Benchmark Review. Upon completion of the Benchmark Process, Customer and Administrator shall review the Benchmark Results during the thirty (30) day period following delivery to Customer and Administrator of the Benchmark Results, and shall in good faith discuss any appropriate adjustments to the Service Levels or Charges under this Agreement, and identify and resolve any disagreements or variances from the Benchmark Results. The Benchmarker shall disclose: (i) if the Benchmark Results show that the relevant Charges are less than three percent (3%) higher than the normalized charges paid by the average of the Comparators in the first quartile of the Comparators that were the subject of such Benchmarking Process of the relevant sample; (ii) if the results show that the relevant Charges are between three percent (3%) and twenty percent (20%) greater than the normalized charges paid by the average of the Comparators in the first quartile of Comparators; or (iii) if the results show that the relevant Charges are more than twenty percent (20%) greater than the normalized charges paid by the average of the Comparators in the first quartile of Comparators. Based on such results, Administrator may elect to offer a proposal for Customer’s consideration for adjustments to the scope of Services, Service Levels and the relevant Charges. Any adjustments shall be made on a prospective basis only, beginning thirty (30) days after the Benchmark Process is completed.

Benchmark Review. 2.1. The Authority may, by written notice, require a Benchmark Review of the Services in accordance with the provisions of this Schedule 8. The first Benchmark Review may not take place until at least {18} months after the Commencement Date and each subsequent Benchmark Review must be at least {12} months after the previous one. 2.2. Subject to paragraph 2.4, if any Benchmark Review determines that the Charges do not represent Good Value (as defined in paragraph 3.2), then the Service Provider shall, in accordance with Schedule 7 (Change Control) and within {three months} of completion of the Benchmark Review, make a proposal for a changes to the Services, with Charges representing Good Value in accordance with the recommendations of the Benchmarker under paragraph 6.1(c), under which there will be a new Initial Term, and modifications may be made to the Services and the KPIs. 2.3. On receipt of the proposal from the Service Provider under paragraph 2.2 the Authority shall have the option to: a) accept the new proposal in which case the Parties shall record the change in accordance with Schedule 7; b) reject the proposal and elect to continue to receive the Services on the existing basis; or c) reject the proposal and terminate this Agreement on {three months'} notice in writing to the Service Provider without cost other than the Charges up to the date of such termination.} 2.4. If the Service Provider reasonably believes the Benchmarker has not complied with the provisions of this Schedule 8 in any material respects, or that the Benchmarker has made a manifest error in determining the results of the Benchmark Review, the Service Provider may dispute the Benchmark Report and the matter shall be dealt with in accordance with the Dispute Resolution Procedure.

Benchmark Review. Upon completion of the Benchmark Process, Customer and Supplier shall review the Benchmark Results during the thirty (30) day period following delivery to Customer and Supplier of the Benchmark Results, and shall in good faith discuss any appropriate adjustments to the applicable Service Level Agreement or Charges under this Agreement, and identify and resolve any disagreements or variances from the Benchmark Results. If the Benchmark Results show that the relevant Charges are less than five percent (5%) higher than the normalized charges paid by the average of the Comparators that were the subject of such Benchmarking Process of the relevant sample, then there will be no change in the Charges. If the results show that the relevant Charges are more than five percent (5%) greater than the normalized charges paid by the average of the Comparators, then the Parties shall meet and negotiate in good faith a plan to reduce the Charges so as to eliminate any such unfavorable variance (i.e., such that the relevant Charges for the Services are not more than five percent (5%) higher than the normalized charges paid by the average of the Comparators), with any such agreed-upon adjustment to the Charges to be made on a prospective basis only beginning thirty (30) days after the Benchmark Process is completed. The plan shall not call for changes to the Services included within the factors for which the Benchmarker adjusted Supplier’s Charges downward in making its comparison (e.g., Service Levels that were lower than those of the Comparators). If the Parties fail to agree upon a plan to reduce the Charges, or if Supplier fails to implement the agreed plan, in addition to any other rights and remedies available to Customer, Customer will have the right to terminate the Agreement, in whole or of the benchmarked Statement of Work, upon payment of the applicable Termination Charges described in the applicable Statements(s) of Work.

Benchmark Review. Review conducted by SCDHHS and its EQRO to determine a CICO’s readiness to proceed to the next transition phase of HCBS authority.

