AUDIT REVIEW PROCEDURES Any dispute concerning a question of fact arising under an interim or post audit of this AGREEMENT that is not disposed of by agreement, shall be reviewed by ALAMEDA CTC’s Deputy Executive Director of Finance and Administration. Not later than thirty (30) calendar days after issuance of the final audit report, CONSULTANT may request a review by ALAMEDA CTC’s Deputy Executive Director of Finance and Administration of unresolved audit issues. The request for review will be submitted in writing. Neither the pendency of a dispute nor its consideration by ALAMEDA CTC will excuse CONSULTANT from full and timely performance, in accordance with the terms of this AGREEMENT. CONSULTANT and subconsultants’ contracts, including cost proposals and ICRs, may be subject to audits or reviews such as, but not limited to, an AGREEMENT Audit, an Incurred Cost Audit, an ICR Audit, or a certified public accountant (“CPA”) ICR Audit Workpaper Review. If selected for audit or review, the AGREEMENT, cost proposal and ICR and related workpapers, if applicable, will be reviewed to verify compliance with 48 CFR, Chapter 1, Part 31 and other related laws and regulations. In the instances of a CPA ICR Audit Workpaper Review it is CONSULTANT’s responsibility to ensure federal, state, or local government officials are allowed full access to the CPA’s workpapers including making copies as necessary. The AGREEMENT, cost proposal, and ICR shall be adjusted by CONSULTANT and approved by ALAMEDA CTC to conform to the audit or review recommendations. CONSULTANT agrees that individual terms of costs identified in the audit report shall be incorporated into the contract by this reference if directed by ALAMEDA CTC at its sole discretion. Refusal by CONSULTANT to incorporate audit or review recommendations, or to ensure that the federal, state, or local governments have access to CPA workpapers, will be considered a breach of contract terms and cause for termination of the AGREEMENT and disallowance of prior reimbursed costs.
Review Process A/E's Work Product will be reviewed by County under its applicable technical requirements and procedures, as follows:
ADB’s Review of Procurement Decisions 11. All contracts procured under international competitive bidding procedures and contracts for consulting services shall be subject to prior review by ADB, unless otherwise agreed between the Borrower and ADB and set forth in the Procurement Plan.
Review Procedure If the Plan Administrator denies part or all of the claim, the claimant shall have the opportunity for a full and fair review by the Plan Administrator of the denial, as follows:
Project Review A. Programmatic Allowances
1. If FEMA determines that the entire scope of an Undertaking conforms to one or more allowances in Appendix B of this Agreement, with determinations for Tier II Allowances being made by SOI-qualified staff, FEMA shall complete the Section 106 review process by documenting this determination in the project file, without SHPO review or notification.
2. If the Undertaking involves a National Historic Landmark (NHL), FEMA shall notify the SHPO, participating Tribe(s), and the NPS NHL Program Manager of the NPS Midwest Regional Office that the Undertaking conforms to one or more allowances. FEMA shall provide information about the proposed scope of work for the Undertaking and the allowance(s) enabling FEMA’s determination.
3. If FEMA determines any portion of an Undertaking’s scope of work does not conform to one or more allowances listed in Appendix B, FEMA shall conduct expedited or standard Section 106 review, as appropriate, for the entire Undertaking in accordance with Stipulation II.B, Expedited Review for Emergency Undertakings, or Stipulation II.C, Standard Project Review.
4. Allowances may be revised and new allowances may be added to this Agreement in accordance with Stipulation IV.A.3, Amendments.
B. Expedited Review for Emergency Undertakings
Review Procedures a. In consultation with the Illinois SHPO, NRCS shall identify those undertakings with little to no potential to affect historic properties and list those undertakings in Appendix A. Upon the determination by the CRS that a proposed undertaking is included in Appendix A, the NRCS is not required to consult further with the SHPO for that undertaking. A list of undertakings with the potential to affect historic properties comprises Appendix B.
b. The lists of undertakings provided in Appendices A and B may be modified through consultation and written agreement between the NRCS State Conservationist and the SHPO without requiring an amendment to this Illinois Prototype Agreement. The NRCS State Office will maintain the master list and will provide an updated list to all consulting parties with an explanation of the rationale for classifying the practices accordingly.
c. Undertakings identified in Appendix B shall require further review as outlined in Stipulation V.
a. The NRCS shall consult with the SHPO to define the undertaking’s APE, identify and evaluate historic properties that may be affected by the undertaking, assess potential effects, and identify strategies for resolving adverse effects prior to implementing the undertaking.
