Outside Review Sample Clauses

Outside Review. 18.1. The Landlord(s) understands that this is a legally binding agreement. Be Happy! Realty recommends the Landlord(s) have this document reviewed by an attorney; if so desired. I/ We the undersigned hereby acknowledge that I/we have read and understand all of the above information; and, by submitting the information below, agree and consent to all of the terms and conditions provided herein.
View SourceView Similar (6)
Outside Review. 18.1. The Seller(s) understands that this is a legally binding agreement. Be Happy! Realty recommends the Seller(s) have this document reviewed by an attorney; if so desired. I/ We the undersigned hereby acknowledge that I/we have read and understand all of the above information; and, by submitting the information below, agree and consent to all of the terms and conditions provided herein.
View SourceView Similar (4)
Outside Review. Within five (5) Business Days after the date of this Agreement, Sellers shall engage The Corridor Group, Inc. ("CORRIDOR") to review certain aspects of the operation of the Business that have been discussed and agreed upon by the Parties. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in lieu of Corridor, Sellers shall have the right to engage an alternative consultant, which shall be reasonably satisfactory to Buyer, to perform such review in the event that Sellers are not able to reach agreement with Corridor, within a reasonable period of time, on the terms of the engagement (including those with respect to the compensation of Corridor for its services) which must be commercially reasonable and at least as favorable to Sellers as those that Corridor currently provides to Buyer. As Corridor (or an alternative consultant) conducts its review and delivers its recommendations to Sellers and in any event prior to the Closing Date, Sellers shall take any and all necessary, appropriate and commercially reasonable actions to implement such recommendations to the extent that Sellers in good faith concur therewith.
View Source

Related to Outside Review

  • Utilization Review NOTE: The Utilization Review process does not apply to Services that are not covered by Blue Shield because of a coverage determination made by Medicare. State law requires that health plans disclose to Sub- scribers and health plan providers the process used to authorize or deny health care services under the plan. Blue Shield has completed documentation of this process ("Utilization Review"), as required un- der Section 1363.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. To request a copy of the document describing this Utilization Review process, call the Customer Service Department at the telephone number indicated on your Identification Card.

  • 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.

  • Performance Review Where a performance review of an employee’s performance is carried out, the employee shall be given sufficient opportunity after the interview to read and review the performance review. Provision shall be made on the performance review form for an employee to sign it. The form shall provide for the employee’s signature in two (2) places, one (1) indicating that the employee has read and accepts the performance review, and the other indicating that the employee disagrees with the performance review. The employee shall sign in only one (1) of the places provided. No employee may initiate a grievance regarding the contents of a performance review unless the signature indicates disagreement. An employee shall, upon request, receive a copy of this performance review at the time of signing. An employee’s performance review shall not be changed after an employee has signed it, without the knowledge of the employee, and any such changes shall be subject to the grievance procedure of this Agreement. The employee may respond, in writing, to the performance review. Such response will be attached to the performance review.

  • Position Review 18.3.1 Either an employee or the University may request an audit of the duties and responsibilities of a position he/she/it believes is not allocated to the proper class. Employees requesting such an audit are expected to notify the Union at the time of their request. 18.3.2 Job audits will be performed and reclassification decisions will be made by the University’s Human Resources Services staff according to the University’s Classification Process. The affected employee(s) and the Union will be notified of the outcome of a job audit in writing. In the event of a reallocation that results in removal of a position from the bargaining unit, the written notice will describe the manner in which the bargaining unit work is being distributed, including the classification and position(s) of any employee(s) absorbing work from the reallocated position. 18.3.3 If an employee disagrees with a classification decision made by the Human Resources staff, the employee may request review of that decision through the Director of OFM/State Human Resources within 30 (thirty) calendar days of receiving the final allocation decision from the University. Should the employee disagree with the Director’s decision, the employee may further appeal the matter to the Washington Personnel Resources Board within 30 (thirty) calendar days of being provided the written decision of the Director. The Board will render a decision, which will be final and binding. Decisions regarding appropriate classification will be reviewed in accordance with this Section and will not be subject to the grievance procedure specified in Article 40 of this Agreement.

  • 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.