Project Reviews Clause Samples
The 'Project reviews' clause establishes a formal process for evaluating the progress and quality of a project at predetermined intervals or milestones. Typically, this involves scheduled meetings or assessments where stakeholders review deliverables, discuss challenges, and ensure that the project is on track with respect to timelines, budget, and objectives. By setting clear expectations for regular oversight, this clause helps identify issues early, facilitates communication among parties, and supports timely decision-making to keep the project aligned with its goals.
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 Reviews. Participate 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 Reviews. Vendor 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 December 31, 2000 the Borrower and the Association shall undertake a joint in-depth review of Project implementation (hereinafter referred to as the First Annual Review, and the review to be carried out twelve months later shall be referred to as the Second Annual Review). The Borrower shall take all action necessary on its part to ensure the participation in such Annual Reviews of representatives of the CUs and CISUs concerned. 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, including: (i) efficiency and costs of contract management under the Project, and notably the average time-span for contractor’s payments; (ii) progress in the preparation and dissemination of NDA documentation and the training in NDA evaluation methodology; (iii) proposals for the carrying out of NDAs during the following year; and (iv) executio n by CUs of annual routine maintenance programs with adequate budgets;
(b) not later than one month prior to each Annual Review, the Borrower shall, through AGETUR and SERHAU-SEM, 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; 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 Reviews. Table 12-1 lists participants in the scoping team field review, which occurred in January 2021. District Program Advisor ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Headquarters SHOPP Program Advisor ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ District Maintenance ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ Headquarters Project Delivery Coordinator ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Project Manager ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ FHWA ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ District Safety Review ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇ Environmental Planning ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Biology ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Cultural ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Materials ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ Landscaping ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ Hydraulics ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ Field Maintenance ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ Field Maintenance ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇
Project Reviews. Table 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 ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 8/3/2020 HQ SHOPP Program Advisor ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 8/3/2020 District Maintenance ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ 8/3/2020 District 4 Design Liaison Solomon Tesfe 8/3/2020 HQ Project Delivery Coordinator ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 8/3/2020 Project Manager ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ 8/3/2020 District Safety Review ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇ 8/3/2020 Constructability Review ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ 8/3/2020 Notes: HQ = Headquarters SHOPP = State Highway Operation and Protection Program
Project Reviews. The 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. Table 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
Project Reviews. Monthly project reviews will be held throughout the development effort. Endwave shall hold these monthly to review progress of technical, cost, and schedule issues. A monthly report will also be delivered to Nokia via e-mail using an agreed to format.