Review and Recommendations. Immediately upon the start date established by the Notice to Proceed, CM shall familiarize itself thoroughly with the Schematic Design Construction Documents, and with the architectural, civil, mechanical, plumbing, electrical, and structural plans and specifications being developed by the AE for the PROJECT. CM shall follow and/or otherwise review, as appropriate, the development of the design for the PROJECT from the Schematic Design presently available up through and including the Construction Document Phase. The CM shall make recommendations with respect to the selection of systems and materials and cost reducing alternatives (i.e., value engineering and life cycle cost analysis) including assistance to the AE and Owner in evaluating alternative comparisons versus long-term cost effects. The evaluation shall speak to the benefits of the speed of erection and early completion of the PROJECT. The CM shall furnish pertinent information as to the availability of materials and labor that will be required. The CM shall submit to the Owner, Permitting Authority and AE such comments as may be appropriate concerning construction feasibility and practicality (i.e., constructability analysis). The CM shall call to the Owner's and the AE's attention any apparent defects in the design, drawings and specifications or other documents.
Review and Recommendations the PDC shall review all applications and submit its recommendations to the District President no later than the last day of regular classes in fall quarter. The District President shall submit his/her recommendations at the Board’s January meeting.
Review and Recommendations a. The Faculty Member’s dossier for the SPE shall be submitted to the Faculty Member’s Department Chair for review. The Chair shall make a recommendation to the Xxxx regarding whether the criteria were met. The Xxxx will ask the College Personnel Committee for a recommendation regarding whether the criteria were met. Neither the Chair nor the College Personnel Committee will make a recommendation as to the tier rating. The language used by the Department Chair and the College Personnel Committee in their respective evaluations will not be restricted as long as neither makes a tier rating. For the purposes of this section, “making a tier rating” shall be understood as an evaluator’s use of the explicit terms, “Tier One.” “Tier Two,” or “Tier Three” in reference to the SPE. The use of qualitative evaluative language by the Chair or College Personnel Committee outside of the terms, “Tier One,” “Tier Two,” or “Tier Three,” shall not constitute an implicit or explicit recommendation of tier rating.
Review and Recommendations. The Construction Manager shall be thoroughly familiar with the evolving architectural, civil, mechanical, plumbing, electrical and structural plans and specifications and shall follow the development of design from execution of this Agreement through working Drawings. The Construction Manager shall make recommendations with respect to the selection of systems and materials, and cost reducing alternatives including assistance to the Architect-Engineer, and Owner in evaluating alternative comparisons versus long term cost effects. The evaluation shall speak to the benefits of the speed of erection and early completion of the Project. The Construction Manager shall furnish pertinent information as to the availability of materials and labor that will be required. The Construction Manager shall submit to the Owner, Permitting Authority (if necessary) and Architect-Engineer such comments as may be appropriate concerning construction feasibility and practicality. The Construction Manager shall call to the Project Director’s and the Architect-Engineer’s attention any apparent or perceived defects, errors, omissions, ambiguities and/or inconsistencies in the design, Drawings, Specifications and other Contract Documents. The Construction Manager shall also prepare an estimate of the construction cost utilizing the unit quantity survey method. Review, Reports and Warranty - Within twenty (20) days after receiving the Construction Documents for each phase of the Project, the Construction Manager shall perform a specific review thereof, focusing upon the factors described in paragraphs 2.3.1, 2.3.3, 2.3.4 and 2.3.5. Promptly after completion of the review, the Construction Manager shall submit to the Project Director and Permitting Authority (if necessary), with copies to the Architect-Engineer, a written report covering suggestions or recommendations previously submitted, additional suggestions or recommendations as the Construction Manager may deem appropriate, and all actions taken by the Architect-Engineer with respect to same, any comments the Construction Manager may deem to be appropriate with respect to separating the Work into separate contracts, alternative materials, and all other comments that may be appropriate in light of the review factors described in paragraphs 2.3.1, 2.3.3, 2.3.4 and 2.3.5. WARRANTY - AT COMPLETION OF THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER’S REVIEW OF THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, EXCEPT ONLY AS TO SUCH SPECIFIC MATTERS AS MAY BE IDENTIFIED BY THE ...
Review and Recommendations. 7.3.1. For FY 2017, FY 2018, and FY 2019, the allocation of the Xxxxxxx Market Pool shall be made by the Xxxxxxx with the advice of a Joint Administration-BGSU-FA Committee (“Xxxxxxx Market Pool Committee” or “PMPC”). The purpose of the PMPC is to advise the Xxxxxxx on his/her decisions to address both internal market adjustments (e.g., salary compression and inversion) and external market adjustments (e.g., peer or benchmark institutions) for BUFMs by rank (Professor with special title, Professor without special title, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor, Senior Lecturer, Lecturer, and Instructor).
