Intermediate Design Submittal Review Meeting. Consultant project team members will attend either in person, or remotely, as dictated by the meeting agenda. The Consultant will prepare minutes following the meetings within 3 days.
Intermediate Design Submittal Review Meeting Sample Clauses
Related to Intermediate Design Submittal Review Meeting
Review Meeting i. Either the BCTF or BCPSEA may request in writing a meeting to review the issues in a provincial matters grievance that has been referred to arbitration.
Review Meetings During the review meetings the Project Managers shall discuss progress made by the Contractor in the performance of this Contract. Each party shall provide a status report, as desired by a Project Manager, listing any problem or concern encountered since the last meeting. Records of such reports and other communications issued in writing during the course of Contract performance shall be maintained by each party.
Business Review Meetings In order to maintain the relationship between the Department and the Contractor, each quarter the Department may request a business review meeting. The business review meeting may include, but is not limited to, the following: • Successful completion of deliverables • Review of the Contractor’s performance • Review of minimum required reports • Addressing of any elevated Customer issues • Review of continuous improvement ideas that may help lower total costs and improve business efficiencies.
Review of Submittals A/E and ODR review is only for conformance with the design concept and the information provided in the Contract Documents. Responses to submittals will be in writing. The approval of a separate item does not indicate approval of an assembly in which the item functions. The approval of a submittal does not relieve the Contractor of responsibility for any deviation from the requirements of the Contract unless the Contractor informs the A/E and ODR of such deviation in a clear, conspicuous, and written manner on the submittal transmittal and at the time of submission, and obtains the A/E’s and Owner’s written specific approval of the particular deviation.
Project Review A. Programmatic Allowances
Project Managers; Meetings 10.1 Promptly following the Effective Date, each Party shall designate a Project Manager responsible for coordinating the Party’s Work and shall provide the other Party with a written notice containing the name and contact information of such Project Manager (“Project Manager”). In no event shall any Project Manager be authorized to amend or modify the provisions of this Agreement. Each Party may change its Project Manager, from time to time, by written notice to the other Party.
Construction Progress Meetings The Design Professional shall attend Construction Progress Meetings periodically held by the Contractor at the Site on a schedule determined by the Contractor. The Design Professional shall review the minutes of the meeting and provide his written comments to the minutes to the Owner and Contractor within seven calendar days after receipt of the meeting minutes.
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.
Validation Review In the event OIG has reason to believe that: (a) Good Shepherd’s Claims Review fails to conform to the requirements of this CIA; or (b) the IRO’s findings or Claims Review results are inaccurate, OIG may, at its sole discretion, conduct its own review to determine whether the Claims Review complied with the requirements of the CIA and/or the findings or Claims Review results are inaccurate (Validation Review). Good Shepherd shall pay for the reasonable cost of any such review performed by OIG or any of its designated agents. Any Validation Review of Reports submitted as part of Good Shepherd’s final Annual Report shall be initiated no later than one year after Good Shepherd’s final submission (as described in Section II) is received by OIG. Prior to initiating a Validation Review, OIG shall notify Good Shepherd of its intent to do so and provide a written explanation of why OIG believes such a review is necessary. To resolve any concerns raised by OIG, Good Shepherd may request a meeting with OIG to: (a) discuss the results of any Claims Review submissions or findings; (b) present any additional information to clarify the results of the Claims Review or to correct the inaccuracy of the Claims Review; and/or (c) propose alternatives to the proposed Validation Review. Good Shepherd agrees to provide any additional information as may be requested by OIG under this Section III.D.3 in an expedited manner. OIG will attempt in good faith to resolve any Claims Review issues with Good Shepherd prior to conducting a Validation Review. However, the final determination as to whether or not to proceed with a Validation Review shall be made at the sole discretion of OIG.
Progress Meetings The Engineer shall from time to time during the progress of the work confer with the State. The Engineer shall prepare and present such information as may be pertinent and necessary or as may be requested by the State in order to evaluate features of the work.
