Biddability Reviews Clause Samples

POPULAR SAMPLE Copied 1 times
Biddability Reviews. A. The CM/GC will check cross-references and complementary Drawings and sections within the Specifications, and in general evaluate whether (a) the Drawings and Specifications are sufficiently clear and detailed to minimize ambiguity and to reduce scope interpretation discrepancies, (b) named materials and equipment are commercially available and are performing well or otherwise, in similar installations, (c) specifications include alternatives in the event a requirement cannot be met in the field, and (d) in its professional opinion, the Project is likely to be subject to differing site conditions. B. The results of the reviews will be provided to the CITY in formal, written reports clearly identifying all discovered discrepancies and inconsistencies in the Drawings and Specifications with notations and recommendations made on the Drawings, Specifications and other documents. If requested by the CITY, the CM/GC will meet with the CITY and Project Designer to discuss any findings and review reports. C. The CM/GC’s reviews will be from a contractor's perspective, and though it will serve to reduce the number of Requests for Information (RFIs) and changes during the construction phase, responsibility for the Drawings and Specifications will remain with the Project Designer and not the CM/GC.
View SourceView Similar (4)
Biddability Reviews. CM@Risk will check and cross-reference complementary Drawings and Specifications, and evaluate, among other things, whether: (a) Drawings and Specifications are sufficiently clear and detailed to minimize ambiguity and to reduce scope of interpretation discrepancies; (b) named materials and equipment are commercially available and are performing well in similar installations; (c) design provides as-built Data; (d) Specifications include alternatives in the event a requirement cannot be met in the field; and (e) Project is likely to be subject to differing site conditions considering the Data on subsurface conditions, physical conditions of existing surface and subsurface facilities and physical conditions of underground utilities made available by the design or resulting from conditions inherent to work similar to the Work.
View SourceView Similar (3)
Biddability Reviews. The ▇▇▇▇ shall conduct biddability reviews of the Construction Documents in accordance with the ▇▇▇▇’▇ QA/QC Plan. The ▇▇▇▇ will check cross- references and complementary Drawings and sections within the Specifications, and in general ensure (a) the Drawings and Specifications are sufficiently clear and detailed to minimize ambiguity and to reduce scope interpretation discrepancies, (b) named materials and equipment are commercially available and are performing well or otherwise, in similar installations, and (c) Specifications include alternatives in the event a requirement cannot be met in the field. The ▇▇▇▇ shall identify and rectify all discrepancies and inconsistencies in the Construction Documents.
View Source

Related to Biddability Reviews

  • Constructability Review Prepare detailed interdisciplinary constructability review within Fourteen (14) days of receipt of the plans from the District that: 10.1.2.1.6.1 Ensures construction documents are well coordinated and reviewed for errors; 10.1.2.1.6.2 Identifies to the extent known, construction deficiencies and areas of concern; 10.1.2.1.6.3 Back-checks design drawings for inclusion of modifications; and 10.1.2.1.6.4 Provides the District with written confirmation that: 10.1.2.1.6.4.1 Requirements noted in the design documents prepared for the Project are consistent with and conform to the District's Project requirements and design standards. 10.1.2.1.6.4.2 Various components have been coordinated and are consistent with each other so as to minimize conflicts within or between components of the design documents.

  • Log Reviews All systems processing and/or storing PHI COUNTY discloses to 11 CONTRACTOR or CONTRACTOR creates, receives, maintains, or transmits on behalf of COUNTY 12 must have a routine procedure in place to review system logs for unauthorized access.

  • System Security Review All systems processing and/or storing County 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.

  • Peer Review Dental Group, after consultation with the Joint ----------- Operations Committee, shall implement, regularly review, modify as necessary or appropriate and obtain the commitment of Providers to actively participate in peer review procedures for Providers. Dental Group shall assist Manager in the production of periodic reports describing the results of such procedures. Dental Group shall provide Manager with prompt notice of any information that raises a reasonable risk to the health and safety of Group Patients or Beneficiaries. In any event, after consultation with the Joint Operations Committee, Dental Group shall take such action as may be reasonably warranted under the facts and circumstances.