Review and Recommendations. Where the Board is authorized or requested to review and make recommendations on any matter relating to the Watershed Management Plan, the Board shall act on such matter within 60 days of receipt of the matter referred. Failure of the Board to act within 60 days shall constitute a recommendation of approval of the matter referred, unless the Board requests and receives from the referring unit of government an extension of time to act on the matter referred. Such extension shall be in writing and acknowledged by both parties.
Review and Recommendations. For FY 2014, FY 2015 and FY 2016, the allocation of the pool shall be made by the Xxxxxxx/VPAA based upon the recommendations from a Joint Administration-BGSU-FA Committee. The purpose of the Joint Administration-BGSU-FA Committee shall be determining the appropriate benchmarks within disciplines to address compression/market adjustment issues for Bargaining Unit Faculty Members by rank (Professor with special title, Professor without special title, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor, Senior Lecturer, Lecturer and Instructor). The Joint Administration-BGSU-FA Committee shall consist of three members selected by the Xxxxxxx/VPAA and three members selected by the BGSU-FA. The Committee is tasked with: (1) determining the appropriate comparable institutions, whether as a whole or for certain disciplines, to serve as the salary benchmarks for Bargaining Unit Faculty Members by rank, by discipline, and other relevant factors; (2) suggesting approaches to address the technical details of the compression/market adjustments; (3) devising a mutually acceptable way to carry out the calculations where strict application of this section is not possible due to limitations in the available data or other technical reasons; (4) developing guidelines to address the issue of individuals below market because of non-meritorious service or lack of performance; (5) suggesting approaches to construct, maintain, and amend the benchmark lists and adjust for years of service factor parameters based on a continuing review of the available data; and (6) considering information received from Department/School and College. This committee shall make a recommendation to the Xxxxxxx/VPAA. The final decision with respect to the allocation resides with the Xxxxxxx/VPAA. Any changes from the Joint Administration- BGSU-FA committee recommendations must be explained in writing to the President of the BGSU-FA.
Review and Recommendations. R3 is familiar with the Post-Collection Agreement and will review and identify modifications required to meet regulatory requirements and state mandates, emerging innovations in solid waste, and current best practices in solid waste management within the context of Contra Costa County. Members of our team are currently assisting both Napa-Vallejo Waste Management Authority and Placer County in negotiations that include new post-collection services.
Review and Recommendations. R3 will review the City’s current Franchise Agreement and identify modifications required to meet regulatory requirements and state mandates, emerging innovations in solid waste, and current best practices in solid waste management within the context of Contra Costa County. Advise the City regarding risks, advantages and disadvantages, costs, and schedule of entering into a new Collection Services Agreement. Advise the City regarding rates, charges, costs of service, equipment needs, staffing needs, data management, waivers, exemptions, identification of generators, monitoring, and enforcement. Advise the City regarding the pros and cons of matching neighboring jurisdictions within West Contra Costa County. This review will serve as the basis for the new collection franchise agreement. As part of this Task, we will provide the City in an electronic report format, an update of recent legislation, including AB 341, AB 1826, and SB 1383, all of which should be addressed in the City’s new Agreement. Information will include suggestions and/or recommendations for solid waste programs that the City may wish to consider. As an attachment to the report, R3 will provide a matrix of current and recommended new services. R3 will include recommendations for inclusion on the New Agreement that includes these key elements: › Summary update of recent legislation, including AB 341, AB 1826, and SB 1383. › Results of our analysis of the current franchise agreement and services, including recommendations for the new franchise agreement. › Cost-effective updates to current Agreement, to align with industry best practices, to be discussed with the City. › Modifications to collection services and programs to incorporate recent legislative regulations and remain flexible enough to adapt to significant changes in the future. › Cost effective, efficient, and environmentally friendly designed program requirements, including low or zero emission vehicles. › Industry best practices that focus on compliant collection programs, high levels of customer service, and ensure transparency in rate setting and contractor performance.
Review and Recommendations. Where the Organization is authorized or requested to review and make recommendations on any matter relating to the Watershed Management Plan, the Organization shall act on such matter within 60 days of receipt of the matter referred. Failure of the Organization to act within 60 days shall constitute approval of the matter referred, unless the Organization requests and receives from the referring unit of government an extension of time to act on the matter referred. Such extension shall be in writing and acknowledged by both parties. The Board shall adopt an appeal procedure for any party aggrieved by a decision of the Board or an alleged failure to implement the Plan pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 103B.231, Subd. 13.
