Process Reviews Clause Samples

The Process Reviews clause establishes a formal mechanism for periodically evaluating and assessing the procedures, workflows, or deliverables associated with a contract or project. Typically, this involves scheduled meetings or checkpoints where both parties review progress, identify issues, and discuss potential improvements to the process. By implementing regular reviews, the clause ensures ongoing alignment between parties, facilitates early detection of problems, and supports continuous improvement, ultimately helping to maintain quality and efficiency throughout the project lifecycle.
Process Reviews. Joint Process Reviews, as part of the Stewardship Agreement with FHWA, can be periodically conducted with HQ staff, the regions, FHWA, and industry representatives across a range of technical areas including concrete pavement, structural concrete, HMA, pavement management and geotechnical engineering. Areas of potential risk will be identified by the QIC and prioritized in the QIC’s Joint Process Review/Risk Response Strategies annual effort. CDOT Area Engineers, with the support of the Materials and Geotechnical Branch, may conduct project level quality assurance reviews to ensure conformance with established regulations, policies, manuals, procedures, and guidelines.
View SourceView Similar (2)
Process Reviews. Manitoba Public Insurance may conduct process reviews from time to time to confirm that all Accreditation Requirements are being maintained, that you are following the Policies & Procedures, and that you are in compliance with the requirements of this Agreement.
View SourceView Similar (2)
Process Reviews. The IRO shall perform process reviews ("Process Reviews") at Mariner's nursing facilities which are selected for full statistically valid random sample ("SRVS") MDS audits as described above. The Process Reviews shall include a review of Mariner's claims, coding, billing and submission process and other compliance related activities. The Process Review may be performed concurrently with the other elements of the SRVS MDS audit and shall include testing or verification of Mariner's systems, processes and/or operations only when necessary as described below in Section III.D.13.e.
View Source
Process Reviews. A more In-depth evaluation of a specific process within the identified program, and focused on a discrete process possibly involving data gathering and analysis. Review topics are identified either by FHWA HQ, or through the Division Office annual risk assessment process.
View Source
Process Reviews. Joint Process Reviews, as part of the Stewardship Agreement with FHWA, can be periodically conducted with HQ staff, the Regions, FHWA, and industry representatives across a range of technical areas including concrete pavement, structural concrete, HMA, pavement management and geotechnical engineering. Areas of potential risk will be identified by the QIC and prioritized in the QIC’s Joint Process Review/Risk Response Strategies annual effort.
View Source
Process Reviews. FHWA, in cooperation with the State DOT, will make periodic process reviews covering areas of delegated NHS projects to verify compliance with this agreement. FHWA reserves the right to review non-NHS projects on an as-needed basis. Process reviews may be limited to one or more segments of the project development phase, contracting phase, or construction phase or may encompass the total process.
View Source
Process Reviews. The IRO shall perform Process Reviews at Sun's nursing facilities which are selected for MDS Audits as described above. The Process Reviews shall include a review of Sun's claims, coding, billing and submission process and other compliance related activities ("Process Review"). The Process Review may be performed concurrently with the other elements of the Billing Engagement and shall include testing or verification of Sun's Systems, processes and/or operations only when necessary as described below in Section III.D.2.b.x.(B). The Process Review shall consist of a thorough review and inquiry of the following: (A) Sun's documentation, coding, billing and reporting operations relating to claims submitted to all Federal health care programs. As part of this review, the IRO is expected to evaluate the presence, application and adequacy of: (1) Sun's billing and medical record documentation and coding process; (2) Sun's billing policies and procedures to ensure proper coding and billing; (3) Sun's internal controls to ensure accurate coding and claims submission; (4) Sun's reporting operations or mechanisms that ensure appropriate communication between Sun and its fiscal intermediaries; and (5) corrective action plans to correct any inaccurate coding or billing processes or individual claim forms. (B) In the event Sun or the IRO identify deficiencies in Sun's medical record documentation, coding process, policies and procedures, internal controls, reporting mechanisms or corrective action plans, (either through the Billing Engagement, Process Review, internal or external audits, or fiscal intermediary review) which result, or could result, in inappropriate billing to the federal health care programs, the IRO shall, attempt to quantify any actual or potential underpayment or overpayments and shall make a report to Sun (and to the OIG as described below) that shall include the IRO's recommendations to correct the identified deficiency. In addition, the IRO shall test the applicable Sun system(s) to ensure the potential deficiency is not a systemic problem. Sun will correct any identified deficiency within 3 months of the discovery of the deficiency or provide the OIG with a reason why it cannot correct the deficiency within that time frame. Sun will report its findings regarding any potential deficiencies and corrective actions in its Process Review Report.
View Source
Process Reviews. These reviews are a thorough analysis of key program components and the processes employed by the WVDOH in managing programs. The reviews are conducted to: 1) ensure compliance with Federal requirements; 2) identify areas in need of improvement; 3) identify opportunities for greater efficiencies and cost improvement to the program; and 4) identify exemplary practices. Process reviews will be conducted based on the WVFHWA’s annual risk assessment. High priority processes will be studied by review teams that may be selected jointly by the WVFHWA and the WVDOH. Process reviews are the FHWA’s primary tool for providing oversight for assumed projects. The size and intensity of the program review may vary, depending on the topic being reviewed. Further, wherever appropriate, the process review should include a financial component and involve members of the financial team to determine if appropriate internal controls exist within the program intended to detect and/or prevent possible fraud, waste or abuse of Federal-aid funds. This component includes documenting those internal controls, as well as reviewing the adequacy of the documentation to support the appropriate expenditure of Federal-aid funds. PAR Reviews are reviews with a limited sample in a very specific area used to determine quickly whether a program or process is working effectively and efficiently. PAR Reviews are issue oriented and results driven. They are generally focused on functional areas and can be viewed as a QA/QC effort. They may be used to follow-up on a process review or as part of the risk assessment process to help select process review topics.
View Source

