Monthly Archives: February 2012

Understanding Federal “Expanded Authorities” – Part Two

Posted on by
Reply

Last week, we began a look at the “Expanded Authorities” of certain governmental agencies, and specifically a handful of activities that continue to be regulated by governing sponsor of an award.  Today, we’ll consider the guidelines for several other agencies with whom JHU regularly procures funding.

Department of Energy

No Cost Extensions: Awardee can approve a one-time twelve-month NCE, but further extensions require sponsor approval.

Pre-Award Costs:  Awardee can approve costs incurred ninety days prior to the award start date, but at the grantee’s risk.

Equipment: Awardee can approve a purchase of equipment that is not in the approved budget.

Foreign Travel:  No prior approval is required.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

No Cost Extensions: Awardee can approve a one-time twelve-month NCE, but further extensions require sponsor approval.

Pre-Award Costs:  Awardee can approve costs incurred ninety days prior to the award start date, but at the grantee’s risk.

Equipment:  Prior sponsor approval is required for purchases over $5,000 that were not in the approved budget.

Foreign Travel:  No prior approval is required.

National Institutes of Health

No Cost Extensions: Awardee can approve a one-time twelve-month NCE, but further extensions require sponsor approval.

Pre-Award Costs:  Awardee can approve costs incurred ninety days prior to the award start date, but at the grantee’s risk.

Equipment: Awardee can approve a purchase of equipment that is not in the approved budget.

Foreign Travel:  No prior approval is required.

 

Office of Naval Research

No Cost Extensions: All NCE’s require prior approval.

Pre-Award Costs:  Awardee can approve costs incurred ninety days prior to the award start date, but at the grantee’s risk.

Equipment: Awardee can approve a purchase of equipment that is not in the approved budget.

Foreign Travel:  No prior approval is required.

Sheldon’s Fun-day Friday

Posted on by
Reply

Sheldon’s Fun-day Friday

We’ve already covered why turtles are better than blue jays. But now we have bigger fish to fry (sorry Nemo). Last night at my RFT meeting (Rights for Turtles) there was discussion about children and how to ensure that we do not have to come in contact with them.

Children are not our comfort zone. They have tiny hands, tiny fingers and try to jam our entire shell in their mouth. Seriously they are like Godzilla.

Then we saw this:

That poor cat probably suffered brain damage at the hands of that child. When will the atrocities end?!

I used  think that most people just get dogs because they can’t get their children to do tricks. Or maybe it’s because they are too lazy to teach their kids things so they leave it up to their dogs. But in reality it’s because only dogs are capable of handling that nonsense.

So, we at RFT are here to ask you to adopt your child a dog, not a turtle. Leave us our dignity and we will leave you the warm and fuzzy feelings of this video.

Understanding Federal “Expanded Authorities” – Part One

Posted on by
Reply

While most of the substantive efforts under a federal award are left to the PI and his staff, certain activities are still regulated by the governing sponsor, and the obligations therein vary from agency to agency depending on the issue.  Our next couple of installments will examine these “Expanded Authorities,” as there is often confusion regarding what can and cannot be done without prior approval by the sponsor.

Air Force Office of Scientific Research

No Cost Extensions: All NCE’s require prior approval

Pre-Award Costs:  Awardee can approve costs incurred ninety days prior to the award start date, but at the grantee’s risk.

Equipment: Awardee can approve a purchase of equipment that is not in the approve budget.

Foreign Travel:  No prior approval is required.

 

Army Research Office

No Cost Extensions: All NCE’s require prior approval.

Pre-Award Costs:  Awardee can approve costs incurred ninety days prior to the award start date, but at the grantee’s risk.

Equipment: Prior sponsor approval is required for purchases over $5,000 that were not in the approved budget.

Foreign Travel:  No prior approval is required.

 

National Science Foundation

No Cost Extensions: Awardee can approve a one-time twelve-month NCE, but further extensions require sponsor approval.

Pre-Award Costs:  Awardee can approve costs incurred ninety days prior to the award start date, but at the grantee’s risk.

Equipment: Awardee can approve a purchase of equipment that is not in the approve budget.

Foreign Travel:  No prior approval is required.

 

United States Department of Agriculture

No Cost Extensions: Awardee can approve a one-time twelve-month NCE, but further extensions require sponsor approval.

Pre-Award Costs:  Awardee can approve costs incurred ninety days prior to the award start date, but at the grantee’s risk.

Equipment: Awardee can approve a purchase of equipment that is not in the approve budget.

Foreign Travel:  No prior approval is required.

