Joint Review Team Sample Clauses

Joint Review Team. For any review except one required in conjunction with an accreditation decision ofAccreditation with Stipulations or Probationary Accreditation, the composition ofthe Evaluation Team will be as follows:
Sample 1Sample 2See All (7)
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Joint Review Team. The Joint Review Team in a standard visit which includes only an initial-level review includes four national site visitors appointed by CAEP and one (1) site visitor appointed by the State. In a standard visit which includes initial and advanced­ level reviews, the team will include five (5) CAEP-appointed visitors and one (1) state­ appointed site visitor. CAEP financial guidelines require that a joint team be composed completely of CAEP appointed site visitors, less one site visitor appointed by the state. The State shall provide CAEP with its recommended site visitor within any timelines established by CAEP in the Accreditation Policy and handbook. The team is led by a site team chair appointed by CAEP. Prior to assignment to any site team, an individual must have successfully completed CAEP site visitor training and must acknowledge understanding of, and agreement to, adhere to CAEP's code of conduct, including with regard to confidentiality and conflicts of interest. All site visit teams are supported by a state consultant.
Sample 1Sample 2
Joint Review Team. The Joint Review Team includes national Site Visitors appointed by CAEP and State Site Visitors appointed by the State. The State shall provide CAEP with its list of State Site Visitors within any timelines established by CAEP in the Accreditation Council policy and handbook. CAEP-appointed Site Visitors must make up more than 50 percent of the team. The team is led by a Lead Site Visitor (chair) appointed by CAEP. The State may appoint a designated State Lead Site Visitor to be a member of the site team under the leadership of the CAEP Lead Site Visitor. Should the State deem it necessary to have more State Site Visitors participate in an off-site or onsite visit to accommodate the work involved in reviewing a high number of programs, those State Site Visitors exceeding the 49% threshold will serve as observers and provide input regarding findings when requested by the CAEP or State Team.
Sample 1
Joint Review Team. The Joint Review Team includes national site visitors appointed by CAEP and TSPC site visitors appointed by TSPC. TSPC shall provide CAEP with its list of site visitors within any timelines established by CAEP in the Accreditation Council Policy Manual and CAEP Accreditation Handbook. CAEP-appointed members must make up more than 50 percent of the team. TSPC may appoint up to one team member less than the number of CAEP-appointed team members on the joint review team. The team is led by a site team chair appointed by CAEP. However, the CAEP appointed chair shall have no authority over the unit review activities by the state team members as they relate to state-specific standards.
Sample 1
Joint Review Team. The Joint Site Visit Team includes national site visitors appointed by CAEP and state site visitors appointed by the State. The State shall provide CAEP with its list of site visitors within any timelines established by CAEP in the Accreditation Council policy and handbook. CAEP-appointed members must make up more than 50 percent of the team. The team is led by a Site Visit Team chair appointed by CAEP. The State may appoint a vice-chair. Prior to assignment to any Site Visit Team, an individual must have successfully completed CAEP training for Site Visit Team members and must acknowledge understanding of and agreement to adhere to CAEP’s code of conduct, including with regard to confidentiality and conflicts of interest.
Sample 1
Joint Review Team. The Joint Review Team includes national site visitors appointed by CAEP and TSPC site visitors appointed by TSPC. TSPC shall provide CAEP with its list of site visitors within any timelines established by CAEP in the Accreditation Council Policy Manual and CAEP Accreditation Handbook. The team is led by a site team chair appointed by CAEP. However, the CAEP appointed chair shall have no authority over the unit review activities by the state team members as they relate to state-specific standards.
Sample 1

Related to Joint Review Team

  • Joint Review JADRC may, at the request of either party, review issues arising from the application of this Article.

  • 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.

  • Project Team To accomplish Owner’s objectives, Owner intends to employ a team concept in connection with the construction of the Project. The basic roles and general responsibilities of team members are set forth in general terms below but are more fully set forth in the Design Professional Contract with respect to the Design Professional, in the Program Management Agreement with any Program Manager, and in this Contract with respect to the Contractor.

  • Project Review A. Programmatic Allowances

  • Claims Review Findings a. Narrative Results.‌‌

  • 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.

  • Claims Review Population A description of the Population subject to the Claims Review.

  • Agreement Review If, pursuant to section 25.10 (Review of Agreement) of the Bilateral Agreement, the Bilateral Agreement is reviewed after three or five years, or both, of the effective date of the Bilateral Agreement, and any changes to the Bilateral Agreement are required as a result, the Parties agree to amend the Agreement as necessary and in a manner that is consistent with such changes.

  • ADB’s Review of Procurement Decisions 9. All contracts procured under international competitive bidding procedures and contracts for consulting services shall be subject to prior review by ADB, unless otherwise agreed between the Borrower and ADB and set forth in the Procurement Plan. SCHEDULE 5

  • Review Protocol A narrative description of how the Claims Review was conducted and what was evaluated.

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