Inquiry Review Sample Clauses

Inquiry Review. Duct/Conduit/Innerduct. CenturyLink will complete the database inquiry and prepare a duct/conduit structure diagram (referred to as a "Flatline") which shows distances and access points (such as manholes). Along with the Flatline will be estimated costs for field verification of available facilities. These materials will be provided to CLEC within ten (10) Days or within the time frames of the applicable federal or state law, rule or regulation.
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3See All (4)
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Inquiry Review. Poles. CenturyLink will provide the name and contact number for the appropriate local field engineer for joint validation of the poles and route and estimated costs for field verification on Attachment 1.B of Exhibit D within ten (10) Days of the request.
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3See All (4)
Inquiry Review. ROW. CenturyLink shall, upon request of CLEC, provide the ROW matrix, the MTE matrix and a copy of all publicly recorded agreements listed in those matrices to CLEC within ten (10) Days of the request. CenturyLink will provide to CLEC a copy of agreements listed in the matrices or the information set forth in Section 10.8.2.28.1.2 in accordance with the terms of Section 10.8.2.28 of this Agreement. CenturyLink may redact all dollar figures from copies of agreements listed in the matrices that have not been publicly recorded that CenturyLink provides to CLEC. Any dispute over whether terms have been redacted appropriately shall be resolved pursuant to the Dispute Resolution procedures set forth in this Agreement. CenturyLink makes no warranties concerning the accuracy of the information provided to CLEC; CLEC expressly acknowledges that CenturyLink's files contain only the original ROW instruments, and that the current owner(s) of the fee estate may not be the party identified in the document provided by CenturyLink.
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3See All (4)
Inquiry Review. Duct/Conduit/Innerduct. Qwest will complete the database inquiry and prepare a duct/conduit structure diagram (referred to as a “Flatline”) which shows distances and access points (such as manholes). Along with the Flatline will be estimated costs for field verification of available facilities. These materials will be provided to the WSP within ten (10) calendar Days or within the time frames of the applicable federal or state law, rule or regulation.
Sample 1See All (4)
Inquiry Review. Duct/Conduit. Qwest will complete the database inquiry and prepare a duct structure diagram (referred to as a “Flatline”) which shows distances and access points (such as manholes). Along with the Flatline will be estimated costs for field verification of available facilities. These materials will be provided to the CLEC within ten (10) calendar days or within the time frames of the applicable federal or state law, rule or regulation. This time frame is applicable to the standard inquiry of thirty (30) Utility Holes or fewer. An inquiry which exceeds the standard will have negotiated completion dates.
Sample 1Sample 2
Inquiry Review. Poles. Qwest will provide the name and contact number for the appropriate local field engineer for joint validation of the poles and route and estimated costs for field verification on Attachment 1.B of Exhibit D within ten (10) calendar days of the request. This time frame is applicable to the standard inquiry of one hundred (100) poles or fewer. An inquiry which exceeds the standard will have negotiated completion dates.
Sample 1Sample 2
Inquiry Review. ROW. Qwest shall, upon request of CLEC, provide the ROW Matrix, the MDU Matrix and a copy of all publicly recorded agreements listed in those Matrices to CLEC within ten (10) days of the request. Qwest will provide to CLEC a copy of agreements listed in the Matrices that have not been publicly recorded if and only if CLEC obtains authorization for such disclosure from the third party owner(s) of the real property at issue by an executed version of either the Consent to Disclosure form or the Consent Regarding Access Agreement form, both of which are included in Exhibit D, Attachment 4. Qwest may redact all dollar figures from copies of agreements listed in the Matrices that have not been publicly recorded that Qwest provides to CLEC. Any dispute over whether terms have been redacted appropriately shall be resolved pursuant to the dispute resolution procedures set forth in this Agreement. Qwest makes no warranties concerning the accuracy of the information provided to CLEC; CLEC expressly acknowledges that Qwest’s files contain only the original ROW instruments, and that the current owner(s) of the fee estate may not be the party identified in the document provided by Qwest.
Sample 1Sample 2
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Inquiry Review. ROW. Qwest shall, upon request of WSP, provide the ROW matrix, the MDU matrix and a copy of all publicly recorded agreements listed in those matrices to WSP within ten (10) Days of the request. Qwest will provide to WSP a copy of agreements listed in the matrices that have not been publicly recorded in Exhibit D, Attachment pursuant to the terms in Section 9.4.2.27.2. Qwest may redact all dollar figures from copies of agreements listed in the matrices that have not been publicly recorded that Qwest provides to WSP. Any dispute over whether terms have been redacted appropriately shall be resolved pursuant to the dispute resolution procedures set forth in this Agreement. Qwest makes no warranties concerning the accuracy of the information provided to WSP; WSP expressly acknowledges that Qwest’s files contain only the original ROW instruments, and that the current owner(s) of the fee estate may not be the party identified in the document provided by Qwest.
Sample 1
Inquiry Review. ROW. Qwest shall, upon request of CLEC, provide the ROW matrix, the MDU matrix and a copy of all publicly recorded agreements listed in those matrices to CLEC within ten (10) days of the request. Qwest will provide to CLEC a copy of agreements listed in the matrices that have not been publicly recorded if CLEC obtains authorization for such disclosure from the third party owner(s) of the real property at issue by an executed version of the Consent to Disclosure form, which is included in Exhibit D, Attachment 4. Qwest may redact all dollar figures from copies of agreements listed in the matrices that have not been publicly recorded that Qwest provides to CLEC. Any dispute over whether terms have been redacted appropriately shall be resolved pursuant to the dispute resolution procedures set forth in this Agreement. Alternatively, in order to secure any agreement that has not been publicly recorded, a CLEC may provide a legally binding and satisfactory agreement to indemnify Qwest in the event of any legal action arising out of Qwest’s provision of such agreement to CLEC. In that event, CLEC shall not be required to provide an executed Consent to Disclosure form. Qwest makes no warranties concerning the accuracy of the information provided to CLEC; CLEC expressly acknowledges that Qwest’s files contain only the original ROW instruments, and that the current owner(s) of the fee estate may not be the party identified in the document provided by Qwest.
Sample 1

