Exclusion Review Notwithstanding any provision of Title 42 of the United States Code or Title 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations, the only issues in a proceeding for exclusion based on a material breach of this CIA shall be whether Good Shepherd was in material breach of this CIA and, if so, whether:
a. Good Shepherd cured such breach within 30 days of its receipt of the Notice of Material Breach; or
b. the alleged material breach could not have been cured within the 30-day period, but that, during the 30-day period following Good Shepherd’s receipt of the Notice of Material Breach: (i) Good Shepherd had begun to take action to cure the material breach; (ii) Good Shepherd pursued such action with due diligence; and (iii) Good Shepherd provided to OIG a reasonable timetable for curing the material breach. For purposes of the exclusion herein, exclusion shall take effect only after an ALJ decision favorable to OIG, or, if the ALJ rules for Good Shepherd, only after a DAB decision in favor of OIG. Good Shepherd’s election of its contractual right to appeal to the DAB shall not abrogate OIG’s authority to exclude Good Shepherd upon the issuance of an ALJ’s decision in favor of OIG. If the ALJ sustains the determination of OIG and determines that exclusion is authorized, such exclusion shall take effect 20 days after the ALJ issues such a decision, notwithstanding that Good Shepherd may request review of the ALJ decision by the DAB. If the DAB finds in favor of OIG after an ALJ decision adverse to OIG, the exclusion shall take effect 20 days after the DAB decision. Good Shepherd shall waive its right to any notice of such an exclusion if a decision upholding the exclusion is rendered by the ALJ or DAB. If the DAB finds in favor of Good Shepherd, Good Shepherd shall be reinstated effective on the date of the original exclusion.
Office of Inspector General Investigative Findings Expert Review In accordance with Senate Bill 799, Acts 2021, 87th Leg., R.S., if Texas Government Code, Section 531.102(m-1)(2) is applicable to this Contract, Contractor affirms that it possesses the necessary occupational licenses and experience.
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.
Project Review A. Programmatic Allowances
1. If FEMA determines that the entire scope of an Undertaking conforms to one or more allowances in Appendix B of this Agreement, with determinations for Tier II Allowances being made by SOI-qualified staff, FEMA shall complete the Section 106 review process by documenting this determination in the project file, without SHPO review or notification.
2. If the Undertaking involves a National Historic Landmark (NHL), FEMA shall notify the SHPO, participating Tribe(s), and the NPS NHL Program Manager of the NPS Midwest Regional Office that the Undertaking conforms to one or more allowances. FEMA shall provide information about the proposed scope of work for the Undertaking and the allowance(s) enabling FEMA’s determination.
3. If FEMA determines any portion of an Undertaking’s scope of work does not conform to one or more allowances listed in Appendix B, FEMA shall conduct expedited or standard Section 106 review, as appropriate, for the entire Undertaking in accordance with Stipulation II.B, Expedited Review for Emergency Undertakings, or Stipulation II.C, Standard Project Review.
4. Allowances may be revised and new allowances may be added to this Agreement in accordance with Stipulation IV.A.3, Amendments.
B. Expedited Review for Emergency Undertakings
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.
REPORT SUBMISSION 1. Copies of reporting packages for audits conducted in accordance with 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart F-Audit Requirements, and required by PART I of this form shall be submitted, when required by 2 CFR 200.512, by or on behalf of the recipient directly to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse (FAC) as provided in 2 CFR 200.36 and 200.512
A. The Federal Audit Clearinghouse designated in 2 CFR §200.501(a) (the number of copies required by 2 CFR §200.501(a) should be submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse), at the following address: Federal Audit Clearinghouse Bureau of the Census 0000 Xxxx 00xx Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, XX 00000 Submissions of the Single Audit reporting package for fiscal periods ending on or after January 1, 2008, must be submitted using the Federal Clearinghouse’s Internet Data Entry System which can be found at xxxx://xxxxxxxxx.xxxxxx.xxx/facweb/
2. Copies of financial reporting packages required by PART II of this Attachment shall be submitted by or on behalf of the recipient directly to each of the following:
A. The Department of Environmental Protection at one of the following addresses: By Mail: Florida Department of Environmental Protection Office of Inspector General, MS 40 0000 Xxxxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Electronically: XXXXXxxxxxXxxxx@xxx.xxxxx.xx.xx
B. The Auditor General’s Office at the following address: Auditor General Local Government Audits/342 Xxxxxx Xxxxxx Building, Room 000 000 Xxxx Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxx, Xxxxxxx 00000-1450 The Auditor General’s website (xxxx://xxxxxxxxx.xxx/) provides instructions for filing an electronic copy of a financial reporting package.
