Scheduling Review Sample Clauses

Scheduling Review. A comprehensive review of MTA scheduling, including the Trapeze system shall be undertaken by the Contractor. The Contractor shall work with MTA staff to evaluate the following areas and include sample queries. Where Trapeze scenario testing is required, it is assumed that MTA staff will undertake this work. The Contractor shall be available to assist and to work closely with MTA staff throughout the task. • Benchmarking of MTA peers regarding actual performance, practices, and measurement shall be undertaken by the Contractor recognizing that each system has unique circumstances. To address MTA’s unique local conditions, the Contractor shall conduct a more thorough investigation of current practices and the opportunities for implementation of improvements. • Implementation of the labor agreement and side letters; what are the impacts on service quality and operating efficiency? Specifically, has the agreement been implemented to MTA’s best advantage in achieving operating and financial objectives? • How are routes, schedules, and service spans determined; what are the respective roles of service planning, operations planning, scheduling, and operations staff? How are customer, operating, and budget needs addressed? • What is the process for schedule writing? How are running times validated and/or calibrated using what data sets? What are the objectives in developing the schedules? When policy conflicts occur, how are they resolved? Are routes developed individually or as groups? What actions are undertaken to ensure that the schedules are efficient and effective? • What is the process for vehicle blocking? How are the schedules optimized for blocking? How are routes and service assigned to the various bus garages? How are layover and recovery handled? Is Wage Order 9 considered at the blocking stage? Are scheduled trip times locked or can they be shifted to improve efficiency? • How does MTA undertake crew scheduling? What are the primary issues in minimizing operator costs and assuring reliable delivery? How are the various parameters optimized for a final solution? How are overtime and operator work force sizing addressed? At what point is rostering considered? • How is Trapeze used to support each aspect of the scheduling work? Is Trapeze fully operational and being used to the maximum advantage?
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Scheduling Review. Within 7 days of receipt of the Response to the Request for Board Review or Response to Counterclaim, whichever comes later, the Chair will, in consultation with the Parties, establish dates for any additional pre-hearing submissions and schedule a hearing date. The hearing will generally be conducted at the time of the next regularly scheduled meeting. In addition, the Board may convene a preliminary hearing by conference call for the purpose of addressing an information exchange, the order of proceedings at the hearing, bifurcation of merit and quantum issues, and such other matters that the Board believes will expedite the hearing process.

Related to Scheduling Review

  • Shift Scheduling The parties agree that the following shift schedules are examples of the type which will provide the flexibility required to meet the needs expressed above provided the provisions of Article VII Section 4 (b) (i) and (ii) have been met.

  • 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.

  • Joint Review JADRC may, at the request of either party, review issues arising from the application of this Article.

  • Utilization Review We review health services to determine whether the services are or were Medically Necessary or experimental or investigational ("Medically Necessary"). This process is called Utilization Review. Utilization Review includes all review activities, whether they take place prior to the service being performed (Preauthorization); when the service is being performed (concurrent); or after the service is performed (retrospective). If You have any questions about the Utilization Review process, please call the number on Your ID card. The toll-free telephone number is available at least 40 hours a week with an after-hours answering machine. All determinations that services are not Medically Necessary will be made by: 1) licensed Physicians; or 2) licensed, certified, registered or credentialed health care professionals who are in the same profession and same or similar specialty as the Provider who typically manages Your medical condition or disease or provides the health care service under review. We do not compensate or provide financial incentives to Our employees or reviewers for determining that services are not Medically Necessary. We have developed guidelines and protocols to assist Us in this process. Specific guidelines and protocols are available for Your review upon request. For more information, call the number on Your ID card or visit Our website at xxx.xxxxxxx.xxx.

  • Program Review The Contracting Officer or other authorized government representative may hold semi- annual program review meetings. Such meetings will be held via telecom or video teleconferencing. However, the Government reserves the right to request a meeting in person. The meetings will include all BPA holders, representatives from prospective customer agencies, a combination of current and prospective customer agencies, or individual BPA holders. Some Federal Government Agencies and any approved State, Local and Tribal agencies may establish a central program management function. Such users may require their primary suppliers to participate in agency program review meetings on a periodic basis, at no additional cost to the Government.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • ADB’s Review of Procurement Decisions 9. All contracts procured under international competitive bidding procedures and contracts for consulting services shall be subject to prior review by ADB, unless otherwise agreed between the Borrower and ADB and set forth in the Procurement Plan. SCHEDULE 5

  • Personnel File Review a. A unit member has the right upon his/her own request to review the contents of his/her personnel file. The review will be conducted in the presence of the administrator, or his/her designee, responsible for the safekeeping of such file. The employee may have a committee person assist in said review. Such review shall be conducted at a mutually agreeable time. A copy of requested material will be provided.

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