abcHIJKLW$a$gd$a$ҽӽԽؽٽ۽%&'+,.7=>DEFGHḶ̸~ḷ̸#jhhKQOJQJUhKQOJQJnHo(tHhhKQCJaJhKQ5CJOJQJaJhKQhL 0JmHnHu hKQ0JjhKQ0JUhKQCJOJQJhKQOJQJhKQOJQJmHnHujhKQOJQJU#jthhKQOJQJU$LWX[abhixyz~׾׬ו׋zkkgV h!5h!5CJOJQJ^JaJhuhKQ5;CJOJQJaJhL 0JmHnHu hKQ0JjhKQ0JUhKQCJOJQJhKQOJQJmHnHu#jRhhKQOJQJUjhKQOJQJUhKQOJQJnHo(tHhKQOJQJhKQhhKQCJaJ"h R<hKQ5;CJOJQJaJ WXYZ[$a$gd!5$a$$a$gd2 00BP. A!n"n#n$n%nn C 000&P P:pL BP. A!n"n#n$n%nn C 000&P P:pL BP. A!n"n#n$n%nn C 000&P P:pL BP. A!n"n#n$n%nn C 000&P P:pL BP. A!n"n#n$n%nn < 00&P :p[@BP. A!n"n#n$n%nn $$Ifx!vh55S5#v#vS#v:V x55S544 xax~DDOC_NO11.1D Agenda_Item11.1$$Ifx!vh55S5#v#vS#v:V x55S544 xaxp$$If!vh5B#vB:V x5B/ /  44 xT|DText186.4m$$If!vh5 5 5 5 #v #v :V+F t65 5 s$$If!vh5 5 5 5 #v #v :V+F t6,5 5 s$$If!vh5 5 5 5 #v #v :V+F t6,5 5 s$$If!vh5 5 5 5 #v #v :V+F t6,5 5 s$$If!vh5 5 5 5 #v #v :V+F t6,5 5 s$$If!vh5 5 5 5 #v #v :V+F t6,5 5 s$$If!vh5 5 5 5 #v #v :V+F t6,5 5 m$$If!vh5 5 5 5 #v #v :V+F t65 5 oDyK DOC_NOoDyK DOC_NOoDyK DOC_NOoDyK DOC_NOoDyK DOC_NO3H@H *uNormal1$CJ_HaJhmH sH tH `@` Heading 1$$ `@&a$5CJOJQJ\aJmH sH X@X Heading 2$$ `@&a$6CJOJQJ]aJf@f Heading 3$$ `@&a$$56CJOJQJ\]aJmH sH j@j Heading 4$$  @&a$5CJOJQJ\aJmH sH |@| Heading 5:$$ $ C @&]C^ `a$5CJOJQJ\aJv@v Heading 64$ $ C @&]C^ `5CJOJQJ\aJV@V Heading 7$@& i5CJOJQJ\aJX@X Heading 8$n@&`n56CJOJQJ\]aJDA@D ,Default Paragraph FontVi@V  Table Normal :V 44 la (k(No List <&< Footnote ReferenceTB@T Body Text _ CJOJQJaJmH sH 0U@0 Hyperlink>*B*N@"N Header1$ 9r CJOJQJaJmH sH .)@1. Page Number4 @B4 Footer  9r C@R Body Text Indent/$ 67nJ 7^7`a$CJOJQJaJmH sH T@b Block TextC # n> ~N rd1$]r^d`CJOJQJaJmH sH bP@rb Body Text 2$ _!a$CJOJQJaJmH sH nR@n Body Text Indent 2$ `^a$CJOJQJaJmH sH nS@n Body Text Indent 3$ `n`na$CJOJQJaJmH sH BQ@B Body Text 3CJOJQJaJ@Y@  Document Map-D OJQJ*W@* Strong5\b^@b  Normal (Web)dd1$[$\$OJPJQJ^JhmH sH .X@. Emphasis6]e@ HTML Preformatted: 2( Px 4 #\'*.25@91$#CJOJPJQJ^JaJhmH sH O aFV@F [.FollowedHyperlink >*B* phTO"T  1st para"1$7$8$H$CJOJ QJ aJhmH sH `O2`  Indent#p1$7$8$H$^`pCJOJ QJ aJhmH sH tOBt  Sub indent*$$ pd1$7$8$H$^ `pa$CJOJ QJ aJhmH sH *OR*  1.1.1%6.Ob.  1.1.1.1&:4Or4  1.1.1.1.1'6:fOf  Reference(p1$7$8$H$^`pCJOJ QJ aJhmH sH jOj  1.1,)|d<1$7$8$H$^`|5CJOJ QJ aJhmH sH HH p Balloon Text*CJOJQJ^JaJn@n 8y Table Grid7:V+0+1$ROR  Char Char Char,1$PJhmHsHtH`O` K***Cross_Title_12 2$1$a$,5;OJPJ QJ\^JhmH nHsH tHuIgYt:4:y::;H;vwBC==>YYY9ZxZyZZZZZ:[;[[[H\I\\\y]z]]]^^____^`_`aa,b-b:b;bbbccddee8f9fEfFfmgngggOhPhYhZhhhii*iiiiijj00.L$2 00@0@0@0@0 @0@0t@0t@0t@0t@0t@0t@0t@0t@0t@0t@0t@0t@0t@0t@0t@0t@0t@0t@0t@0t@0t@0t@0t@0t@0t@0t@0t@0t@0t@0t@0t@0t@0t@0t@0t@0t@0t@0t@0t@0t@0t@0t@0t@0t@0t@0t@0t@0t@0t@0t@0t@0t@0t@0t@0t@0t@0t@0t@0t@0t@0t@0t@0t@"0t@0t@0tDEvw 345BCDEuv[\]tug 0 c^_IJKbcrstubcn!o!!!!!