The Review Procedure Sample Clauses

The Review Procedure clause establishes the process by which parties evaluate and provide feedback on deliverables or performance under an agreement. Typically, it outlines steps such as submission of materials for review, timeframes for response, and the method for communicating approval or required changes. This clause ensures that both parties have a clear, structured method for assessing work, addressing deficiencies, and maintaining quality standards, thereby reducing misunderstandings and disputes over deliverable acceptance.
The Review Procedure. If the Claimant is determined by the Bank not to be eligible for Benefit, or if the Claimant believes that he or she is entitled to greater or different Benefit, the Claimant shall have the opportunity to have such claim reviewed by the Bank by filing a petition for review with the Bank within sixty (60) days after receipt of the notice issued by the Bank. Said petition shall state the specific reasons which the Claimant believes entitle him or her to benefits or to greater or different benefits. Within sixty (60) days after receipt by the Bank of the petition, the Bank shall afford the Claimant (and counsel, if any) an opportunity to present his or her position to the Bank verbally or in writing, and the Claimant (or counsel) shall have the right to review the pertinent documents. The Bank shall notify the Claimant of its decision in writing within the sixty (60) day period, stating the basis of its decision, written in a manner calculated to be understood by the Claimant and the specific provisions of the Agreement on which the decision is based. If, because of the need for a hearing, the sixty (60) day period is not sufficient, the decision may be deferred for up to another sixty (60) days at the election of the Bank, but notice of this deferral shall be given to the Claimant. In the event that a Claimant or the Bank disagree with results of this review procedure their disagreement shall be resolved pursuant to Article 6 hereof.
View SourceView Similar (4)
The Review Procedure. The Records will be delivered directly to the Independent Reviewer by the lawyers for the CBC. The Independent Reviewer will upload the Records into a review platform that has access restricted to only those members of the Independent Reviewer’s review team assigned to the project. The Records will then be reviewed to identify any information that identifies or could lead to the identification of Affected Class Members. The Independent Reviewer will instruct its review team to review the Records in an expedient manner. The Independent Reviewer may exclude from the review any types of documents if, after review of several such documents, the Independent Reviewer is satisfied that this type of document will not contain any information that identifies or could lead to the identification of Affected Class Members. If multiple documents are identifiable as relating to the same Affected Class Member (e.g. if the documents are identifiable as all coming from the same patient or employee file, or otherwise relate to the same patient or employee), the Independent Reviewer need only review the related documents sufficient to identify the Affected Class Member, and their contact information. The review team will record any clear identifying information as described below. However, the Independent Review is not intended to catalogue all identifying information contained in each Record if the documents relate to an already identified Affected Class Member, nor is the Independent Reviewer required to scour each document or reformat or extract files that are not readily readable. The scope of the Independent Reviewer’s activities shall be limited to those set out in this review protocol, and in particular shall not include any activities designed to extract information beyond any identifying information of potential class members that is apparent on the face of the Records as set out in this protocol (including but not limited to any information relating to the authors or origins of the Records, or individuals who have previously accessed the Records) or to communicate any information to the parties beyond the deliverables outlined in this review protocol. The scope of the Independent Reviewer’s activities shall not go beyond what is set out in this review protocol. In accordance with this focus, reviewers should undertake a two-step approach to reviewing the Records and recording relevant information therein.
View SourceView Similar (2)

Related to The Review Procedure

  • 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:

