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.Outcomes Secondary: Career pathway students will: have career goals designated on SEOP, earn concurrent college credit while in high school, achieve a state competency certificate and while completing high school graduation requirements.
Review Scope The parties confirm that the Asset Representations Review is not responsible for (a) reviewing the Receivables for compliance with the representations and warranties under the Transaction Documents, except as described in this Agreement or (b) determining whether noncompliance with the representations and warranties constitutes a breach of the Eligibility Representations. For the avoidance of doubt, the parties confirm that the review is not designed to determine why an Obligor is delinquent or the creditworthiness of the Obligor, either at the time of any Asset Review or at the time of origination of the related Receivable. Further, the Asset Review is not designed to establish cause, materiality or recourse for any Test Fail (as defined in Section 3.05).
Review Process A/E's Work Product will be reviewed by County under its applicable technical requirements and procedures, as follows:
Study An application for leave of absence for professional study must be supported by a written statement indicating what study or research is to be undertaken, or, if applicable, what subjects are to be studied and at what institutions.
Review Protocol A narrative description of how the Claims Review was conducted and what was evaluated.
Claims Review Population A description of the Population subject to the Claims Review.
Constructability Review Prepare detailed interdisciplinary constructability review within Fourteen (14) days of receipt of the plans from the District that: 10.1.2.1.6.1 Ensures construction documents are well coordinated and reviewed for errors; 10.1.2.1.6.2 Identifies to the extent known, construction deficiencies and areas of concern; 10.1.2.1.6.3 Back-checks design drawings for inclusion of modifications; and 10.1.2.1.6.4 Provides the District with written confirmation that: 10.1.2.1.6.4.1 Requirements noted in the design documents prepared for the Project are consistent with and conform to the District's Project requirements and design standards. 10.1.2.1.6.4.2 Various components have been coordinated and are consistent with each other so as to minimize conflicts within or between components of the design documents.
MANAGEMENT OF EVALUATION OUTCOMES 12.1 Where the Employer is, any time during the Employee’s employment, not satisfied with the Employee’s performance with respect to any matter dealt with in this Agreement, the Employer will give notice to the Employee to attend a meeting; 12.2 The Employee will have the opportunity at the meeting to satisfy the Employer of the measures being taken to ensure that his performance becomes satisfactory and any programme, including any dates, for implementing these measures; 12.3 Where there is a dispute or difference as to the performance of the Employee under this Agreement, the Parties will confer with a view to resolving the dispute or difference; and 12.4 In the case of unacceptable performance, the Employer shall – 12.4.1 Provide systematic remedial or developmental support to assist the Employee to improve his performance; and 12.4.2 After appropriate performance counselling and having provided the necessary guidance and/or support as well as reasonable time for improvement in performance, the Employer may consider steps to terminate the contract of employment of the Employee on grounds of unfitness or incapacity to carry out his or her duties.
Review Systems The Asset Representations Reviewer will maintain and utilize an electronic case management system to manage the Tests and provide systematic control over each step in the Review process and ensure consistency and repeatability among the Tests.
Study Population Infants who underwent creation of an enterostomy receiving postoperative care and awaiting enterostomy closure: to be assessed for eligibility: n = 201 to be assigned to the study: n = 106 to be analysed: n = 106 Duration of intervention per patient of the intervention group: minimum 21 days/3 weeksuntil patient's weight >2000g, averaged 6 weeks between enterostomy creation and enterostomy closure Follow-up per patient: 3 months, 6 months and 12 months following enterostomy closure (12- month follow-up only applicable for patients that are recruited early enough to complete this follow-up within the 48 months of overall study duration).