&&&&((,,--}/~///5588;;==>>vAwACDDDEE+E,EHHHpIqIIIIIIIBJCJKJLJJJ%K&KKKKKeLfLLLAMBMMMMMnNoNOOOOPPQ Q,Q-Q R!RRRSSkSlS}SSSTT*T+TXTYTdUeUWW:X;XXXMYNYeYfYgYYYYYYYY9ZxZyZZZZZ:[;[[[H\I\\\y]z]]]^^____^`_`aa,b-b:b;bbbccddee8f9fEfFfmgngggOhPhYhZhhhii*iiiiijj,lJlKl@mAm&n'n!o"o`papqqrrssssktltttttuu"u#uvv[z\z1|2|c}d}|}}}}}D~E~  abǀȀހ߀ȅɅbcklێ܎ &'~`avw)*ϙЙJK;<;< ! 23Ϊ=KL)*-YӮ&Pͯί;<EQV]^ #&)*z}ıDZʱ˱ѱձٱݱޱ߱!"}~xdz_ !#$&')*,-abcHIJKLWXYZ[0 0 0 0 000000000 0 00000000 0 000000000000000 0 000000000000000000/ 0/ 0/ 0/ 0/ 0/ 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000002020Y20Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y2 0Y0Y2 0Y0Y2 0Y0Y2 0Y0Y2 0Y0Y2 0Y0Y2 0Y0Y2 0Y0Y2 0Y0Y0Y0Y-0Y-0Y-0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y/0Y00Y00Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y.0Y.0Y.0Y.0Y.0Y.0Y.0Y.0Y.0Y.0Y.0Y.0Y.0Y.0Y.0Y.0Y.0Y.0Y.0Y.0Y.0Y.0Y.0Y.0Y.0Y.0Y.0Y.0Y.0Y.0Y.0Y.0Y.0Y.0Y.0Y.0Y.0Y.0Y00Y0Y0Y0Y* 0Y0Y* 0Y0Y* 0Y0Y* 0Y0Y* 0Y0Y* 0Y0Y* 0Y0Y* 0Y0Y* 0Y0Y0Y0Y+ .0Y.0Y+ .0Y.0Y+ .0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y/0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y.0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y0Y- 0Y- 0Y- 0Y- 0Y- 0Y- 0Y00000000000, .0, .0, .0, .0, .0, .0, .0, .0, .0, .0, .000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000W00000001 01 01 01 01 000000@000F@000F@000F@000F@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@000FDEvw 345BCDEuv[\]tug 0 c^_IJKbcrstubcn!o!!!!!&&&&((,,--}/~///5588;;==>>vAwACDDDEE+E,EHHHpIqIIIIIIIBJCJKJLJJJ%K&KKKKKeLfLLLAMBMMMMMnNoNOOOOPPQ Q,Q-Q R!RRRSSkSlS}SSSTT*T+TXTYTdUeUWW:X;XXXMYNYeYfYgYYYYYYYY9ZxZyZZZZZ:[;[[[H\I\\\y]z]]]^^____^`_`aa,b-b:b;bbbccddee8f9fEfFfmgngggOhPhYhZhhhii*iiiiijj,lJlKl@mAm&n'n!o"o`papqqrrssssktltttttuu"u#uvv[z\z1|2|c}d}|}}}}}D~E~  abǀȀހ߀ȅɅbcklێ܎ &'~`avw)*ϙЙJK;<;< ! 23Ϊ=KL)*-YӮ&Pͯί;<EQV]^ #&)*z}ıDZʱ˱ѱձٱݱޱ߱!"}~xdz_ !#&),abcHIJKLWXYZ0 0 0 0 000000000 0 00000000 0 000000000000000 0 000000000000000000/ 0/ 0/ 0/ 0/ 0/ 00000000000000 00000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000@/ 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 2020W20W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W2 0W0W2 0W0W2 0W0W2 0W0W2 0W0W2 0W0W2 0W0W2 0W0W2 