3. Copies of reports or management letters required by PART III of this Attachment shall be submitted by or on behalf of the recipient directly to the Department of Environmental Protection at one of the following addresses: By Mail: Florida Department of Environmental Protection Office of Inspector General, MS 40 0000 Xxxxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Electronically: XXXXXxxxxxXxxxx@xxx.xxxxx.xx.xx
4. Any reports, management letters, or other information required to be submitted to the Department of Environmental Protection pursuant to this Agreement shall be submitted timely in accordance with 2 CFR 200.512, section 215.97, F.S., and Chapters 10.550 (local governmental entities) or 10.650 (nonprofit and for-profit organizations), Rules of the Auditor General, as applicable.
5. Recipients, when submitting financial reporting packages to the Department of Environmental Protection for audits done in accordance with 2 CFR 200, Subpart F-Audit Requirements, or Chapters 10.550 (local governmental entities) and 10.650 (non and for-profit organizations), Rules of the Auditor General, should indicate the date and the reporting package was delivered to the recipient correspondence accompanying the reporting package.
Transition Review Period In accordance with Article 35, Layoff and Recall, the Employer may require an employee to complete a transition review period.
Design Review
(a) Where so specified in Schedule A (Scope of Goods and Services) or as otherwise instructed by the City, the Supplier shall submit design-related Documentation for review by the City, and shall not proceed with work on the basis of such design Documentation until the City’s approval of such Documentation has been received in writing.
(b) None of:
(i) the submission of Documentation to the City by the Supplier;
(ii) its examination by or on behalf of the City; or
(iii) the making of any comment thereon (including any approval thereof) shall in any way relieve the Supplier of any of its obligations under this Agreement or of its duty to take reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy and correctness of such Documentation, and its suitability to the matter to which it relates.
Decision on Review No later than sixty (60) days (forty-five (45) days with respect to a claim for benefits due to Executive being Permanently Disabled) following the receipt of the written application for review, the Claims Administrator or the Appeals Fiduciary, as applicable, shall submit its decision on the review in writing to the claimant involved and to his representative, if any, unless the Claims Administrator or Appeals Fiduciary determines that special circumstances (such as the need to hold a hearing) require an extension of time, to a day no later than one hundred twenty (120) days (ninety (90) days with respect to a claim for benefits due to Executive being Permanently Disabled) after the date of receipt of the written application for review. If the Claims Administrator or Appeals Fiduciary determines that the extension of time is required, the Claims Administrator or Appeals Fiduciary shall furnish to the claimant written notice of the extension before the expiration of the initial sixty (60) day (forty-five (45) days with respect to a claim for benefits due to Executive being Permanently Disabled) period. The extension notice shall indicate the special circumstances requiring an extension of time and the date by which the Claims Administrator or Appeals Fiduciary expects to render its decision on review. In the case of a decision adverse to the claimant, the Claims Administrator or Appeals Fiduciary shall provide to the claimant written notice of the denial. Any such notice of an adverse benefit determination shall be written in a manner calculated to be understood by the claimant (and with respect to a claim for benefits due to Executive being Permanently Disabled, be provided in a culturally and linguistically appropriate manner) and shall include:
(1) the specific reason or reasons for the adverse benefit determination;
(2) specific references to the pertinent provisions of this Agreement on which the adverse benefit determination is based;
(3) a statement that the claimant is entitled to receive, upon request and free of charge, reasonable access to, and copies of, all documents, records, and other information relevant to the claimant’s claim for benefits;
(4) a statement of the claimant’s right to bring a civil action under Section 502(a) of ERISA following the adverse benefit determination on review;
(5) a statement regarding the availability of other voluntary alternative dispute resolution options;
