Review and Appeal (a) Each Party shall establish or maintain judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative tribunals or procedures for the purpose of the prompt review and, where warranted, correction of final administrative actions regarding matters covered by this Treaty. Such tribunals shall be impartial and independent of the office or authority entrusted with administrative enforcement and shall not have any substantial interest in the outcome of the matter.
Additional RO Review Criteria (1) In addition to the requirements in Subparagraph 34A, the RO must:
Ongoing Review and Revisions As set forth in Section 35.7, the Parties have agreed to the coordination and exchange of data and information under this Agreement to enhance system reliability and efficient market operations as systems exist and are contemplated as of the Effective Date. The Parties expect that these systems and the technology applicable to these systems and to the collection and exchange of data will change from time to time throughout the term of this Agreement. The Parties agree that the objectives of this Agreement can be fulfilled efficiently and economically only if the Parties, from time to time, review and, as appropriate, revise the requirements stated herein in response to such changes, including deleting, adding, or revising requirements and protocols. Each Party will negotiate in good faith in response to such revisions the other Party may propose from time to time. Nothing in this Agreement, however, shall require any Party to reach agreement with respect to any such changes, or to purchase, install, or otherwise implement new equipment, software, or devices, or functions, except as required to perform this Agreement.
Review Protocol A narrative description of how the Claims Review was conducted and what was evaluated.
Review Procedures The Parties agree to jointly conduct a review, sampling transactions of the incidents managed under this Agreement. Findings that are inconsistent with the normal or accepted way of doing business will be reconciled on a case by case basis. Any decision to further examine records will be considered on a case by case basis and appropriate follow up action agreed upon by all agencies involved. Payment for Protection Services (use if appropriate) Geographic, Statewide or Sub-Geographic (local) operating plans and procurement documents or agreement will establish billing procedures for Fee Basis Protection Services.
AUDIT REVIEW PROCEDURES A. Any dispute concerning a question of fact arising under an interim or post audit of this AGREEMENT that is not disposed of by AGREEMENT, shall be reviewed by LOCAL AGENCY’S Chief Financial Officer.
Review Stages The Project Architect shall submit documents to the Owner for review at completion of the Schematic Design Phase, Design Development Phase and at the following stages of completion of the Construction Documents Phase as follows: 50%, 75%, 100%
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 and Selection Process The Project Narratives of SAMHSA applications are peer-reviewed according to the evaluation criteria listed above. Decisions to fund a grant are based on the strengths and weaknesses of the application as identified by peer reviewers. The results of the peer review are advisory in nature. The program office and approving official make the final determination for funding based on the following: • Individual awards over $250,000 are approved by the Center for Mental Health Services National Advisory Council; • Availability of funds; • Equitable distribution of awards in terms of geography (including urban, rural, and remote settings) and balance among populations of focus and program size; • Submission of any required documentation that must be submitted prior to making an award; and • SAMHSA is required to review and consider any information about your organization that is in the Federal Award Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS). In accordance with 45 CFR 75.212, SAMHSA reserves the right not to make an award to an entity if that entity does not meet the minimum qualification standards as described in section 75.205(a)(2). If SAMHSA chooses not to award a fundable application in accordance with 45 CFR 75.205(a)(2), SAMHSA must report that determination to the designated integrity and performance system accessible through the System for Award Management (XXX) [currently, FAPIIS]. You may review and comment on any information about your organization that a federal awarding agency previously entered. XXXXXX will consider your comments, in addition to other information in FAPIIS in making a judgment about your organization’s integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under federal awards when completing the review of risk posed as described in 45 CFR 75.205 HHS Awarding Agency Review of Risk by Applicants.
Scope of Review I conducted my review in accordance with Thai Standard on Review Engagements 2410, “Review of Interim Financial Information Performed by the Independent Auditor of the Entity.” A review of interim financial information consists of making inquires, primarily of persons responsible for financial and accounting matters, and applying analytical and other review procedures. A review is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance with Thai Standards on Auditing and consequently does not enable me to obtain assurance that I would become aware of all significant matters that might be identified in an audit. Accordingly, I do not express an audit opinion.
