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.
Independent Expert The Parties and the other signatories may, upon written agreement, resort to an independent expert in order to obtain a well-grounded opinion that may lead to the settlement of the dispute or controversy. In case such agreement is signed, arbitration may only be filed after issuance of the expert’s opinion.
Central Dispute Resolution Committee a) There shall be established a Central Dispute Resolution Committee (CDRC), which shall be composed of two (2) representatives from each of the central parties, and two (2) representatives of the Crown. b) The Committee shall meet at the request of one of the central parties. c) The central parties shall each have the following rights: i. To file a dispute as a grievance with the Committee. ii. To engage in settlement discussions, and to mutually settle a grievance with the consent of the Crown. iii. To withdraw a grievance. iv. To mutually agree to refer a grievance to the local grievance procedure. v. To mutually agree to voluntary mediation. vi. To refer a grievance to final and binding arbitration at any time. d) The Crown shall have the following rights: i. To give or withhold approval to any proposed settlement between the central parties. ii. To participate in voluntary mediation. iii. To intervene in any matter referred to arbitration. e) Only a central party may file a grievance and refer it to the Committee for discussion and review. No grievance can be referred to arbitration without three (3) days prior notice to the Committee. f) It shall be the responsibility of each central party to inform their respective local parties of the Committee’s disposition of the dispute at each step in the central dispute resolution process including mediation and arbitration, and to direct them accordingly. g) Each of the central parties and the Crown shall be responsible for their own costs for the central dispute resolution process.
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.
Claims Review The IRO shall perform the Claims Review annually to cover each of the five Reporting Periods. The IRO shall perform all components of each Claims Review.
AUDIT REVIEW PROCEDURES Any dispute concerning a question of fact arising under an interim or post audit of this AGREEMENT that is not disposed of by agreement, shall be reviewed by ALAMEDA CTC’s Deputy Executive Director of Finance and Administration. Not later than thirty (30) calendar days after issuance of the final audit report, CONSULTANT may request a review by ALAMEDA CTC’s Deputy Executive Director of Finance and Administration of unresolved audit issues. The request for review will be submitted in writing. Neither the pendency of a dispute nor its consideration by ALAMEDA CTC will excuse CONSULTANT from full and timely performance, in accordance with the terms of this AGREEMENT. CONSULTANT and subconsultants’ contracts, including cost proposals and ICRs, may be subject to audits or reviews such as, but not limited to, an AGREEMENT Audit, an Incurred Cost Audit, an ICR Audit, or a certified public accountant (“CPA”) ICR Audit Workpaper Review. If selected for audit or review, the AGREEMENT, cost proposal and ICR and related workpapers, if applicable, will be reviewed to verify compliance with 48 CFR, Chapter 1, Part 31 and other related laws and regulations. In the instances of a CPA ICR Audit Workpaper Review it is CONSULTANT’s responsibility to ensure federal, state, or local government officials are allowed full access to the CPA’s workpapers including making copies as necessary. The AGREEMENT, cost proposal, and ICR shall be adjusted by CONSULTANT and approved by ALAMEDA CTC to conform to the audit or review recommendations. CONSULTANT agrees that individual terms of costs identified in the audit report shall be incorporated into the contract by this reference if directed by ALAMEDA CTC at its sole discretion. Refusal by CONSULTANT to incorporate audit or review recommendations, or to ensure that the federal, state, or local governments have access to CPA workpapers, will be considered a breach of contract terms and cause for termination of the AGREEMENT and disallowance of prior reimbursed costs.
ADB’s Review of Procurement Decisions 11. All contracts procured under international competitive bidding procedures and contracts for consulting services shall be subject to prior review by ADB, unless otherwise agreed between the Borrower and ADB and set forth in the Procurement Plan.
Joint Remediation Committee If the Sellers (acting reasonably) determine that the Purchasers have committed a Major Default, then, at the election of the Sellers, within three (3) Business Days of the Sellers providing the Purchasers written notice of such determination, the Sellers and the Purchasers shall establish a joint remediation committee of designated executives from the Sellers and the Purchasers (“Joint Remediation Committee”) consisting of three (3) members of each of the Sellers and the Purchasers. The Joint Remediation Committee shall be responsible for overseeing the development of a mutually agreeable plan in accordance with subsection 3 below to either (i) remediate any breaches giving rise to the Major Default to the extent such breaches can be remediated and/or (ii) prevent similar breaches from recurring in the future (clauses (i) and (ii), a “Corrective Action Plan”). Each member of the Joint Remediation Committee shall have sufficient authority on the part of his or her respective party to make decisions relating to matters reviewed by the Joint Remediation Committee, and shall be approved by the other party (such approval not to be unreasonably delayed, conditioned or withheld). The Joint Remediation Committee shall have access to Purchaser Personnel that are primarily responsible for the area of the business relationship (such as information technology, data security or regulatory) where the breaches giving rise to the Major Default arise (such Purchaser Personnel, collectively, the “Subject Matter Experts”). The Sellers and the Purchasers shall cause their respective members on the Joint Remediation Committee to, and the Purchasers shall cause the Subject Matter Experts to, act in good faith in connection with the development of the Corrective Action Plan.
Nurse Representatives & Grievance Committee (a) The Hospital agrees to recognize Association representatives to be elected or appointed from amongst nurses in the bargaining unit for the purpose of dealing with Association business as provided in this Collective Agreement. The number of representatives and the areas which they represent are set out in the Appendix of Local Provisions. (b) The Hospital will recognize a Grievance Committee, one of whom shall be chair. This committee shall operate and conduct itself in accordance with the provisions of the Collective Agreement and the number of nurses on the Grievance Committee is set out in the Appendix of Local Provisions. (c) It is agreed that Union representatives and members of the Grievance Committee have their regular duties and responsibilities to perform for the Hospital and shall not leave their regular duties without first obtaining permission from their immediate supervisor. Such permission shall not be unreasonably withheld. If, in the performance of their duties, a union representative or member of the Grievance Committee is required to enter a unit within the hospital in which they are not ordinarily employed they shall, immediately upon entering such unit, report their presence to the supervisor or nurse in charge, as the case may be. When resuming their regular duties and responsibilities, such representatives shall again report to their immediate supervisor. The Hospital agrees to pay for all time spent during their regular hours by such representatives hereunder.
Asset Representations Review Process Section 3.01 Asset Representations Review Notices and Identification of Review Receivables. On receipt of an Asset Representations Review Notice from the Seller according to Section 5.7 of the Receivables Purchase Agreement, the Asset Representations Reviewer will start an Asset Representations Review. The Servicer will provide the list of Review Receivables to the Asset Representations Reviewer promptly upon receipt of the Asset Representations Review Notice. The Asset Representations Reviewer will not be obligated to start, and will not start, an Asset Representations Review until an Asset Representations Review Notice and the related list of Review Receivables is received. The Asset Representations Reviewer is not obligated to verify (i) whether the conditions to the initiation of the Asset Representations Review and the issuance of an Asset Representations Review Notice described in Section 7.6 of the Indenture were satisfied or (ii) the accuracy or completeness of the list of Review Receivables provided by the Servicer.
