County and FDOT Review Sample Clauses

County and FDOT Review. The DEVELOPER agrees and recognizes that the COUNTY and FDOT shall not be held liable or responsible for any claims which may result from any actions or omissions of the DEVELOPER or engineers/contractors selected by the DEVELOPER, in which the COUNTY or FDOT participated, either through review or concurrence of their actions. In reviewing, approving, or rejecting any submissions or acts of the DEVELOPER or engineers/contractors selected by the DEVELOPER, the COUNTY and FDOT in no way assume or share any of the responsibility or liability of the DEVELOPER or its consultants, contractors, or registered professionals (architects and/or engineers) under this DA. All work covered under this DA shall be performed in accordance with good engineering practice, and all established design criteria and procedures shall be followed. The COUNTY and FDOT will review the submittals, although detailed checking will not necessarily be done. The DEVELOPER remains solely responsible for the work and is not relieved of that responsibility by review comments.
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
County and FDOT Review. The DEVELOPER agrees and recognizes that the COUNTY and FDOT shall not be held liable or responsible for any claims which may result from any actions or omissions of the DEVELOPER in which the COUNTY or FDOT participated, either through review or concurrence of the DEVELOPER'S actions. In reviewing, approving, or rejecting any submissions or acts of the DEVELOPER, the COUNTY and FDOT in no way assume or share any of the responsibility or liability of the DEVELOPER or its consultants, contractors, or registered professionals (architects and/or engineers) under this Restated D.A. (2011). All work covered under this Restated D.A. (2011) shall be performed in accordance with good engineering practice, and all established design criteria and procedures shall be followed. The COUNTY and FDOT will review the DEVELOPER'S submittals, although detailed checking will not necessarily be done. The DEVELOPER remains solely responsible for the work and is not relieved of that responsibility by review comments.
County and FDOT Review. The Developer agrees and recognizes that the County and FDOT shall not be held liable or responsible for any claims which may result from any actions or omissions of the Developer, or engineers or contractors selected by Developer, in which the County or FDOT participated, either through review or concurrence of their actions. In reviewing, approving, or rejecting any submissions or acts of the Developer, or engineers or contractors selected by Developer, the County and FDOT in no way assume or share any of the responsibility or liability of the Developer or its consultants, contractors, or registered professionals (architects and/or engineers) under this Agreement. All work covered under this Agreement shall be performed in accordance with good engineering practice, and all established design criteria and procedures shall be followed. The County and FDOT will review the Developer's submittals, although detailed checking will not necessarily be done. The Developer remains solely responsible for the work and is not relieved of that responsibility by review comments.

Related to County and FDOT 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.

  • Joint Review JADRC may, at the request of either party, review issues arising from the application of this Article.

  • Department Review If a mutually acceptable solution has not been reached during Step 1, and the employee intends to pursue the grievance formally, the employee shall submit the grievance in writing on the Employee Grievance Resolution Form to the Department Head with a copy to the Labor Relations Division not later than ten (10) working days after the supervisor’s written response. The Department Head shall consider the grievance and render a written decision within ten (10) working days of receipt of the formal grievance. The written decision shall include a clear and concise statement including the reason(s) for the decision. The Department Head may hold a meeting with the employee to achieve any of the following purposes: 1) to identify why the employee feels there is a grievance and facilitate communication and resolution; 2) to clearly identify issues and areas of agreement/disagreement; and 3) to have the parties present whatever available information/ documentation necessary to fully attempt to resolve the grievance. The employee may be accompanied by his/her shop xxxxxxx during the Department Review, provided that the xxxxxxx is in the same department as the employee, and has been identified by the employee on the Employee Grievance Resolution Form. If the department, in consultation with the Labor Relations Division, determines that the grievance is outside of the Department Head’s authority, or the grievance involves employees working in separate departments, then such grievance shall be submitted to Step 3.

  • Search, Enquiry, Investigation, Examination And Verification a. The Property is sold on an “as is where is basis” subject to all the necessary inspection, search (including but not limited to the status of title), enquiry (including but not limited to the terms of consent to transfer and/or assignment and outstanding charges), investigation, examination and verification of which the Purchaser is already advised to conduct prior to the auction and which the Purchaser warrants to the Assignee has been conducted by the Purchaser’s independent legal advisors at the time of execution of the Memorandum.

  • Inspections, Records, and Cooperation The Owner agrees to provide any information pertinent to this Contract which the Program Administrator, PJ, or HUD may reasonably require. Further, upon reasonable notice to the Owner, Owner agrees to provide access to the Program Administrator, PJ, HUD, or their representatives to the Unit, the property on which the Unit is located, and the Owner’s records (wherever located) relevant to this Contract and compliance with Program requirements. The Owner further agrees to provide access to such records to the Comptroller General of the United States (commonly known as the Government Accountability Office or “GAO”). The Owner must grant access to relevant computerized or other electronic records and to any computers, equipment, or facilities containing such records, and must provide any information or assistance needed to access the records. Such rights to inspect and review will not expire until five (5) years after the date of expiration or termination of this Contract.

  • County Review and Approval of Insurance Requirements The County reserves the right to review and adjust the Required Insurance provisions, conditioned upon County’s determination of changes in risk exposures.

  • 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.

  • Health and Safety Representative Meetings 13.1 A health and safety representative will be allowed reasonable paid time during working hours to attend occupational health and safety matters, including meetings affecting employees they represent, providing that the Representative informs their manager.

  • 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.

  • Agreement Review If, pursuant to section 25.10 (Review of Agreement) of the Bilateral Agreement, the Bilateral Agreement is reviewed after three or five years, or both, of the effective date of the Bilateral Agreement, and any changes to the Bilateral Agreement are required as a result, the Parties agree to amend the Agreement as necessary and in a manner that is consistent with such changes.

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