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.
Decision on Review A decision on review of a denied claim shall be made in the following manner:
Publicity Review Subject to the further provisions of this Section, no Party shall originate any written publicity, news release, or other announcement or statement relating to this Agreement or to performance hereunder or the existence of an arrangement between the Parties (collectively, "Written Disclosure"), without the prior prompt review and written approval of the other, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this Section, any Party may make any public Written Disclosure it believes in good faith based upon the advice of counsel is required by applicable law or any listing or trading agreement concerning its publicly traded securities, provided that prior to making such Written Disclosure, the disclosing Party shall provide the other Party with a copy of the materials proposed to be disclosed and provide the receiving Party with an opportunity to promptly review the proposed Written Disclosure. To the extent that the receiving Party reasonably requests that any information in the materials proposed to be disclosed be deleted, the disclosing Party shall request confidential treatment of such information pursuant to Rule 406 of the Securities Act of 1933 or Rule 26b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as applicable (or any other applicable regulation relating to the confidential treatment of information), so that there be omitted from the materials that are publicly filed any information that the receiving Party reasonably requests to be deleted. The terms of this Agreement may also be disclosed to (i) government agencies where required by law, or (ii) Third Parties with the prior written consent of the other Party, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed, so long as such disclosure is made under a binder of confidentiality and so long as highly sensitive terms and conditions such as financial terms are extracted from the Agreement or not disclosed upon the request of the other Party. All Written Disclosures shall be factual and as brief as is reasonable under the circumstances. Upon request by either Party, the Parties agree to prepare a mutually agreed press release and question and answer document with respect to this Agreement. Each Party agrees that all Written Disclosures and oral statements relating hereto shall be consistent with the answers specified in such question and answer document.
Review The practitioner reviews the treatment plan and discusses, when appropriate, case circumstances and management options with the attending (or referring) physician. The reviewer consults with the requesting physician when more clarity is needed to make an informed coverage decision. The reviewer may consult with board certified physicians from appropriate specialty areas to assist in making determinations of coverage and/or appropriateness. All such consultations will be documented in the review text. If the reviewer determines that the admission, continued stay or service requested is not a covered service, a notice of non-coverage is issued. Only a physician, behavioral health practitioner (such as a psychiatrist, doctoral-level clinical psychologist, certified addiction medicine specialist), dentist or pharmacist who has the clinical expertise appropriate to the request under review with an unrestricted license may deny coverage based on medical necessity.
Commercialization Reports Throughout the term of this Agreement and during the Sell-Off Period, and within thirty (30) days of December 31st of each year, Company will deliver to University written reports of Company’s and Sublicensees’ efforts and plans to develop and commercialize the innovations covered by the Licensed Rights and to make and sell Licensed Products. Company will have no obligation to prepare commercialization reports in years where (a) Company delivers to University a written Sales Report with active sales, and (b) Company has fulfilled all Performance Milestones. In relation to each of the Performance Milestones each commercialization report will include sufficient information to demonstrate achievement of those Performance Milestones and will set out timeframes and plans for achieving those Performance Milestones which have not yet been met.
Review Procedure If the Plan Administrator denies part or all of the claim, the claimant shall have the opportunity for a full and fair review by the Plan Administrator of the denial, as follows:
Periodic Review The General Counsel shall periodically review the Procurement Integrity Procedures with OSC personnel in order to ascertain potential areas of exposure to improper influence and to adopt desirable revisions for more effective avoidance of improper influences.
Due Diligence Review; Information The Company shall make available, during normal business hours, for inspection and review by the Investors, advisors to and representatives of the Investors (who may or may not be affiliated with the Investors and who are reasonably acceptable to the Company), all financial and other records, all SEC Filings (as defined in the Purchase Agreement) and other filings with the SEC, and all other corporate documents and properties of the Company as may be reasonably necessary for the purpose of such review, and cause the Company’s officers, directors and employees, within a reasonable time period, to supply all such information reasonably requested by the Investors or any such representative, advisor or underwriter in connection with such Registration Statement (including, without limitation, in response to all questions and other inquiries reasonably made or submitted by any of them), prior to and from time to time after the filing and effectiveness of the Registration Statement for the sole purpose of enabling the Investors and such representatives, advisors and underwriters and their respective accountants and attorneys to conduct initial and ongoing due diligence with respect to the Company and the accuracy of such Registration Statement. The Company shall not disclose material nonpublic information to the Investors, or to advisors to or representatives of the Investors, unless prior to disclosure of such information the Company identifies such information as being material nonpublic information and provides the Investors, such advisors and representatives with the opportunity to accept or refuse to accept such material nonpublic information for review and any Investor wishing to obtain such information enters into an appropriate confidentiality agreement with the Company with respect thereto.
Review Scope The parties confirm that the Asset Representations Review is not responsible for (a) reviewing the Receivables for compliance with the representations and warranties under the Transaction Documents, except as described in this Agreement or (b) determining whether noncompliance with the representations and warranties constitutes a breach of the Eligibility Representations. For the avoidance of doubt, the parties confirm that the review is not designed to determine why an Obligor is delinquent or the creditworthiness of the Obligor, either at the time of any Asset Review or at the time of origination of the related Receivable. Further, the Asset Review is not designed to establish cause, materiality or recourse for any Test Fail (as defined in Section 3.05).
