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.

Panel Review Sample Clauses

Panel ReviewThe CO Panel shall review the declaration submitted by an applicant and render a decision. Such review shall take place within thirty (30) days after the Association formally questions the declaration.
Panel Review. If, after review of all information available, and what was provided in response to CILs and/or any additional requests, the SBA Adjudicator adjudicates the application and determines that the information is insufficient to establish an entitlement to a passport under the preponderance of the evidence standard, the SBA Adjudicator shall then refer the application to the Panel for review and final adjudication.
Panel Review. 35.5.1 Where the supervisor within the above report makes a recommendation for either demotion or termination of employment the employee can, within 10 working days of receiving advice of the recommendation, request a review on the grounds of: a) an identified breach of the principles of Procedural Fairness; or b) new information not considered by the supervisor that could affect the recommendation to the Relevant Senior Officer has become known. 35.5.2 Where the employee requests a review, the Director, HR (or delegated authority) will establish a review panel within 5 working days. The review panel is required to be available to convene and provide a report to the Relevant Senior Officer as soon as practicable and normally within 10 working days of being established. 35.5.3 A review panel will comprise: a) An employee nominated by the University, and b) An employee nominated by the NTEU following consultation with the employee. 35.5.4 The role of the review panel is to: a) consider the claim by the employee and any supporting material submitted by the employee; b) provide a report to the Relevant Senior Officer with their view as to whether the finding of unsatisfactory performance is materially impacted by: i) the alleged breach of Procedural Fairness; or ii) the new information provided.
Panel Review. The Panel Manager will collate the results of all the Engagement Performance Reports over each Performance Review Period as specified in the PMRS, to provide feedback to the Consultant on its Panel Performance .
Panel Review. Each application will receive an independent, objective review by a panel qualified to evaluate the applications submitted. MBDA anticipates that the review panel will be made up of at least three independent reviewers (all Federal employees) who will review all applications based on the above evaluation criteria. Each reviewer will evaluate and provide a score for each proposal. In order for an application to be considered for funding, it shall need to achieve 70% of the available points for each criterion. Failure to achieve these results will automatically deem the application as unsuccessful.

Related to Panel Review

  • 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.

  • Annual Review The Board of Directors during the Contract Period shall review annually, or at more frequent intervals which the Board of Directors determines is appropriate, the Executive’s compensation and shall award the Executive additional compensation to reflect the Executive’s performance, the performance of the Company and competitive compensation levels, all as determined in the discretion of the Board of Directors.

  • Annual Reviews Within thirty (30) days after each annual anniversary of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the Company shall review Employee’s performance of his duties pursuant to this Agreement and advise Employee of the results of that review; provided, however, that Company may elect to conduct a partial-year performance review in order to synchronize Employee’s annual review date with that of the Company’s other executives. In connection with each such review, the Company shall evaluate whether any increase in Employee’s compensation under Section 2, below, is appropriate.

  • 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.

  • Classification Review (A) Reclassification Request (a) An employee who has good reason to believe that they are improperly classified may apply, in writing by electronic mail, to their immediate out-of-scope Manager to have their classification reviewed. This may occur when there has been a substantive change in the job functions, when there has been a change in organizational structure that significantly impacts roles, or when a classification specification has been amended in a manner that alters the basis on which classification levels are differentiated. The employee making the request will indicate the reason(s) why they believe their position is inappropriately classified, including the changes that have occurred to the position, organization or classification specifications. In some circumstances, a classification review may be initiated in response to a long standing perceived inequity in how a position is classified. However, where a review has been previously conducted, employees should not request a subsequent classification review unless there has been a substantive change as described above. Submissions must include an approved job description, in the event that a current job description is not available an employee can initiate their written request so as to establish a potential effective date as per article 40.04(a). The manager shall send a copy of the employee’s request to Human Resources without delay, and shall confirm in writing to the employee and the Union that the employee’s request has been received. The manager shall advise the employee of the results of the classification review within ninety (90) calendar days of receiving the request. The notification shall be in writing and include rationale for the decision, specifically addressing the reasons for the review provided by the employee. (b) When reviewing a request for reclassification, the Employer shall follow the guidelines included in the Classification Specification User Manual. Requests are reviewed by the Employer. The evaluation of the role may include an audit of the role, including interviews with the Employee and the Employee’s Manager as needed. (c) Should the employee feel that they have not received proper consideration in regard to a classification review, they may request that the matter be referred to the Internal Appeal Process.

  • Legal Review Upon the Executive’s submission of appropriate itemized proof and verification of reasonable and customary legal fees incurred by the Executive in obtaining legal advice associated with the review, preparation, approval, and execution of this Agreement, the Company shall pay for up to $10,000.00 of such legal fees subject to receipt of appropriate proof and verification of such legal fees no later than sixty (60) days of receipt of an invoice for legal services from the Executive and/or his attorneys. To be eligible for reimbursement, the invoice must be submitted no later than ninety (90) days after the legal fees are incurred.

  • Department Review The parties shall resolve disputes through written submission of their dispute to the Department’s Contract Manager. The Department shall respond to the dispute in writing within ten (10) Business Days from the date that the Department’s Contract Manager receives the dispute. The Department’s decision shall be final unless a party provides the other party with written notice of the party’s disagreement with the decision within ten (10) Business Days from the date of the Department’s decision. If a party disagrees with the Department’s decision, the party may proceed to subsection (b) below.

  • 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.

  • AUDIT REVIEW PROCEDURES Any dispute concerning a question of fact arising under an interim or post audit of this AGREEMENT that is not disposed of by agreement, shall be reviewed by ALAMEDA CTC’s Deputy Executive Director of Finance and Administration. Not later than thirty (30) calendar days after issuance of the final audit report, CONSULTANT may request a review by ALAMEDA CTC’s Deputy Executive Director of Finance and Administration of unresolved audit issues. The request for review will be submitted in writing. Neither the pendency of a dispute nor its consideration by ALAMEDA CTC will excuse CONSULTANT from full and timely performance, in accordance with the terms of this AGREEMENT. CONSULTANT and subconsultants’ contracts, including cost proposals and ICRs, may be subject to audits or reviews such as, but not limited to, an AGREEMENT Audit, an Incurred Cost Audit, an ICR Audit, or a certified public accountant (“CPA”) ICR Audit Workpaper Review. If selected for audit or review, the AGREEMENT, cost proposal and ICR and related workpapers, if applicable, will be reviewed to verify compliance with 48 CFR, Chapter 1, Part 31 and other related laws and regulations. In the instances of a CPA ICR Audit Workpaper Review it is CONSULTANT’s responsibility to ensure federal, state, or local government officials are allowed full access to the CPA’s workpapers including making copies as necessary. The AGREEMENT, cost proposal, and ICR shall be adjusted by CONSULTANT and approved by ALAMEDA CTC to conform to the audit or review recommendations. CONSULTANT agrees that individual terms of costs identified in the audit report shall be incorporated into the contract by this reference if directed by ALAMEDA CTC at its sole discretion. Refusal by CONSULTANT to incorporate audit or review recommendations, or to ensure that the federal, state, or local governments have access to CPA workpapers, will be considered a breach of contract terms and cause for termination of the AGREEMENT and disallowance of prior reimbursed costs.