Related to Inquiry 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.

  • Claims Review The IRO shall perform the Claims Review annually to cover each of the five Reporting Periods. The IRO shall perform all components of each Claims Review.

  • Questions About Review The Asset Representations Reviewer will make appropriate personnel available to respond in writing to written questions or requests for clarification of any Review Report from the Indenture Trustee or the Servicer until the earlier of (i) the payment in full of the Notes and (ii) one year after the delivery of the Review Report. The Asset Representations Reviewer will not be obligated to respond to questions or requests for clarification from a Noteholder or any other Person and will direct such Persons to submit written questions or requests to the Indenture Trustee.

  • 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.

  • Review The practitioner reviews the treatment plan and discusses, when appropriate, case circumstances and management options with the attending (or referring) physician. The reviewer consults with the requesting physician when more clarity is needed to make an informed coverage decision. The reviewer may consult with board certified physicians from appropriate specialty areas to assist in making determinations of coverage and/or appropriateness. All such consultations will be documented in the review text. If the reviewer determines that the admission, continued stay or service requested is not a covered service, a notice of non-coverage is issued. Only a physician, behavioral health practitioner (such as a psychiatrist, doctoral-level clinical psychologist, certified addiction medicine specialist), dentist or pharmacist who has the clinical expertise appropriate to the request under review with an unrestricted license may deny coverage based on medical necessity.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Claims Review Report The IRO shall prepare a Claims Review Report as described in this Appendix for each Claims Review performed. The following information shall be included in the Claims Review Report for each Discovery Sample and Full Sample (if applicable).

  • 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.

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