Procurement Related Complaints and Administrative Review 49.1 The procedures for making a Procurement-related Complaint are as specified in the TDS.
49.2 A request for administrative review shall be made in the form provided under contract forms.
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.
Post Review With respect to each contract not governed by paragraph 2 of this Part, the procedures set forth in paragraph 4 of Appendix 1 to the Guidelines shall apply.
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.
Peer Review Dental Group, after consultation with the Joint ----------- Operations Committee, shall implement, regularly review, modify as necessary or appropriate and obtain the commitment of Providers to actively participate in peer review procedures for Providers. Dental Group shall assist Manager in the production of periodic reports describing the results of such procedures. Dental Group shall provide Manager with prompt notice of any information that raises a reasonable risk to the health and safety of Group Patients or Beneficiaries. In any event, after consultation with the Joint Operations Committee, Dental Group shall take such action as may be reasonably warranted under the facts and circumstances.
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.
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.
Review The practitioner reviews the treatment plan and discusses, when appropriate, case circumstances and management options with the attending (or referring) physician. The reviewer consults with the requesting physician when more clarity is needed to make an informed coverage decision. The reviewer may consult with board certified physicians from appropriate specialty areas to assist in making determinations of coverage and/or appropriateness. All such consultations will be documented in the review text. If the reviewer determines that the admission, continued stay or service requested is not a covered service, a notice of non-coverage is issued. Only a physician, behavioral health practitioner (such as a psychiatrist, doctoral-level clinical psychologist, certified addiction medicine specialist), dentist or pharmacist who has the clinical expertise appropriate to the request under review with an unrestricted license may deny coverage based on medical necessity.
Completion of Review for Certain Review Receivables Following the delivery of the list of the Review Receivables and before the delivery of the Review Report by the Asset Representations Reviewer, the Servicer may notify the Asset Representations Reviewer if a Review Receivable is paid in full by the Obligor or purchased from the Issuer in accordance with the terms of the Basic Documents. On receipt of such notice, the Asset Representations Reviewer will immediately terminate all Tests of the related Review Receivable, and the Review of such Review Receivables will be considered complete (a “Test Complete”). In this case, the related Review Report will indicate a Test Complete for such Review Receivable and the related reason.
Exclusion Review Notwithstanding any provision of Title 42 of the United States Code or Title 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations, the only issues in a proceeding for exclusion based on a material breach of this CIA shall be whether Good Shepherd was in material breach of this CIA and, if so, whether:
a. Good Shepherd cured such breach within 30 days of its receipt of the Notice of Material Breach; or
b. the alleged material breach could not have been cured within the 30-day period, but that, during the 30-day period following Good Shepherd’s receipt of the Notice of Material Breach: (i) Good Shepherd had begun to take action to cure the material breach; (ii) Good Shepherd pursued such action with due diligence; and (iii) Good Shepherd provided to OIG a reasonable timetable for curing the material breach. For purposes of the exclusion herein, exclusion shall take effect only after an ALJ decision favorable to OIG, or, if the ALJ rules for Good Shepherd, only after a DAB decision in favor of OIG. Good Shepherd’s election of its contractual right to appeal to the DAB shall not abrogate OIG’s authority to exclude Good Shepherd upon the issuance of an ALJ’s decision in favor of OIG. If the ALJ sustains the determination of OIG and determines that exclusion is authorized, such exclusion shall take effect 20 days after the ALJ issues such a decision, notwithstanding that Good Shepherd may request review of the ALJ decision by the DAB. If the DAB finds in favor of OIG after an ALJ decision adverse to OIG, the exclusion shall take effect 20 days after the DAB decision. Good Shepherd shall waive its right to any notice of such an exclusion if a decision upholding the exclusion is rendered by the ALJ or DAB. If the DAB finds in favor of Good Shepherd, Good Shepherd shall be reinstated effective on the date of the original exclusion.
