Risk Evaluation Sample Clauses
The Risk Evaluation clause establishes a process for identifying, assessing, and managing potential risks associated with a contract or project. Typically, this clause outlines the criteria for evaluating risks, assigns responsibility for conducting risk assessments, and may require regular reporting or documentation of identified risks. Its core practical function is to ensure that all parties are aware of possible threats or uncertainties, enabling proactive measures to mitigate or address these risks and thereby reducing the likelihood of disputes or unexpected losses.
Risk Evaluation a. Prohibited/High Risk Merchants and Activities. Entities classified in certain industries or accepting Transactions for certain prohibited activities do not qualify for the American Express OnePoint Program, but may qualify for our standard American Express Card acceptance program. Please contact our agent with any questions about those risk evaluation procedures under the program.
Risk Evaluation. On the basis of the review of the information described above, and relying solely thereon and upon the knowledge and experience of the Holder in business and financial matters, the Holder has evaluated the merits and risks of investment in the Note and/or the Shares and has determined that he is both willing and able to undertake the economic risk of this investment.
Risk Evaluation. The Offeror’s proposal submitted in response to Technical Factor 1 will be assigned a risk rating based on the proposal risks associated with: Meeting proposed technical metrics and performance criteria Probability that the product delivery schedule meets the proposed timeline Manufacturing approach is sufficient to meet the delivery timelines defined in Section F of the solicitation and submitted IMS, while producing components that meet the SOW and Performance Specification requirements. The assigned Overall Technical Risk will be based on the definitions in Table M2 (above).
Risk Evaluation. The CYCLADES project will develop the service component of an open virtual archive environment. Such component will be built on top of an archive component. The archive component is being developed by the US Open Archive initiative. Therefore, the two activities are complementary in that they address two different but interacting aspects of an open archives environment: the archive environment and the service environment. Obviously, there exists a dependency of the CYCLADES project on the achievements and results of the OAi. We want, here, to evaluate the risk which is inherent in this dependency relationship between the two activities and to identify effective recovery actions. The main risk concerns the fact that OAi lacks an institutional existence which could guarantee organizational stability and evolution of the OAi technical framework. OAi is managed by a Steering Committee (SC) and a Technical Committee (TC). To overcome this problem and make more tight the collaboration between CYCLADES and OAi we have agreed with one of the principal investigators of OAi, Cornell University (Dr. ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇), that a US proposal for funding had to be submitted to NSF (in response to the Cultural Heritage Applications Unit of the EC DG Information Society invitation for EU-US multi-partner, multi-national project proposals). The objectives of this twin proposal are to: Support the evolution and organisational stabilisation of the of the OAi Evaluate the effectiveness and cross-domain applicability of OAi conventions Due to a lack of synchronisation between the NSF and IST Calls this proposal has not yet been submitted. There is, thus, a risk which must be carefully evaluated: the case that the US proposal is not accepted for funding. Even in this worst case the CYCLADES project maintains its validity. Indeed, the OAi has already defined agreements (technical mechanisms and organisational structures) to support interoperability of e-print archives. These agreements are known as “The Santa Fe Convention of the Open Archives Initiative”. The Santa Fe Convention presents a technical and organisational framework designed to facilitate the discovery of content stored in distributed e-print archives. It makes easy-to- implement recommendations for archives that will allow data from e-print archives to become widely available via its inclusion in a variety of end-user services. In addition, the Santa Fe Convention introduces an organisational framework for making informati...
Risk Evaluation. The contractor shall state responsibility and procedures to determine the significance, intrinsic worth, and critically of the contractor operations in a manner that proper risk management techniques can be applied and notable safety risk reported to the JSC Health, Safety, and Environmental Compliance Office. The contractor will discuss ranking the risk in a severity classification. Risk evaluation tasks, managing the risks, and documenting the results will be discussed.
Risk Evaluation. Include an evaluation of the risk of hydraulic fracturing, erosion, contamination of drainage features, heave, or any other damage. This should include:
(1) A detailed description of any drilling fluid used including details on the circulation system, locations where fluid will contact soil, and circulation pressures that will be used.
(2) Monitoring needs during drilling, and a contingency plan if loss of drilling fluid or other complications are observed during drilling.
(3) Measures to minimize the risk of damage to the dam or foundation.
(4) Measures to prevent the possibility of cross-contamination and leakage from confined and separate ground water aquifers.
(5) Measures to prevent drill contact with structural features, such as conduits.
(6) Nearby instruments whose behavior will be monitored during the investigation and the expected response including threshold and limit values, and contingency plans for unexpected response.
(7) An emergency action plan including a list of emergency equipment and supplies to have onsite (phone/radio, filter materials, grout materials, etc.). ER ▇▇▇▇-▇-▇▇▇▇ 31 Dec 14 Page 73 of 102
Risk Evaluation. The employer shall issue a general regulation evaluating the risks associated with possible types of dangers and damages for all jobs at the work place and in the working environment, and shall establish manner and measures for removing them. In the case of any new danger and damage, and change in the level of risk in the working process, the employer shall make amendments to the general regulation referred to in paragraph 1 above and remove such risks.
Risk Evaluation. The SUPPLIER shall carry out a risk evaluation of the product to be delivered and of the manufacturing process. The risk evaluation is a part of the documentation the SUPPLIER is obliged to maintain; for archiving and retention, the defined retention periods apply. Both Design- and Process FMEA shall be required as risk analysis where a SUPPLIER delivers products manufactured in accordance with his own construction drawings. Otherwise, a process FMEA shall be undertaken. The SUPPLIER shall maintain a procedure to identify the hazards and evaluate the risks associated with its delivered products throughout their entire lifecycle. Compliance with this procedure shall be regularly monitored and adjusted if necessary. Where the SUPPPLIER identifies risks that are likely to affect the CUSTOMER’s product, it shall inform the CUSTOMER promptly and in writing. This shall also apply to risks which have been identified or which have arisen in similar or similarly constructed products. Decisions on any necessary corrective actions and information related to products in the field / recalls / notification of authorities shall rest with the CUSTOMER. The SUPPLIER shall maintain a system capturing failures / non-conformities as a means to ascertain weaknesses of products or processes. The system shall be used to define all necessary corrective and preventive actions (CAPA=Corrective and Preventive Action).
Risk Evaluation