Biddability Reviews Sample Clauses

Biddability Reviews. CM@Risk will check and cross-reference complementary Drawings and Specifications, and evaluate, among other things, whether: (a) Drawings and Specifications are sufficiently clear and detailed to minimize ambiguity and to reduce scope of interpretation discrepancies; (b) named materials and equipment are commercially available and are performing well in similar installations; (c) design provides as-built Data; (d) Specifications include alternatives in the event a requirement cannot be met in the field; and (e) Project is likely to be subject to differing site conditions considering the Data on subsurface conditions, physical conditions of existing surface and subsurface facilities and physical conditions of underground utilities made available by the design or resulting from conditions inherent to work similar to the Work.
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Biddability Reviews. A. The CM/GC will check cross-references and complementary Drawings and sections within the Specifications, and in general evaluate whether (a) the Drawings and Specifications are sufficiently clear and detailed to minimize ambiguity and to reduce scope interpretation discrepancies, (b) named materials and equipment are commercially available and are performing well or otherwise, in similar installations, (c) specifications include alternatives in the event a requirement cannot be met in the field, and (d) in its professional opinion, the Project is likely to be subject to differing site conditions. B. The results of the reviews will be provided to the CITY in formal, written reports clearly identifying all discovered discrepancies and inconsistencies in the Drawings and Specifications with notations and recommendations made on the Drawings, Specifications and other documents. If requested by the CITY, the CM/GC will meet with the CITY and Project Designer to discuss any findings and review reports. C. The CM/GC’s reviews will be from a contractor's perspective, and though it will serve to reduce the number of Requests for Information (RFIs) and changes during the construction phase, responsibility for the Drawings and Specifications will remain with the Project Designer and not the CM/GC.
Biddability Reviews. The XXXX shall conduct biddability reviews of the Construction Documents in accordance with the XXXX’x QA/QC Plan. The XXXX will check cross- references and complementary Drawings and sections within the Specifications, and in general ensure (a) the Drawings and Specifications are sufficiently clear and detailed to minimize ambiguity and to reduce scope interpretation discrepancies, (b) named materials and equipment are commercially available and are performing well or otherwise, in similar installations, and (c) Specifications include alternatives in the event a requirement cannot be met in the field. The XXXX shall identify and rectify all discrepancies and inconsistencies in the Construction Documents.

Related to Biddability Reviews

  • Constructability Review Prepare detailed interdisciplinary constructability review within Fourteen (14) days of receipt of the plans from the District that: 10.1.2.1.6.1 Ensures construction documents are well coordinated and reviewed for errors; 10.1.2.1.6.2 Identifies to the extent known, construction deficiencies and areas of concern; 10.1.2.1.6.3 Back-checks design drawings for inclusion of modifications; and 10.1.2.1.6.4 Provides the District with written confirmation that: 10.1.2.1.6.4.1 Requirements noted in the design documents prepared for the Project are consistent with and conform to the District's Project requirements and design standards. 10.1.2.1.6.4.2 Various components have been coordinated and are consistent with each other so as to minimize conflicts within or between components of the design documents.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • System Security Review All systems processing and/or storing County PHI or PI must have at least an annual system risk assessment/security review which provides assurance that administrative, physical, and technical controls are functioning effectively and providing adequate levels of protection. Reviews should include vulnerability scanning tools.

  • 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.

  • 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

  • Evaluation Criteria 5.2.1. The responses will be evaluated based on the following: (edit evaluation criteria below as appropriate for your project)

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

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