Prioritised Recommendations Report
Prioritised Recommendations Report Sample Clauses
Related to Prioritised Recommendations Report
ADB’s Review of Procurement Decisions 9. 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. SCHEDULE 5
Review Protocol A narrative description of how the Claims Review was conducted and what was evaluated.
ONLINE PUBLIC AUCTION PROCESS 2.1. E-Bidders may browse through the PAH Website and select the properties they wish to bid online.
AUDIT REVIEW PROCEDURES A. 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 LOCAL AGENCY’S Chief Financial Officer.
Review Process A/E's Work Product will be reviewed by County under its applicable technical requirements and procedures, as follows:
Implementation Report Within 150 days after the Effective Date, Extendicare shall submit a written report to OIG summarizing the status of its implementation of the requirements of this CIA (Implementation Report). The Implementation Report shall, at a minimum, include:
POST ONLINE PUBLIC AUCTION PROCEDURES 4.1. Successful E-bidders shall and undertake to sign the Memorandum of Sale at the office of the Auctioneer within 3 working days from the date of auction, failing which the deposit paid will be forfeited to the Assignee bank and the sale will be deemed cancelled/terminated and the property may be put up again for subsequent auction without further notice to the said E-Bidders. The Auctioneer shall send the Memorandum of Sale for stamping and thereafter forward the same together with the required deposit paid under Clause 2.4 above and the differential sum paid under this clause (if any) to the Assignee bank.
Benchmarking Report For the purposes of this Framework Schedule 12 “
Review and Selection Process The Project Narratives of SAMHSA applications are peer-reviewed according to the evaluation criteria listed above. Decisions to fund a grant are based on the strengths and weaknesses of the application as identified by peer reviewers. The results of the peer review are advisory in nature. The program office and approving official make the final determination for funding based on the following: • Individual awards over $250,000 are approved by the Center for Mental Health Services National Advisory Council; • Availability of funds; • Equitable distribution of awards in terms of geography (including urban, rural, and remote settings) and balance among populations of focus and program size; • Submission of any required documentation that must be submitted prior to making an award; and • SAMHSA is required to review and consider any information about your organization that is in the Federal Award Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS). In accordance with 45 CFR 75.212, SAMHSA reserves the right not to make an award to an entity if that entity does not meet the minimum qualification standards as described in section 75.205(a)(2). If SAMHSA chooses not to award a fundable application in accordance with 45 CFR 75.205(a)(2), SAMHSA must report that determination to the designated integrity and performance system accessible through the System for Award Management (XXX) [currently, FAPIIS]. You may review and comment on any information about your organization that a federal awarding agency previously entered. XXXXXX will consider your comments, in addition to other information in FAPIIS in making a judgment about your organization’s integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under federal awards when completing the review of risk posed as described in 45 CFR 75.205 HHS Awarding Agency Review of Risk by Applicants.
Joint Review JADRC may, at the request of either party, review issues arising from the application of this Article.