Related to Process Reviews

  • BUSINESS REVIEWS Supplier must perform a minimum of one business review with Sourcewell per contract year. The business review will cover sales to Participating Entities, pricing and contract terms, administrative fees, sales data reports, performance issues, supply issues, customer issues, and any other necessary information.

  • 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.

  • Project Review A. Programmatic Allowances 1. If FEMA determines that the entire scope of an Undertaking conforms to one or more allowances in Appendix B of this Agreement, with determinations for Tier II Allowances being made by SOI-qualified staff, FEMA shall complete the Section 106 review process by documenting this determination in the project file, without SHPO review or notification. 2. If the Undertaking involves a National Historic Landmark (NHL), FEMA shall notify the SHPO, participating Tribe(s), and the NPS NHL Program Manager of the NPS Midwest Regional Office that the Undertaking conforms to one or more allowances. FEMA shall provide information about the proposed scope of work for the Undertaking and the allowance(s) enabling FEMA’s determination. 3. If FEMA determines any portion of an Undertaking’s scope of work does not conform to one or more allowances listed in Appendix B, FEMA shall conduct expedited or standard Section 106 review, as appropriate, for the entire Undertaking in accordance with Stipulation II.B, Expedited Review for Emergency Undertakings, or Stipulation II.C, Standard Project Review. 4. Allowances may be revised and new allowances may be added to this Agreement in accordance with Stipulation IV.A.3, Amendments. B. Expedited Review for Emergency Undertakings

  • Business Review Meetings In order to maintain the relationship between the Department and the Contractor, each quarter the Department may request a business review meeting. The business review meeting may include, but is not limited to, the following: • Successful completion of deliverables • Review of the Contractor’s performance • Review of minimum required reports • Addressing of any elevated Customer issues • Review of continuous improvement ideas that may help lower total costs and improve business efficiencies.

  • Program Review The State ECEAP Office will conduct a review of each contractor’s compliance with the ECEAP Contract and ECEAP Performance Standards every four years. The review will involve ECEAP staff and parents. After the Program Review, the State ECEAP Office will provide the contractor with a Program Review report. The contractor must submit an ECEAP Corrective Action Plan for non-compliance with ECEAP Performance Standards. The Plan must be approved by the State ECEAP Office.