Process Reviews Sample Clauses

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.
Sample 1Sample 2
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
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.
Sample 1Sample 2
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. Program Accountability & Results (PAR) Reviews 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.
Sample 1
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.(2). The Process Review shall consist of a thorough review and inquiry of the following:
Sample 1
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:
Sample 1
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.
Sample 1
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.
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
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.
Sample 1

Related to Process Reviews

  • BUSINESS REVIEWS Vendor 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, 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

  • 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 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.

  • 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.

  • Periodic Reviews During January of each year during the term hereof, the Board of Directors of the Company shall review Executive's Annual Salary, bonus, stock options, and additional benefits then being provided to Executive. Following each such review, the Company may in its discretion increase the Annual Salary, bonus, stock options, and benefits; however, the Company shall not decrease such items during the period Executive serves as an employee of the Company. Prior to November 30th of each year during the term hereof, the Board of Directors of the Company shall communicate in writing the results of such review to Executive.

  • Contract Review Agent shall have reviewed all material contracts of Borrowers including, without limitation, leases, union contracts, labor contracts, vendor supply contracts, license agreements and distributorship agreements and such contracts and agreements shall be satisfactory in all respects to Agent;

  • 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.

  • Periodic Review The General Counsel shall periodically review the Procurement Integrity Procedures with OSC personnel in order to ascertain potential areas of exposure to improper influence and to adopt desirable revisions for more effective avoidance of improper influences.

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