Review of assessment The assessment of the applicable percentage should be subject to annual review or earlier on the basis of a reasonable request for such a review. The process of review shall be in accordance with the procedures for assessing capacity under the Supported Wage System.
Proposing Integration Activities in the Planning Submission No integration activity described in section 6.3 may be proposed in a CAPS unless the LHIN has consented, in writing, to its inclusion pursuant to the process set out in section 6.3(b).
ADB’s Review of Procurement Decisions 11. 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 Execution of Project and Operation of Project Facilities; Financial Matters
Clinical Studies The animal and other preclinical studies and clinical trials conducted by the Company or on behalf of the Company were, and, if still pending are, to the Company’s knowledge, being conducted in all material respects in compliance with all Applicable Laws and in accordance with experimental protocols, procedures and controls generally used by qualified experts in the preclinical study and clinical trials of new drugs and biologics as applied to comparable products to those being developed by the Company; the descriptions of the results of such preclinical studies and clinical trials contained in the Registration Statement and the Prospectus are accurate and complete in all material respects, and, except as set forth in the Registration Statement and the Prospectus, the Company has no knowledge of any other clinical trials or preclinical studies, the results of which reasonably call into question the clinical trial or preclinical study results described or referred to in the Registration Statement and the Prospectus when viewed in the context in which such results are described; and the Company has not received any written notices or correspondence from the FDA, the EMA, or any other domestic or foreign governmental agency requiring the termination, suspension or modification of any preclinical studies or clinical trials conducted by or on behalf of the Company that are described in the Registration Statement and the Prospectus or the results of which are referred to in the Registration Statement and the Prospectus.
Office of Inspector General Investigative Findings Expert Review In accordance with Senate Bill 799, Acts 2021, 87th Leg., R.S., if Texas Government Code, Section 531.102(m-1)(2) is applicable to this Contract, Contractor affirms that it possesses the necessary occupational licenses and experience.
Submitting Investigator An investigator who submitted a genomic dataset to an NIH designated data repository (e.g., dbGaP). Study specific DUC addendum phs000178 : The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) Public Posting of Genomic Summary Results - Not Allowed. NIH Data Access Committee (DAC) : NCI DAC Important Contacts : XXXXXX@xxxx.xxx.xxx; XXX@xxxx.xxx.xxx In the event of a data management incident, within 24 hours, please contact emails above.
Progress Meetings The Engineer shall from time to time during the progress of the work confer with the State. The Engineer shall prepare and present such information as may be pertinent and necessary or as may be requested by the State in order to evaluate features of the work.
Preconstruction Meeting Furnish the names of the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control/Stormwater Supervisor, Certified Foremen, Certified Installers and Certified Designer and notify the Engineer of changes in certified personnel over the life of the contract within 2 days of change. Ethical Responsibility Any company performing work for the North Carolina Department of Transportation has the ethical responsibility to fully disclose any reprimand or dismissal of an employee resulting from improper testing or falsification of records.
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.