1) NRCS may provide its proposed APE, identification of historic properties and/or scope of identification efforts, and assessment of effects in a single transmittal to the SHPO, provided this documentation meets the substantive standards in 36 CFR Part 800.4-5 and 800.11.
2) The NRCS shall attempt to avoid adverse effects to historic properties whenever possible; where historic properties are located in the APE, NRCS shall describe how it proposes to modify, buffer, or move the undertaking to avoid adverse effects to historic properties.
3) Where the NRCS proposes a finding of "no historic properties affected" or "no adverse effect" to historic properties, the SHPO shall have 30 calendar days from receipt of this documented description and information to review it and provide comments. The NRCS shall take into account all timely comments.
i. If the SHPO, or another consulting party, disagrees with NRCS' findings and/or determination, it shall notify the NRCS within the thirty (30) calendar daytime period. The NRCS shall consult with the SHPO or other consulting party to attempt to resolve the disagreement. If the disagreement cannot be resolved through this consultation, NRCS shall follow the dispute resolution process in Stipulation VIII below.
ii. If the SHPO does not respond to the NRCS within the thirty (30) calendar day period and/or the NRCS receives no objections from other consulting parties, or if the SHPO concurs with the NRCS' determination and proposed actions to avoid adverse effects, the NRCS shall document the concurrence/lack of response within the review time noted above and may move forward with the undertaking.
4) Where a proposed undertaking may adversely affect historic properties, NRCS shall describe proposed measures to minimize or mitigate the adverse effects, and follow the process in 36 CFR Part 800.6, including consultation with other consulting patties and notification to the ACHP, to develop a Memorandum of Agreement to resolve the adverse effects. Should the proposed undertaking have the potential to adversely affect a known NHL, the NRCS shall, to the maximum extent possible, undertake such planning and actions that may be necessary to minimize harm to the NHL in accordance with 54 U.S.C. § 306107 of the NHPA and 36 CFR Part 800.6 and 800.10, including consultation with the ACHP and respective National Park Service, Regional National Historic Landmark Program Coordinator, to develop a Memorandum of Agreement.
d. NRCS will conduct archaeological surveys and will submit reports and other documentation to SHPO for review and comment. When no archaeological sites have been located by the archaeological survey, NRCS may proceed with the proposed undertaking. Reports for negative surveys must be submitted to SHPO on a quarterly basis. All positive and negative reports submitted to SHPO will be sent digitally for submission to the Inventory of Illinois Archaeological Sites (IAS) data file maintained by staff at the Illinois State Museum (ISM) housed under the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). The NRCS further agrees that access to specific site location data will be restricted to the CRS, the NRCS field personnel installing conservation practices adjacent to the cultural resource, and the landowner. Specific site location information for individual projects will be maintained in a secure cultural resources file kept in the field offices and will not be available to the public.
e. Curation: NRCS personnel will not collect artifactual material during routine field inspections. However, if a professional survey, evaluation testing, or mitigation is required, NRCS shall ensure that all materials and records resulting from cultural resources surveys or data recovery activities on federal or state property are curated by the Illinois State Museum. The NRCS shall ensure that all records resulting from cultural resource surveys or data recovery activities on private property are curated by the Illinois State Museum or an equivalent curation facility in accordance with 36 CFR Part 79. Subject to the landowner's permission, all objects resulting from cultural resources surveys or data recovery activities are maintained by the Illinois State Museum or equivalent research institution until their analysis is complete and they are returned to their owner(s). Although landowners will be encouraged to donate artifactual material, it is understood that objects collected on private land remain the property of the landowner(s) unless the landowner(s) donates the material to the Illinois State Museum or equivalent research institution. This excludes burial goods, as stipulated by XXXXXX.
