Validation Reviews Clause Samples

The Validation Reviews clause establishes a process for systematically assessing and confirming that deliverables or work products meet specified requirements or standards. Typically, this involves scheduled evaluations or inspections by designated parties, who review the work against agreed-upon criteria and may request corrections or improvements if deficiencies are found. The core function of this clause is to ensure quality control and compliance, helping to identify and resolve issues early, thereby reducing the risk of defects or misunderstandings later in the project.
Validation Reviews. Section 14.7 (Audit Rights) shall not be construed in any way to preclude or otherwise limit HealthTrust or any Purchasers from conducting limited-in-scope reviews of charges by Vendor for purchases by such Purchasers under this Agreement and of GPO Fees and Rebates paid in connection with those purchases, to validate the accuracy thereof. HealthTrust shall also have the right, at any time, to request from Vendor a copy of its list of Participants to validate the accuracy thereof. Vendor shall correct any inaccuracies discovered by the foregoing reviews. For clarification purposes, such reviews will not be conducted at Vendor’s premises or offices.
View SourceView Similar (3)
Validation Reviews. Section 14.7 shall not be construed in any way to preclude or otherwise limit HMS or any Purchasers from conducting limited-in-scope reviews of charges by Vendor for purchases by such Purchasers under this Agreement and of Rebates, if applicable per Exhibit A, paid in connection with those purchases, to validate the accuracy thereof. HMS shall also have the right, at any time, to request from Vendor a copy of its list of Facilities to validate the accuracy thereof. Vendor shall correct any inaccuracies discovered by the foregoing reviews. For clarification purposes, such reviews will not be conducted at Vendor’s premises or offices.
View SourceView Similar (2)
Validation Reviews. In the event OIG has reason to believe that: (a) the Arrangements Review or Claims Review fails to conform to the requirements of this CIA; or (b) the IRO’s findings or Arrangements Review or Claims Review results are inaccurate, OIG may, at its sole discretion, conduct its own review to determine whether the Arrangements Review or Claims Review complied with the requirements of the CIA and/or the findings or Arrangements Review or Claims Review results are inaccurate (Validation Review(s)). Orthofix shall pay for the reasonable cost of any such review performed by OIG or any of its designated agents. Any Validation Review of IRO Reports submitted as part of Orthofix’s final Annual Report shall be initiated no later than one year after ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇’s final submission (as described in Section II.B) is received by OIG. Prior to initiating a Validation Review, OIG shall notify Orthofix of its intent to do so and provide a written explanation of why OIG believes such a review is necessary. To resolve any concerns raised by OIG, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ may request a meeting with OIG to: (a) discuss the results of any Arrangements Review or Claims Review submissions or findings; (b) present any additional information to clarify the results of the Arrangements Review or Claims Review or to correct the inaccuracy of the Arrangements Review or Claims Review; and/or (c) propose alternatives to the proposed Validation Review(s). ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ agrees to provide any additional information as may be requested by OIG under this Section III.D.1.d in an expedited manner. OIG will attempt in good faith to resolve any Arrangements Review or Claims Review issues with Orthofix prior to conducting a Validation Review. However, the final determination as to whether or not to proceed with a Validation Review shall be made at the sole discretion of OIG.
View SourceView Similar (2)
Validation Reviews. Agreement to permit OCR, in its discretion, to conduct any validation review necessary to confirm any assessor review or report; and
View Source

Related to Validation Reviews

  • Utilization Review NOTE: The Utilization Review process does not apply to Services that are not covered by Blue Shield because of a coverage determination made by Medicare. State law requires that health plans disclose to Sub- scribers and health plan providers the process used to authorize or deny health care services under the plan. Blue Shield has completed documentation of this process ("Utilization Review"), as required un- der Section 1363.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. To request a copy of the document describing this Utilization Review process, call the Customer Service Department at the telephone number indicated on your Identification Card.

  • 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.

  • Classification Review Grand Valley State University and APSS shall jointly determine the review assessment survey instrument to be used at Grand Valley State University. The parties shall maintain a Joint Review Committee, composed of three members appointed by the Human Resources Office and three members appointed by the Alliance. Bargaining unit members questioning the assigned classification of their position may do so by using the following procedure: A. Meet with the Employment Manager in the Human Resources Office to discuss the review process, changes in their job responsibilities, duties and any other process questions they may have. B. PSS member will fill out the assessment survey and email to the Employment Manager along with any other documentation that supports the request. The survey instrument will be jointly administered/reviewed by the Assessment Team (consisting of the Employment Manager and an Alliance member of the Joint Review Committee). A meeting with the PSS is scheduled for a verbal review of the documentation and to answer any questions the Assessment Team may have. The supervisor or appointing officer is encouraged to attend. If the Assessment Team believes a job site visit is warranted as a result of the survey information, they will schedule a time for a joint visit. C. The completed survey instrument shall be coded. The survey results, as determined by the Assessment Team, shall be shared with the survey participant. D. After receiving the survey results, the survey participant, if they so choose shall have the opportunity to meet with the Joint Review Committee for additional input and appeal. Any additional information shall be reviewed by the Committee, and where the Committee feels it is necessary, the survey will be recoded, in a manner mutually agreeable. E. The Joint Review Committee shall then deliberate as to the merit of the upgrade requested by the participant. If the Committee is not able to reach a consensus, the University will decide on the classification. The Alliance may appeal that decision through the arbitration procedure of the collective bargaining agreement. Professional Support Staff members may engage in the review process no more than once per year. Supervisors questioning the assigned classification of a staff member’s position shall provide supporting rationale, complete an assessment survey instrument and discuss with Manager of Employment. The Manager of Employment shall notify an Alliance Representative that a Supervisor is reviewing a staff member’s classification. The review and outcome shall be completed within 45 working days unless the Alliance Representative and Manager of Employment mutually agreed to an extension. The Alliance will be provided with the scored instrument and any supporting rationale.

  • Position Review 18.3.1 Either an employee or the University may request an audit of the duties and responsibilities of a position he/she/it believes is not allocated to the proper class. Employees requesting such an audit are expected to notify the Union at the time of their request. 18.3.2 Job audits will be performed and reclassification decisions will be made by the University’s Human Resources Services staff according to the University’s Classification Process. The affected employee(s) and the Union will be notified of the outcome of a job audit in writing. In the event of a reallocation that results in removal of a position from the bargaining unit, the written notice will describe the manner in which the bargaining unit work is being distributed, including the classification and position(s) of any employee(s) absorbing work from the reallocated position. 18.3.3 If an employee disagrees with a classification decision made by the Human Resources staff, the employee may request review of that decision through the Director of OFM/State Human Resources within 30 (thirty) calendar days of receiving the final allocation decision from the University. Should the employee disagree with the Director’s decision, the employee may further appeal the matter to the Washington Personnel Resources Board within 30 (thirty) calendar days of being provided the written decision of the Director. The Board will render a decision, which will be final and binding. Decisions regarding appropriate classification will be reviewed in accordance with this Section and will not be subject to the grievance procedure specified in Article 40 of this Agreement.

  • Program Review The State ECEAP Office will conduct a review of each contractor’s compliance with the ECEAP Contract and ECEAP Performance Standards every four years. The review will involve ECEAP staff and parents. After the Program Review, the State ECEAP Office will provide the contractor with a Program Review report. The contractor must submit an ECEAP Corrective Action Plan for non-compliance with ECEAP Performance Standards. The Plan must be approved by the State ECEAP Office.