0W0W0W0W-0W-0W-0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W/0W00W00W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W.0W.0W.0W.0W.0W.0W.0W.0W.0W.0W.0W.0W.0W.0W.0W.0W.0W.0W.0W.0W.0W.0W.0W.0W.0W.0W.0W.0W.0W.0W.0W.0W.0W.0W.0W.0W.0W.0W00W0W0W0W* 0W0W* 0W0W* 0W0W* 0W0W* 0W0W* 0W0W* 0W0W* 0W0W* 0W0W0W0W+ .0W.0W+ .0W.0W+ .0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W/0W0W0W0W0W0W.0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W- 0W- 0W- 0W- 0W- 0W- 0W00000000000, .0, .0, .0, .0, .0, .0, .0, .0, .0, .0, .000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000000001 01 01 01 01 00000@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0j00$nQ@0@0@0@0j00 xnQ@0@0@0@0j00 oQ@0@0j00 f@0j00lQ@0@0j00 Q@0@0@0@0@0@0@0 00 BBBBBB))+8::||| t Z fVtN+~7HpMQ[a0bCnqj|9"LҽL`degiklmnprtuwx{}~B J"5DLLRY_ybiq!w~`<)Q)ʹݹ!-Wacfhjoqsvyz|b ,1YZZFFF*/5<>Pafx #%GX]ovx!!!!!@  @H 0(  0(  B S  ? _Hlt420917360DOC_NO Agenda_ItemText18 Y 2Zwc@AApBpBDDDFFRR\\ \6]6]>]^^^``#`"fhh^h^hoooootttwcxcxuxzzz(ɏ,n $$>GGFF~Ϟ  =      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHILJKMONPQRSTVUWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuv   ^ 00M"Q"V"V"'&'&'Q.Y.Y.00022;;;2>@AAuBuBDDDFFRR \\\<]I]I]^^^!`,`,`&f h hdhdhoooootttwhxhx}xzzz+̏3q))@LLKK՞ @   !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIKLJMONPQRSTVUWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuv C#*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsmetricconverter>L*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PersonName?q*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags stockticker8w*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCityBu*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagscountry-region9v*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplace=**urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceType=.*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceName9e*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsState *2008, in ProductIDwvuvvuqqwvuvwvuwuweuwvwvevweuwvuwvuwvuevwvuLqqqwvwvuvuwvwvuwvuwvuwvuLuvuv.v..*v.*Lvw#vwuqquvqquvqwvwuuuvvuqqquwvwqqqqvw>A11^4_47"7h>k>:?;?DDDDfUgUF^J^ffuuww:x?xxxxxxx<Aw|"2вײ߳ *!!##$$&')*,-(8EDDDEGGXXj)lttGuQu".2Y^27!!##$$&')*,-333333333333333333333Ew5EKu--DEEEIISTii,lKlltt*ί<^ *z! !!##$$&')*,-:LVcqµԵ'=GHLW[hz!!##$$&')*,-2tb&c1Δ"aQyr]  l3K "_QN U&Ԝw`uB3b&A8 5A#ynB#xRW.