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 Reviews Sample Clauses

Project Reviews. The granting authority may carry out reviews on the proper implementation of the action and compliance with the obligations under the Agreement (general project reviews or specific issues reviews). Such project reviews may be started during the implementation of the action and until the time-limit set out in the Data Sheet (see Point 6). They will be formally notified to the coordinator or beneficiary concerned and will be considered to start on the date of the notification. If needed, the granting authority may be assisted by independent, outside experts. If it uses outside experts, the coordinator or beneficiary concerned will be informed and have the right to object on grounds of commercial confidentiality or conflict of interest. The coordinator or beneficiary concerned must cooperate diligently and provide — within the deadline requested — any information and data in addition to deliverables and reports already submitted (including information on the use of resources). The granting authority may request beneficiaries to provide such information to it directly. Sensitive information and documents will be treated in accordance with Article 13. The coordinator or beneficiary concerned may be requested to participate in meetings, including with the outside experts. For on-the-spot visits, the beneficiary concerned must allow access to sites and premises (including to the outside experts) and must ensure that information requested is readily available. Information provided must be accurate, precise and complete and in the format requested, including electronic format. On the basis of the review findings, a project review report will be drawn up. The granting authority will formally notify the project review report to the coordinator or beneficiary concerned, which has 30 days from receiving notification to make observations. Project reviews (including project review reports) will be in the language of the Agreement.
Project ReviewsParticipate in peer and constructability reviews of projects.
Project Reviews. ADB shall conduct periodic reviews of the progress of the Project as necessary and undertake any necessary midcourse corrections. In addition, ADB shall conduct special reviews as appropriate. The Borrower shall give all possible assistance for carrying out such reviews.
Project ReviewsVendor will keep abreast of status. In weekly Project Reviews, the County’s and Vendor’s Project Managers as well as other interested stakeholders will review accomplishments from the past week, plans for the next week, any new roadblocks, and status of risks and issues to further understand the proposed resolutions. This forum will also include an update of the financials. These various governance forums work together in a well-executed governance structure. For example, the Auditor-Controller Steering Committee would provide guidance on strategy and policy decisions; the Project Reviews and other forums would communicate relevant information, issues and their resolutions, and escalations as needed. This two-way, transparent and collaborative governance structure will make certain that the ATS modernization project meets overall expectations for the desired outcome. The escalation process is a key component of Vendor’s communications and management strategies. The following core principles apply to Vendor’s escalation process:  Vendor’s escalation process closely aligns with Vendor’s Governance model.  All reasonable efforts are made to resolve issues at the lowest level within the project, thereby avoiding escalation where possible.  Speed of escalation is based upon criticality and priority of the issue.  Escalations support the collaborative working relationship between Vendor and the County.  Escalations are fully transparent and treated as proactive communications that bolster Vendor’s “Always Accountable” posture on the ATS re-platform project.
Project Reviews. (a) Not later than 12 months, 24 months, 36 months and 48 months after the Effective Date, the Borrower, COSUCO, and the Association shall undertake a joint in- depth review of Project implementation (each such review is hereinafter referred to as an “Annual Review”, and collectively, the “Annual Reviews”) . The Borrower shall take all action necessary on its part to ensure the participation in such Annual Reviews of representatives of the relevant Cities, involved bilateral donors and co-financing institutions, involved line ministries, NGOs, and involved NDCs. Such Annual Reviews shall cover all matters relating to the carrying out of the Project and progress achieved, having regard to the indicators referred to in paragraph 6 (a) of this Schedule, in attaining its objective; In addition, no later than at the time of the Annual Review that will take place 24 months after the Effective Date (Mid-Term Review), the Borrower, COSUCO and the Association shall determine the Borrower’s compliance with the Component D Triggers; (b) not later than one month prior to each Annual Review, the Borrower shall, through the Project Unit , furnish to the Association: (i) for its review and comments, a report, in such detail as the Association shall reasonably request, on the progress achieved in the carrying out of the Project, covering the issues to be reviewed, including a summary of the reports referred to under paragraph 6 (b) of this Schedule, and an evaluation of the remedial actions undertaken pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 6 (c) of this Schedule, if any; and (ii) for its review and approval, the documentation, in such form and detail as the Association shall reasonably request, on NDAs to be financed out of the proceeds of the Credit during the following year an on the Annual Programs prepared by XXXXXX and AGETUR; and (c) Following each Annual Review, the Borrower shall act promptly and diligently in order to take any corrective action deemed necessary to remedy any shortcoming identified in the implementation of the Project, or to implement such measures as agreed upon between the Borrower and the Association in furtherance of the objective of the Project. Part B: Eligibility Criteria for NDAs
Project ReviewsThe Borrower/Recipient, the PPCs and the Fund shall jointly conduct the following reviews: two reviews of Project implementation and achievements, a comprehensive mid-term review during the third Project Year and a Project Completion Review. The Terms of Reference and time of the reviews shall be agreed by all parties.
