First Review Clause Samples

The "First Review" clause establishes the initial opportunity for one party to examine and assess a document, deliverable, or proposal before it is finalized or further action is taken. Typically, this clause outlines the timeframe for the review, the process for providing feedback, and any obligations to address comments or make revisions. Its core practical function is to ensure that the reviewing party has a formal chance to identify issues, request changes, or approve the work, thereby reducing misunderstandings and improving the quality of the final product.
POPULAR SAMPLE Copied 1 times
First Review. The Product Group shall have the first opportunity to informally resolve any disputes arising between or among Party Lotteries regarding the Product Group, rules, policies, or guidelines. The Party Lottery seeking resolution of a dispute shall seek a remedy from the Product Group by filing a notice of dispute with the Product Group. Filing shall be done by certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed to the MUSL Executive Director. If the Product Group fails to resolve the dispute to the satisfaction of any party to the dispute within sixty (60) days after receiving notice of the dispute, the aggrieved Party Lottery may seek any other remedy authorized by the Multi-State Lottery Agreement (the MUSL Agreement), or the Cross-Selling Agreement with the Mega Millions Lotteries.
View SourceView Similar (3)
First Review. The District shall examine the qualifications of all eligible unit members who apply for promotion prior to offering employment to any candidate on the eligibility list. The District may hire outside the bargaining unit if it is determined by the District that the best qualified applicant is outside the bargaining unit.
View SourceView Similar (2)
First Review. The District shall examine the qualifications of all eligible unit members who apply for promotion prior to offering employment to any candidate on the eligibility list. The District may hire outside the bargaining unit if it is determined by the District that the best qualified applicant is outside the bargaining unit. 27.1 All Security Officer II employees who meet the minimum standards of Government Code Section 1031 shall be designated as Peace Officers. 27.2 Those Security Officer II employees who fail to meet the minimum standards of Government Code Section 1031 shall be notified in writing of the specific reasons for disqualification including access to reports or information of which the disqualification is based. Employees notified of disqualification should not be upheld. Should the employee fail to present evidence reversing the reason(s) for disqualification, the affected employee shall be designated as a Security/Parking Officer and shall be star-rated at his/her current rate of pay. 27.3 All Security Officer II employees who meet the minimum standards of Government Code Section 1031 shall be required to participate in P.O.S.T. training when assigned by the District. Those employees who currently hold a regular P.O.S.T. BASIC certificate shall be exempt from participating in the P.O.S.T. Academy. 27.4 Prior to participating in the P.O.S.T. training, employees shall, no later than three (3) months prior to enrollment in the Police Academy, be given four (4) hours of reassigned time per week for the purpose of physical training and conditioning. The District and the employee shall mutually develop a conditioning program and schedule for reassigned time for conditioning. It is understood that such reassigned time will be arranged through rescheduling of monthly employees and that an exception to scheduling requirements in Article V can be made. 27.5 Any Security Officer II who participates in the academic and physical program at the Police Academy, who has performance evaluation reports indicating acceptable efforts as determined by Academy officials, but fails to graduate, shall be designated as a Security Officer II at Range 32.
View SourceView Similar (5)
First Review. If the review reveals that the Employee has not been scheduled in a manner consistent with the original job posting (i.e., no variable schedule) and there are no mitigating circumstances (such as vacation, LOA or sick leave replacement), the Employee’s schedule will be converted to a schedule with a set start and end time.
View SourceView Similar (2)
First Review. The first review shall commence no later than 120 calendar days from the date of the engagement of the Monitor (unless otherwise agreed by the Defendant, the Monitor, the Fraud Section, and the Office). The Monitor shall issue a written report within 150 calendar days of commencing the first review, setting forth the Monitor’s assessment and, if necessary, making recommendations reasonably designed to improve the effectiveness of the Defendant’s program for ensuring compliance with the Securities and Commodities Laws. The Monitor should consult with the Defendant concerning his or her findings and recommendations on an ongoing basis and should consider the Defendant’s comments and input to the extent the Monitor deems appropriate. The Monitor may also choose to share a draft of his or her reports with the Defendant prior to finalizing them. The Monitor’s reports need not recite or describe comprehensively the Defendant’s history or compliance policies, procedures, and practices, but rather may focus on those areas with respect to which the Monitor wishes to make recommendations, if any, for improvement or which the Monitor otherwise concludes merit particular attention. The Monitor shall provide the report to the Board of Directors of the Defendant and contemporaneously transmit copies to: Chief – MIMF Unit, Fraud Section Chief – CECP Unit, Fraud Section Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇.▇. Bond Building, Third Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Assistant United States Attorney U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Connecticut Connecticut Financial Center ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇ Floor New Haven, CT 06510 ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇.▇▇▇▇▇▇▇@▇▇▇▇▇.▇▇▇ After consultation with the Defendant, the Monitor may extend the time period for issuance of the first report for a brief period of time with prior written approval of the Fraud Section and the Office.
View SourceView Similar (2)
First Review. The Board shall have the first opportunity to informally resolve any disputes arising between Party Lotteries regarding the MUSL, the Agreement, Bylaws, rules, policies, or guidelines. The Party Lottery seeking resolution of a dispute shall seek a remedy from the Board by filing a notice of dispute with the Board. Filing shall be done by certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed to the Executive Director. If the Board fails to resolve the dispute to the satisfaction of any party to the dispute within 60 days after receiving notice of the dispute, the aggrieved Party Lottery may seek any other remedy authorized by law.
View Source
First Review. The first review will take place no later than sixty (60) days prior to the first anniversary of appointment.
View Source
First Review. The first probationary review will take place no later than May 15th of the first year of appointment.
View Source

Related to First Review

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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

  • 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.