Background Review Sample Clauses

Background Review. The CONSULTANT will review current county organizational information available, including department home pages, budget information, ordinances, and other related documents and information.
Sample 1Sample 2
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Background Review. Partnering has been viewed as an effective tool in successful delivery of projects across many countries including UK (Xxxxx 2003; Xxxx and Xxxxx 2005), Europe (Xxxxxxxx and Xxxxxx 1993), Hong Kong (Xxxxxx and Xxxxxxxxxxx 2002) and Singapore (Xxxx and Xxxxx 2001). There is an increasing perception that partnering could help managing risks and uncertainties and thereby improve productivity in projects (Xxxxxxx and Xxxxxxxx 2000; Xxxx 2001; Xxxxxx et al. 2006). Given the nature of modern construction projects where involvement of multitude of contracting parties result very high risks, partnering based on relationship agreements and cooperative teamwork perceived to be an effective medium for managing conflicts between diverse participants (Xxxxxx and Xxxxxxxxxxx 2002). Traditional procurement methods generally produce a culture of defensiveness, with each party spending significant amounts of time on money on protecting its contractual position. Even where the parties are on relatively good terms, management cost will include full detailed documentation in the case of dispute (Xxxxx 2001). In case of a dispute, the general focus of each party is on blame allocation, rather than finding a workable solution for the problem. The constant threat of a dispute xxxxxxx creates a defensiveness in the general context of contractual negations in which each party attempts to transfer more risk onto the other. Traditional delivery methods generally select the lowest tender bid in order to reduce the costs associated with the project, however, it is often the case that lowest tender bid is incorrect. Incorrect tender bids, combined with management decisions to exclude profit and even overheads when desperate to win a tender, can result in contractors work being of substandard quality. Incorrect bids may also result in the contractor pursuing claims and inflated measurements to recover losses, both of which can result in disputes between the contractor and the client, causing unwarranted cost over-run and program delays to the project (Xxxxx 2000). A lack of vision on behalf of the client and failure to take into account any factors other than the tender price can also lead to substandard quality of the work and poor OHS practices if the contractor selected is not experienced or suited to the particular project. Traditional Procurement Methods may also result in a lack of value management and design innovation as builders are restricted to pricing a predetermined solutio...
Sample 1
Background Review. Consultant shall become familiar with the operating procedures and systems relevant to the Project by reviewing and analyzing existing background information provided by the City; reviewing previous assumptions; visiting the RWF to confirm site conditions and conducting interviews with RWF staff. The City will provide copies of available record drawings, reports, Computerized Maintenance Management System (“CMMS”) data, historical operational and maintenance data, condition assessments, and any other existing documents pertaining to the Project. The reference documents will include:
Sample 1
Background Review. In the event County cannot hire an Applicant on initial review of City information and needs additional due diligence, Applicants will be required to submit to a normal and full County background investigation process.
Sample 1
Background Review. The Consultant will begin by gathering background information about how the City of Durham has addressed capital project prioritization in the past. Previous bicycle, pedestrian, congestion management, and transit access plans will be reviewed for discussion of public values and community priorities that reflect on the potential prioritization factors that may be employed in the model. These documents will also be reviewed for information that can inform the weighting of these factors. Potential factors include the following: Stakeholder Input, Safety, Existing Conditions, Demand, Connectivity, Equity and Compliance; other factors may be added at the Client’s discretion. Additionally, information gathered in the public outreach efforts of this project will be reviewed by the Consultant for expressions of values and viewpoints that are relevant to this prioritization process. The Client will also be interviewed so that Consultant can understand the Client’s recent experiences with prioritization processes for capital improvement projects. The Client will also be consulted about the types and quality of data that are available that can be used to measure the potential prioritization factors. All GIS and other data required to utilize the APT will be supplied by the city or obtained from existing data sources, such as NCDOT and the U.S. Census, including demographic data, sidewalk coverage, previous project lists, crash locations, etc.
Sample 1
Background Review. Working closely with City staff and using most recent Annual Progress Report, the R+A team will review the current Housing Element and identify Milpitas’ success in accomplishing/implementing the identified goals, policies, and programs and provide explanations and updates where goals, policies, or programs are in progress, have been abandoned, or have not proven effective. The R+A team will also review the City’s new General Plan for any housing-related policies, the Transit Area Specific Plan (Metro Plan), the Milpitas Midtown Specific Plan (Gateway Plan), the Zoning Code, the Affordable Housing Ordinance, the forthcoming Assessment of Fair Housing, and other related documents/policies as appropriate.
Sample 1
Background Review. Prior to conducting a site visit, CONSULTANT will review all relevant background information concerning biological resources in the project area, including prior work in and around the City of Milpitas; US Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps; US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory Maps; the CNDDB; species data compiled by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS), the National Audubon Society, or other public interest group; and resource agency data.
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Background Review. The Water Provider shall ensure that it has thoroughly investigated the employees who are given access to the system. The Water Provider will not grant access to employees whose background suggests they will be unable to meet the data security requirements of this Agreement. Specifically, employees whose background checks reveal fraud, identity theft, or substance abuse shall not be allowed to access this data. DUI convictions for all substances other than alcohol shall disqualify an employee from access.
Sample 1
Background Review. A comprehensive review of available background literature and studies will update our understanding of Xxxxxx Paipoonge’s economy. The project team’s familiarity with Xxxxxx Paipoonge and experience in Northwestern Ontario will lessen time required for this step. This reconnaissance will identify historic and emerging market conditions impacting the town and competitive position within the regional, provincial, national and international economies. This analysis informs our view of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats related to the community’s ability to retain, expand and attract new business investment. Particular attention will be given to reports and publications that provide insight into trends that are impacting economic opportunities. This includes any relevant municipal documents, regional and provincial industry sector publications, professional reports, labour market reports, Statistics Canada data (and Census of Agriculture in particular), and other data sources (e.g. the most current Canadian Business Patterns data). We will ensure all documents provided by the Municipality, including studies regarding the impact of Highway 11/17 relocation, 2001 Strategic Economic Development Plan, and others are thoroughly reviewed. Relevant data, supporting evidence and recommendations from these reports will be incorporated into the Strategy and Action Plans.
Sample 1