Project Reviews. The Port has advanced the Project design to 100 percent completion, developed a Baseline Cost Estimate and Schedule, and Preliminary Basis of Design Report. These Preliminary Design documents establish a clear scope of work and set forth a preliminary construction phasing plan to complete the roadway, utility, railroad, and site improvements required to successfully build the Project. Engineering studies completed to date have included preliminary utilities investigation, geotechnical studies, and environmental soil characterization. Early identification of potential utility conflicts and notification of utility owners has already begun. The Port will leverage its experience in transportation infrastructure planning and project delivery to ensure that the Project is completed in a timely manner and meets quality standards. In addition to in-house teams for technical planning and engineering, the Port hires outside consultants and contractors to assist with activities that require expert knowledge or experience. The Port has capably managed more than $1 billion in grant funding for individual transportation projects in the Port’s portfolio, representing almost 25 percent of the Port’s total capital program since 2002. Building upon experience gained over more than 100 years of capital investment, the Port has developed a comprehensive project delivery process, reference guides, and standards into a single web-based platform. The site allows for accessing, sharing, and updating information for effective delivery of the Port’s capital program. With direct, online access to program management, project controls, engineering design, and construction management resources, Port staff and consultants can assure consistency of approach and delivery from project planning through commissioning. The Project has completed the first phase - Preliminary Design - of the Port's established project delivery process, having completed feasibility studies, 30 percent design development and associated budget and schedule, preliminary risk assessment, and California environmental review (CEQA). The Board of Harbor Commissioners has approved the Project's Baseline Budget and Baseline Schedule to which Port managers are accountable. The Project is now in Final Design.
Project ReviewsTable 12-1 lists the types of project reviews that will be conducted, the names of the reviewers, and the dates of the reviews. District Program Advisor Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx 8/3/2020 HQ SHOPP Program Advisor Xxxx Xxxxxxxxx 8/3/2020 District Maintenance Xxxxx Xxxxx 8/3/2020 District 4 Design Liaison Solomon Tesfe 8/3/2020 HQ Project Delivery Coordinator Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx 8/3/2020 Project Manager Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx 8/3/2020 District Safety Review Xxxxx Xxx 8/3/2020 Constructability Review Xxxxxx Xxxxx 8/3/2020 Notes: HQ = Headquarters SHOPP = State Highway Operation and Protection Program
Project Reviews. Scoping team field review Date 1/22/18 Scoping team field review attendance roster attached. District Program Manager Xxxxx XxXxxxx Date 2/14/20 Headquarters SHOPP Program Advisor Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx Date 2/7/20 District Maintenance Xxxxx Xxxxxxx Date 2/11/20 Headquarters Project Delivery Coordinator Xxxx Xxxxxxx Date 8/2020 Project Manager Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx Date 12/10/19 FHWA n/a Date District Safety Review Xxxxx Xxxxxxx Date 2/11/20 Constructability Review Date
Project ReviewsTable 12-1 lists the types of project reviews, the reviewers, and the dates of the reviews. Table 12-1: Types of Project Reviews, Reviewers, and Dates of Reviews