We use cookies on our site to analyze traffic, enhance your experience, and provide you with tailored content.

For more information visit our privacy policy.

JOINT REVIEW PROCESS Sample Clauses

JOINT REVIEW PROCESS. 22.17.1 The parties agree that any dispute arising out of Article 22.14.4 shall be referred to the Joint Review Process. Should the matter not be resolved at that level, it shall proceed within fifteen (15) days to an available mediator-arbitrator drawn from a list of agreed upon mediator- arbitrators. The parties agree that the standard to be used by the mediator-arbitrator shall be arguable relevance. The burden of proof in Article 22.17 will rest with the party asserting the need for the information. Any such hearing on issues referred to a mediator-arbitrator under Article 22.17, shall be limited to hearings of no more than one (1) day.
JOINT REVIEW PROCESS. 22.17.1 The parties agree that any dispute arising out of Article 22.14.4 shall be referred to the Joint Review Process. Should the matter not be resolved at that level, it shall proceed within fifteen (15) days to an available mediator- arbitrator drawn from a list of agreed upon mediator-arbitrators. The parties agree that the standard to be used by the mediator-arbitrator shall be arguable relevance. The burden of proof in Article 22.17 will rest with the party asserting the need for the information. Any such hearing on issues referred to a mediator-arbitrator under Article 22.17, shall be limited to hearings of no more than one (1) day. 22.17.2 The Joint Review Process is an integral part of the dispute resolution mechanism. The parties agree to meet in such process for the following reasons: (a) review of such cases as the parties choose prior to submission to arbitration (b) consolidation of cases, where applicable, with agreement in advance as to application of an award on similar issues, subject to the right of the parties to seek judicial review of any award. (c) review arbitration awards as deemed necessary to determine application (d) any other mutually acceptable reason.
JOINT REVIEW PROCESS. Before a dispute involving a denial of benefits provided under the Benefit Plans to an individual is submitted to arbitration, the parties agree that an equal number of representatives of the Employer and the Association, with up to four (4) representatives in total, may meet jointly to review the issues and determine whether the matter can be resolved. Each party may be accompanied by a resource person or a consultant. In addition, the grievor may attend if requested by either of the parties. Where a claim dispute and/or related procedural issues cannot be resolved by the parties, the Association may submit the dispute to arbitration as set out below.
JOINT REVIEW PROCESS. 22.18.1 The parties agree that any dispute arising out of Article 22.14.4 shall be referred to the Joint Review Process. Should the matter not be resolved at that level, it shall proceed within fifteen (15) days to an available mediator-arbitrator drawn from a list of agreed upon mediator-arbitrators. The parties agree that the standard to be used by the mediator-arbitrator shall be arguable relevance. The burden of proof in Article
JOINT REVIEW PROCESS. The City and County shall establish a process for City and County review of Proposed Development Applications within the Three-Mile Area.
JOINT REVIEW PROCESS. 1. The City and County shall establish a process for joint City and County Planning Commission review of projects within the Three-Mile Area This joint process shall require the following: a. Technical Review Committee A Technical Review Committee (TRC) shall be created to jointly review Proposed Development Applications upon request by either the City or the County. b. Proposed Development Applications to the County for Land within the Urban Growth Boundary. but Outside the City Limits (1) Upon receipt of a completed Proposed Development Application for land located within the Three-Mile Area, County Planning Staff shall forward a copy of the application to City Planning Staff and shall advise City Planning Staff of the dates on which the application will be heard by the County Planning Commission and/or the Board of County Commissioners as applicable. The County shall provide the City Planning Staff with a copy of the complete submittal package at least thirty (30) days prior to the initial action on the application so as to permit adequate time for the City to provide comments. The City shall provide any comments it may have concerning the Proposed Development Application, in writing, to the County Planning Staff at least 5 days prior to the first scheduled hearing on the application before the Planning Commission or Board of County Commissioners as the case may be.

Related to JOINT REVIEW PROCESS

  • Review Process A/E's Work Product will be reviewed by County under its applicable technical requirements and procedures, as follows:

  • Review Protocol A narrative description of how the Claims Review was conducted and what was evaluated.

  • 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.

  • 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

  • Claims Review Population A description of the Population subject to the Claims Review.

  • 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.

  • Review Procedure If the Plan Administrator denies part or all of the claim, the claimant shall have the opportunity for a full and fair review by the Plan Administrator of the denial, as follows:

  • Asset Representations Review Process Section 3.01 Asset Representations Review Notices and Identification of Review Receivables. On receipt of an Asset Representations Review Notice from the Seller according to Section 5.7 of the Receivables Purchase Agreement, the Asset Representations Reviewer will start an Asset Representations Review. The Servicer will provide the list of Review Receivables to the Asset Representations Reviewer promptly upon receipt of the Asset Representations Review Notice. The Asset Representations Reviewer will not be obligated to start, and will not start, an Asset Representations Review until an Asset Representations Review Notice and the related list of Review Receivables is received. The Asset Representations Reviewer is not obligated to verify (i) whether the conditions to the initiation of the Asset Representations Review and the issuance of an Asset Representations Review Notice described in Section 7.6 of the Indenture were satisfied or (ii) the accuracy or completeness of the list of Review Receivables provided by the Servicer.

  • FINAL BILLING SUBMISSION Unless otherwise provided by the System Agency, Grantee shall submit a reimbursement or payment request as a final close-out invoice not later than forty-five (45) calendar days following the end of the term of the Contract. Reimbursement or payment requests received after the deadline may not be paid.

  • 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.