Revised Budget Submission Policy

Posted on by
Reply

Although ORA’s intention is always to minimize the administrative burden and system requirements for departments, the changing landscape has resulted in a dramatic increase in reduced budgets. Because many of these budgets have specific disallowed costs included in the cuts, and not just across-the-board percentage cuts, the University requires that documentation of those cuts are recorded.  Therefore, revised budgets will be required to be submitted through Coeus as “Revision” in the following instances:

A revised itemized budget is submitted to the sponsor

  • A formal or informal notice of reduction by Sponsor affecting funding levels by any percentage when it includes specific line item reductions or disallowances that are not explicitly outlined in the NOA
  • For grants, the reduction is 25% or greater of the original budget (this does not apply to federal training grants)
  • For cooperative agreements/contracts, the reduction is 10% or greater of the original budget
  • There is a change in the number/type of training grant slots on a federal training grant

Significant reductions (25% for basic research grants, 10% for cooperative agreements or contracts) will also require a revised Statement of Work consistent with the budget cut.

Procedure:

Revised budget submission will be initiated immediately upon notification of reduction by sponsor in accordance with the criteria above.

    1. If department learns of need to rebudget from sponsor, department should immediately contact ORA for confirmation of need to submit revised budget through Coeus.
    2. If ORA first learns of need to rebudget, ORA will contact department to create a Coeus PD record.
  2. Department creates a Coeus PD using “Revision” proposal type, and links to the previous IPN.  The revised budget can be uploaded as a spreadsheet. The only additional documentation required to be included in the Revision PD is the request from the sponsor, if applicable.
  3. Only once ORA has approved the Revision PD will the revised budget be submitted to the sponsor, if necessary.
  4. All contact with sponsor regarding revised budgets must be coordinated through ORA.

Note: Budgets submitted for Task Orders on established Master Agreements must be submitted in Coeus as “New Task Order” prior to submission to the sponsor.

COEUS: Behind The Numbers

Posted on by
Reply

Let’s just get this out of the way right off the bat: We know.  We know that COEUS causes headaches.  We know that you all consider certain parts of it irrelevant, and others too confusing.  We know that sometimes our answers to your questions don’t provide as much clarity as you would like.

That all being said, the fact remains that COEUS remains an integral part of the research administration process here at JHU, and at other Universities throughout the country.  And while we can eventually see the “results” of COEUS submissions on a somewhat micro level, we can often lose sight of one of the main reasons it was established in the first place, namely the ability to provide a macro overview of the research activities of a given institution.

Here at JHU, several of the University’s higher-ups regularly receive a data package that includes (1) the fiscal year and fiscal month of proposal submissions; (2) the total requested funding; (3) the date of award; and (4) the total of awarded funding.  Besides painting an overall picture of what a particular school is doing, the report allows the University Executive Committee to identify trends and patterns in funding opportunities, which then affects how resources are allocated across a particular institution.  Additionally, the report can be used, in a general sense, to predict the future when requesting funding.  For example, the data can provide the success rates that Bloomberg PIs have when applying to different sponsors. PIs can then have a better idea as to the likelihood of receiving a Notice of Award and perhaps look for a different source of funding.

Consequently, COEUS doesn’t just provide the immediate benefit of allowing your grants or contracts associate to begin working on your project, but it is also an important resource for University administrators as they shape an institution’s research endeavors and the support provided therein.       So, the next time a string of four-letter words leaves your mouth as you try to figure out which type of proposal to choose, and you hear us say for the millionth time that accuracy in data entry is imperative, keep in mind that there is a method to the madness, and the ultimate goal is something that benefits everyone.

Sheldon’s Fun-day Friday

Posted on by
1

Absolutely nothing happened this week.

Not a d*&! thing.

The closest anything came to news was the realization that MIA officially ruined all hope anyone had of seeing a Super Bowl halftime “show” with anyone under 50.  I’m sure next year we’ll be watching Oasis, or maybe Blues Traveler.  Wait, Oasis is British, so there goes that option.  Maybe I shouldn’t complain about the USA-only option, though, as it significantly reduces the chances that we’ll be subjected to utter drek.

If the Powers That Be want to provide wholesome entertainment that won’t risk the delicate sensibilities of the viewing public, might I suggest the following lineup that the non-AARP crowd will actually be enthusiastic for:

Intro.

Main Act.

Play-Out.

You’re telling me that those 4 action-packed minutes won’t garner double the ratings of someone who is supposedly known for her choreography but can’t even pull off her own moves?

Anyways, so now that I’m done mourning, I’ve embraced that this week is all things warm and fuzzy. There’s a countdown to Valentine’s Day to focus on!  Don’t even try to call it a hallmark holiday, we all know you like chocolate and flowers as much as the next guy!  I challenge you to watch this youtube find and say you hate all things warm and fuzzy… you can’t.

