Expert Review Sample Clauses

Expert Review. 3.3.1 This Clause 3.3 only applies where the Base Access Charge elements and/or any other changes to this Schedule are referred to an expert for review pursuant to Clause 3.2 of this Schedule 3. 3.3.2 Where a matter is to be referred to an expert pursuant to Clause 3.2 of this Schedule, the matter must be referred for determination by a person: (a) who is appointed by the Parties, or in default of such appointment within fourteen (14) days after either Party giving notice in writing to the other Party requiring the appointment of an expert then that person is to be nominated at either Party’s request by the President for the time being of the Australian Society of Certified Practising Accountants; (b) who has appropriate qualifications and practical experience having regard to the nature of the matter in dispute; (c) who has no interest or duty which conflicts or may conflict with his function as expert, he being required to fully disclose any such interest or duty by written notice to the Parties before his appointment; (d) who is not an employee of the Operator, the End User or Aurizon Network or of a Related Body Corporate of any of them; (e) who shall not be permitted to act until he has given written notice to both Parties that he is willing and able to accept the appointment; and (f) who shall be deemed to be and shall act as an expert and not an arbitrator and the law relating to arbitration including without limitation, the Commercial Arbitration Act 1990 (Qld) shall not apply to him or his determination or the procedures by which he may reach his determination. 3.3.3 Aurizon Network will provide the expert with documentation to support the Aurizon Network determination of the Base Access Charge elements and/or any other changes to this Schedule. The expert may request any other documentation from either Party or any other party as it sees fit in order to determine the outcome of the dispute. 3.3.4 The expert shall be required to undertake to keep confidential all matters coming to its knowledge by reason of the expert’s appointment and performance of its duties, other than that already in the public domain. The expert shall not include such information in its reasons for reaching the determination. 3.3.5 The expert shall review the Aurizon Network documentation and either: (a) uphold the Aurizon Network Base Access Charge elements and/or any other changes to this Schedule proposed by Aurizon Network; or (b) where the expert believes the Aurizon Ne...
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3See All (10)
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Expert Review. 3.3.1 This Clause 3.3 only applies where the Base Access Charge elements and/or any other changes to this Schedule are referred to an expert for review pursuant to Clause 3.2 of this Schedule 3. 3.3.2 Where a matter is to be referred to an expert pursuant to Clause 3.2 of this Schedule, the matter must be referred for determination by a person: (a) who is appointed by the Parties, or in default of such appointment within fourteen (14) days after either Party giving notice in writing to the other Party requiring the appointment of an expert then that person is to be nominated at either Party’s request by the President for the time being of the Australian Society of Certified Practising Accountants; (b) who has appropriate qualifications and practical experience having regard to the nature of the matter in dispute; (c) who has no interest or duty which conflicts or may conflict with his function as expert, he being required to fully disclose any such interest or duty by written notice to the Parties before his appointment; (d) who is not an employee of the Operator, anthe End User or QRAurizon Network or of a Related Body Corporate of any of them; (e) who shall not be permitted to act until he has given written notice to both Parties that he is willing and able to accept the appointment; and (f) who shall be deemed to be and shall act as an expert and not an arbitrator and the law relating to arbitration including without limitation, the Commercial Arbitration Act 1990 (Qld) shall not apply to him or his determination or the procedures by which he may reach his determination.
Sample 1
Expert Review. If sanofi pasteur is unable to demonstrate to Emergent’s reasonable satisfaction that any proposed Additional Antigen satisfies the Inclusion Criteria, the Parties shall appoint an independent expert with expertise in the field of vaccine development and licensing reasonably acceptable to both Parties to determine whether the Antigen satisfies the Inclusion Criteria. If the Parties are unable to agree on the identity of the independent expert within ten (10) days of Emergent’s notifying sanofi pasteur that it desires the appointment of such expert, the independent expert shall be appointed by Emergent, and approved by sanofi pasteur, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. Within twenty (20) days of such appointment, sanofi pasteur shall furnish to the expert (subject to such obligations of confidentiality