$<_(&\r)lM[,r1p70(iLp1<$~#5 g27&3K8&8 jM=9&:͸)v%=t`Xl@~ZG(]qnKd68MheN[qSr(NQXX}dX|]{YNjLZ…x-_>P'Ia|C(Dnag\sxb_+'be+Vc>DfcZr4d65d<}[wl,r ^pm&N-.nxm@qj|܆ H}n> }&6= hh^h`OJ QJ o(^`o() ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.tt^t`o(tt^t`o(.tt^t`o(..tt^t`o(... tt^t`o( .... `^``o( ..... `^``o( ...... ^`o(....... ^`o(........tt^t`o(tt^t`o(.tt^t`o(..tt^t`o(... tt^t`o( .... `^``o( ..... `^``o( ...... ^`o(....... ^`o(........tt^t`o(tt^t`o(.tt^t`o(..tt^t`o(... tt^t`o( .... `^``o( ..... `^``o( ...... ^`o(....... ^`o(........^`o(()0^`0o(0^`0o(.0^`0o(..88^8`o(... 88^8`o( .... `^``o( ..... `^``o( ...... ^`o(....... ^`o(........ tt^t`OJQJo(pp^p`o(()XX^X`o(XX^X`o(.0^`0o(..0^`0o(... 88^8`o( .... 88^8`o( ..... `^``o( ...... `^``o(....... ^`o(........hh^h`o(. hh^h`56o(. 0^`056o(.. 88^8`56o(... 88^8`56o( .... `^``56o( ..... `^``56o( ......  ^`56o(.......  ^`56o(........h^`CJOJQJaJo(hHh^`OJ QJ ^J o(hHohpp^p`OJ QJ o(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJ QJ ^J o(hHoh^`OJ QJ o(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJ QJ ^J o(hHohPP^P`OJ QJ o(hHa^`ao(()0^`0o(.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h pLp^p`LhH.h @ @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PLP^P`LhH.808^8`06B*o(ph() ^`OJ QJ o(o pp^p`OJ QJ o( @ @ ^@ `OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJ QJ o( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o PP^P`OJ QJ o(tt^t`5o(.tt^t`6o(.tt^t`6o(..tt^t`6o(... tt^t`6o( .... tt^t`6o( ..... `^``6o( ...... `^``6o(....... ^`6o(........h^`CJOJQJaJo(hHh^`OJ QJ ^J o(hHohpp^p`OJ QJ o(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJ QJ ^J o(hHoh^`OJ QJ o(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJ QJ ^J o(hHohPP^P`OJ QJ o(hHhh^h`. hh^h`OJ QJ o( hh^h`OJ QJ o(|^`|o(|^`|o(.|^`|o(..88^8`o(... 88^8`o( .... `^``o( ..... `^``o( ...... ^`o(....... ^`o(........ hh^h`OJ QJ o(h^`CJOJQJaJo(hHh^`OJ QJ ^J o(hHohpp^p`OJ QJ o(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJ QJ ^J o(hHoh^`OJ QJ o(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJ QJ ^J o(hHohPP^P`OJ QJ o(hHXX^X`o(XX^X`o(.0^`0o(..0^`0o(... 88^8`o( .... 88^8`o( ..... `^``o( ...... `^``o(....... ^`o(........0^`0o(() hh^h`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o pp^p`OJ QJ o( @ @ ^@ `OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o ^`OJ QJ o( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJ QJ o(o PP^P`OJ QJ o(|^`|o(()hh^h`o(hh^h`o(.0^`0o(..88^8`o(... 88^8`o( .... `^``o( ..... `^``o( ...... ^`o(....... ^`o(........h^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJ QJ ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJ QJ o(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJ QJ ^Jo(hHoh^`OJ QJ o(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJ QJ ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJ QJ o(hH^`o(()h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h pLp^p`LhH.h @ @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PLP^P`LhH.