Decision Inputs Sample Clauses

Decision Inputs. The Study objectives will be met through characterizing (i.e., visual, field measurements, etc.) and collecting additional surface soil, subsurface soil, groundwater, sediment and/or water column samples for submittal for analysis of COPCs. A subset of sediment samples may be submitted to a toxicology laboratory to correlate chemical concentrations with adverse affects on the benthic community. In addition, a subset of samples may also be evaluated for geotechnical parameters including Atterberg Limits, grain size, organic content, specific gravity, and moisture content. The Multi-Site FSP and the SSWPs will provide sample collection devices, types, frequencies, and analytical methods presented in this Multi-Site QAPP. An example sampling and analysis summary is provided in Table 5. The specific analyses to be performed will be determined on a site-by-site basis in the SSWPs. Analytical data will have sufficiently low PQLs, (Tables 1 through 4) to correspond with risk assessment data needs and anticipated project specific action levels. The PQLs presented for MGP residual parameters are based on the lowest values assumed to be needed for performing a risk assessment or comparing to regulatory standards/guidance. The PQLs will be determined on a site-by-site basis in the SSWPs. Additional parameters may also be identified for analysis in the SSWPs. All data will be verified and select data will be validated by a data validator that is independent of the analytical laboratory developing the data. Existing data, as described in the Records on File (Appendix C) and summarized in Site-Specific Completion Reports will be used to identify areas in which no additional investigation is required. The existing data may also be used to inform additional investigations, if necessary, and may be used to compare previous sample results with the current conditions.
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Decision Inputs

  • Decision Making The JDC shall make decisions unanimously, with each Party’s representatives collectively having one (1) vote and at least one (1) representative from each Party participating in such decision. In the event the JDC determines that it cannot reach an agreement regarding a decision within the JDC’s authority, then, within *** Business Days after such determination: (a) for any matter that is not a Critical Issue *** shall have the final decision making authority on such matter; and (b) for any matter that is a Critical Issue, the matter shall be referred to FivePrime’s Chief Executive Officer (or designee) and HGS’ Chief Executive Officer (or designee) for resolution. If such executives cannot resolve the matter within *** Business Days, then the Chief Executive Officer of *** (or designee) shall have the final decision making authority on such matter. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Development Plan shall not be amended, without FivePrime’s prior written approval (which approval may be withheld in FivePrime’s sole discretion), to: (i) increase or materially change the nature of FivePrime-Conducted Trials or Other FivePrime-Conducted Activities; or (ii) require FivePrime to continue any FivePrime-Conducted Trial if FivePrime, in its reasonable judgment, decides not to continue such trial for any business, scientific, safety, efficacy, enrollment or ethical reason, provided that, in the event FivePrime so decides to discontinue such trial, HGS shall have no further obligation to reimburse FivePrime under Section 4.2(d) except with respect to costs *** INDICATES MATERIAL THAT WAS OMITTED AND FOR WHICH CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT WAS REQUESTED. ALL SUCH OMITTED MATERIAL WAS FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO RULE 406 PROMULGATED UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, AS AMENDED. already incurred by FivePrime prior to such discontinuation and any and all standard close out costs incurred thereafter, and HGS shall have the right to continue such trial by itself at its expense. When *** make a final determination under this Section 3.4, that final determination must be consistent with the terms of this Agreement.

  • Standard of Review The Parties acknowledge and agree that the standard of review for any avoidance, breach, rejection, termination or other cessation of performance of or changes to any portion of this integrated, non-severable Agreement (as described in Section 22) over which FERC has jurisdiction, whether proposed by Seller, by Buyer, by a non-party of, by FERC acting sua sponte shall be the “public interest” standard of review set forth in United Gas Pipe Line Co. v.

  • Decision The decision by the arbitrator shall be rendered within thirty (30) days after the close of the hearing. Decisions by the arbitrator in cases properly before him shall be final and binding upon the parties, subject, however, to the limitations of arbitration decisions as provided by the P.E.L.R.A.

  • Panel Listing and number of Members that Network Providers have agreed to provide services for in accordance with this Contract.

  • 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.

  • Decisions The General Assembly shall be free to act on its own initiative to formulate proposals and take decisions in accordance with the procedures set out herein. In addition, all proposals made by the Executive Board shall also be considered and decided upon by the General Assembly. The following decisions shall be taken by the General Assembly: Content, finances and intellectual property rights - Proposals for changes to Annexes 1 and 2 of the Grant Agreement to be agreed by the Funding Authority - Changes to the Consortium Plan - Modifications to Attachment 1 (Background Included) - Additions to Attachment 3 (List of Third Parties for simplified transfer according to Section 8.2.2) - Additions to Attachment 4 (Identified Affiliated Entities)] Evolution of the consortium - Entry of a new Party to the consortium and approval of the settlement on the conditions of the accession of such a new Party - Withdrawal of a Party from the consortium and the approval of the settlement on the conditions of the withdrawal - Identification of a breach by a Party of its obligations under this Consortium Agreement or the Grant Agreement - Declaration of a Party to be a Defaulting Party The identification of the breach is a first step in accordance with the procedure in 4.2 before declaring a Party as a Defaulting Party. - Remedies to be performed by a Defaulting Party - Termination of a Defaulting Party’s participation in the consortium and measures relating thereto - Proposal to the Funding Authority for a change of the Coordinator - Proposal to the Funding Authority for suspension of all or part of the Project - Proposal to the Funding Authority for termination of the Project and the Consortium Agreement Appointments On the basis of the Grant Agreement, the appointment if necessary of: - Executive Board Members

  • 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.

  • Departmental Review If informal resolution of the problem through conciliation and negotiation cannot be effected, an aggrieved person may file a formal complaint with the departmental affirmative action coordinator or other designated official. Such a complaint must be filed on a form provided for this purpose and within five working days after the attempted resolution of the problem by the equal employment opportunity counselor or within twenty-five (25) working days after the date of the alleged discriminatory action, whichever shall first occur. The affirmative action coordinator will decide whether the complaint falls within the jurisdiction of the procedure and accept or reject it. Upon acceptance of the complaint, the affirmative action coordinator shall obtain the notes on the case from the equal employment opportunity counselor; may conduct a prompt, impartial investigation if he deems it necessary; shall explore the possibility of resolving the problem through negotiation or conciliation; shall present findings and recommendations on resolving the complaint to the agency/department head; and within forty-five (45) working days from the date the formal complaint was filed, shall present his written decision, as approved by the agency/department head, to the complainant, with a copy of the complaint and decision to be forwarded to the director of personnel.

  • Shared Decision Making 33-1 Purpose The purpose of a shared decision making program is to create an atmosphere in which decision making is a collegial, shared, process that fosters an exchange of ideas and information necessary for effective professional practice and for improved student performance. The Association and District agree to continue pursuing jointly the implementation of legitimately recognized school councils as a foundation of a shared decision-making program. All provisions of this Agreement shall continue to be in full force and effect throughout the process.

  • Proposing Integration Activities in the Planning Submission No integration activity described in section 6.3 may be proposed in a CAPS unless the LHIN has consented, in writing, to its inclusion pursuant to the process set out in section 6.3(b).

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