Response/Compliance with Audit or Inspection Findings A. Grantee must act to ensure its and its Subcontractors’ compliance with all corrections necessary to address any finding of noncompliance with any law, regulation, audit requirement, or generally accepted accounting principle, or any other deficiency identified in any audit, review, inspection or investigation of the Grant Agreement and the services and Deliverables provided. Any such correction will be at Grantee’s or its Subcontractor's sole expense. Whether Xxxxxxx's action corrects the noncompliance shall be solely the decision of the System Agency.
B. As part of the services, Grantee must provide to HHS upon request a copy of those portions of Grantee's and its Subcontractors' internal audit reports relating to the services and Deliverables provided to the State under the Grant Agreement.
C. Grantee shall include the requirement to provide to System Agency (and any of its duly authorized federal, state, or local authorities) internal audit reports related to this Grant Agreement in any Subcontract it awards. Upon request by System Agency, Grantee shall enforce this requirement against its Subcontractor. Further, Grantee shall include in any Subcontract it awards a requirement that all Subcontractor Subcontracts must also include these provisions.
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.
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 whether Good Shepherd was in material breach of this CIA and, if so, whether:
a. Good Shepherd cured such breach within 30 days of its receipt of the Notice of Material Breach; or
b. the alleged material breach could not have been cured within the 30-day period, but that, during the 30-day period following Good Shepherd’s receipt of the Notice of Material Breach: (i) Good Shepherd had begun to take action to cure the material breach; (ii) Good Shepherd pursued such action with due diligence; and (iii) Good Shepherd provided to OIG a reasonable timetable for curing the material breach. For purposes of the exclusion herein, exclusion shall take effect only after an ALJ decision favorable to OIG, or, if the ALJ rules for Good Shepherd, only after a DAB decision in favor of OIG. Good Shepherd’s election of its contractual right to appeal to the DAB shall not abrogate OIG’s authority to exclude Good Shepherd upon the issuance of an ALJ’s decision in favor of OIG. If the ALJ sustains the determination of OIG and determines that exclusion is authorized, such exclusion shall take effect 20 days after the ALJ issues such a decision, notwithstanding that Good Shepherd may request review of the ALJ decision by the DAB. If the DAB finds in favor of OIG after an ALJ decision adverse to OIG, the exclusion shall take effect 20 days after the DAB decision. Good Shepherd shall waive its right to any notice of such an exclusion if a decision upholding the exclusion is rendered by the ALJ or DAB. If the DAB finds in favor of Good Shepherd, Good Shepherd shall be reinstated effective on the date of the original exclusion.
Transition Review Period In accordance with Article 35, Layoff and Recall, the Employer may require an employee to complete a transition review period.
HHS Single Audit Unit will notify Grantee to complete the Single Audit Determination Form If Grantee fails to complete the form within thirty (30) calendar days after receipt of notice, Grantee maybe subject to sanctions and remedies for non-compliance.
Reasonable Suspicion Testing All Employees Performing Safety-Sensitive Functions
A. Reasonable suspicion testing for alcohol or controlled substances may be directed by the Employer for any employee performing safety-sensitive functions when there is reason to suspect that alcohol or controlled substance use may be adversely affecting the employee’s job performance or that the employee may present a danger to the physical safety of the employee or another.
B. Specific objective grounds must be stated in writing that support the reasonable suspicion. Examples of specific objective grounds include but are not limited to:
1. Physical symptoms consistent with alcohol and/or controlled substance use;
2. Evidence or observation of alcohol or controlled substance use, possession, sale, or delivery; or
3. The occurrence of an accident(s) where a trained manager, supervisor or lead worker suspects alcohol or other controlled substance use may have been a factor.
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.
Audit Findings Vendor shall implement any required safeguards as identified by Citizens or by any audit of Vendor’s privacy and security controls.
Procurement Related Complaints and Administrative Review 49.1 The procedures for making a Procurement-related Complaint are as specified in the TDS.
49.2 A request for administrative review shall be made in the form provided under contract forms.
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