|^`|o(|^`|o(.|^`|o(..88^8`o(... 88^8`o( .... `^``o( ..... `^``o( ...... ^`o(....... ^`o(........tt^t`o(tt^t`o(.tt^t`o(..tt^t`o(... tt^t`o( .... `^``o( ..... `^``o( ...... ^`o(....... ^`o(........^`o(()p0p^p`0o(.   ^ `hH.  L ^ `LhH. xx^x`hH. HH^H`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH.^`6OJQJo(()^`OJQJ.pLp^p`LOJQJ.@ @ ^@ `OJQJ.^`OJQJ.L^`LOJQJ.^`OJQJ.^`OJQJ.PLP^P`LOJQJ.tt^t`o(() hh^h`o(hH() ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.^`CJOJQJo(^`CJOJ QJ o(opp^p`CJOJ QJ o(@ @ ^@ `CJOJ QJ o(^`CJOJ QJ o(^`CJOJ QJ o(^`CJOJ QJ o(^`CJOJ QJ o(PP^P`CJOJ QJ o(808^8`0o(() ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.tt^t`o(tt^t`o(.tt^t`o(..tt^t`o(... tt^t`o( .... `^``o( ..... `^``o( ...... ^`o(....... ^`o(........  ^ `o(. hh^h`OJ QJ o(^`o(()  ^ `o(.??^?`o(()^`o(() ^`hH. L^`LhH. h h ^h `hH. 88^8`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. xLx^x`LhH.h^`CJOJQJaJo(hHh^`OJ QJ ^J o(hHohpp^p`OJ QJ o(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJ QJ ^J o(hHoh^`OJ QJ o(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJ QJ ^J o(hHohPP^P`OJ QJ o(hH2pmUNjLZ8tb8MIaM=93K8g27+'b_QN N-.n}dXBm@q[wlXl@l3K x-_] w`70#5aQ[qS5d| 5A#v%=&A.$(&ZG[,]qnK\sxbna H}]{Yr) }+VcB#c1NQXp1Dfc:d33        ,>                 Zm,        ,>        ,>        \                                   X        NR        :        ,>         @ @ @ @ @cbu>^*u] L z mKQ!5IO< jAsx;{$2&)wv)8*o.x/X7 V; R<[@K.LDEvwBCIIiiiktltt <EQV]^ #&)*z}ıDZʱ˱ѱձٱݱޱ߱!#&),[E}0E}05 9999s1J1J1J1J@Adobe PDFNe04:winspoolAdobe PDF ConverterAdobe PDFS 4dA4PRIVB ''''0P4(FFSMTJAdobe PDF ConverterResolution1200dpiPageSizeLetterPageRegionLeadingEdgeInputSlotOnlyOne0EBDAStandardAdobe PDFS 4dA4PRIVB ''''0P4(FFSMTJAdobe PDF ConverterResolution1200dpiPageSizeLetterPageRegionLeadingEdgeInputSlotOnlyOne0EBDAStandardBBș BB 0@UnknownKeith Alverson Gz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z ArialG5  hMS Mincho-3 fgI6 ??Arial Unicode MS;|i0BatangC& UniversArial;" Helvetica5& zaTahoma3z Times;SimSun[SO;Wingdings?5 z Courier New" h$٦$٦2 \H\H! dŴŴ 2q HX ?K?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDFGHIJKLNOPQRSTYRoot Entry Fh-[Data 1Table|=WordDocument;SummaryInformation(EDocumentSummaryInformation8MCompObjq  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q