Scope and Methodology Sample Clauses

Scope and Methodology. In 2019, the OIG team conducted an unannounced site visit to inspect the completion and documentation of domiciliary health and safety rounds, and cleanliness. An announced site visit was conducted approximately one month later, which included staff interviews, and inspections of the Emergency Department, and the domiciliary dining area and kitchen. Facility leaders and staff, the VOA domiciliary program manager and staff, representatives and property managers of the CGA, Executive and Deputy Directors of the VA Office of Asset Enterprise Management, and the two county medical examiner physicians involved in the patient’s autopsy were interviewed.19 The OIG reviewed the patient’s electronic health record and autopsy report, as well as facility internal review documents related to the patient’s care. Other pertinent documents that were reviewed included VHA handbooks, directives, and other guidance, facility policies, meeting minutes, nursing schedules, nurse staffing methodology, and relevant organizational charts. The OIG also reviewed VOA documentation for rounding and safety inspections, and domiciliary contract documents. In the absence of current VA or VHA policy, the OIG considered previous guidance to be in effect until superseded by an updated or recertified directive, handbook, or other policy document on the same or similar issue(s). The OIG substantiates an allegation when the available evidence indicates that the alleged event or action more likely than not took place. The OIG does not substantiate an allegation when the available evidence indicates that the alleged event or action more likely than not did not take place. The OIG is unable to determine whether an alleged event or action took place when there is insufficient evidence.

Scope and Methodology. 11. The review covered four Professional posts and one General Service post. A fifth Professional post, the Team Leader of the Joint Information, Communications and Outreach Unit, is fully funded by AEWA but was reviewed as part of the CMS Classification Review. The findings for that post were reported in the CMS report but also included here to show results for all AEWA posts. Temporary posts, interns, consultants and project-funded posts were not evaluated with the exception on one P-2 Associate Programme Management post for which classification guidance is provided. Three GS posts had already been reclassified earlier this year by UNON/UNEP to G5 and were therefore not included in this review. The post of Executive Secretary was also excluded from this review because it was determined to take the grade level before the AEWA governing bodies for consideration. Within the CMS Family, CMS was covered by a separate contract, while ASCOBANS and EUROBATS were not reviewed. 12. Prior to the onsite work, the consultant provided a standard template, shown in Annex 2, and asked that job descriptions be updated and approved by respective supervisors. Also in advance, ▇▇▇▇ provided a variety of background documents, including current and past organigrams, staffing tables, individual work plans, current job descriptions and previous job descriptions if applicable. 13. In Bonn, the consultant received an initial briefing from the Executive Secretary. In order to get clarification of the relevant job description and fill in blanks, the consultant met individually with each staff member in the office during the onsite visit. 14. Based on the job descriptions, interviews, and the context of each job within the structure, General Service posts were classified using the New Master Standard for General Service Posts promulgated by the ICSC in 2009. This is an automated system that assigns points to individual factor ratings and then calculates a total score and consequent grade level. Classifiers also use various benchmark job descriptions provided by the UN which are helpful when a post straddles the line between one level and another. 15. Professional posts were classified using the Master Standard for Professional Posts developed by the ICSC in 2004. The pre-classified UN Generic Job Profiles were also good references for this review. 16. Classification results were recorded in an Excel database for this report, found in Annex 3. Brief, individual rationales are found a...

Scope and Methodology. The EC8 site classification based on the surface geology (see Appendix A) was subsequently "corrected" in the following cases: a) availability of more detailed geological information; b) geological "expert" evaluation; c) flat H/V spectra from earthquake recordings (classified as CL-V by ▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al., 2008) to evaluate rock site (subsoil class: A) (see Appendix D); d) photos of the sites; e) Shear wave velocity profiles from in situ measurements (see Appendix C). The EC8 topographic classification using a GIS based semiautomatic method with “by-hand” corrections using topographic maps and/or Google Earth software have also been provided for many stations (see Appendix B). At the end of the second year activity the EC8 site classification, version 3.0, according to the EC8 subsoil classes (Table 1) and EC8 topographic categories (Table 2), has been produced for ITACA stations (see Table 3 at end of this Appendix). The subsoil class values are marked with an asterisk when they were assessed only by the surface geology. The values of topographic category are marked with an asterisk when they were evaluated by GIS method, but they have not been verified using topographic maps and/or Google Earth software. Table 1. EC8 subsoil classes. Table 2. EC8 topographic categories. Figure 1. Percentage distribution of EC8 subsoil classes (version 3.0) for ITACA sites. Figure 2. Percentage distribution of EC8 subsoil classes by surface geology for ITACA sites classified by Vs30. Figure 3. Percentage distribution of EC8 subsoil classes by surface geology for ITACA sites classified in CL-V spectral class.

Scope and Methodology. It is expected that a mixed methods design combining analysis of primary and secondary quantitative and qualitative data will be appropriate to respond to the evaluation questions. The evaluation will involve analysis of information through desk reviews, interviews and from 3-4 country visits to a select number of countries. Timeframe: Starting in March 2019 for a period of 13 months, ending March 2020. Budget: £300,000-£350,000 BACKGROUND ON THE MCHSS PROGRAMME

Scope and Methodology. Note: The process below is indicative, and may be subject to change based on the outcomes of the review process.

