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.
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.
Independent Evaluation Buyer is an experienced and knowledgeable investor in the oil and gas business. Buyer has been advised by and has relied solely on its own expertise and legal, tax, title, reservoir engineering, environmental and other professional counsel concerning this transaction, the Properties, the value thereof and title thereto.
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.
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.
Evaluation, Testing, and Monitoring 1. The System Agency may review, test, evaluate and monitor Grantee’s Products and services, as well as associated documentation and technical support for compliance with the Accessibility Standards. Review, testing, evaluation and monitoring may be conducted before and after the award of a contract. Testing and monitoring may include user acceptance testing. Neither the review, testing (including acceptance testing), evaluation or monitoring of any Product or service, nor the absence of review, testing, evaluation or monitoring, will result in a waiver of the State’s right to contest the Grantee’s assertion of compliance with the Accessibility Standards.
Monitoring and Auditing 7.1. Site visits by Sponsor and/or its authorized designee (e.g., Study monitor) will be scheduled in advance for times mutually acceptable to the Parties during normal business hours. Sponsor’s and/or authorized designee’s access is subject to reasonable safeguards to ensure confidentiality of medical records and systems.
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:
Constructability Review Prepare detailed interdisciplinary constructability review within Fourteen (14) days of receipt of the plans from the District that:
Program Evaluation The School District and the College will develop a plan for the evaluation of the Dual Credit program to be completed each year. The evaluation will include, but is not limited to, disaggregated attendance and retention rates, GPA of high-school-credit-only courses and college courses, satisfactory progress in college courses, state assessment results, SAT/ACT, as applicable, TSIA readiness by grade level, and adequate progress toward the college-readiness of the students in the program. The School District commits to collecting longitudinal data as specified by the College, and making data and performance outcomes available to the College upon request. HB 1638 and SACSCOC require the collection of data points to be longitudinally captured by the School District, in collaboration with the College, will include, at minimum: student enrollment, GPA, retention, persistence, completion, transfer and scholarships. School District will provide parent contact and demographic information to the College upon request for targeted marketing of degree completion or workforce development information to parents of Students. School District agrees to obtain valid FERPA releases drafted to support the supply of such data if deemed required by counsel to either School District or the College. The College conducts and reports regular and ongoing evaluations of the Dual Credit program effectiveness and uses the results for continuous improvement.