and non-use as may be reasonably required by sanofi pasteur) all information necessary for the expert to make such determination with a copy to Emergent, provided that sanofi pasteur shall be entitled to redact sanofi pasteur Confidential Information from such copy. Emergent may also make submissions to the expert, with a copy to sanofi pasteur, within such period. Any such submission shall not, unless the Parties otherwise agree, exceed 15,000 words. Within fifteen (15) days of receipt of the other Party’s summary (or such longer period as may be required to ensure the presence of the expert), there shall be a one-day oral hearing before the expert at which each Party shall be given an equal opportunity to present its own position and hear and respond to the oral presentation given by the other Party. Within fifteen (15) days of such oral hearing each Party may submit a written rebuttal of the other Party’s summary providing that any rebuttal shall not exceed 5,000 words. The expert shall be required by the Parties to use all reasonable efforts to render his decision within sixty (60) days of his appointment or if earlier within thirty days following his receipt of all such information and such decision shall be final and binding upon each of the Parties. Should the expert determine that the proposed Additional Antigen satisfies the Inclusion Criteria, then Emergent shall pay the fees and expenses of the expert. Should the expert determine that the proposed Additional Antigen does not satisfy the Inclusion Criteria, then sanofi pasteur shall pay the fees and expenses of the expert.
Sample 1
Expert Review. 3.3.1 This Clause 3.3 only applies where the Base Access Charge elements and/or any other changes to this Schedule are referred to an expert for review pursuant to Clause 3.2 of this Schedule 3. 3.3.2 Where a matter is to be referred to an expert pursuant to Clause 3.2 of this Schedule, the matter must be referred for determination by a person: (a) who is appointed by the Parties, or in default of such appointment within fourteen
Sample 1
Expert Review. The Expert shall determine, on the same basis and using the same principles and methods as are obligatory for the preparation of the Closing Accounts and the resulting I/SP Adjustment Amount and Merial Adjustment Amount according to this Agreement, and only with respect to the items of the SP Objection or the SA Objection not accepted or waived in writing by either Sanofi-Aventis or Schering-Plough, whether and to what extent either the Notified I/SP Adjustment Amount and Notified Merial Adjustment Amount require adjustment, if any. The Expert shall be instructed to make its best efforts to deliver its written determination to Schering-Plough and Sanofi-Aventis no later than 20 days after the remaining differences underlying the SP Objection and/or SA Objection were referred to it. The Expert shall act as an expert and not as an arbitrator. The determination of the Expert shall be final and binding on the Parties (in the absence of manifest error in which case the determination shall be void and shall be remitted to the Expert for correction). The Expert shall base its decision exclusively on the materials and arguments presented by the Parties and their respective auditors. The Parties shall ensure that the Expert has such access to the accounting records and other relevant documents of the Parties, Merial and its Subsidiaries and the I/SP Entities (and their respective independent accountants) as it may reasonably require, subject to such confidentiality obligations, as the Expert may consider appropriate. The fees and disbursements of the Expert shall be shared equally by Schering-Plough and Sanofi-Aventis.
Sample 1
Expert Review. 3.3.1 This Clause 3.3 only applies where the Base Access Charge elements and/or any other changes to this Schedule are referred to an expert for review pursuant to Clause 3.2 of this Schedule 3. 3.3.2 Where a matter is to be referred to an expert pursuant to Clause 3.2 of this Schedule, the matter must be referred for determination by a person: (a) who is appointed by the Parties, or in default of such appointment within fourteen (14) days after either Party giving notice in writing to the other Party requiring the appointment of an expert then that person is to be nominated at either Party’s request by Formatted Deleted: Schedule 4 Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted Formatted Deleted: Schedule 4
Sample 1
Expert Review. If the Buyer is purchasing an Item based in whole or in part on its stated provenance, designer or creator, the Buyer may at its option and at its own cost arrange with the Seller to have Buyer’s selected expert review the Item prior to purchase. Selection of the expert is the sole responsibility of the Buyer. Any arrangements for inspection shall be made between the Buyer and Seller. Buyer expressly acknowledges that the Buyer’s use and/or reliance on any expert is at the Buyer’s own risk and cost.
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Expert Review

  • 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.

