Quality Assurance Systems. Flextronics will maintain quality assurance systems for the control of Material quality (including the Production Materials), Material processing (including the Production Materials), assembly, testing, manufacturing, packaging and shipping in accordance with the Specifications as well as its usual policies and practices. The workmanship standard to be used in manufacturing the Product is IPC-A-610 Rev. C Class II, as published by the Institute for Interconnecting and Packaging Electronic Circuits. Flextronics will successfully maintain ISO 9001 quality standards and certification at all Flextronics facilities utilized in the manufacture of Products or performance of Work for Customer. Flextronics shall proactively pursue [*] Product [*]. Flextronics shall document and make available for Customer’s review Flextronics’ [*]. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, Flextronics shall (a) notify Customer of any [*] to any manufacturing process or Materials (including the Production Materials) [*]; (b) work [*] any such issues [*] under the circumstances, and (c) provide at [*].
Quality Assurance Systems. In relation to quality assurance of the apprenticeship programmes, the primary objective is to provide high quality training programmes that meet the appropriate national and international quality standards as applicable. To this end, the Co-ordinating Provider’s QA system focuses particular attention on programme design, the effective and efficient training delivery, assessment methodology, and the analytical programme review and monitoring activities of on-the-job and off-the-job apprenticeship training. The Collaborating Provider has approved and implemented its own internal Quality Assurance system, in line with its statutory obligations and internal governance procedures, which aligns with the QQI requirements 3 for the delivery of off-the-job apprenticeship training. Ultimately, apprenticeship off-the-job training programmes are delivered in accordance with the SOLAS requirements and the Collaborating Provider’s approved QA system. However, in the event that a conflict arises between Collaborating Provider’s QA system and the SOLAS apprenticeship rules and regulations the SOLAS regulations take precedent.
Quality Assurance Systems. (a) The Developer must carry out or procure that the Works are carried out in accordance with quality assurance systems conforming to the ISO 9000 or AS3900 series of standards.
Quality Assurance Systems. The Parties shall maintain appropriate quality assurance systems in compliance with GMP requirements and ICH guidelines on Quality with respect to the Manufacturing of the 2016 Product IMPs. The Parties (i) will ensure that their facilities, subcontractors, staff, suppliers and vendors operate in compliance with applicable laws and GMP regulations with respect to the 2016 Product IMPs and (ii) will ensure that the 2016 Product IMPs comply with the specifications including labelling of the 2016 Product IMPs accepted by the competent authorities. If the Parties become aware of any deviations from the specifications or GMP regulations, they will take appropriate actions to investigate such deviations and nonconformities and to correct as soon as possible. In case of such deviations in the sphere of KANGZHE, KANGZHE will immediately inform XXXX’x contact person named in QA Annex 1.
Quality Assurance Systems. The Parties shall maintain appropriate quality assurance systems that are in compliance with current GMP and GDP requirements and WHO guidelines and ICH guidelines on Quality with respect to the distribution of Products.
Quality Assurance Systems. As noted earlier in this report, the State and the Dartmouth fidelity team has re-started the on-site comprehensive fidelity review process. The ER was able to observe an ACT fidelity review in Nashua, and an SE fidelity review in Concord during this reporting period. Both reviews appeared to be thorough and effective, even though some interviews with staff and service participants continue to be conducted by phone or ZOOM because of COVID restrictions. However, detailed findings from these fidelity reviews have not yet been shared with the Plaintiffs. Nor has the State resumed reporting of the review's scoring process and outcomes. Both pieces of information will be important in determining whether and to what extent supported employment and ACT services are being delivered consistent with design components and fidelity standards set out in the CMHA. As with the previous reporting period, the State has been successful in conducting QSRs for all ten CMHCs for State Fiscal Year 2022. A summary tabulation of the results of these QSR activities is included as Appendix B of this report. Due to COVID, the ER has not been able to directly observe QSR CMHC reviews during this current reporting period. For the most recent set of QSR reviews (State Fiscal Years 2020, 2021 and 2022), the State has increased the performance threshold from 70% to 80% for each indicator and for overall average performance. CMHCs scoring less than 80% on any indicator must submit a quality improvement plan (QIP), the implementation of which is monitored by the State. QIPs are also used to prioritize technical assistance and coaching efforts designed to assist CMHCs to improve performance. The ER also monitors implementation of the QIPs through interviews with both State and CMHC staff. Overall, the CMHC system averages QSR performance scores above the 80% threshold. That is, each CMHC has an aggregate average score above 80%, and the aggregate average for the ten CMHCs together also exceeds 80%. These facts demonstrate that overall CMHC and system- wide performance have been steadily improving since in inception of the QSR process. However, there continue to be some areas of lower than desired performance and quality in the CMHC system as documented by the QSR findings. Of the 18 indicators summarized in the QSR reports, the CMHC system as a whole performs below the 80% threshold on four indicators. These are:
