Capacity Review Sample Clauses

Capacity Review. (a) Within 20 Business Days after Aurizon Network delivers the Rail Study Report to the Study Funder under clause 7.4, All Study Funders and Aurizon Network, may jointly appoint, all parties acting reasonably, a suitably skilled and experienced consultant approved by Aurizon Network (acting reasonably) (Capacity Reviewer) to review the Capacity Model (Capacity Review). (b) The costs and expenses of a Capacity Reviewer and of the Capacity Review must be borne solely by All Study Funders. (c) Prior to undertaking a Capacity Review, the Study Funder must ensure that the Capacity Reviewer provides Aurizon Network with a signed undertaking from the Capacity Reviewer in favour of Aurizon Network in a form reasonably acceptable to Aurizon Network in relation to the use, disclosure and confidentiality of information.
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Capacity Review. (a) Within 20 Business Days after Aurizon Network delivers the Rail Study Report to the Study Funder under clause 7.4, All Study Funders may jointly appoint a suitability skilled and experienced consultant approved by Aurizon Network (acting reasonably) (Capacity Reviewer) to review the Capacity Model (Capacity Review). (b) The costs and expenses of a Capacity Reviewer and of the Capacity Review must be borne solely by All Study Funders. (c) Prior to undertaking a Capacity Review, the Study Funder must ensure that the Capacity Reviewer provides Aurizon Network with a signed undertaking from the Capacity Reviewer in favour of Aurizon Network in a form reasonably acceptable to the Aurizon Network in relation to the use, disclosure and confidentiality of information. (d) For a period of 20 Business Days after the date the Capacity Reviewer provides Aurizon Network with the undertaking referred to in clause 10.5(c), Aurizon Network must: (i) give the Capacity Reviewer reasonable access during normal business hours to the Capacity Model and all records of Aurizon Network relevant to the Capacity Review; and (ii) otherwise provide reasonable assistance and co-operation to the Capacity Review in relation to the conduct of the Capacity Review. (e) The Study Funder acknowledges that the undertaking referred to in clause 10.5(c) will, amongst other matters, require the Capacity Reviewer to keep confidential, and not disclose to the Study Funder, any information which, if disclosed to the Study Funder by Aurizon Network, would give rise to a breach a contractual or other obligation (including an equitable obligation of confidence) by Aurizon Network.
Capacity Review. 6.1. Where the Capacity Review Criteria set out in Annex 2 of this Schedule 2 are satisfied, the Provider must by notice in writing, request the Commissioner participate in a Capacity Review of the activity, to determine whether the Provider should be exempted from any financial adjustment which the Commissioner may otherwise be entitled to apply 6.2. Where the Capacity Review Criteria set out in Annex 2 are satisfied and it is not feasible for Commissioner or Provider to reduce demand, the Commissioner and Provider must agree on a revised activity plan and associated unit prices, before activity is delivered. 6.3. The Commissioner and Provider must collaboratively commence the Capacity Review within 10 Operational Days of receipt of the said notice. 6.4. The Capacity Review must consider: 6.4.1. any constraints on the physical capacity or resources, including staff of the Provider; and 6.4.2. whether the Provider is delivering the activity to the agreed performance targets. 6.5. The Commissioner shall, upon conclusion of the Capacity Review, report its findings and any recommendations to the Provider. 6.6. Where the findings of the Capacity Review are that there is a limit on the activity in excess of the levels set out in the Activity Plan that the Provider can reasonably undertake, the Provider and the Commissioner shall agree a plan to enable the Provider to provide all such activity as soon as is reasonably practicable.
Capacity Review. Minimum capacity will be at least 10 cases per month. For the avoidance of doubt this does not constitute a guarantee of minimum numbers of referrals but the minimum number of patients that the Provider is able to carry out cataract surgery on in any one separate calendar month.
Capacity Review. PESP has periodically implemented a capacity review survey. XXXX agrees to share the raw results from such surveys with the Union within one month after the survey is completed.

Related to Capacity Review

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Midterm Review The Recipient shall: (a) carry out jointly with the Association, no later than 24 months after the Effective Date, a midterm review to assess the status of Project implementation, as measured against the performance indicators referred to in Section II.A.1 (a) of Schedule 2 to this Agreement. Such review shall include an assessment of the following: (i) overall progress in Project implementation; (ii) results of monitoring and evaluation activities; (iii) annual work plans and budgets;

  • 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.

  • 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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

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