Benchmark Review. The Supply Chain Business Operations (SCBO) will send out the request, receive the information back from the supplier and review the information and follow up with department representative within five (5) business days XxxxxxXxxxxXxxxxxxxxxx@xxxx.xxx

Related to Benchmark Review

Peer Review Dental Group, after consultation with the Joint ----------- Operations Committee, shall implement, regularly review, modify as necessary or appropriate and obtain the commitment of Providers to actively participate in peer review procedures for Providers. Dental Group shall assist Manager in the production of periodic reports describing the results of such procedures. Dental Group shall provide Manager with prompt notice of any information that raises a reasonable risk to the health and safety of Group Patients or Beneficiaries. In any event, after consultation with the Joint Operations Committee, Dental Group shall take such action as may be reasonably warranted under the facts and circumstances.
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.
Benchmarking 19.1 The Parties shall comply with the provisions of Framework Schedule 12 (Continuous Improvement and Benchmarking) in relation to the benchmarking of any or all of the Goods and/or Services.
Design Review ‌ (a) Where so specified in Schedule A (Scope of Goods and Services) or as otherwise instructed by the City, the Supplier shall submit design-related Documentation for review by the City, and shall not proceed with work on the basis of such design Documentation until the City’s approval of such Documentation has been received in writing. (b) None of: (i) the submission of Documentation to the City by the Supplier; (ii) its examination by or on behalf of the City; or (iii) the making of any comment thereon (including any approval thereof) shall in any way relieve the Supplier of any of its obligations under this Agreement or of its duty to take reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy and correctness of such Documentation, and its suitability to the matter to which it relates.
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.
Benchmark Replacement Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein or in any other Loan Document, if a Benchmark Transition Event and its related Benchmark Replacement Date have occurred prior any setting of the then-current Benchmark, then (x) if a Benchmark Replacement is determined in accordance with clause (a) of the definition of “Benchmark Replacement” for such Benchmark Replacement Date, such Benchmark Replacement will replace such Benchmark for all purposes hereunder and under any Loan Document in respect of such Benchmark setting and subsequent Benchmark settings without any amendment to, or further action or consent of any other party to, this Agreement or any other Loan Document and (y) if a Benchmark Replacement is determined in accordance with clause (b) of the definition of “Benchmark Replacement” for such Benchmark Replacement Date, such Benchmark Replacement will replace such Benchmark for all purposes hereunder and under any Loan Document in respect of any Benchmark setting at or after 5:00 p.m. (New York City time) on the fifth (5th) Business Day after the date notice of such Benchmark Replacement is provided to the Lenders without any amendment to, or further action or consent of any other party to, this Agreement or any other Loan Document so long as the Administrative Agent has not received, by such time, written notice of objection to such Benchmark Replacement from Lenders comprising the Required Lenders. If the Benchmark Replacement is Daily Simple SOFR, all interest payments will be payable on a quarterly basis.
Periodic Review The General Counsel shall periodically review the Procurement Integrity Procedures with OSC personnel in order to ascertain potential areas of exposure to improper influence and to adopt desirable revisions for more effective avoidance of improper influences.
Exclusion Review Notwithstanding any provision of Title 42 of the United States Code or Title 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations, the only issues in a proceeding for exclusion based on a material breach of this CIA shall be whether Good Shepherd was in material breach of this CIA and, if so, whether: a. Good Shepherd cured such breach within 30 days of its receipt of the Notice of Material Breach; or b. the alleged material breach could not have been cured within the 30-day period, but that, during the 30-day period following Good Shepherd’s receipt of the Notice of Material Breach: (i) Good Shepherd had begun to take action to cure the material breach; (ii) Good Shepherd pursued such action with due diligence; and (iii) Good Shepherd provided to OIG a reasonable timetable for curing the material breach. For purposes of the exclusion herein, exclusion shall take effect only after an ALJ decision favorable to OIG, or, if the ALJ rules for Good Shepherd, only after a DAB decision in favor of OIG. Good Shepherd’s election of its contractual right to appeal to the DAB shall not abrogate OIG’s authority to exclude Good Shepherd upon the issuance of an ALJ’s decision in favor of OIG. If the ALJ sustains the determination of OIG and determines that exclusion is authorized, such exclusion shall take effect 20 days after the ALJ issues such a decision, notwithstanding that Good Shepherd may request review of the ALJ decision by the DAB. If the DAB finds in favor of OIG after an ALJ decision adverse to OIG, the exclusion shall take effect 20 days after the DAB decision. Good Shepherd shall waive its right to any notice of such an exclusion if a decision upholding the exclusion is rendered by the ALJ or DAB. If the DAB finds in favor of Good Shepherd, Good Shepherd shall be reinstated effective on the date of the original exclusion.
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.
Benchmarks 2.1 Benchmarks set forth the overall scope and level of responsibility and the typical duties by which jobs or positions are distinguished and classified under the Classification System. 2.2 Benchmarks also set forth the range or level of qualifications appropriate for a position classified to the level of the benchmark(s). 2.3 Benchmarks do not describe jobs or positions. They are used to classify a wide diversity of jobs by identifying the scope and level of responsibilities.

Benchmark Review Sample Clauses

Filter & Search

Related Clauses

Parent Clauses

Related to Benchmark Review