Authority’s Review Sample Clauses

Authority’s Review. 859 If the Authority does not review and comment on, and approve or disapprove of the modification to the 860 scope of Services within ninety (90) Calendar Days of receiving the Contractor’s proposal, the proposal 861 shall be deemed disapproved. The Authority and Contractor may mutually agree to extend the time 862 period for review due to the complexity of the scope of Service modification under consideration, the 863 time needed for the review or approval, or for other reasonable reasons. 864 The Authority may request the assistance of an independent third party to review the proposal. The 865 Contractor shall pay the reasonable costs of that review if the modification to the scope of Services is 866 initiated by the Contractor and such review is reasonably necessary, as determined by the Authority 867 Contract Manager. The Authority shall pay those costs if the modification to the scope of Services is 868 initiated by the Authority. The cost of that review shall be estimated in advance of the work, and 869 provided to the Contractor for comment and agreement to pay. Contractor’s refusal to pay the 870 reasonable cost of review of a Contractor-initiated proposal shall be grounds for Authority rejection of 871 that proposal. 872 Contractor shall promptly provide operating and business Records requested by the Authority that are 873 reasonably required to verify the reasonableness and accuracy of the impacts associated with a 874 modification to the scope of Services. Contractor shall fully cooperate with the Authority’s request and 875 provide Authority and its agent(s) copies of or access to Contractor’s Records.
Sample 1Sample 2
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Authority’s Review. Within fifteen days of receipt of a properly submitted Payment Application, Authority's Representative shall review the Payment Application to determine whether such amounts are properly due. Approval of all or any part of an Payment Application may be withheld and all or part of a previous payment may be nullified and that amount withheld from a current payment on account of any of the following: .1 Defective Work not remedied. .2 Failure of Design Builder to make timely payments due Subcontractors.
Sample 1
Authority’s Review. Authority does not have, and by this Agreement expressly disclaims, the right to or duty for any review of the Plans for the purpose of determining compliance with building codes, safety features or standards or for the purpose of determining or approving engineering or structural design, sufficiency or integrity. Authority’s approval of a direction or request to change the plans, specifications or drawings submitted by Developer is not and shall not be a review or approval of the quality, adequacy or suitability of such plans, specifications or drawings, nor of the labor, materials, services or equipment to be furnished or supplied in connection therewith. Any change or alteration in any construction document pursuant
Sample 1
Authority’s Review. Within ninety (90) Working Days of receiving the Contractor's Proposal, the Authority shall review and comment on, and approve or disapprove such Extraordinary Review request. For a Contractor-initiated Proposal, if the Authority does not respond within such time, its approval shall be deemed denied unless the Authority, at its sole discretion, extends the time periods for review due to complexity of the specific Extraordinary Review request, the time needed for review or approval, or for other reasonable reasons.
Sample 1
Authority’s Review. Within sixty (60) Days of receiving the Contractor's proposal, the Authority shall review and comment on, and approve or disapprove such Extraordinary Review request. The Authority and Contractor may mutually agree to extend the time periods for review due to complexity of the specific Extraordinary Review request, the time needed for review or approval, or for other reasonable reasons. The Authority may request the assistance of an independent third party to review the proposal. The first $10,000 of reasonable costs shall be paid by the Contractor if the Extraordinary Review is initiated by the Contractor or by the Authority if the Extraordinary Review is initiated by Authority. Any additional costs above $10,000 shall be shared equally by Authority and Contractor. The cost of such review shall be estimated in advance of the work, and provided to the Contractor for comment and agreement to pay. Contractor refusal to pay its share of the reasonable cost of review of a Contractor-initiated proposal shall be grounds for Authority rejection of such proposal. The Authority may request from the Contractor Operating and business records reasonably required to verify the reasonableness and accuracy of the impacts associated with an Extraordinary Review. Contractor shall fully cooperate with the Authority’s request and provide Authority and its agent(s) copies of or access to Contractor’s records.
Sample 1
Authority’s Review. If the Authority does not review and comment on, and approve or 857 disapprove of the modification to the scope of services within ninety (90) Days of receiving the 858 Contractor’s proposal, the proposal will be deemed disapproved. The Authority and Contractor 859 may mutually agree to extend the time period for review due to the complexity of the scope of 860 service modification under consideration, the time needed for the review or approval, or for other 861 reasonable reasons. 862 863 The Authority may request the assistance of an independent third party to review the proposal. 864 Contractor will pay the reasonable costs of that review if the modification to the scope of services 865 is initiated by the Contractor. Authority will pay those costs if the modification to the scope of 866 services is initiated by the Authority. The cost of that review will be estimated in advance of the 17 May 2019 SBWMA/BFI Disposal Services Agreement 867 work and provided to the Contractor for comment and agreement to pay. Contractor’s refusal to 868 pay the reasonable cost of review of a Contractor-initiated proposal will be grounds for Authority 869 rejection of that proposal. 870 871 Contractor will promptly provide operating and business records requested by the Authority that 872 are reasonably required to verify the reasonableness and accuracy of the impacts associated with 873 a modification to the scope of services. Contractor will fully cooperate with the Authority’s 874 request and provide Authority and its agent(s) copies of or access to Contractor’s records. 875 876 If Contractor and Authority cannot agree on terms and conditions of services within thirty (30) 877 Days of the end of the Authority’s review period described in this subsection, the Authority may 878 permit Persons other than Contractor to provide those services at a location other than the 879 Landfill. 880
Sample 1
Authority’s Review. A. Design Review 1. The WMATA Representative is responsible for receiving all Project design submittals from the Design-Builder and distributing to the appropriate Authority reviewers. 2. For each design submittal, the Authority will provide written review comments on Design Review Forms or marked up drawings to the Design-Builder for incorporation into the design documents. Submittals will be reviewed in accordance with the specified design submittal review schedule. 3. The Authority will review the Design-Builder’s responses to comments within 5 Days after receiving the responses. If, in the opinion of the Authority, comments are not resolved, the Authority will arrange a Design Review Meeting with the Design-Builder to discuss and resolve all unresolved comment responses within 21 Days of receiving the responses. B. The WMATA Representative shall receive construction submittals from the Design-Builder and will distribute them within the Authority for review. 1. Shop Drawings, samples, and other submission reviews by the Authority will not include checking of dimensions for potential conflicts. 2. Approval by the Authority of a specific item will not indicate Approval of an assembly of which the item is a component. 3. Incomplete submittals will be returned for resubmission without review. C. Submittals that are reviewed by the Authority will be returned to the Design-Builder with one of the following approval codes: 1. Approved Without Condition or Comment. 2. Approved as Noted, Resubmittal Not Required. The Design-Builder shall comply with changes, conditions, or comments on the submittal.
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Authority’s Review

