Process Reviews Sample Clauses

Process Reviews. Manitoba Public Insurance may conduct process reviews from time to time to confirm that all Accreditation Requirements are being maintained, that you are following the Policies & Procedures, and that you are in compliance with the requirements of this Agreement.
Sample 1Sample 2
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Process Reviews. Joint Process Reviews, as part of the Stewardship Agreement with FHWA, can be periodically conducted with HQ staff, the regions, FHWA, and industry representatives across a range of technical areas including concrete pavement, structural concrete, HMA, pavement management and geotechnical engineering. Areas of potential risk will be identified by the QIC and prioritized in the QIC’s Joint Process Review/Risk Response Strategies annual effort. CDOT Area Engineers, with the support of the Materials and Geotechnical Branch, may conduct project level quality assurance reviews to ensure conformance with established regulations, policies, manuals, procedures, and guidelines.
Sample 1Sample 2
Process Reviews. These reviews are a thorough analysis of key program components and the processes employed by the WVDOH in managing programs. The reviews are conducted to: 1) ensure compliance with Federal requirements; 2) identify areas in need of improvement; 3) identify opportunities for greater efficiencies and cost improvement to the program; and 4) identify exemplary practices. Process reviews will be conducted based on the WVFHWA’s annual risk assessment. High priority processes will be studied by review teams that may be selected jointly by the WVFHWA and the WVDOH. Process reviews are the FHWA’s primary tool for providing oversight for assumed projects. The size and intensity of the program review may vary, depending on the topic being reviewed. Further, wherever appropriate, the process review should include a financial component and involve members of the financial team to determine if appropriate internal controls exist within the program intended to detect and/or prevent possible fraud, waste or abuse of Federal-aid funds. This component includes documenting those internal controls, as well as reviewing the adequacy of the documentation to support the appropriate expenditure of Federal-aid funds. PAR Reviews are reviews with a limited sample in a very specific area used to determine quickly whether a program or process is working effectively and efficiently. PAR Reviews are issue oriented and results driven. They are generally focused on functional areas and can be viewed as a QA/QC effort. They may be used to follow-up on a process review or as part of the risk assessment process to help select process review topics.
Sample 1
Process Reviews. The IRO shall perform Process Reviews at Sun's nursing facilities which are selected for MDS Audits as described above. The Process Reviews shall include a review of Sun's claims, coding, billing and submission process and other compliance related activities ("Process Review"). The Process Review may be performed concurrently with the other elements of the Billing Engagement and shall include testing or verification of Sun's Systems, processes and/or operations only when necessary as described below in Section III.D.2.b.x.(B). The Process Review shall consist of a thorough review and inquiry of the following: (A) Sun's documentation, coding, billing and reporting operations relating to claims submitted to all Federal health care programs. As part of this review, the IRO is expected to evaluate the presence, application and adequacy of: (1) Sun's billing and medical record documentation and coding process; (2) Sun's billing policies and procedures to ensure proper coding and billing; (3) Sun's internal controls to ensure accurate coding and claims submission; (4) Sun's reporting operations or mechanisms that ensure appropriate communication between Sun and its fiscal intermediaries; and (5) corrective action plans to correct any inaccurate coding or billing processes or individual claim forms. (B) In the event Sun or the IRO identify deficiencies in Sun's medical record documentation, coding process, policies and procedures, internal controls, reporting mechanisms or corrective action plans, (either through the Billing Engagement, Process Review, internal or external audits, or fiscal intermediary review) which result, or could result, in inappropriate billing to the federal health care programs, the IRO shall, attempt to quantify any actual or potential underpayment or overpayments and shall make a report to Sun (and to the OIG as described below) that shall include the IRO's recommendations to correct the identified deficiency. In addition, the IRO shall test the applicable Sun system(s) to ensure the potential deficiency is not a systemic problem. Sun will correct any identified deficiency within 3 months of the discovery of the deficiency or provide the OIG with a reason why it cannot correct the deficiency within that time frame. Sun will report its findings regarding any potential deficiencies and corrective actions in its Process Review Report.
Sample 1
Process Reviews. FHWA, in cooperation with the State DOT, will make periodic process reviews covering areas of delegated NHS projects to verify compliance with this agreement. FHWA reserves the right to review non-NHS projects on an as-needed basis. Process reviews may be limited to one or more segments of the project development phase, contracting phase, or construction phase or may encompass the total process.
Sample 1
Process Reviews. A more In-depth evaluation of a specific process within the identified program, and focused on a discrete process possibly involving data gathering and analysis. Review topics are identified either by FHWA HQ, or through the Division Office annual risk assessment process.
Sample 1
Process Reviews. The IRO shall perform process reviews ("Process Reviews") at Mariner's nursing facilities which are selected for full statistically valid random sample ("SRVS") MDS audits as described above. The Process Reviews shall include a review of Mariner's claims, coding, billing and submission process and other compliance related activities. The Process Review may be performed concurrently with the other elements of the SRVS MDS audit and shall include testing or verification of Mariner's systems, processes and/or operations only when necessary as described below in Section III.D.13.e.
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Process Reviews. Joint Process Reviews, as part of the Stewardship Agreement with FHWA, can be periodically conducted with HQ staff, the Regions, FHWA, and industry representatives across a range of technical areas including concrete pavement, structural concrete, HMA, pavement management and geotechnical engineering. Areas of potential risk will be identified by the QIC and prioritized in the QIC’s Joint Process Review/Risk Response Strategies annual effort.
Sample 1

Related to Process Reviews

  • BUSINESS REVIEWS Supplier must perform a minimum of one business review with Sourcewell per contract year. The business review will cover sales to Participating Entities, pricing and contract terms, administrative fees, sales data reports, performance issues, supply issues, customer issues, and any other necessary information.

  • 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.

  • 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

  • Business Review Meetings In order to maintain the relationship between the Department and the Contractor, each quarter the Department may request a business review meeting. The business review meeting may include, but is not limited to, the following: • Successful completion of deliverables • Review of the Contractor’s performance • Review of minimum required reports • Addressing of any elevated Customer issues • Review of continuous improvement ideas that may help lower total costs and improve business efficiencies.

  • 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.

  • Periodic Reviews During January of each year during the term hereof, the Board of Directors of the Company shall review Executive's Annual Salary, bonus, stock options, and additional benefits then being provided to Executive. Following each such review, the Company may in its discretion increase the Annual Salary, bonus, stock options, and benefits; however, the Company shall not decrease such items during the period Executive serves as an employee of the Company. Prior to November 30th of each year during the term hereof, the Board of Directors of the Company shall communicate in writing the results of such review to Executive.

  • Contract Review Agent shall have reviewed all material contracts of Borrowers including, without limitation, leases, union contracts, labor contracts, vendor supply contracts, license agreements and distributorship agreements and such contracts and agreements shall be satisfactory in all respects to Agent;

  • 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.

  • Periodic Review The General Counsel shall periodically review the Procurement Integrity Procedures with OSC personnel in order to ascertain potential areas of exposure to improper influence and to adopt desirable revisions for more effective avoidance of improper influences.

  • 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.

Draft better contracts in just 5 minutes Get the weekly Law Insider newsletter packed with expert videos, webinars, ebooks, and more!