– Conduct Data Review Sample Clauses

– Conduct Data Review. EKI will collect and review the data received in response to the data request (Subtask 2.1), provided the data are received within the timeframe specified in the agreed-upon project schedule. To the extent that data are missing or not provided in a timely manner, EKI will contact the individual Water Contractors and seek direction regarding potential alternative data sources. To facilitate the analyses conducted herein, EKI will build a working relational database in Microsoft Access to manage and mine program participation and other data. This project database and other files summarizing analytical results (Excel workbooks and GIS files) will be provided to the Water Contractors at the completion of the project.
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to – Conduct Data Review

  • Log Reviews All systems processing and/or storing PHI COUNTY discloses to 11 CONTRACTOR or CONTRACTOR creates, receives, maintains, or transmits on behalf of COUNTY 12 must have a routine procedure in place to review system logs for unauthorized access.

  • Personnel File Review a. A unit member has the right upon his/her own request to review the contents of his/her personnel file. The review will be conducted in the presence of the administrator, or his/her designee, responsible for the safekeeping of such file. The employee may have a committee person assist in said review. Such review shall be conducted at a mutually agreeable time. A copy of requested material will be provided.

  • Validation Review In the event OIG has reason to believe that: (a) Good Shepherd’s Claims Review fails to conform to the requirements of this CIA; or (b) the IRO’s findings or Claims Review results are inaccurate, OIG may, at its sole discretion, conduct its own review to determine whether the Claims Review complied with the requirements of the CIA and/or the findings or Claims Review results are inaccurate (Validation Review). Good Shepherd shall pay for the reasonable cost of any such review performed by OIG or any of its designated agents. Any Validation Review of Reports submitted as part of Good Shepherd’s final Annual Report shall be initiated no later than one year after Good Shepherd’s final submission (as described in Section II) is received by OIG. Prior to initiating a Validation Review, OIG shall notify Good Shepherd of its intent to do so and provide a written explanation of why OIG believes such a review is necessary. To resolve any concerns raised by OIG, Good Shepherd may request a meeting with OIG to: (a) discuss the results of any Claims Review submissions or findings; (b) present any additional information to clarify the results of the Claims Review or to correct the inaccuracy of the Claims Review; and/or (c) propose alternatives to the proposed Validation Review. Good Shepherd agrees to provide any additional information as may be requested by OIG under this Section III.D.3 in an expedited manner. OIG will attempt in good faith to resolve any Claims Review issues with Good Shepherd prior to conducting a Validation Review. However, the final determination as to whether or not to proceed with a Validation Review shall be made at the sole discretion of OIG.

  • Updates “Updates” are changes that do not require a change to the established Centralized Contract terms and conditions. Updates may include: Centralized Contract changes and updates made in accordance with the previously approved pricing formula (e.g. discount from list price); adding new products or services within the established, previously approved pricing structure; lowering pricing of products or services already on Contract, deleting products or services available through the Centralized Contract, adding product or service that do not fall under the previously established price structure or discounts under the Contract, re-bundled products, and other updates not listed above that are deemed to be in the best interest of the State and do not result in a change to the established Centralized Contract terms and conditions. Updates must be submitted to OGS for review, and must be accompanied by a justification of reasonableness of price if the change results in a change in pricing methodology. OGS will notify Contractor in writing if approved.

  • Project Review A. Programmatic Allowances

  • Search, Enquiry, Investigation, Examination And Verification a. The Property is sold on an “as is where is basis” subject to all the necessary inspection, search (including but not limited to the status of title), enquiry (including but not limited to the terms of consent to transfer and/or assignment and outstanding charges), investigation, examination and verification of which the Purchaser is already advised to conduct prior to the auction and which the Purchaser warrants to the Assignee has been conducted by the Purchaser’s independent legal advisors at the time of execution of the Memorandum.

  • Training Materials Training Materials will be provided for each student. Training Materials may be used only for either (i) the individual student’s reference during Boeing provided training and for review thereafter or (ii) Customer’s provision of training to individuals directly employed by the Customer.

  • Protocols Each party hereby agrees that the inclusion of additional protocols may be required to make this Agreement specific. All such protocols shall be negotiated, determined and agreed upon by both parties hereto.

  • Implementation Specifications 1. The accounting shall contain the date, nature, and purpose of such disclosures, and the name and address of the person or agency to whom the disclosure is made.

  • 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.

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