  • Log Reviews All systems processing and/or storing PHI COUNTY discloses to 11 CONTRACTOR or CONTRACTOR creates, receives, maintains, or transmits on behalf of COUNTY 12 must have a routine procedure in place to review system logs for unauthorized access.

  • BUSINESS REVIEWS Supplier must perform a minimum of one business review with Sourcewell per contract year. The business review will cover sales to Participating Entities, pricing and contract terms, administrative fees, sales data reports, performance issues, supply issues, customer issues, and any other necessary information.

  • Program Review The State ECEAP Office will conduct a review of each contractor’s compliance with the ECEAP Contract and ECEAP Performance Standards every four years. The review will involve ECEAP staff and parents. After the Program Review, the State ECEAP Office will provide the contractor with a Program Review report. The contractor must submit an ECEAP Corrective Action Plan for non-compliance with ECEAP Performance Standards. The Plan must be approved by the State ECEAP Office.

  • Developer Authority Consistent with Good Utility Practice and this Agreement, the Developer may take whatever actions or inactions with regard to the Large Generating Facility or the Developer Attachment Facilities during an Emergency State in order to (i) preserve public health and safety, (ii) preserve the reliability of the Large Generating Facility or the Developer Attachment Facilities, (iii) limit or prevent damage, and (iv) expedite restoration of service. Developer shall use Reasonable Efforts to minimize the effect of such actions or inactions on the New York State Transmission System and the Connecting Transmission Owner’s Attachment Facilities. NYISO and Connecting Transmission Owner shall use Reasonable Efforts to assist Developer in such actions.

  • Review The practitioner reviews the treatment plan and discusses, when appropriate, case circumstances and management options with the attending (or referring) physician. The reviewer consults with the requesting physician when more clarity is needed to make an informed coverage decision. The reviewer may consult with board certified physicians from appropriate specialty areas to assist in making determinations of coverage and/or appropriateness. All such consultations will be documented in the review text. If the reviewer determines that the admission, continued stay or service requested is not a covered service, a notice of non-coverage is issued. Only a physician, behavioral health practitioner (such as a psychiatrist, doctoral-level clinical psychologist, certified addiction medicine specialist), dentist or pharmacist who has the clinical expertise appropriate to the request under review with an unrestricted license may deny coverage based on medical necessity.

  • Grievance Commissioner System This is to confirm the discussion of the parties during collective bargaining that they are committed to encouraging early discussion and resolution of labour relations issues at the local level and seek to resolve grievances in a timely and cost efficient manner. To that end, this is to confirm that pursuant to Article 8, the parties agree that the Employer and Union at individual nursing homes may agree to utilize the following process in order to resolve a particular grievance through the utilization of a joint mediation-arbitration procedure:

  • Reviews (a) During the term of this Agreement and for 7 years after the term of this Agreement, the HSP agrees that the Funder or its authorized representatives may conduct a Review of the HSP to confirm the HSP’s fulfillment of its obligations under this Agreement. For these purposes the Funder or its authorized representatives may, upon 24 hours’ Notice to the HSP and during normal business hours enter the HSP’s premises to: inspect and copy any financial records, invoices and other finance- related documents, other than personal health information as defined in the Enabling Legislation, in the possession or under the control of the HSP which relate to the Funding or otherwise to the Services; and inspect and copy non-financial records, other than personal health information as defined in the Enabling Legislation, in the possession or under the control of the HSP which relate to the Funding, the Services or otherwise to the performance of the HSP under this Agreement. (b) The cost of any Review will be borne by the HSP if the Review: (1) was made necessary because the HSP did not comply with a requirement under the Enabling Legislation or this Agreement; or (2) indicates that the HSP has not fulfilled its obligations under this Agreement, including its obligations under Applicable Law and Applicable Policy. (c) To assist in respect of the rights set out in (a) above, the HSP shall disclose any information requested by the Funder or its authorized representatives and shall do so in a form requested by the Funder or its authorized representatives. (d) The HSP may not commence a proceeding for damages or otherwise against any person with respect to any act done or omitted to be done, any conclusion reached or report submitted that is done in good faith in respect of a Review.

  • City’s Manager’s Authority To the extent, if any, the City has the power to suspend or terminate this contract or the Contractor’s services under this contract, that power may be exercised by City Manager or a deputy or assistant City Manager without City Council action.

  • Claims Review The IRO shall perform the Claims Review annually to cover each of the five Reporting Periods. The IRO shall perform all components of each Claims Review.

  • 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.

Draft better contracts in just 5 minutes Get the weekly Law Insider newsletter packed with expert videos, webinars, ebooks, and more!