Office of Inspector General Investigative Findings Expert Review In accordance with Senate Bill 799, Acts 2021, 87th Leg., R.S., if Texas Government Code, Section 531.102(m-1)(2) is applicable to this Contract, Contractor affirms that it possesses the necessary occupational licenses and experience.
Review Protocol A narrative description of how the Claims Review was conducted and what was evaluated.
Asset Representations Review Process Section 3.01 Asset Representations Review Notices and Identification of Review Receivables. On receipt of an Asset Representations Review Notice from the Seller according to Section 5.7 of the Receivables Purchase Agreement, the Asset Representations Reviewer will start an Asset Representations Review. The Servicer will provide the list of Review Receivables to the Asset Representations Reviewer promptly upon receipt of the Asset Representations Review Notice. The Asset Representations Reviewer will not be obligated to start, and will not start, an Asset Representations Review until an Asset Representations Review Notice and the related list of Review Receivables is received. The Asset Representations Reviewer is not obligated to verify (i) whether the conditions to the initiation of the Asset Representations Review and the issuance of an Asset Representations Review Notice described in Section 7.6 of the Indenture were satisfied or (ii) the accuracy or completeness of the list of Review Receivables provided by the Servicer.
Independent Review Contractor shall provide the Secretary of ADS/CIO an independent expert review of any Agency recommendation for any information technology activity when its total cost is $1,000,000.00 or greater or when CIO requires one. The State has identified two sub-categories for Independent Reviews, Standard and Complex. The State will identify in the SOW RFP the sub-category they are seeking. State shall not consider bids greater than the maximum value indicated below for this category. Standard Independent Review $25,000 Maximum Complex Independent Review $50,000 Maximum Per Vermont statute 3 V.S.A. 2222, The Secretary of Administration shall obtain independent expert review of any recommendation for any information technology initiated after July 1, 1996, as information technology activity is defined by subdivision (a) (10), when its total cost is $1,000,000 or greater or when required by the State Chief Information Officer. Documentation of this independent review shall be included when plans are submitted for review pursuant to subdivisions (a)(9) and (10) of this section. The independent review shall include: • An acquisition cost assessment • A technology architecture review • An implementation plan assessment • A cost analysis and model for benefit analysis • A procurement negotiation advisory services contract • An impact analysis on net operating costs for the agency carrying out the activity In addition, from time to time special reviews of the advisability and feasibility of certain types of IT strategies may be required. Following are Requirements and Capabilities for this Service: • Identify acquisition and lifecycle costs; • Assess wide area network (WAN) and/or local area network (LAN) impact; • Assess risks and/or review technical risk assessments of an IT project including security, data classification(s), subsystem designs, architectures, and computer systems in terms of their impact on costs, benefits, schedule and technical performance; • Assess, evaluate and critically review implementation plans, e.g.: • Adequacy of support for conversion and implementation activities • Adequacy of department and partner staff to provide Project Management • Adequacy of planned testing procedures • Acceptance/readiness of staff • Schedule soundness • Adequacy of training pre and post project • Assess proposed technical architecture to validate conformance to the State’s “strategic direction.” • Insure system use toolsets and strategies are consistent with State Chief Information Officer (CIO) policies, including security and digital records management; • Assess the architecture of the proposed hardware and software with regard to security and systems integration with other applications within the Department, and within the Agency, and existing or planned Enterprise Applications; • Perform cost and schedule risk assessments to support various alternatives to meet mission need, recommend alternative courses of action when one or more interdependent segment(s) or phase(s) experience a delay, and recommend opportunities for new technology insertions; • Assess the architecture of the proposed hardware and software with regard to the state of the art in this technology. • Assess a project’s backup/recovery strategy and the project’s disaster recovery plans for adequacy and conformance to State policy. • Evaluate the ability of a proposed solution to meet the needs for which the solution has been proposed, define the ability of the operational and user staff to integrate this solution into their work.