  • AUDIT REVIEW PROCEDURES A. Any dispute concerning a question of fact arising under an interim or post audit of this AGREEMENT that is not disposed of by AGREEMENT, shall be reviewed by LOCAL AGENCY’S Chief Financial Officer. B. Not later than thirty (30) calendar days after issuance of the final audit report, CONSULTANT may request a review by LOCAL AGENCY’S Chief Financial Officer of unresolved audit issues. The request for review will be submitted in writing. C. Neither the pendency of a dispute nor its consideration by LOCAL AGENCY will excuse CONSULTANT from full and timely performance, in accordance with the terms of this AGREEMENT. D. CONSULTANT and subconsultant AGREEMENTs, including cost proposals and Indirect Cost Rates (ICR), may be subject to audits or reviews such as, but not limited to, an AGREEMENT audit, an incurred cost audit, an ICR Audit, or a CPA ICR audit work paper review. If selected for audit or review, the AGREEMENT, cost proposal and ICR and related work papers, if applicable, will be reviewed to verify compliance with 48 CFR Part 31 and other related laws and regulations. In the instances of a CPA ICR audit work paper review it is CONSULTANT’s responsibility to ensure federal, LOCAL AGENCY, or local government officials are allowed full access to the CPA’s work papers including making copies as necessary. The AGREEMENT, cost proposal, and ICR shall be adjusted by CONSULTANT and approved by LOCAL AGENCY Contract Administrator to conform to the audit or review recommendations. CONSULTANT agrees that individual terms of costs identified in the audit report shall be incorporated into the AGREEMENT by this reference if directed by LOCAL AGENCY at its sole discretion. Refusal by CONSULTANT to incorporate audit or review recommendations, or to ensure that the federal, LOCAL AGENCY or local governments have access to CPA work papers, will be considered a breach of AGREEMENT terms and cause for termination of the AGREEMENT and disallowance of prior reimbursed costs. E. CONSULTANT’s Cost Proposal may be subject to a CPA ICR Audit Work Paper Review and/or audit by the Independent Office of Audits and Investigations (IOAI). IOAI, at its sole discretion, may review and/or audit and approve the CPA ICR documentation. The Cost Proposal shall be adjusted by the CONSULTANT and approved by the LOCAL AGENCY Contract Administrator to conform to the Work Paper Review recommendations included in the management letter or audit recommendations included in the audit report. Refusal by the CONSULTANT to incorporate the Work Paper Review recommendations included in the management letter or audit recommendations included in the audit report will be considered a breach of the AGREEMENT terms and cause for termination of the AGREEMENT and disallowance of prior reimbursed costs. 1. During IOAI’s review of the ICR audit work papers created by the CONSULTANT’s independent CPA, IOAI will work with the CPA and/or CONSULTANT toward a resolution of issues that arise during the review. Each party agrees to use its best efforts to resolve any audit disputes in a timely manner. If IOAI identifies significant issues during the review and is unable to issue a cognizant approval letter, LOCAL AGENCY will reimburse the CONSULTANT at an accepted ICR until a FAR (Federal Acquisition Regulation) compliant ICR {e.g. 48 CFR Part 31; GAGAS (Generally Accepted Auditing Standards); CAS (Cost Accounting Standards), if applicable; in accordance with procedures and guidelines of the American Association of State Highways and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Audit Guide; and other applicable procedures and guidelines}is received and approved by IOAI. Accepted rates will be as follows: a. If the proposed rate is less than one hundred fifty percent (150%) - the accepted rate reimbursed will be ninety percent (90%) of the proposed rate. b. If the proposed rate is between one hundred fifty percent (150%) and two hundred percent (200%) - the accepted rate will be eighty-five percent (85%) of the proposed rate. c. If the proposed rate is greater than two hundred percent (200%) - the accepted rate will be seventy-five percent (75%) of the proposed rate. 2. If IOAI is unable to issue a cognizant letter per paragraph E.1. above, IOAI may require CONSULTANT to submit a revised independent CPA-audited ICR and audit report within three (3) months of the effective date of the management letter. IOAI will then have up to six (6) months to review the CONSULTANT’s and/or the independent CPA’s revisions. 3. If the CONSULTANT fails to comply with the provisions of this paragraph E, or if IOAI is still unable to issue a cognizant approval letter after the revised independent CPA audited ICR is submitted, overhead cost reimbursement will be limited to the accepted ICR that was established upon initial rejection of the ICR and set forth in paragraph E.1. above for all rendered services. In this event, this accepted ICR will become the actual and final ICR for reimbursement purposes under this AGREEMENT. 4. CONSULTANT may submit to LOCAL AGENCY final invoice only when all of the following items have occurred: (1) IOAI accepts or adjusts the original or revised independent CPA audited ICR;

