Second Review Sample Clauses

The "Second Review" clause establishes a formal process for a secondary evaluation or assessment of a document, decision, or action after an initial review has taken place. Typically, this clause outlines who is responsible for conducting the second review, the timeframe in which it must occur, and the specific aspects or criteria to be re-examined. For example, it may require a senior manager or an independent party to re-evaluate a contract or compliance decision before it is finalized. The core practical function of this clause is to provide an additional layer of oversight, reducing the risk of errors or oversights and ensuring that important matters receive thorough consideration before final approval.
Second Review. A formal joint second review of progress by PACT and BECTU in the implementation of this Agreement shall be held two (2) years from the Implementation Date. The review shall have the power to affect such changes as are mutually agreed.
View SourceView Similar (3)
Second Review. If the review reveals that the Employee has not been scheduled in a manner consistent with the original job posting, due to mitigating circumstances (such as vacation, LOA or sick leave replacement), then a second review will take place in another three (3) months and, based on the second review, the Employee’s schedule will either remain a variable position, due to actually working a variable schedule, or convert to a schedule with a set start and end time, due to the absence of any variable scheduling or mitigating circumstances.
View SourceView Similar (2)
Second Review. If, after review of leases within the Comparable Buildings meeting the Size Threshold and executed during the Comparison Period, there are fewer than six (6) Qualifying Comparable Leases (as defined utilizing the Comparable Lease Criteria) identified following the Initial Review, then Lessor and Lessee shall make adjustments to the Comparison Period (as provided below) in an attempt to identify sufficient additional Comparable Leases to be added to the Qualifying Comparable Leases identified during the Initial Review to reach six (6) Qualifying Comparable Leases (this second review conducted by Lessee and Lessor shall be referred to herein as the “Second Review” and each Comparable Lease identified during this Second Review shall constitute a Qualifying Comparable Lease notwithstanding the fact that the Comparison Period has been so adjusted). During the Second Review, the Comparison Period shall be expanded in two (2) month increments, for each increment adding one (1) month at each end of the Comparison Period, until there are sufficient additional Comparable Leases identified during such Second Review when added to the Qualifying Comparable Leases identified during the Initial Review so that there are at least six (6) Qualifying Comparable Leases; provided, however, in no event shall the Comparison Period be expanded to exceed twenty-four (24) months in length. Third Review: If the Comparison Period has been expanded to twenty-four (24) months and there continue to be fewer than six (6) Qualifying Comparable Leases identified following the Second Review, then Lessor and Lessee shall make adjustments to the Size Threshold (as provided below) in an attempt to identify sufficient additional Comparable Leases to be added to the Qualifying Comparable Leases identified during the Initial Review and the Second Review to reach six (6) Qualifying Comparable Leases (this third review conducted by Lessee and Lessor shall be referred to herein as the “Third Review” and each Comparable Lease identified during this Third Review shall constitute a Qualifying Comparable Lease notwithstanding the fact that the Size Threshold is adjusted as provided herein). During the Third Review, the original twelve (12) month Comparison Period shall be reinstated and the Size Threshold shall be reduced in increments of one thousand (1,000) rentable square feet until there are sufficient additional Comparable Leases identified during such Third Review when added to the Qualifying Comp...
View SourceView Similar (2)
Second Review. The second review will take place no later than May 15th of the second year of the probationary appointment.
View Source
Second Review. If, after review of leases within the Comparable Buildings meeting the Size Threshold and executed during the Comparison Period, there are fewer than six (6) Qualifying Comparable Leases (as defined utilizing the Comparable Lease Criteria) identified following the Initial Review, then Lessor and Lessee shall make adjustments to the Comparison Period (as provided below) in an attempt to identify sufficient additional Comparable Leases to be added to the Qualifying Comparable Leases identified during the Initial Review to reach six (6) Qualifying Comparable Leases (this second review conducted by Lessee and Lessor shall be referred to herein as the “Second Review” and each Comparable Lease identified during this Second Review shall constitute a Qualifying Comparable Lease notwithstanding the fact that the Comparison Period has been so adjusted). During the Second Review, the Comparison Period shall be expanded in two (2) month increments, for each increment adding one (1) month at each end of the Comparison Period, until there are sufficient additional Comparable Leases identified during such Second Review when added to the Qualifying Comparable Leases identified during the Initial Review so that there are at least six (6) Qualifying Comparable Leases; provided, however, in no event shall the Comparison Period be expanded to exceed twenty-four (24) months in length.
View Source
Second Review. The second review will take place no later than sixty (60) days before the second anniversary of appointment.
View Source

Related to Second Review

  • Peer Assistance and Review (PAR) Consulting Teachers (CT) will be assigned to all new teachers with no prior teaching experience and tenured teachers rated ineffective on the qualitative measures at the end of the previous school year and recommended by the PAR Panel. Evaluations for Probationary and Ineffective Teachers:

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Department Review The parties shall resolve disputes through written submission of their dispute to the Department’s Contract Manager. The Department shall respond to the dispute in writing within ten (10) Business Days from the date that the Department’s Contract Manager receives the dispute. The Department’s decision shall be final unless a party provides the other party with written notice of the party’s disagreement with the decision within ten (10) Business Days from the date of the Department’s decision. If a party disagrees with the Department’s decision, the party may proceed to subsection (b) below.

  • 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.