Submission Review Sample Clauses

Submission Review. The Consultant shall promptly review or take other appropriate action with respect to shop drawings, samples, or other submissions of Contractor for the purpose of checking for conformance with the Consultant’s design intent and compliance with the information in the Construction Documents.
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3See All (13)
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Submission Review. The Party seeking to publish or publicly disclose results hereunder (the “Publishing Party”) shall provide the other Party (the “Reviewing Party”) with a copy of such proposed abstract, manuscript, or presentation no less than [**] days ([**] days in the case of abstracts) prior to its intended submission for publication or public disclosure. The Reviewing Party shall respond in writing promptly and in no event later than [**] days ([**] days in the case of abstracts or presentations) after receipt of the proposed material, with one or more of the following:
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3See All (8)
Submission Review. The Party seeking to publish results hereunder (the “publishing Party”) shall provide the other Party (the “reviewing Party”) with a copy of such proposed abstract, manuscript, or presentation no less than fifteen (15) days prior to its intended submission for publication. The reviewing Party shall respond in writing promptly and in no event later than ten (10) days after receipt of the proposed material, with one or more of the following:
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3See All (5)
Submission Review. While Histogen maintains responsibility for Regulatory Interactions, prior to submission of material correspondence to any Regulatory Authority with respect to a Product, Histogen shall, sufficiently in advance for Amerimmune to review and comment, provide Amerimmune any material correspondence intended for submission to the Regulatory Authority. Histogen shall also provide Amerimmune with a copy of any material correspondence with a Regulatory Authority relating to Development of any Products, and consider and respond within a reasonable time frame to all reasonable inquiries made by Amerimmune with respect thereto. After it makes a transfer of any regulatory authority or responsibility under Section 2.4.3, above, Histogen shall have the same right to review and comment on any material correspondence intended for submission to the Regulatory Authority, and Histogen shall receive a copy of any material correspondence with a Regulatory Authority relating to Development of any Products and shall consider and respond within a reasonable time frame to all reasonable inquiries with respect thereto.
Sample 1Sample 2
Submission Review. 1. Contractor shall review a total of 100 State Employee submissions during the first three (3) months of the Term. Beginning month four (4) of the Term, Contractor shall review five
Sample 1

Related to Submission Review

  • 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.

  • Review The practitioner reviews the treatment plan and discusses, when appropriate, case circumstances and management options with the attending (or referring) physician. The reviewer consults with the requesting physician when more clarity is needed to make an informed coverage decision. The reviewer may consult with board certified physicians from appropriate specialty areas to assist in making determinations of coverage and/or appropriateness. All such consultations will be documented in the review text. If the reviewer determines that the admission, continued stay or service requested is not a covered service, a notice of non-coverage is issued. Only a physician, behavioral health practitioner (such as a psychiatrist, doctoral-level clinical psychologist, certified addiction medicine specialist), dentist or pharmacist who has the clinical expertise appropriate to the request under review with an unrestricted license may deny coverage based on medical necessity.

  • Commercialization Reports Throughout the term of this Agreement and during the Sell-Off Period, and within thirty (30) days of December 31st of each year, Company will deliver to University written reports of Company’s and Sublicensees’ efforts and plans to develop and commercialize the innovations covered by the Licensed Rights and to make and sell Licensed Products. Company will have no obligation to prepare commercialization reports in years where (a) Company delivers to University a written Sales Report with active sales, and (b) Company has fulfilled all Performance Milestones. In relation to each of the Performance Milestones each commercialization report will include sufficient information to demonstrate achievement of those Performance Milestones and will set out timeframes and plans for achieving those Performance Milestones which have not yet been met.

  • Periodic Review The General Counsel shall periodically review the Procurement Integrity Procedures with OSC personnel in order to ascertain potential areas of exposure to improper influence and to adopt desirable revisions for more effective avoidance of improper influences.

Draft better contracts in just 5 minutes Get the weekly Law Insider newsletter packed with expert videos, webinars, ebooks, and more!