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.

Project Review Process Sample Clauses

Project Review Process. The Oversight Committee (See Part 5.
Sample 1Sample 2
Project Review Process. The Technical Committee (See Part 5.2) established for this process will review and verify that a proposed restoration project meets the conditions of this Implementation Agreement, and will provide a checklist (Appendix D) presenting the findings and conclusions of that review to the Oversight Committee (See Parts 5.3 & 5.4) and the Credit Administrator (See Part 5.1)
Sample 1Sample 2
Project Review Process. This HRA application is being reviewed in parallel with the rezoning (REZ00063) and development permit applications for the overall site. The applications are proceeding through the following steps: Preliminary report regarding REZ00063 August 2011 HRA application January 2012 NWDP review and support of REZ00063 August 2012 APC review and support of REZ00063 August 2012 CHC support January 2013 REZ00063 for First and Second Readings November 2013 REZ00063 for Public Hearing and Third Reading November 2013 REZ00063 approved by Council August 2014 HRA and Heritage Designation Bylaws for First and Second Readings This report HRA and Heritage Designation Bylaws for Public Hearing and Third Reading September 2014 Referral to Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure September 2014 HRA and Heritage Designation Bylaws for consideration of adoption Fall 2014 Development Permit for overall site for consideration of issuance Fall 2014 The Community Heritage Commission (CHC) reviewed the heritage portion of the rezoning proposal at their February 2012 meeting and recommended the proposal to Council at their January 2013 meeting. The Advisory Planning Commission (APC) reviewed the rezoning proposal at their March 20, 2012 meeting and passed a recommendation of support at their August 21, 2012 meeting. The APC minutes can be found in Appendix F. The New Westminster Design Panel (NWDP) reviewed the rezoning proposal at their December 13, 2011 meeting and passed a recommendation of support at their August 28, 2012 meeting. The applicant presented the proposal to the Queensborough Residents’ Association in September 2012. Prior to this meeting on the same evening, the applicant held an Open House. There was general support for the retention of the Xxxxxx Residence as part of the larger rezoning proposal.
Sample 1
Project Review Process. For all projects not excluded from further Section 106 review pursuant to Stipulation III.A-B, the PRDOH shall ensure it complies with the procedures outlined in 36 CFR §§ 800.3-800.
Sample 1
Project Review Process. The Development Committee shall meet no less frequently than semi-annually to review ongoing status of active projects, new project concepts and project plans. Should Ethicon decide to fund development of any project that may result in a New Product or Improved Product, Neoprobe will present to Ethicon in writing a project plan including, at a minimum, specifications for the potential product, a budget, and a development timetable. In addition, the parties will negotiate in good faith Provisional Transfer Prices and purchase commitments, if any related to the potential product. Ethicon will have sixty (60) days from presentation of the project plan to decide whether or not to fund the project. Should Ethicon decline to fund the development or not respond on a timely basis, Neoprobe may elect to fund the project at its own expense. Following completion of a functional prototype for a New Product or Improved Product, Neoprobe will be obligated to present the prototype to Ethicon for evaluation. Ethicon and Neoprobe will review the prototype and related materials and use commercially reasonable efforts to negotiate Transfer Prices, Provisional Transfer Prices and purchase commitments. If Ethicon declines to negotiate or if the parties cannot agree on a Provisional Transfer Price and purchase commitment within ninety (90) days following presentation of the prototype, Neoprobe will be free to distribute the product through third parties, provided that the terms of distribution with third parties are not more favorable to Neoprobe than the terms of distribution discussed with Ethicon.
Sample 1
Project Review Process. (a) By each of the dates that is eight weeks before Review Point 3 and the date that is eight weeks before Review Point 4, CRL will provide to the Sponsors all such information as the Sponsors may reasonably require so as to satisfy themselves in relation to the relevant Sponsors Review Point Requirements. (b) As part of the Project Review process at Review Point 4, the Sponsors shall review whether [text redacted] applied to Cash Management Funding Amounts pursuant to paragraph (c) of the definitions of IP 0 and IP 1 remains appropriate having regard to the then current Financial Models and, in the event that the Sponsors issue a Positive Project Review Notice pursuant to Clause 27.4(b), they may also notify CRL in writing that such caps shall be amended and the definitions of IP 0 and IP 1 shall be construed accordingly. (c) Subject to receiving the information specified in Clause 27.3(a) in the timeframe required by that Clause, the Sponsors will complete their review processes so as to be in a position to make the decision contemplated by Clause 27.4 on or before Review Point 3 or Review Point 4 (as applicable). (d) CRL will be entitled to proceed with the Crossrail Project during the Project Review provided that: (i) CRL will not be entitled to issue tender documents in relation to any Delivery Contract prior to receipt of a Positive Project Review Notice at Review Point 3; and (ii) CRL will not be entitled to award any Delivery Contract prior to receipt of a Positive Project Review Notice at Review Point 4, other than: [text redacted];
Sample 1
Project Review Process 
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3

Related to Project Review Process

  • 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

  • Review Process A/E's Work Product will be reviewed by County under its applicable technical requirements and procedures, as follows:

  • Review Protocol A narrative description of how the Claims Review was conducted and what was evaluated.

  • REVIEW OF WORK The Consultant shall permit the City, its agents and/or employees to review, at any time, all work performed pursuant to the terms of this Agreement at any stage of the work;

  • Review Procedure If the Plan Administrator denies part or all of the claim, the claimant shall have the opportunity for a full and fair review by the Plan Administrator of the denial, as follows:

  • 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.

  • ADB’s Review of Procurement Decisions 11. 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.

  • Review Scope The parties confirm that the Asset Representations Review is not responsible for (a) reviewing the Receivables for compliance with the representations and warranties under the Transaction Documents, except as described in this Agreement or (b) determining whether noncompliance with the representations and warranties constitutes a breach of the Eligibility Representations. For the avoidance of doubt, the parties confirm that the review is not designed to determine why an Obligor is delinquent or the creditworthiness of the Obligor, either at the time of any Asset Review or at the time of origination of the related Receivable. Further, the Asset Review is not designed to establish cause, materiality or recourse for any Test Fail (as defined in Section 3.05).

  • Asset Representations Review Process Section 3.01 Asset Representations Review Notices and Identification of Review Receivables. On receipt of an Asset Representations Review Notice from the Seller according to Section 5.7 of the Receivables Purchase Agreement, the Asset Representations Reviewer will start an Asset Representations Review. The Servicer will provide the list of Review Receivables to the Asset Representations Reviewer promptly upon receipt of the Asset Representations Review Notice. The Asset Representations Reviewer will not be obligated to start, and will not start, an Asset Representations Review until an Asset Representations Review Notice and the related list of Review Receivables is received. The Asset Representations Reviewer is not obligated to verify (i) whether the conditions to the initiation of the Asset Representations Review and the issuance of an Asset Representations Review Notice described in Section 7.6 of the Indenture were satisfied or (ii) the accuracy or completeness of the list of Review Receivables provided by the Servicer.

  • Claims Review Population A description of the Population subject to the Claims Review.

Most Referenced Clauses

Most Referenced Definitions