 

Common Audit Errors

Posted on by
Reply

If you happen to notice some of your departmental colleagues looking a little more haggard than usual in the coming weeks, make sure to provide extra latitude, as audit season has begun.  While these investigations are an intense affair regardless of your institution’s adherence to protocol, we’re here to provide a few of the most common errors that are encountered by NIH’s Office of the Inspector General to get you thinking as to your current policies, and perhaps allow you to make any necessary changes prior to having the book thrown at you.

Salaries that lack supporting documentation

An individual should not be added to a grant without documentation that supports the salary distribution.  Given that upwards of 80% of federal funding goes to personnel costs, auditors frequently latch onto salaries in the course of their review, so it behooves the institution to be in full compliance.  A salary charged to a grant must be commensurate with the effort contained in the proposal as well as the approved budget, or reflect any changes previously approved by the sponsor or the PI.  Any such documentation must be timely (i.e. no retroactive paperwork) and support the amount to be charged.

Salaries for personnel who did not work on the project

Persons may be charged directly to a grant as ‘personnel’ only if they devoted effort to the project.

Failure to support cost-sharing

While most mandatory cost-sharing reports are due to the sponsor at the end of the award, a PI shouldn’t wait until the waning days of the performance period to actually fulfill the requirement, as issues might arise that necessitate transferring grant costs to an institutional cost-sharing account and returning funds to the sponsor.  Also, keep in mind that voluntary cost-sharing commitments become a term of the award once the application is approved, which basically moves that into the “mandatory” category with respect to the obligations of reporting and tracking.

Animal charges

If an animal is necessary for multiple projects, the PI must have a concrete methodology that supports the allocated charges to each award.  Rotating the costs based on the grant that has the most funds is unallowable.  Any allocation methodology should be reviewed at least once per year, as well as when new animal-use grants are added to the PI’s docket, and should be maintained as evidence to support each charge.

 

 

Copyrights and Federal Funding

Posted on by
Reply

Last November, we addressed the issue of ownership of any intellectual property that arises under a Federal contract, and specifically focused on the Bayh-Dole Act and its application to patentable technologies.  Today, we’ll explore who owns copyrightable materials created using Federal funds, as we’ve encountered much confusion with this issue in recent months.  When our office is asked “What is taking so long?” with respect to a pending contract, this particular issue is generally at the top of the list, as it has a substantial impact on the research capabilities of JHU.

As most of you know, Federal contracts are generally governed by the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR).  As it relates to copyrightable data, the applicable clause is 52.227-14, which states that the Government shall have unlimited rights in “data first produced in the performance of the contract,” whereas the Contractor will only receive a license to such data subject to certain restrictions.  However, the Contractor may assert copyright ownership of “scientific and technical articles based on or containing data first produced in the performance of this contract and published in academic, technical or professional journals, symposia proceedings or similar works.”  For all other materials, the Contractor must receive permission from the Contracting Officer to obtain copyright.  Consequently, the Contractor would own the publications directed to the research, but not the actual results that produced said publications, and, in most cases, the Contractor’s future use of the research results would be dependent on the consent of the sponsor, which is not always a given.

Needless to say, 52.227-14 as constructed is not necessarily conducive to the efforts of a non-profit research institution like JHU.  Fortunately, there is an avenue available for educational institutions, which is the fourth option of alternate language prescribed.  When “Alt 4” is identified as the governing provision for 52.227-14, the Contractor may, with few exceptions, “establish claim to copyright subsisting in any data first produced in the performance of this contract.”  While the Government receives an automatic license to any such copyrighted material for use for Federal purposes, the Contractor ultimately is the sole owner of the data, and thus is free to use it as it pleases.

In many negotiations, the request to include Alt 4 is eventually accepted.  However, the sponsor will occasionally balk at modifying the original language in 52.227-14, and in a subsequent post we’ll discuss a few of the rare circumstances where JHU might acquiesce.

Sheldon’s Fun-day Friday

Posted on by
Reply

The giant rat has spoken.  (No, not this one.  This one.)   Winter will be here for 6 more long and sweet weeks.

I would be really bummed, but I was still getting a contact buzz from Kristen Bell hyperventilating on Ellen.

Seriously, Kristen Bell has never really been on my radar, but after this I can only imagine how many tears would be shed if she was lucky enough to meet me.  If a sloth can generate that emotion, think of what would happen if I were in her presence.  And I don’t mean the fake “Oh My God please don’t notice that I’m a fraud!” reaction.  I mean full-bore jubilation.

Speaking of legitimate feelings of OMG, the big news of the week comes from 5 wickedly talented British pop stars… THE SPICE GIRLS.  Unless you were living under a rock in the late 90s, the idea of these pop princesses reuniting is enough for a 1 way ticket to England.  (For you Spice Girl haters, you can console yourself with another popular UK export whose talent is TOTALLY comparable to its success.)  Now if they added in S Club 7, I could be okay with the world ending because there would be nothing else to live for.