Related to Background Review

  • Project Review A. Programmatic Allowances

  • 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.

  • BACKGROUND 1.1. The “Work” is the research article, review article, letter, clinical trial study, report, article, or other copyright work, as identified in the Copyright Letter and further detailed in Schedule 1: Details of the Work (including such form of the copyright work submitted to Xxxxxxx Science for publication pursuant to clause 4, below), but excluding (except where context otherwise requires) any diagrams, figures or illustration specifically identified to Xxxxxxx Science pursuant to clause 3.2, below.

  • Background Check The Department or Customer may require the Contractor to conduct background checks of its employees, agents, representatives, and subcontractors as directed by the Department or Customer. The cost of the background checks will be borne by the Contractor. The Department or Customer may require the Contractor to exclude the Contractor’s employees, agents, representatives, or subcontractors based on the background check results. In addition, the Contractor must ensure that all persons have a responsibility to self-report to the Contractor within three (3) calendar days any arrest for any disqualifying offense. The Contractor must notify the Contract Manager within twenty-four (24) hours of all details concerning any reported arrest. Upon the request of the Department or Customer, the Contractor will re-screen any of its employees, agents, representatives, and subcontractors during the term of the Contract.

  • Background Checks The State may require that the Contractor and Contractor Parties undergo criminal background checks as provided for in the State of Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection Administration and Operations Manual or such other State document as governs procedures for background checks. The Contractor and Contractor Parties shall cooperate fully as necessary or reasonably requested with the State and its agents in connection with such background checks.

  • 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.

  • Design Review Consumer shall provide Holy Cross an electrical one-line diagram and a relaying and metering one-line diagram prior to completion of detailed designs, unless the Consumer is installing a packaged system that is pre-certified to IEEE 1547.1 and UL 1741 standards. Packaged systems pre-certified under IEEE Standard 1547.1 and UL Standard 1741 will not require a relaying and metering one-line diagram. The submitted application and diagrams will be processed, reviewed, and acted upon in accordance with the Holy Cross Interconnection Policy.

  • 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.

  • Background Investigation The BOARD is prohibited from knowingly employing a person who has been convicted of committing or attempting to commit certain criminal offenses. If the required criminal background investigation is not completed at the time this Contract is signed, and the subsequent investigation report reveals that there has been a prohibited conviction, this Contract shall immediately become null and void.

  • Background Data The Disclosing Party's Background Data, if any, will be identified in a separate technical document.

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