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.
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.
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC The goal of this subtask is to create an advisory committee for this Agreement. The TAC should be composed of diverse professionals. The composition will vary depending on interest, availability, and need. TAC members will serve at the CAM’s discretion. The purpose of the TAC is to: • Provide guidance in project direction. The guidance may include scope and methodologies, timing, and coordination with other projects. The guidance may be based on: o Technical area expertise; o Knowledge of market applications; or o Linkages between the agreement work and other past, present, or future projects (both public and private sectors) that TAC members are aware of in a particular area. • Review products and provide recommendations for needed product adjustments, refinements, or enhancements. • Evaluate the tangible benefits of the project to the state of California, and provide recommendations as needed to enhance the benefits. • Provide recommendations regarding information dissemination, market pathways, or commercialization strategies relevant to the project products. The TAC may be composed of qualified professionals spanning the following types of disciplines: • Researchers knowledgeable about the project subject matter; • Members of trades that will apply the results of the project (e.g., designers, engineers, architects, contractors, and trade representatives); • Public interest market transformation implementers; • Product developers relevant to the project; • U.S. Department of Energy research managers, or experts from other federal or state agencies relevant to the project; • Public interest environmental groups; • Utility representatives; • Air district staff; and • Members of relevant technical society committees. • Prepare a List of Potential TAC Members that includes the names, companies, physical and electronic addresses, and phone numbers of potential members. The list will be discussed at the Kick-off meeting, and a schedule for recruiting members and holding the first TAC meeting will be developed. • Recruit TAC members. Ensure that each individual understands member obligations and the TAC meeting schedule developed in subtask 1.11. • Prepare a List of TAC Members once all TAC members have committed to serving on the TAC. • Submit Documentation of TAC Member Commitment (such as Letters of Acceptance) from each TAC member. • List of Potential TAC Members • List of TAC Members • Documentation of TAC Member Commitment
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.
ADB’s Review of Procurement Decisions 11. All contracts procured under international competitive bidding procedures and contracts for consulting services shall be subject to prior review by ADB, unless otherwise agreed between the Borrower and ADB and set forth in the Procurement Plan.
Joint Steering Committee Promptly after the Effective Date, the Parties will form a Joint Steering Committee (the “JSC”) composed of an equal number of employees of each of Curis and Genentech, but in no event to exceed four (4) members from each Party. The JSC shall determine the specific goals for the Collaboration, shall manage the ongoing research conducted under the Collaboration in accordance with the Research Plan, shall monitor the progress and results of such work, and shall oversee and coordinate the development and commercialization of Compounds (other than Collaboration Products); provided, however, that the JSC shall not have decision-making authority with respect to the development and commercialization of Collaboration Products, which shall be governed by the CSC. The presence of at least one (1) representative of each Party shall constitute a quorum for the conduct of any JSC meeting. All decisions of the JSC shall require unanimous approval, with the representatives of each Party collectively having one (1) vote, provided in the event of a deadlock, the issue shall be referred to the Chief Executive Officer of Curis and the Senior Vice President of Research of Genentech, or their respective designees, who shall promptly meet and attempt in good faith to resolve such issue within thirty (30) days. If such executives cannot resolve such matter, then Genentech shall have final decision-making authority with regard to decisions regarding the Collaboration (including, without limitation, the JSC’s designation of a Compound as either a Lead Product or Excluded Product); provided, however, that in no event shall Genentech have the right or power to take any of the following actions without the approval of Curis’ representatives on the JSC:
(a) approve the initial Research Plan (an outline of which has been agreed upon by the Parties as of the Effective Date);
(b) amend or modify this Agreement or the Research Plan;
(c) resolve any such matter in a manner that conflicts with the provisions of this Agreement (including, without limitation, the Research Plan);
(d) make any decision with respect to the development or commercialization of Curis Products; or
(e) make any decision with respect to the prosecution, maintenance, defense or enforcement of any Curis Patents. The JSC shall meet at such frequency as the JSC agrees, except that, until the filing of the first IND for a Lead Product utilizing Systemic Delivery in a Major Market, the JSC shall meet on at least a quarterly basis. Meetings of the JSC, and JSC dispute resolution meetings between Curis’ Chief Executive Officer and Genentech’s Senior Vice President of Research (or their designees), may be conducted by videoconference, teleconference or in person, as agreed by the Parties, and the Parties shall agree upon the time and place of meetings. A reasonable number of additional representatives of a Party may attend meetings of the JSC in a non-voting capacity. The JSC shall exist for so long as either any work is being conducted under the Research Plan or any Compound is being developed or commercialized by Genentech, Curis, or any of their respective Affiliate(s) or sublicensee(s) in any Major Market. The JSC shall also be responsible for designating one or more representatives of each Party with expertise in patent law (which individuals need not be members of the JSC) to oversee intellectual property matters relating to the Collaboration, subject to the provisions of Article 10, and such patent committee shall coordinate with and report to the JSC.
