Costs of Review Sample Clauses

Costs of Review. Tenant shall reimburse Landlord for the reasonable fees and costs of any architects, engineers, or other consultants retained by Landlord to review the proposed Alterations.
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3See All (6)
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Costs of Review. Depending on the circumstances, you may be responsible for the costs of a review as more fully set forth in Section 4(p).
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3See All (4)
Costs of Review. Lessee shall reimburse Lessor for the reasonable fees and costs of any architects, engineers, or other consultants retained by Xxxxxx to review the proposed Alterations.
Sample 1Sample 2
Costs of Review. However, if as a result of any such review it is determined that a Third Party licensee of the TiVo Server [*]and/or TiVo Client [*]has paid upfront license fees or royalties that would trigger the provisions of this Section 6.5 (Super Favored Status) and resulted in the overpayment by Sony of five percent (5%) or more during the audited period, then TiVo shall pay the costs of the review and credit Sony the overpayment[*].
Sample 1
Costs of Review a) to indemnify the Financial Institution for any expense or cost incurred by the Financial Institution arising from the review of the appointment of Agent for the Adult, including all legal expenses reasonably incurred by the Financial Institution in connection with this Agreement or arising from the continued operation of the Account(s) pursuant to this Agreement; and
Sample 1
Costs of Review. As to those Alterations requiring Landlord's consent, Tenant shall reimburse Landlord for the reasonable fees and costs of any architects, engineers, or other consultants retained by Landlord to review the proposed Alterations not to exceed Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($2,500.00) per Alteration.
Sample 1
Costs of Review. Howmet has paid to the Air Force $30,000 to cover the Air Force's costs of independently reviewing this matter and administering this Agreement.
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Costs of 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Performance of Reviews The RIRs shall send a request for review to the Operator per email, where they shall specify the areas they request a review for. The Operator must comply with the request by providing the requested information within working days. The review may include an onsite inspection. In this case the RIRs and the Operator must agree on a specific date for the inspection to take place, which may not be later than sixty calendar days from the date of the request.

  • Termination of Review If a Review is in process and the Notes will be paid in full on the next Payment Date, the Servicer will notify the Asset Representations Reviewer and the Indenture Trustee no less than ten days before that Payment Date. On receipt of notice, the Asset Representations Reviewer will terminate the Review immediately and will not be obligated to deliver a Review Report.

  • Standard of Review The Parties acknowledge and agree that the standard of review for any avoidance, breach, rejection, termination or other cessation of performance of or changes to any portion of this integrated, non-severable Agreement (as described in Section 22) over which FERC has jurisdiction, whether proposed by Seller, by Buyer, by a non-party of, by FERC acting sua sponte shall be the “public interest” standard of review set forth in United Gas Pipe Line Co. v.

  • 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.

  • 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.

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