Benchmarking Reviews Sample Clauses

Benchmarking Reviews. In accordance with the Framework Agreement, the SERVICE PROVIDER cannot increase its maximum margins which it applies to the IT Solutions. Nothing in this Contract shall prevent or restrict the SERVICE PROVIDER from reducing the maximum margins and the SERVICE PROVIDER shall ensure that any reduction is immediately passed on to the CUSTOMER.
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3See All (5)
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Benchmarking Reviews. (a) From time to time during the Term after the second anniversary of the Effective Date of this Amendment (but no more often than once in any 12 month period), ADVO may, subject to this Section, engage the services of an independent third party (a “Benchmarker”) to compare the quality and cost of the Services for some or all of the Services provided under the Agreement against the quality provided and cost charged by other service providers to other entities receiving comparable services in order to ensure that ADVO is obtaining pricing and levels of service that are competitive with market rate prices and service levels, given the nature, volume and type of Services being benchmarked (all of which will be described by the Parties in the benchmark agreement) (“Benchmarking”). The Benchmark will be designed to provide a representative comparison of the benchmarked Services provided by vendors across various industries. ADVO and IBM shall each pay 50% of the fees and expenses charged by the Benchmarker (which fees will not be contingency-based). ADVO and IBM expressly agree as of the Effective Date of this Amendment the following constitutes a list of acceptable organizations to perform a Benchmark: 1) [***], and 2) [***] and 3) Any other independent third-party agreed upon by the Parties from time to time during the term. (b) Any acceptable Benchmarker engaged by ADVO shall execute a non-disclosure agreement reasonably satisfactory to IBM and ADVO. IBM shall cooperate fully with ADVO [***] Information redacted pursuant to a confidential treatment request. An unredacted version has been filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission. and the Benchmarker, provide all reasonable data relating to the provision of the Services requested by the Benchmarker (but in no event shall IBM be required to provide IBM cost data or data relating to other IBM customers), provide reasonable access to the Benchmarker during such effort, all at IBM’s cost and expense. The Benchmarking shall be conducted so as not to unreasonably interfere with IBM’s ability to perform the Services in accordance with the Performance Standards. (c) ADVO will determine the scope of the study and the Services to be compared (the “Benchmarked Services”). The Benchmarker shall perform a price-based benchmark, comparing the charges per hour applicable to each Skill Group applicable to the Benchmarked Services, against the charges per hour applicable to resources used to perform similar...
Sample 1

Related to Benchmarking Reviews

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Annual Reviews Within thirty (30) days after each annual anniversary of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the Company shall review Employee’s performance of his duties pursuant to this Agreement and advise Employee of the results of that review; provided, however, that Company may elect to conduct a partial-year performance review in order to synchronize Employee’s annual review date with that of the Company’s other executives. In connection with each such review, the Company shall evaluate whether any increase in Employee’s compensation under Section 2, below, is appropriate.

  • 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.

  • Performance Reviews The Employee will be provided with a written performance appraisal at least once per year and said appraisal will be reviewed at which time all aspects of the assessment can be fully discussed.

  • Utilization Review NOTE: The Utilization Review process does not apply to Services that are not covered by Blue Shield because of a coverage determination made by Medicare. State law requires that health plans disclose to Subscribers and health plan providers the process used to authorize or deny health care services un- der the plan. Blue Shield has completed documen- tation of this process ("Utilization Review"), as required under Section 1363.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. To request a copy of the document describing this Utilization Review pro- cess, call the Customer Service Department at the telephone number indicated on your Identification Card.

  • 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.

  • Compensation Review The compensation of the Executive will be reviewed not less frequently than annually by the board of directors of the Company.

  • 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.

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