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.
Joint Remediation Committee If the Sellers (acting reasonably) determine that the Purchasers have committed a Major Default, then, at the election of the Sellers, within three (3) Business Days of the Sellers providing the Purchasers written notice of such determination, the Sellers and the Purchasers shall establish a joint remediation committee of designated executives from the Sellers and the Purchasers (“Joint Remediation Committee”) consisting of three (3) members of each of the Sellers and the Purchasers. The Joint Remediation Committee shall be responsible for overseeing the development of a mutually agreeable plan in accordance with subsection 3 below to either (i) remediate any breaches giving rise to the Major Default to the extent such breaches can be remediated and/or (ii) prevent similar breaches from recurring in the future (clauses (i) and (ii), a “Corrective Action Plan”). Each member of the Joint Remediation Committee shall have sufficient authority on the part of his or her respective party to make decisions relating to matters reviewed by the Joint Remediation Committee, and shall be approved by the other party (such approval not to be unreasonably delayed, conditioned or withheld). The Joint Remediation Committee shall have access to Purchaser Personnel that are primarily responsible for the area of the business relationship (such as information technology, data security or regulatory) where the breaches giving rise to the Major Default arise (such Purchaser Personnel, collectively, the “Subject Matter Experts”). The Sellers and the Purchasers shall cause their respective members on the Joint Remediation Committee to, and the Purchasers shall cause the Subject Matter Experts to, act in good faith in connection with the development of the Corrective Action Plan.
Steering Committee A. CIFNAL/ICBFN shall be managed by a Steering Committee comprised of elected representatives from the membership.
B. The Steering Committee is empowered to conduct the business of CIFNAL/ICBFN in accordance with the recommendations of the membership; approve and enact project activities; discuss and recommend future policy or changes in policy to be adopted by the membership; make budgetary decisions for CIFNAL/ICBFN; approach funding agencies; conduct periodic membership drives; and maintain communication with scholarly and professional associations as well as with other, similar cooperative projects.
C. The Steering Committee shall consist of at least five representatives of CIFNAL/ICBFN.
1. Four representatives shall be elected to at-large positions on the Steering Committee in accordance with the procedures in Section VIII. At least one representative shall be from a French or francophone institution.
2. The Chair of CIFNAL/ICBFN shall chair the Steering Committee.
3. Elected Coordinators of standing Working Groups shall serve on the Steering Committee for the period of their elected terms.
4. A representative of CRL shall serve as an ex officio member of the Steering Committee.
D. An advisory group of scholars and end-users, including representatives from academic organizations concerned with library and scholarly issues in francophone studies as well as non-academic information users and providers, shall be appointed by the Steering Committee as appropriate. The makeup of the advisory group shall be formulated to provide a balance of opinion and diversity of expertise. Members of the advisory group need not be from institutions that are a member of CIFNAL/ICBFN, and shall serve as ex officio members of the Steering Committee.
E. All elected representatives on the Steering Committee, including the Chair, shall have equal votes on matters requiring a formal approval by the Committee. Each member shall be accorded one vote. Ex officio members shall be non-voting members.
F. Steering Committee Members shall serve three-year terms, with staggered elections; re- election is permitted for one additional term. Elected members begin their term of office immediately following the annual membership meeting.
G. In the event a member is unable to serve a full term, the Chair shall appoint a replacement to serve the remainder of the term. Following this period, the replacement shall be eligible to stand for election according to the terms of Section V.
Project Steering Committee 1. For a sound implementation and management of the project, a steering committee shall be set up in line with provisions of the programme manual.
2. The steering committee is the decision-making body of the project and it shall be composed by representatives of the LP and all PPs duly authorised to represent the respective LP and PP institutions. It shall be chaired by the LP and it shall meet on a regular basis. Associated partners shall be invited to take part in the steering committee in an advisory capacity. External key stakeholders may also be invited to take part to one or more meetings in an observer/advisory capacity.
3. The steering committee shall at least:
a. be responsible for monitoring and validating the implementation of the project and the achievement of the planned results as in the approved application form;
b. perform the financial monitoring of the project implementation and to decide on any budget modifications as in § 11 of this agreement;
c. monitor and manage deviations of the project implementation;
d. decide on project modifications (e.g. partnership, budget, activities, and duration) if needed;
e. be responsible for the settlement of any disputes within the partnership (as stipulated in § 22 of this agreement).
4. Further aspects, including the creation of sub-groups or task forces, may be set out in the rules of procedure of the steering committee.
