Extent of Review Sample Clauses

Extent of Review. In reviewing Shop Drawings, the Architect will not verify dimensions and field conditions. The Architect will review and approve Shop Drawings, product data, samples, etc., for aesthetics and for conformance with the design concept of the Work and the information in the Contract Documents. The Architect’s review shall neither be construed as a complete check which relieves the Contractor, Subcontractor, manufacturer, fabricator, or supplier from responsibility for any deficiency that may exist or from any departures or deviations from the requirements of the Contract Documents unless the Contractor has, in writing, called the Architect’s attention to the deviations at the time of submission. The Architect’s review shall not relieve the Contractor or Subcontractors from responsibility for errors of any sort in Shop Drawings or schedules, for proper fitting of the Work, coordination of the differing Subcontractor trades and Shop Drawings and Work which is not indicated on the Shop Drawings at the time of submission of Shop Drawings. Contractor and Subcontractors shall be solely responsible for any quantities which may be shown on the Submittals or Contract Documents.
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3See All (21)
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Extent of Review. In reviewing shop drawings, the ARCHITECT will not verify dimensions and field conditions. The ARCHITECT will review and approve shop drawings, product data, and samples for aesthetics and for conformance with the design concept of the Work and the information given in the Contract Documents. The ARCHITECT's review shall neither be construed as a complete check nor relieve the CONTRACTOR, Subcontractor, manufacturer, fabricator, or supplier from responsibility for any deficiency that may exist or from any departures or deviations from the requirements of the Contract Documents unless the CONTRACTOR has, in writing, called the ARCHITECT's attention to the deviations at the time of submission and the ARCHITECT has given specific written approval. The ARCHITECT's review shall not relieve the CONTRACTOR or Subcontractors from responsibility for errors of any sort in shop drawings or schedules, for proper fitting of the Work, or from the necessity of furnishing any Work required by the Contract Documents, which may not be indicated on shop drawings when reviewed. CONTRACTOR and Subcontractors shall be solely responsible for determining any quantities, whether or not shown on the shop drawings.
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3See All (4)
Extent of Review. In reviewing Engineering Documents, the Owner will not verify dimensions and field conditions. The Owner will review and approve Engineering Documents, product data, and Samples for aesthetics and for conformance with the design concept of the Work and the information given in the Contract Documents. The Owner’s review shall not relieve the Contractor from responsibility for any deviations from the requirements of the Contract Documents unless the Owner has given specific written approval. Contractor and Subcontractors shall be solely responsible for determining any quantities, whether or not shown on the Engineering Documents.
Sample 1Sample 2
Extent of Review. In reviewing shop drawings, the Architect will not verify dimensions and field conditions. The Architect will review and approve shop drawings, product data, and samples for aesthetics and for conformance with the design concept of the Work and the information given in the Contract Documents within 30 days of the Architect’s receipt of said shop drawings, product data and sample submittal. Provided, however, the case of large or complex submittals, such as, but not limited to, structural steel shop drawings, mechanical equipment, electrical equipment and special system components, the Architect may require additional review time. The Contractor shall breakdown critical submittals into separate packages so as to expedite the review process of each package. The coordination and prioritization of the overall set of submittals shall be the responsibility of the Contractor. The Architect’s review shall neither be construed as a complete check nor relieve the Contractor, Subcontractor, manufacturer, fabricator, or supplier from responsibility for any deficiency that may exist or from any departures or deviations from the requirements of the Contract Documents unless the Contractor has, in writing, called the Architect’s attention to the deviations at the time of submission. The Architect’s review shall not relieve the Contractor or Subcontractors from responsibility for errors of any sort in shop drawings or equipment and material schedules, for proper fitting of the Work, or from the necessity of furnishing any Work required by the Contract Documents, which may not be indicated on shop drawings when reviewed. Contractor and Subcontractors shall be solely responsible for any quantities, which may be shown on the shop drawings.
Sample 1Sample 2
Extent of Review. In reviewing shop drawings, Owner will not verify dimensions and field conditions. Owner will promptly (so as not to adversely impact the Project schedule) review and approve, but in any event within ten (10) days of receipt from Contractor thereof, shop drawings, product data, and samples for aesthetics and for conformance with the design concept of the Work and the information given in the Contract Documents. Owner’s review shall not relieve Contractor from responsibility for any deviations from the requirements of the Contract Documents unless Owner has given specific written approval. Contractor and Subcontractors shall be solely responsible for determining any quantities, whether or not shown on the shop drawings.
Sample 1

Related to Extent of Review

  • Effect of Review Interconnected Transmission Owner's and Transmission Provider’s reviews of Interconnection Customer's initial drawings of the Customer Interconnection Facilities shall not be construed as confirming, endorsing or providing a warranty as to the fitness, safety, durability or reliability of such facilities or the design thereof. At its sole cost and expense, Interconnection Customer shall make such changes to the design of the Customer Interconnection Facilities as may reasonably be required by Transmission Provider, in consultation with the Interconnected Transmission Owner, to ensure that the Customer Interconnection Facilities meet Applicable Standards and, to the extent that design of the Customer Interconnection Facilities is included in the Facilities Study, to ensure that such facilities conform with the Facilities Study.

