Project Review Process Sample Clauses

Project Review Process. The Technical Committee (See Part 5.2) established for this process will review and verify that a proposed restoration project meets the conditions of this Implementation Agreement, and will provide a checklist (Appendix D) presenting the findings and conclusions of that review to the Oversight Committee (See Parts 5.3 & 5.4) and the Credit Administrator (See Part 5.1)
Sample 1Sample 2
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Project Review Process. The Oversight Committee (See Part 5.2.2) will conduct a project review to verify that a proposed restoration project meets the conditions of this Implementation Agreement, and will complete a checklist (Appendix D) presenting the findings and conclusions of that review. The decision of the Oversight Committee will be forwarded to the party requesting the project credit and the Credit Administrator (See Part 5.1) of this Agreement. The Oversight Committee will seek review by an outside technical committee, such as the Skagit Watershed Council’s Restoration and Protection Committee, to verify that new projects (as defined in Part 4.4.2 of this Agreement) are consistent with the goals and objectives of the Skagit Chinook Recovery Plan. The Oversight Committee will make a determination to include the proposed project in the 2,700 acre habitat restoration target and apply project credits as stipulated in Part 4.5.1, or reject the project.
Sample 1Sample 2
Project Review Process. The Development Committee shall meet no less frequently than semi-annually to review ongoing status of active projects, new project concepts and project plans. Should Ethicon decide to fund development of any project that may result in a New Product or Improved Product, Neoprobe will present to Ethicon in writing a project plan including, at a minimum, specifications for the potential product, a budget, and a development timetable. In addition, the parties will negotiate in good faith Provisional Transfer Prices and purchase commitments, if any related to the potential product. Ethicon will have sixty (60) days from presentation of the project plan to decide whether or not to fund the project. Should Ethicon decline to fund the development or not respond on a timely basis, Neoprobe may elect to fund the project at its own expense. Following completion of a functional prototype for a New Product or Improved Product, Neoprobe will be obligated to present the prototype to Ethicon for evaluation. Ethicon and Neoprobe will review the prototype and related materials and use commercially reasonable efforts to negotiate Transfer Prices, Provisional Transfer Prices and purchase commitments. If Ethicon declines to negotiate or if the parties cannot agree on a Provisional Transfer Price and purchase commitment within ninety (90) days following presentation of the prototype, Neoprobe will be free to distribute the product through third parties, provided that the terms of distribution with third parties are not more favorable to Neoprobe than the terms of distribution discussed with Ethicon.
Sample 1
Project Review Process. (a) By each of the dates that is eight weeks before Review Point 3 and the date that is eight weeks before Review Point 4, CRL will provide to the Sponsors all such information as the Sponsors may reasonably require so as to satisfy themselves in relation to the relevant Sponsors Review Point Requirements.
Sample 1
Project Review Process. This HRA application is being reviewed in parallel with the rezoning (REZ00063) and development permit applications for the overall site. The applications are proceeding through the following steps: Preliminary report regarding REZ00063 August 2011 HRA application January 2012 NWDP review and support of REZ00063 August 2012 APC review and support of REZ00063 August 2012 CHC support January 2013 REZ00063 for First and Second Readings November 2013 REZ00063 for Public Hearing and Third Reading November 2013 REZ00063 approved by Council August 2014 HRA and Heritage Designation Bylaws for First and Second Readings This report HRA and Heritage Designation Bylaws for Public Hearing and Third Reading September 2014 Referral to Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure September 2014 HRA and Heritage Designation Bylaws for consideration of adoption Fall 2014 Development Permit for overall site for consideration of issuance Fall 2014 The Community Heritage Commission (CHC) reviewed the heritage portion of the rezoning proposal at their February 2012 meeting and recommended the proposal to Council at their January 2013 meeting. The Advisory Planning Commission (APC) reviewed the rezoning proposal at their March 20, 2012 meeting and passed a recommendation of support at their August 21, 2012 meeting. The APC minutes can be found in Appendix F. The New Westminster Design Panel (NWDP) reviewed the rezoning proposal at their December 13, 2011 meeting and passed a recommendation of support at their August 28, 2012 meeting. The applicant presented the proposal to the Queensborough Residents’ Association in September 2012. Prior to this meeting on the same evening, the applicant held an Open House. There was general support for the retention of the Xxxxxx Residence as part of the larger rezoning proposal. City of New Westminster August 25, 2014 6
Sample 1
Project Review Process 
Sample 1Sample 2

Related to Project Review Process

  • Review Procedure If the Plan Administrator denies part or all of the claim, the claimant shall have the opportunity for a full and fair review by the Plan Administrator of the denial, as follows:

  • 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).