  • Review Procedures a. In consultation with the Illinois SHPO, NRCS shall identify those undertakings with little to no potential to affect historic properties and list those undertakings in Appendix A. Upon the determination by the CRS that a proposed undertaking is included in Appendix A, the NRCS is not required to consult further with the SHPO for that undertaking. A list of undertakings with the potential to affect historic properties comprises Appendix B. b. The lists of undertakings provided in Appendices A and B may be modified through consultation and written agreement between the NRCS State Conservationist and the SHPO without requiring an amendment to this Illinois Prototype Agreement. The NRCS State Office will maintain the master list and will provide an updated list to all consulting parties with an explanation of the rationale for classifying the practices accordingly. c. Undertakings identified in Appendix B shall require further review as outlined in Stipulation V. a. The NRCS shall consult with the SHPO to define the undertaking’s APE, identify and evaluate historic properties that may be affected by the undertaking, assess potential effects, and identify strategies for resolving adverse effects prior to implementing the undertaking. 1) NRCS may provide its proposed APE, identification of historic properties and/or scope of identification efforts, and assessment of effects in a single transmittal to the SHPO, provided this documentation meets the substantive standards in 36 CFR Part 800.4-5 and 800.11. 2) The NRCS shall attempt to avoid adverse effects to historic properties whenever possible; where historic properties are located in the APE, NRCS shall describe how it proposes to modify, buffer, or move the undertaking to avoid adverse effects to historic properties. 3) Where the NRCS proposes a finding of "no historic properties affected" or "no adverse effect" to historic properties, the SHPO shall have 30 calendar days from receipt of this documented description and information to review it and provide comments. The NRCS shall take into account all timely comments. i. If the SHPO, or another consulting party, disagrees with NRCS' findings and/or determination, it shall notify the NRCS within the thirty (30) calendar daytime period. The NRCS shall consult with the SHPO or other consulting party to attempt to resolve the disagreement. If the disagreement cannot be resolved through this consultation, NRCS shall follow the dispute resolution process in Stipulation VIII below. ii. If the SHPO does not respond to the NRCS within the thirty (30) calendar day period and/or the NRCS receives no objections from other consulting parties, or if the SHPO concurs with the NRCS' determination and proposed actions to avoid adverse effects, the NRCS shall document the concurrence/lack of response within the review time noted above and may move forward with the undertaking. 4) Where a proposed undertaking may adversely affect historic properties, NRCS shall describe proposed measures to minimize or mitigate the adverse effects, and follow the process in 36 CFR Part 800.6, including consultation with other consulting patties and notification to the ACHP, to develop a Memorandum of Agreement to resolve the adverse effects. Should the proposed undertaking have the potential to adversely affect a known NHL, the NRCS shall, to the maximum extent possible, undertake such planning and actions that may be necessary to minimize harm to the NHL in accordance with 54 U.S.C. § 306107 of the NHPA and 36 CFR Part 800.6 and 800.10, including consultation with the ACHP and respective National Park Service, Regional National Historic Landmark Program Coordinator, to develop a Memorandum of Agreement. d. NRCS will conduct archaeological surveys and will submit reports and other documentation to SHPO for review and comment. When no archaeological sites have been located by the archaeological survey, NRCS may proceed with the proposed undertaking. Reports for negative surveys must be submitted to SHPO on a quarterly basis. All positive and negative reports submitted to SHPO will be sent digitally for submission to the Inventory of Illinois Archaeological Sites (IAS) data file maintained by staff at the Illinois State Museum (ISM) housed under the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). The NRCS further agrees that access to specific site location data will be restricted to the CRS, the NRCS field personnel installing conservation practices adjacent to the cultural resource, and the landowner. Specific site location information for individual projects will be maintained in a secure cultural resources file kept in the field offices and will not be available to the public. e. Curation: NRCS personnel will not collect artifactual material during routine field inspections. However, if a professional survey, evaluation testing, or mitigation is required, NRCS shall ensure that all materials and records resulting from cultural resources surveys or data recovery activities on federal or state property are curated by the Illinois State Museum. The NRCS shall ensure that all records resulting from cultural resource surveys or data recovery activities on private property are curated by the Illinois State Museum or an equivalent curation facility in accordance with 36 CFR Part 79. Subject to the landowner's permission, all objects resulting from cultural resources surveys or data recovery activities are maintained by the Illinois State Museum or equivalent research institution until their analysis is complete and they are returned to their owner(s). Although landowners will be encouraged to donate artifactual material, it is understood that objects collected on private land remain the property of the landowner(s) unless the landowner(s) donates the material to the Illinois State Museum or equivalent research institution. This excludes burial goods, as stipulated by ▇▇▇▇▇▇.

  • Claims and Review Procedure In the event that any claim for benefits that must initially be submitted in writing to the Board of Directors, is denied (in whole or in part) hereunder, the claimant shall receive from First Charter a notice of denial in writing within 60 days, written in a manner calculated to be understood by the claimant, setting forth the specific reasons for denial, with specific reference to pertinent provisions of this Supplemental Agreement. Any disagreements about such interpretations and construction shall be submitted to an arbitrator subject to the rules and procedures established by the American Arbitration Association. The arbitrator shall be acceptable to both First Charter and the Executive (or Beneficiary); if the parties cannot agree on a single arbitrator, the disagreement shall be heard by a panel of three arbitrators, with each party to appoint one arbitrator and the third to be chosen by the other two. No member of the Board of Directors shall be liable to any person for any action taken under Article VIII except those actions undertaken with lack of good faith.

  • Review Protocol A narrative description of how the Claims Review was conducted and what was evaluated.