CMS Gateway Reviews Sample Clauses

CMS Gateway Reviews. At this time, CMS is not requiring the eight Gateway Reviews, prescribed in CMS’s Exchange Life Cycle (ELC), referred to in the Collaborative Environment and Life Cycle Governance – Exchange Reference Architecture Supplement for MEMS development. The Commonwealth has been given permission from CMS to participate in a pilot CMS Gateway Review process for the MEMS solution. Therefore during the DDI period, the Vendor is also responsible for creating any artifact or documentation that is required by a CMS review, or for approval of the MEMS solution, that is not covered in a listed Deliverable. All additional documentation required should be included in the Project Work Plan. The awarded Vendor is expected to participate in all CMS Certification activities and provide documentation and artifacts as required for certification. The awarded Vendor must warrant that the system is operating as designed and all defects as evidenced during implementation have been addressed and are fully remediated to the State’s satisfaction before final payment is awarded. CHFS must apply for and receive system certification from CMS, by demonstrating that the system meets all requirements and performance standards before receiving full Federal matching funds. It is expected that Certification should be completed in stages throughout the DDI and Implementation phases with final certification completed based on CMS availability. CHFS intends to meet all CMS MECT requirements. The requirements found in the MECT checklists have been incorporated into the RFP requirements. The MEMS must meet all Federal requirements for certification as prescribed in the SMM, Part 11, and will be certified. The CMS Certification requirements and activities are described in Scope of Work, Certification.
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to CMS Gateway 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.

  • 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.

  • Systems Review The Construction Administrator will conduct reviews of proposed roof, structural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, conveyance, sprinkler, telecommunications, and life safety systems, and will consider initial cost, availability, impact on the overall program, comfort and convenience, long-term maintenance and operating costs, and impacts on schedule.

  • STATEWIDE ACHIEVEMENT TESTING When CONTRACTOR is an NPS, per implementation of Senate Bill 484, CONTRACTOR shall administer all Statewide assessments within the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (“CAASP”), Desired Results Developmental Profile (“DRDP”), California Alternative Assessment (“CAA”), achievement and abilities tests (using LEA-authorized assessment instruments), the Fitness Gram with the exception of the English Language Proficiency Assessments for California (“ELPAC”) to be completed by the LEA, and as appropriate to the student, and mandated by XXX xxxxxxxx to LEA and state and federal guidelines. CONTRACTOR is subject to the alternative accountability system developed pursuant to Education Code section 52052, in the same manner as public schools. Each LEA student placed with CONTRACTOR by the LEA shall be tested by qualified staff of CONTRACTOR in accordance with that accountability program. XXX shall provide test administration training to CONTRACTOR’S qualified staff. CONTRACTOR shall attend LEA test training and comply with completion of all coding requirements as required by XXX.

  • Quality Assurance Program An employee shall be entitled to leave of absence without loss of earnings from her or his regularly scheduled working hours for the purpose of writing examinations required by the College of Nurses of Ontario arising out of the Quality Assurance Program.

  • Program Review The Contracting Officer or other authorized government representative may hold semi- annual program review meetings. Such meetings will be held via telecom or video teleconferencing. However, the Government reserves the right to request a meeting in person. The meetings will include all BPA holders, representatives from prospective customer agencies, a combination of current and prospective customer agencies, or individual BPA holders. Some Federal Government Agencies and any approved State, Local and Tribal agencies may establish a central program management function. Such users may require their primary suppliers to participate in agency program review meetings on a periodic basis, at no additional cost to the Government.

  • Project Management Plan 1 3.4.1 Developer is responsible for all quality assurance and quality control 2 activities necessary to manage the Work, including the Utility Adjustment Work.

  • Statewide HUB Program Statewide Procurement Division Note: In order for State agencies and institutions of higher education (universities) to be credited for utilizing this business as a HUB, they must award payment under the Certificate/VID Number identified above. Agencies, universities and prime contractors are encouraged to verify the company’s HUB certification prior to issuing a notice of award by accessing the Internet (xxxxx://xxxxx.xxx.xxxxx.xx.xx/tpasscmblsearch/index.jsp) or by contacting the HUB Program at 000-000-0000 or toll-free in Texas at 0-000-000-0000.

  • Performance Review Where a performance review of an employee’s performance is carried out, the employee shall be given sufficient opportunity after the interview to read and review the performance review. Provision shall be made on the performance review form for an employee to sign it. The form shall provide for the employee’s signature in two (2) places, one (1) indicating that the employee has read and accepts the performance review, and the other indicating that the employee disagrees with the performance review. The employee shall sign in only one (1) of the places provided. No employee may initiate a grievance regarding the contents of a performance review unless the signature indicates disagreement. An employee shall, upon request, receive a copy of this performance review at the time of signing. An employee’s performance review shall not be changed after an employee has signed it, without the knowledge of the employee, and any such changes shall be subject to the grievance procedure of this Agreement. The employee may respond, in writing, to the performance review. Such response will be attached to the performance review.

  • Medical Review Officer The Medical Review Officer (MRO) shall be a licensed physician who has a knowledge of substance abuse disorders and has appropriate medical training to interpret and evaluate an individual’s positive test result together with the employee’s medical history and any other relevant biomedical information.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.