  • Asset Representations Review Process Section 3.01 Asset Representations Review Notices and Identification of Review Receivables. On receipt of an Asset Representations Review Notice from the Seller according to Section 5.7 of the Receivables Purchase Agreement, the Asset Representations Reviewer will start an Asset Representations Review. The Servicer will provide the list of Review Receivables to the Asset Representations Reviewer promptly upon receipt of the Asset Representations Review Notice. The Asset Representations Reviewer will not be obligated to start, and will not start, an Asset Representations Review until an Asset Representations Review Notice and the related list of Review Receivables is received. The Asset Representations Reviewer is not obligated to verify (i) whether the conditions to the initiation of the Asset Representations Review and the issuance of an Asset Representations Review Notice described in Section 7.6 of the Indenture were satisfied or (ii) the accuracy or completeness of the list of Review Receivables provided by the Servicer.

  • Completion of Review for Certain Review Receivables Following the delivery of the list of the Review Receivables and before the delivery of the Review Report by the Asset Representations Reviewer, the Servicer may notify the Asset Representations Reviewer if a Review Receivable is paid in full by the Obligor or purchased from the Issuer in accordance with the terms of the Basic Documents. On receipt of such notice, the Asset Representations Reviewer will immediately terminate all Tests of the related Review Receivable, and the Review of such Review Receivables will be considered complete (a “Test Complete”). In this case, the related Review Report will indicate a Test Complete for such Review Receivable and the related reason.

  • Review Procedures The Parties agree to jointly conduct a review, sampling transactions of the incidents managed under this Agreement. Findings that are inconsistent with the normal or accepted way of doing business will be reconciled on a case by case basis. Any decision to further examine records will be considered on a case by case basis and appropriate follow up action agreed upon by all agencies involved. Payment for Protection Services (use if appropriate) Geographic, Statewide or Sub-Geographic (local) operating plans and procurement documents or agreement will establish billing procedures for Fee Basis Protection Services.

  • Maintenance of Review Materials It will maintain copies of any Review Materials, Review Reports and other documents relating to a Review, including internal correspondence and work papers, for a period of at least two years after any termination of this Agreement.

  • 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.

  • Timeline Contractor must perform the Services and deliver the Deliverables according to the following timeline: • •

  • Project Plan Development of Project Plan Upon the Authorized User’s request, the Contractor must develop a Project Plan. This Project Plan may include Implementation personnel, installation timeframes, escalation procedures and an acceptance plan as appropriate for the Services requested. Specific requirements of the plan will be defined in the RFQ. In response to the RFQ, the Contractor must agree to furnish all labor and supervision necessary to successfully perform Services procured from this Lot. Project Plan Document The Contractor will provide to the Authorized User, a Project Plan that may contain the following items: • Name of the Project Manager, Contact Phone Numbers and E-Mail Address; • Names of the Project Team Members, Contact Phone Numbers and E-Mail Address; • A list of Implementation milestones based on the Authorized User’s desired installation date; • A list of responsibilities of the Authorized User during system Implementation; • A list of designated Contractor Authorized Personnel; • Escalation procedures including management personnel contact numbers; • Full and complete documentation of all Implementation work; • Samples of knowledge transfer documentation; and • When applicable, a list of all materials and supplies required to complete the Implementation described in the RFQ. Materials and Supplies Required to Complete Implementation In the event that there are items required to complete an Implementation, the Contractor may request the items be added to its Contract if the items meet the scope of the Contract. Negotiation of Final Project Plan If the Authorized User chooses to require a full Project Plan, the State further reserves the right for Authorized Users to negotiate the final Project Plan with the apparent RFQ awardee. Such negotiation must not substantively change the scope of the RFQ plan, but can alter timeframes or other incidental factors of the final Project Plan. The Authorized User will provide the Contractor a minimum of five (5) business days’ notice of the final negotiation date. The Authorized User reserves the right to move to the next responsible and responsive bidder if Contractor negotiations are unsuccessful.

  • Deliverables Upon satisfactory completion of the work authorization, the Engineer shall submit the deliverables as specified in the executed work authorization to the State for review and acceptance.

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