Quality validation Sample Clauses

Quality validation. Quality validation is based on the robustness expectations of the platform. After their integration, the components keep a similar quality to that of the separate components. We distinguish two kinds of quality validation: one comparing the integrated components to the non-integrated components, another comparing the same components over time. Intrinsic quality should remain the same each time. Req-QUA-001 – PANACEA vs. non-PANACEA quality validation Description: One of PANACEA's goals is to (at least) run a process that reproduces a non-PANACEA workflow (i.e. using tools and systems manually). The output quality of the PANACEA architecture must not be lower than that of a non-PANACEA process. Level: Baseline. Req-QUA-002 – Quality validation over time Description: The output quality of the PANACEA architecture must not decrease over time. Level: Baseline.
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Quality validation

  • Validation To validate the notice requirements outlined in Section 5.3, the Assuming Institution shall provide the Receiver (i) an Affidavit of Publication to meet the publication requirements outlined in Section 5.3(a) and (ii) the Assuming Institution will prepare an Affidavit of Mailing in a form substantially similar to Exhibit 2.3B after mailing the seven (7) day Notice to Depositors as required under Section 5.3(b).

  • Validation Review In the event OIG has reason to believe that: (a) Good Shepherd’s Claims Review fails to conform to the requirements of this CIA; or (b) the IRO’s findings or Claims Review results are inaccurate, OIG may, at its sole discretion, conduct its own review to determine whether the Claims Review complied with the requirements of the CIA and/or the findings or Claims Review results are inaccurate (Validation Review). Good Shepherd shall pay for the reasonable cost of any such review performed by OIG or any of its designated agents. Any Validation Review of Reports submitted as part of Good Shepherd’s final Annual Report shall be initiated no later than one year after Good Shepherd’s final submission (as described in Section II) is received by OIG. Prior to initiating a Validation Review, OIG shall notify Good Shepherd of its intent to do so and provide a written explanation of why OIG believes such a review is necessary. To resolve any concerns raised by OIG, Good Shepherd may request a meeting with OIG to: (a) discuss the results of any Claims Review submissions or findings; (b) present any additional information to clarify the results of the Claims Review or to correct the inaccuracy of the Claims Review; and/or (c) propose alternatives to the proposed Validation Review. Good Shepherd agrees to provide any additional information as may be requested by OIG under this Section III.D.3 in an expedited manner. OIG will attempt in good faith to resolve any Claims Review issues with Good Shepherd prior to conducting a Validation Review. However, the final determination as to whether or not to proceed with a Validation Review shall be made at the sole discretion of OIG.

  • Quality Improvement VRC shall develop programs designed to improve the quality of care provided by the Radiologists and encourage identification and adoption of best demonstrated processes. Practice and VRC acknowledge that, in connection with such quality improvement activities, it may be necessary to provide VRC with Protected Health Information and Practice and VRC agree to treat such information in accordance with Article 9;

  • Inspection and Testing Each Constructing Entity shall cause inspection and testing of the Interconnection Facilities that it constructs in accordance with the provisions of this section. The Construction Parties acknowledge and agree that inspection and testing of facilities may be undertaken as facilities are completed and need not await completion of all of the facilities that a Constructing Entity is building.

  • Maintenance and Testing 54.5.1. Sprint is only responsible for maintaining the facilities that it owns.

  • DEVELOPMENT OR ASSISTANCE IN DEVELOPMENT OF SPECIFICATIONS REQUIREMENTS/ STATEMENTS OF WORK Firms and/or individuals that assisted in the development or drafting of the specifications, requirements, statements of work, or solicitation documents contained herein are excluded from competing for this solicitation. This shall not be applicable to firms and/or individuals providing responses to a publicly posted Request for Information (RFI) associated with a solicitation.

  • Inspection and Tests 3.8.1 The Procuring entity or its representative shall have the right to inspect and/or to test the goods to confirm their conformity to the Contract specifications. The Procuring entity shall notify the tenderer in writing in a timely manner, of the identity of any representatives retained for these purposes.

  • Quality Monitoring 4.2.1. To prepare a Quality Assurance (QA) Plan

  • Drug Testing Procedures a. The testing procedures and safeguards provided in this policy shall be adhered to by any laboratory personnel administering departmental drug tests.

  • Quality of Work Consultant agrees that all Services performed under this Agreement will conform to the specifications of the College, be free from errors, and be of professional quality according to applicable industry standards. Upon notice by the College, Consultant will promptly correct any defects without charge to the College unless the request is considered new work by both parties.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.