Scope and Methodology. Led by the Directors and Academic Heads, and supported by Course Leaders, each academic area was tasked with involving staff, learners and relevant employers in a series of conversations and targeted meetings to explore ideas and contributions in an inclusive and collegiate manner. The emphasis was on involvement, and shared decision making, to ensure that staff and learners make a significant contribution to the review. Areas of work undertaken included:  Identifying any existing areas of unnecessary overlap and duplication.  Examining trend data and student success.  Identifying new curriculum areas and opportunities.  Ensuring that learner journeys and transition opportunities for students progressing from SCQF level 3 through to level 12 are planned, seamless, and rationalised as appropriate.  Identifying key areas of provision that will be required to be delivered at all local campus centres.  Identifying key areas of provision that will be offered as specialisms.  Tracking the progression of students within and outwith the region.  Mapping against SCQF levels.  Identifying the resourcing implications of curriculum planning.

Scope and Methodology. We researched applicable laws, regulations, and directives concerning DoD use of contracts, cooperative agreements, and grants. We reviewed cooperative agreements DAMD17-98-2-8011 and DAMD17-98-2-8012. We reviewed Mentor Protégé Program budgeting data from FY 1998 through FY 2002, funding authorization documents, and Standard Forms 272, Report of Federal Cash Transactions. We evaluated the amount of interaction between the OSD SADBU office, ScienceWise, and UNCF. During our audit, we visited the OSD SADBU office; the Military Department and Defense agency SADBU offices; USAMRAA; ScienceWise; UNCF; Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics; Defense Contracting Command – Washington; Defense Criminal Investigative Service; Washington Headquarters Service; and Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)/Chief Financial Officer. We interviewed USAMRAA contracting personnel and legal counsel, Directors or Deputy Directors of the Military Department and Defense agency SADBU offices, a Defense Criminal Investigative Service investigator, and ScienceWise and UNCF personnel. We addressed cooperative agreements DAMD17-98-2-8011 and DAMD17-98-2-8012 and Mentor Protégé Program funding from FY 1998 to FY 2002. We did not address OSD SADBU office operations other than to determine the types of funding used and the OSD SADBU office role in the two cooperative agreements. In addition, we did not examine the Military Department SADBU offices or Military Department Mentor Protégé Programs. We evaluated the methods USAMRAA used to award two cooperative agreements between the OSD SADBU office and ScienceWise, DAMD17-98-2-8011, and UNCF, DAMD17-98-2-8012, using Mentor Protégé Program funding. Specifically, we analyzed whether the appropriate contract vehicle was used, whether the Government received a benefit from the cooperative agreements, and whether Mentor Protégé Program funding was properly allocated. We reviewed ScienceWise and UNCF unsolicited proposals, statements of work, annual reports, cost proposals, and budgeted and actual expenses for the UNCF conferences. We also reviewed Mentor Protégé Program funding data from FY 1998 through FY 2002, funding authorization documents, and Standard Forms 272, Report of Federal Cash Transactions. We performed this audit from April 2002 through January 2003 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Accordingly, we included tests of management controls ...

Scope and Methodology. The Joint Legislative Audit Committee (audit committee) requested the Bureau of State Audits to examine the State’s contracting practices in entering into the ELA with Oracle. We were asked to review a number of specific areas including the following: • The justification for using a sole-source contract for the ELA. • The roles of DOIT, General Services, and Finance in develop- ing and executing the ELA and whether these roles conflict with their statutory responsibilities. • The methods used to justify the technical and business need for the ELA. • The terms of the agreement and whether they are in the best interests of the State. • The funding sources that will pay for, and the number of state departments that will participate in, the ELA. We were also asked to identify the ELA’s fixed and variable costs and to evaluate the reasonableness of the projected savings from the ELA. Lastly, the audit committee requested we obtain a legal opinion on whether the contract is null and void if it was executed in violation of state law. To understand the State’s contracting practices for IT, we employed a legal consultant with expertise in public contracting to research laws and regulations governing that area. We identified circumstances in which a state department can justify a sole-source contract for IT. We also reviewed a sample of competitively bid IT contracts approved by General Services to determine the nature of these procurements. Finally, we interviewed staff at General Services and reviewed documents related to selected contracts, including the Oracle ELA. To determine DOIT’s statutory role and responsibilities regarding contracts and IT policies and procedures, we reviewed state laws and regulations, as well as DOIT’s policies and procedures on reviewing IT projects. To understand DOIT’s role related to the Oracle contract, we interviewed key staff and reviewed various documents generated during the ELA’s development. We also assessed the roles and responsibilities of General Services and Finance by reviewing their policies and procedures on IT projects and contracts, interviewing key personnel, and reviewing documents pertaining to the ELA. To assess the methods used to justify the technical and business need for the Oracle contract and to determine if it was in the State’s best interest, we employed an IT consultant (technical consultant) to review General Services’ justification for the ELA, along with other pertinent documents explaining the ration...

Scope and Methodology. For all purposes including for purposes of determining Closing Net Working Capital, Business Cash and Business Indebtedness, the Calculation Principles shall be GAAP applied in a manner consistent with the principles, policies and methodologies used in the preparation of the Audited Financial Statements. Further, normal year-end closing procedures will be applied when determining Closing Net Working Capital, Business Cash and Business Indebtedness. The Closing Statement and the Estimated Closing Statement shall each (i) reflect the Purchased Entities, the Purchased Assets and the Assumed Liabilities on a consolidated basis and any intercompany accounts solely between them shall be excluded, and (ii) not include any changes in assets or liabilities as a result of purchase or other non-cash accounting adjustments or other changes arising from or resulting as a consequence of the payment of the Estimated Consideration or the financing of the transactions contemplated hereby. Only the pro rata share of current assets and current liabilities of any Non-Wholly Owned Entity (based upon Seller’s direct or indirect equity ownership of such entity as of immediately prior to the Closing) shall be used in the determination of Closing Net Working Capital.