Constructability Review Prepare detailed interdisciplinary constructability review within Fourteen (14) days of receipt of the plans from the District that:
Suitability The Dealer Manager will offer Shares, and in its agreement with each Soliciting Dealer will require that the Soliciting Dealer offer Shares, only to Persons that it has reasonable grounds to believe meet the financial qualifications set forth in the Prospectus or in any suitability letter or memorandum sent to it by the Company and will only make offers to Persons in the states in which it is advised in writing by the Company that the Shares are qualified for sale or that such qualification is not required. In offering Shares, the Dealer Manager will comply, and in its agreements with the Soliciting Dealers, the Dealer Manager will require that the Soliciting Dealers comply, with the provisions of all applicable rules and regulations relating to suitability of investors, including without limitation the FINRA Conduct Rules and the provisions of Article III.C. of the Statement of Policy Regarding Real Estate Investment Trusts of the North American Securities Administrators Association, Inc. (the “NASAA Guidelines”). The Dealer Manager agrees that in recommending the purchase of the Shares in the Primary Offering to an investor, the Dealer Manager and each Person associated with the Dealer Manager that make such recommendation shall have, and each Soliciting Dealer in its Soliciting Dealer Agreement shall agree with respect to investors to which it makes a recommendation shall agree that it shall have, reasonable grounds to believe, on the basis of information obtained from the investor concerning the investor’s investment objectives, other investments, financial situation and needs, and any other information known by the Dealer Manager, the Person associated with the Dealer Manager or the Soliciting Dealer that: (i) the investor is or will be in a financial position appropriate to enable the investor to realize to a significant extent the benefits described in the Prospectus, including the tax benefits where they are a significant aspect of the Company; (ii) the investor has a fair market net worth sufficient to sustain the risks inherent in the program, including loss of investment and lack of liquidity; and (iii) an investment in the Shares offered in the Primary Offering is otherwise suitable for the investor. The Dealer Manager agrees as to investors to whom it makes a recommendation with respect to the purchase of the Shares in the Primary Offering (and each Soliciting Dealer in its Soliciting Dealer Agreement shall agree, with respect to investors to whom it makes such recommendations) to maintain in the files of the Dealer Manager (or the Soliciting Dealer, as applicable) documents disclosing the basis upon which the determination of suitability was reached as to each investor. In making the determinations as to financial qualifications and as to suitability required by the NASAA Guidelines, the Dealer Manager and Soliciting Dealers may rely on (A) representations from investment advisers who are not affiliated with a Soliciting Dealer, banks acting as trustees or fiduciaries, and (B) information it has obtained from a prospective investor, including such information as the investment objectives, other investments, financial situation and needs of the Person or any other information known by the Dealer Manager (or Soliciting Dealer, as applicable), after due inquiry. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Dealer Manager shall not, and each Soliciting Dealer shall agree not to, execute any transaction in the Company in a discretionary account without prior written approval of the transaction by the customer.
Additional RO Review Criteria (1) In addition to the requirements in Subparagraph 34A, the RO must:
System Security Review All systems processing and/or storing DHCS PHI or PI must have at least an annual system risk assessment/security review which provides assurance that administrative, physical, and technical controls are functioning effectively and providing adequate levels of protection. Reviews should include vulnerability scanning tools.
Independent Investigation Subscriber, in making the decision to purchase the Units, has relied upon an independent investigation of the Company and has not relied upon any information or representations made by any third parties or upon any oral or written representations or assurances from the Company, its officers, directors or employees or any other representatives or agents of the Company, other than as set forth in this Agreement. Subscriber is familiar with the business, operations and financial condition of the Company and has had an opportunity to ask questions of, and receive answers from the Company’s officers and directors concerning the Company and the terms and conditions of the offering of the Units and has had full access to such other information concerning the Company as Subscriber has requested. Subscriber confirms that all documents that it has requested have been made available and that Subscriber has been supplied with all of the additional information concerning this investment which Subscriber has requested.
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.
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.
Evaluation Criteria 5.2.1. The responses will be evaluated based on the following: (edit evaluation criteria below as appropriate for your project)
Response to Evaluation The teacher shall have the right to make a written response to the evaluation and to have it attached to the evaluation report to be placed in the teacher's personnel file. A copy, signed by both parties, shall be provided to the teacher.
INSPECTION/TESTING All Products sold pursuant to this Agreement will be subject to inspection/testing by or at the direction of H- GAC and/or the ordering Customer, either at the delivery destination or the place of manufacture. In the event a Product fails to meet or exceed all requirements of this Agreement, and unless otherwise agreed in advance, the cost of any inspection and/or testing, will be the responsibility of the Contractor.