  • Post Review With respect to each contract not governed by paragraph 2 of this Part, the procedures set forth in paragraph 4 of Appendix 1 to the Guidelines shall apply.

  • Project Review A. Programmatic Allowances 1. If FEMA determines that the entire scope of an Undertaking conforms to one or more allowances in Appendix B of this Agreement, with determinations for Tier II Allowances being made by SOI-qualified staff, FEMA shall complete the Section 106 review process by documenting this determination in the project file, without SHPO review or notification. 2. If the Undertaking involves a National Historic Landmark (NHL), FEMA shall notify the SHPO, participating Tribe(s), and the NPS NHL Program Manager of the NPS Midwest Regional Office that the Undertaking conforms to one or more allowances. FEMA shall provide information about the proposed scope of work for the Undertaking and the allowance(s) enabling FEMA’s determination. 3. If FEMA determines any portion of an Undertaking’s scope of work does not conform to one or more allowances listed in Appendix B, FEMA shall conduct expedited or standard Section 106 review, as appropriate, for the entire Undertaking in accordance with Stipulation II.B, Expedited Review for Emergency Undertakings, or Stipulation II.C, Standard Project Review. 4. Allowances may be revised and new allowances may be added to this Agreement in accordance with Stipulation IV.A.3, Amendments. B. Expedited Review for Emergency Undertakings

  • 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.

  • Expert Determination If a Dispute relates to any aspect of the technology underlying the provision of the Goods and/or Services or otherwise relates to a financial technical or other aspect of a technical nature (as the Parties may agree) and the Dispute has not been resolved by discussion or mediation, then either Party may request (which request will not be unreasonably withheld or delayed) by written notice to the other that the Dispute is referred to an Expert for determination. The Expert shall be appointed by agreement in writing between the Parties, but in the event of a failure to agree within ten (10) Working Days, or if the person appointed is unable or unwilling to act, the Expert shall be appointed on the instructions of the relevant professional body. The Expert shall act on the following basis: he/she shall act as an expert and not as an arbitrator and shall act fairly and impartially; the Expert's determination shall (in the absence of a material failure to follow the agreed procedures) be final and binding on the Parties; the Expert shall decide the procedure to be followed in the determination and shall be requested to make his/her determination within thirty (30) Working Days of his appointment or as soon as reasonably practicable thereafter and the Parties shall assist and provide the documentation that the Expert requires for the purpose of the determination; any amount payable by one Party to another as a result of the Expert's determination shall be due and payable within twenty (20) Working Days of the Expert's determination being notified to the Parties; the process shall be conducted in private and shall be confidential; and the Expert shall determine how and by whom the costs of the determination, including his/her fees and expenses, are to be paid.

  • Log Reviews All systems processing and/or storing PHI COUNTY discloses to 11 CONTRACTOR or CONTRACTOR creates, receives, maintains, or transmits on behalf of COUNTY 12 must have a routine procedure in place to review system logs for unauthorized access.

  • Program Review The State ECEAP Office will conduct a review of each contractor’s compliance with the ECEAP Contract and ECEAP Performance Standards every four years. The review will involve ECEAP staff and parents. After the Program Review, the State ECEAP Office will provide the contractor with a Program Review report. The contractor must submit an ECEAP Corrective Action Plan for non-compliance with ECEAP Performance Standards. The Plan must be approved by the State ECEAP Office.

  • 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.

  • Attorney Review The Purchaser acknowledges that Purchaser has had the opportunity to consult with its legal counsel regarding the Agreement and that accordingly the terms of the Agreement are not to be construed against any party because that party drafted the Agreement or construed in favor of any Party because that Party failed to understand the legal effect of the provisions of the Agreement.

Draft better contracts in just 5 minutes Get the weekly Law Insider newsletter packed with expert videos, webinars, ebooks, and more!