  • Scope of Review I conducted my review in accordance with Thai Standard on Review Engagements 2410, “Review of Interim Financial Information Performed by the Independent Auditor of the Entity.” A review of interim financial information consists of making inquires, primarily of persons responsible for financial and accounting matters, and applying analytical and other review procedures. A review is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance with Thai Standards on Auditing and consequently does not enable me to obtain assurance that I would become aware of all significant matters that might be identified in an audit. Accordingly, I do not express an audit opinion.

  • Quality and Extent of Services The Board considered the terms of the Agreement, including the scope of advisory services provided under the Agreement. The Board noted that, under the Agreement, XXXX provides portfolio management services to the Fund and that, pursuant to a separate administrative services agreement, DIMA provides administrative services to the Fund. The Board considered the experience and skills of senior management and investment personnel and the resources made available to such personnel. The Board also considered the risks to XXXX in sponsoring or managing the Fund, including financial, operational and reputational risks, the potential economic impact to XXXX from such risks and XXXX’s approach to addressing such risks. The Board reviewed the Fund’s performance over short-term and long-term periods and compared those returns to various agreed-upon performance measures, including market index(es) and a peer universe compiled using information supplied by Morningstar Direct (“Morningstar”), an independent fund data service. The Board also noted that it has put into place a process of identifying “Funds in Review” (e.g., funds performing poorly relative to a peer universe), and receives additional reporting from XXXX regarding such funds and, where appropriate, XXXX’s plans to address underperformance. The Board believes this process is an effective manner of identifying and addressing underperforming funds. Based on the information provided, the Board noted that, for the one-, three- and five-year periods ended December 31, 2020, the Fund’s performance (Class A shares) was in the 2nd quartile, 1st quartile and 2nd quartile, respectively, of the applicable Morningstar universe (the 1st quartile being the best performers and the 4th quartile being the worst performers). The Board also observed that the Fund has underperformed its benchmark in the one-, three- and five-year periods ended December 31, 2020. Fees and Expenses. The Board considered the Fund’s investment management fee schedule, operating expenses and total expense ratios, and comparative information provided by Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc. (“Broadridge”) and the Fee Consultant regarding investment management fee rates paid to other investment advisors by similar funds (1st quartile being the most favorable and 4th quartile being the least favorable). With respect to management fees paid to other investment advisors by similar funds, the Board noted that the contractual fee rates paid by the Fund, which include a 0.097% fee paid to DIMA under the Fund’s administrative services agreement, were lower than the median (2nd quartile) of the applicable Broadridge peer group (based on Broadridge data provided as of December 31, 2020). The Board noted that the Fund’s Class A shares total (net) operating expenses (excluding 12b-1 fees) were expected to be lower than the median (2nd quartile) of the applicable Broadridge expense universe (based on Broadridge data provided as of December 31, 2020, and analyzing Broadridge expense universe Class A (net) expenses less any applicable 12b-1 fees) (“Broadridge Universe Expenses”). The Board also reviewed data comparing each other operational share class’s total (net) operating expenses to the applicable Broadridge Universe Expenses. The Board noted that the expense limitations agreed to by XXXX were expected to help the Fund’s total (net) operating expenses remain competitive. The Board considered the Fund’s management fee rate as compared to fees charged by XXXX to comparable DWS U.S. registered funds (“DWS Funds”) and considered differences between the Fund and the comparable DWS Funds. The information requested by the Board as part of its review of fees and expenses also included information about institutional accounts (including any sub-advised funds and accounts) and funds offered primarily to European investors (“DWS Europe Funds”) managed by DWS Group. The Board noted that XXXX indicated that DWS Group does not manage any institutional accounts or DWS Europe Funds comparable to the Fund. On the basis of the information provided, the Board concluded that management fees were reasonable and appropriate in light of the nature, quality and extent of services provided by DIMA.

  • Right to Review After receiving written notice of the denial of a claim, a claimant or his representative shall be entitled to:

  • EXTENT OF AGREEMENT 17.1 This Agreement represents the entire and integrated Agreement between the OWNER and the CONSULTANT and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements, either written or oral. This Agreement shall not be superseded by provisions of contracts for design or construction and may be amended only by a written instrument signed by both the OWNER and the CONSULTANT.

  • Extent of Cooperation (1) Prior to December 31, 2017, Counsel for the Settling Defendants met with Class Counsel in Canada or the United States, to provide an oral evidentiary proffer which included information originating with the Settling Defendants that was not covered by privilege relating to the allegations in the Proceedings. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Settlement Agreement, and for greater certainty, it is agreed that all statements made and information provided by Counsel for the Settling Defendants are privileged, will be kept strictly confidential, may not be directly or indirectly disclosed to any other Person, unless disclosure is ordered by a Court. Further, absent a Court order, Class Counsel will not attribute any factual information obtained from the proffer to the Settling Defendants and/or Counsel for the Settling Defendants. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Class Counsel may: (i) use information obtained from the proffer in the prosecution of the Proceedings, including for the purpose of developing an allocation plan relating to any settlement or judgment proceeds, except the prosecution of any claims against Releasees; and (ii) may rely on such information to certify that, to the best of Class Counsel’s knowledge, information and belief, such information has evidentiary support or will likely have evidentiary support after reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery, but, absent a Court Order, the Plaintiffs shall not introduce any information from a proffer into the record or subpoena any Counsel for the Settling Defendants related to a proffer.

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