(6) in the case of a claim for benefits due to Executive being Permanently Disabled:
(A) a description of any contractual limitations period that applies to the claimant’s right to bring a civil action under Section 502(a) of ERISA, including the calendar date on which the contractual limitations period expires for the claim;
(B) a discussion of the decision, including an explanation of the basis for disagreeing with or not following: the views presented by the claimant to the Agreement of health care professionals treating the claimant and vocational professionals who evaluated the claimant, the views of medical or vocational professionals whose advice was obtained on behalf of the Agreement in connection with a claimant’s adverse benefit determination, without regard to whether the advice was relied upon in making the determination, and a disability determination regarding the claimant presented by the claimant to the Agreement made by the Social Security Administration;
(C) if the adverse benefit determination is based on a medical necessity or experimental treatment or similar exclusion or limit, either an explanation of the scientific or clinical judgment for the determination, applying the terms of the Agreement to the claimant’s medical circumstances, or a statement that such explanation will be provided free of charge upon request; and
(D) the specific internal rules, guidelines, protocols, standards or other similar criteria of the Agreement relied upon in making the adverse determination, or a statement that such rules, guidelines, protocols, standards or other similar criteria do not exist. The Claims Administrator has the discretionary authority to determine all interpretative issues arising under this Agreement and the interpretations of the Claims Administrator shall be final and binding upon Executive or any other party claiming benefits under this Agreement.
Classification Review Grand Valley State University and APSS shall jointly determine the review assessment survey instrument to be used at Grand Valley State University. The parties shall maintain a Joint Review Committee, composed of three members appointed by the Human Resources Office and three members appointed by the Alliance. Bargaining unit members questioning the assigned classification of their position may do so by using the following procedure:
A. Meet with the Employment Manager in the Human Resources Office to discuss the review process, changes in their job responsibilities, duties and any other process questions they may have.
B. PSS member will fill out the assessment survey and email to the Employment Manager along with any other documentation that supports the request. The survey instrument will be jointly administered/reviewed by the Assessment Team (consisting of the Employment Manager and an Alliance member of the Joint Review Committee). A meeting with the PSS is scheduled for a verbal review of the documentation and to answer any questions the Assessment Team may have. The supervisor or appointing officer is encouraged to attend. If the Assessment Team believes a job site visit is warranted as a result of the survey information, they will schedule a time for a joint visit.
C. The completed survey instrument shall be coded. The survey results, as determined by the Assessment Team, shall be shared with the survey participant.
D. After receiving the survey results, the survey participant, if they so choose shall have the opportunity to meet with the Joint Review Committee for additional input and appeal. Any additional information shall be reviewed by the Committee, and where the Committee feels it is necessary, the survey will be recoded, in a manner mutually agreeable.
E. The Joint Review Committee shall then deliberate as to the merit of the upgrade requested by the participant. If the Committee is not able to reach a consensus, the University will decide on the classification. The Alliance may appeal that decision through the arbitration procedure of the collective bargaining agreement. Professional Support Staff members may engage in the review process no more than once per year. Supervisors questioning the assigned classification of a staff member’s position shall provide supporting rationale, complete an assessment survey instrument and discuss with Manager of Employment. The Manager of Employment shall notify an Alliance Representative that a Supervisor is reviewing a staff member’s classification. The review and outcome shall be completed within 45 working days unless the Alliance Representative and Manager of Employment mutually agreed to an extension. The Alliance will be provided with the scored instrument and any supporting rationale.
