Basis of the review. On the Review Date the Principal Rent shall be reviewed to the higher of the Principal Rent reserved before the Review Date and the Market Rent.
Basis of the review Sample Clauses
Related to Basis of the review
Claims Review Methodology a. C laims Review Population. A description of the Population subject to the Quarterly Claims Review.
Post Review With respect to each contract not governed by paragraph 2 of this Part, the procedures set forth in paragraph 4 of Appendix 1 to the Guidelines shall apply.
Project Objective The Parties will jointly develop the Project Objective based upon the Owner’s requirements, goals, and constraints. The Project Objective is comprised of the Base Program, Target Cost, Added Value Incentive Items, Implementation Documents, and Contract Time, and any other objectives agreed by the Parties. The Project Objective establishes the Project requirements and standards for measuring the Project’s success. The various components of the Project Objective may be incorporated into the Agreement through Amendment upon recommendation of the Project Management Team and approval of the Senior Management Team.
INDEPENDENT PRICE DETERMINATION 6.1 By signing and submitting this bid, the Bidder certifies that the prices in this bid have been arrived at independently, without consultation, communication or agreement, for the purpose of restricting competition, as to any matter relating to such prices with any other Bidder or with any competitor; unless otherwise required by law, the prices which have been quoted in this bid have not been knowingly disclosed by the Bidder prior to bid opening directly or indirectly to any other Bidder or to any competitor; no attempt has been made, or will be made, by the Bidder to induce any person or firm to submit, or not to submit, a bid for the purpose of restricting competition.
Classification Review Grand Valley State University and APSS shall jointly determine the review assessment survey instrument to be used at Grand Valley State University. The parties shall maintain a Joint Review Committee, composed of three members appointed by the Human Resources Office and three members appointed by the Alliance. Bargaining unit members questioning the assigned classification of their position may do so by using the following procedure: A. Meet with the Employment Manager in the Human Resources Office to discuss the review process, changes in their job responsibilities, duties and any other process questions they may have. B. PSS member will fill out the assessment survey and email to the Employment Manager along with any other documentation that supports the request. The survey instrument will be jointly administered/reviewed by the Assessment Team (consisting of the Employment Manager and an Alliance member of the Joint Review Committee). A meeting with the PSS is scheduled for a verbal review of the documentation and to answer any questions the Assessment Team may have. The supervisor or appointing officer is encouraged to attend. If the Assessment Team believes a job site visit is warranted as a result of the survey information, they will schedule a time for a joint visit. C. The completed survey instrument shall be coded. The survey results, as determined by the Assessment Team, shall be shared with the survey participant. D. After receiving the survey results, the survey participant, if they so choose shall have the opportunity to meet with the Joint Review Committee for additional input and appeal. Any additional information shall be reviewed by the Committee, and where the Committee feels it is necessary, the survey will be recoded, in a manner mutually agreeable. E. The Joint Review Committee shall then deliberate as to the merit of the upgrade requested by the participant. If the Committee is not able to reach a consensus, the University will decide on the classification. The Alliance may appeal that decision through the arbitration procedure of the collective bargaining agreement. Professional Support Staff members may engage in the review process no more than once per year. Supervisors questioning the assigned classification of a staff member’s position shall provide supporting rationale, complete an assessment survey instrument and discuss with Manager of Employment. The Manager of Employment shall notify an Alliance Representative that a Supervisor is reviewing a staff member’s classification. The review and outcome shall be completed within 45 working days unless the Alliance Representative and Manager of Employment mutually agreed to an extension. The Alliance will be provided with the scored instrument and any supporting rationale.
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.
Program Objectives Implement a rigorous constructability program following The University of Texas System, Office of Facilities Planning and Construction Constructability Manual. Identify and document project cost and schedule savings (targeted costs are 5% of construction costs). Clarification of project goals, objectives.
Periodic Reviews During January of each year during the term hereof, the Board of Directors of the Company shall review Executive's Annual Salary, bonus, stock options, and additional benefits then being provided to Executive. Following each such review, the Company may in its discretion increase the Annual Salary, bonus, stock options, and benefits; however, the Company shall not decrease such items during the period Executive serves as an employee of the Company. Prior to November 30th of each year during the term hereof, the Board of Directors of the Company shall communicate in writing the results of such review to Executive.
Technical Objections to Grievances It is the intent of both Parties of this Agreement that no grievance shall be defeated merely because of a technical error, other than time limitations in processing the grievance through the grievance procedure. To this end, an arbitration board shall have the power to allow all necessary amendments to the grievance and the power to waive formal procedural irregularities in the processing of a grievance, in order to determine the real matter in dispute and to render a decision according to equitable principles and the justice of the case.
Working Groups From time to time, a Joint Committee may establish and delegate duties to sub-committees or directed teams (each, a “Working Group”) on an “as-needed” basis to oversee particular projects or activities (e.g., joint project team, joint finance group, or joint intellectual property group). Each such Working Group shall be constituted and shall operate as the Joint Committee determines; provided, that each Working Group shall have equal representation from each Party, unless otherwise mutually agreed. Working Groups may be established on an ad hoc basis for purposes of a specific project or on such other basis as the Joint Committee may determine. Each Working Group and its activities shall be subject to the oversight, review and approval of, and shall report to, the Joint Committee that formed said Working Group. In no event shall the authority of the Working Group exceed that specified for the Joint Committee that formed the Working Group. All decisions of a Working Group shall be by unanimous agreement. Any disagreement between the designees of AbbVie and Ablynx on a Working Group shall be referred to the Joint Committee that formed the Working Group for resolution.
