Peer Reviews. Additional Peer Reviews may be conducted as required by Applicable Code Requirements, Authorities Having Jurisdiction, and/or Judicial Council. Judicial Council shall be responsible for the costs of any additional peer reviews. Judicial Council, in collaboration with the Design Build Entity, shall use its best efforts to schedule the timing of these reviews within the parameters of the Contract Schedule.
Peer Reviews. Following advance notice of at least three months, each Party shall permit officials or experts designated by the other Party to conduct peer reviews in its territory to verify that the relevant control authorities and control bodies are carrying out the controls required under this Agreement. Each Party shall cooperate with and assist the other Party, to the extent permitted under applicable law, in carrying out the peer reviews referred to in paragraph 1, which may include visits to offices of relevant control authorities and control bodies, processing facilities and certified operators.
Peer Reviews. The peer review is designed to have an outside team meet with the host agency (DDOT) to discuss and review its management processes/practices in a particular program area. Information on the host agency and team members’ policies and procedures are exchanged with the intent to improve the overall program process. The information gathered from the exchange is presented to agency management for process improvement.
Peer Reviews a. CDDO Peer Reviews shall be conducted once every two years on all CDDOs in the State of Kansas.
b. Peer Reviews shall consist of both desk review and onsite review of quality assurance and performance measures limited to and as defined by federal and state statute and regulation, Formally Adopted KDADS policies, and this Contract, the HCBS IDD CMS-approved waiver.
c. The CDDO shall cooperate with the peer review team by providing access to any records, documents or other information as requested by the review team regarding or relating to the execution and/or performance of this Contract.
d. KDADS or its designee, reserves the right to audit CDDO records for compliance regarding complaints, deficiencies and identified areas of compliance related to CDDO administration, including federal financial participation standards and quarterly quality assurance review of functional assessments.
e. KDADS will provide a written report within ten business days to the CDDO following the on-site Peer Review. The findings of the Peer Review team will be considered final unless the CDDO contests the findings and provides a rebuttal.
f. If the CDDO would like to provide a rebuttal, they will have 10 business days from the submission of the KDADS report to do so. A final report from KDADS will be due within 10 business days from the submission of the CDDO rebuttal. The CDDO rebuttal will be added to the original report and the report will be updated to reflect the outcome of the rebuttal.
g. The final report will include a request for a performance improvement plan, if applicable. The timeline for the performance improvement plan will be identified in the final report.
h. The findings of the Peer Review team will be final unless KDADS or CDDO contest the findings in accordance with the Peer Review Policy or as allowed under state law.
i. Results of the peer review shall not be made available or posted publicly until final determination has been made.
Peer Reviews. The following Peer Review(s) shall be performed by Peer Reviewer(s). Judicial Council Representative will direct Design Build Entity on how to coordinate with each Peer Reviewer consistent with the requirements of the General Conditions. Meetings may also be required of Design Build Entity with Peer Reviewers. Design Build Entity will incorporate revisions requested by Peer Reviewers, unless otherwise directed by the Judicial Council in writing. Design Build Entity will coordinate with Judicial Council Representative prior to incorporating such revisions. 13.10.12.1. Structural Peer Review;
13.10.12.2. Smoke Control Peer Review (if applicable);
13.10.12.3. Any other necessary Peer Review(s) applicable to the Project by Applicable Code Requirements and/or Authorities Having Jurisdiction.
Peer Reviews. All contract actions above the sim- plified acquisition threshold shall be independently reviewed by at least one other qualified contracting profes- sional. This includes solicitations, con- tracts, contract modifications, and de- livery/task orders. This requirement is waived for overseas posts and RPSOs that have only one qualified con- tracting professional.
Peer Reviews. 1. A Hearing Officer may submit a draft appeal determination to one (1) Hearing Officer “peer” reviewer for pre-issuance review, or to more reviewers at the discretion of the Hearing Officer.
2. The Hearing Officer will select their peer reviewer.
Peer Reviews. The following Peer Review(s) shall be performed by Peer Reviewer(s). Judicial Council Representative will direct Design Build Entity on how to coordinate with each Peer Reviewer consistent with the requirements of the General Conditions. Meetings may also be required of Design Build Entity with Peer Reviewers. Design Build Entity will incorporate revisions requested by Peer Reviewers, unless otherwise directed by Judicial Council in writing. Design Build Entity will coordinate with Judicial Council Representative prior to incorporating such revisions. 13.10.12.1. Structural Peer Review
Peer Reviews. Please provide the names of two peer reviews, one for each lead partner. These should be independent of the teams involved. We might contact either one or both for their assessment.
Peer Reviews. Olsson Associates has elected to use peer reviews to provide the necessary quality control for project design documents. A peer review has several distinguishing characteristics: • Is always conducted by persons who are independent of the review subject. The reviewers should be sufficiently removed from the subject so they will not be biased by what has taken place to date on the project. • Has a specified purpose, scope, format, and duration. Such characteristics help to distinguish a peer review from other reviews that may be performed on a less systematic basis. • Is not an indication that the original design professional is incompetent or suspect in any way. Such a high-level review is merely a recognition that all design professionals and entire design organizations have had less than complete experience, and an independent team of peers can offer a new range of experiences and opinions. • Must be documented, and this documentation must then become a part of the permanent record of the project. • Will include the review of drawings and specifications by a second Professional Engineer/Landscape Architect/etc. in the case when a design requires the stamp or seal of that professional. Task No. Description of Work Items / Tasks Sen Proj Manager Sen Eng Sen Proj Eng Proj Eng Assoc Eng Assis Eng SrTech Tech Design Assoc. Assist. Tech Scientist Surveyor Asso Surv Sen Surv Admin Coord Driller LA Assoc. LA Assist. LA Const. Manager Lead Insp Ass Insp Total Man-hours Total Labor Fee Overhead #REF! Total (A+B) Profit #REF! Total Fee Total Fee 1.01 Topographic Survey 4 52 52 6 114 $10,100 $10,100 $10,100.00 1.02 Office Survey Services 20 2 22 $1,696 $1,696 $1,696.00 Research KDOT ROW boundaries at College 2 2 4 $626 $626 $626.00 Staking construction items for utility coordination 6 6 12 $924 $924 $924.00 1.03 Geotechnical investigation 6 24 2 10 42 $5,040 $5,040 $5,040.00 1.04 QAQC 4 6 10 $1,332 $1,332 $1,332.00 1 SUBTOTAL 6 10 24 52 78 16 8 10 204 $19,718.00
