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.
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.
Consulting Services Except as ADB may otherwise agree, and except as set forth in the paragraph below, the Borrower shall apply quality- and cost-based selection for selecting and engaging Consulting Services.
Compensation for Consulting Services For each quarter (i.e., three-month period) that Executive provides consulting services to MediciNova pursuant to the option of MediciNova contained in Section 9 above, MediciNova shall pay Executive a sum equal to fifteen percent (15%) of Executive’s annual Base Compensation which shall be applicable at the time of Executive’s termination of employment with MediciNova (prorated for any period of less than a quarter). The parties expressly agree that when Executive is performing consulting services for MediciNova, Executive is acting as an independent contractor. Therefore, Executive shall be solely liable for Social Security and income taxes that result from Executive’s compensation as a consultant. In addition, Executive shall not be entitled to any other benefits including, without limitation, such group medical, life and disability insurance and other benefits as may be provided to employees and/or executives of MediciNova.
Consulting Firm If at the end of such periods contemplated by subsection 3 above, the parties do not mutually agree on a Corrective Action Plan, then either party may refer the Corrective Action Plan to a mutually agreed, nationally (U.S.) recognized consulting firm with applicable expertise in such matters (the “Consulting Firm”) and each party shall execute any reasonable engagement letter requested by such Consulting Firm. If the Purchasers and the Sellers fail to agree on the choice of a Consulting Firm within three (3) Business Days of either party electing to refer the Corrective Action Firm to a Consulting Firm, then the Sellers and Purchasers shall each select one nationally (U.S.) recognized consulting firm with applicable expertise in such matters and those two consulting firms will select a third nationally (U.S.) recognized consulting firm to be the Consulting Firm. The fees and expenses of any Consulting Firms selected pursuant to this Section II.A.4 shall be borne equally by the Sellers, on the one hand, and the Purchasers, on the other hand,.
Transition Review Period In accordance with Article 35, Layoff and Recall, the Employer may require an employee to complete a transition review period.
Procurement Related Complaints and Administrative Review 49.1 The procedures for making a Procurement-related Complaint are as specified in the TDS. 49.2 A request for administrative review shall be made in the form provided under contract forms.
Independent Engineer Contractor shall cooperate with Independent Engineer in the conduct of his or her duties in relation to the Project and the Work, including the duties listed in Attachment CC. No review, approval or disapproval by Independent Engineer shall serve to reduce or limit the liability of Contractor to Owner under this Agreement.
Data Protection Impact Assessment and Prior Consultation Processor shall provide reasonable assistance to the Company with any data protection impact assessments, and prior consultations with Supervising Authorities or other competent data privacy authorities, which Company reasonably considers to be required by article 35 or 36 of the GDPR or equivalent provisions of any other Data Protection Law, in each case solely in relation to Processing of Company Personal Data by, and taking into account the nature of the Processing and information available to, the Contracted Processors.
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.