Submission Review Sample Clauses

Submission Review. The Consultant shall promptly review or take other appropriate action with respect to shop drawings, samples, or other submissions of Contractor for the purpose of checking for conformance with the Consultant’s design intent and compliance with the information in the Construction Documents.
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Submission Review. The Party seeking to publish or publicly disclose results hereunder (the “Publishing Party”) shall provide the other Party (the “Reviewing Party”) with a copy of such proposed abstract, manuscript, or presentation no less than [**] days ([**] days in the case of abstracts) prior to its intended submission for publication or public disclosure. The Reviewing Party shall respond in writing promptly and in no event later than [**] days ([**] days in the case of abstracts or presentations) after receipt of the proposed material, with one or more of the following:
Submission Review. The Party seeking to publish results hereunder (the “publishing Party”) shall provide the other Party (the “reviewing Party”) with a copy of such proposed abstract, manuscript, or presentation no less than fifteen (15) days prior to its intended submission for publication. The reviewing Party shall respond in writing promptly and in no event later than ten (10) days after receipt of the proposed material, with one or more of the following:
Submission Review. While Histogen maintains responsibility for Regulatory Interactions, prior to submission of material correspondence to any Regulatory Authority with respect to a Product, Histogen shall, sufficiently in advance for Amerimmune to review and comment, provide Amerimmune any material correspondence intended for submission to the Regulatory Authority. Histogen shall also provide Amerimmune with a copy of any material correspondence with a Regulatory Authority relating to Development of any Products, and consider and respond within a reasonable time frame to all reasonable inquiries made by Amerimmune with respect thereto. After it makes a transfer of any regulatory authority or responsibility under Section 2.4.3, above, Histogen shall have the same right to review and comment on any material correspondence intended for submission to the Regulatory Authority, and Histogen shall receive a copy of any material correspondence with a Regulatory Authority relating to Development of any Products and shall consider and respond within a reasonable time frame to all reasonable inquiries with respect thereto.
Submission Review. 1. Contractor shall review a total of 100 State Employee submissions during the first three (3) months of the Term. Beginning month four (4) of the Term, Contractor shall review five

Related to Submission Review

  • Exclusion Review Notwithstanding any provision of Title 42 of the United States Code or Title 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations, the only issues in a proceeding for exclusion based on a material breach of this CIA shall be:

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Position Review ‌ The Employer may initiate a position review for a position it believes is improperly classified, and will inform the Union in writing when it has initiated a reallocation process for a bargaining unit position. An individual employee who believes that their position is improperly classified may request a review according to the following procedure:

  • 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.

  • Project Review A. Programmatic Allowances

  • Post Review With respect to each contract not governed by paragraph 2 of this Part, the procedures set forth in paragraph 4 of Appendix 1 to the Guidelines shall apply.

  • REPORT SUBMISSION 1. Copies of reporting packages for audits conducted in accordance with 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart F-Audit Requirements, and required by PART I of this form shall be submitted, when required by 2 CFR 200.512, by or on behalf of the recipient directly to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse (FAC) as provided in 2 CFR 200.36 and 200.512

  • Transition Review Period In accordance with Article 35, Layoff and Recall, the Employer may require an employee to complete a transition review period.

  • Design Review Consumer shall provide Holy Cross an electrical one-line diagram and a relaying and metering one-line diagram prior to completion of detailed designs, unless the Consumer is installing a packaged system that is pre-certified to IEEE 1547.1 and UL 1741 standards. Packaged systems pre-certified under IEEE Standard 1547.1 and UL Standard 1741 will not require a relaying and metering one-line diagram. The submitted application and diagrams will be processed, reviewed, and acted upon in accordance with the Holy Cross Interconnection Policy.

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