Whats All This Fuss About Pushing a Button

1
Whats All This Fuss About Pushing a Button

• Debi Galloway
• Executive Director
• Sponsored Research Services
• presentation for
• College of Engineering
• February 23, 2007

2
Change Management

• Relocation relocation relocation
• Streamlined processes and procedures
• Effective July 1, 2006
• E-commerce expands to all agencies must use
  Grants.gov
• Staff flee

3
Statistics

• Service to over 1000 principal investigators
• Process on average 150 proposals per month (2,000
  yr. w/revisions)
• Revisions to proposals before award
• Manage over 1800 active awards

4
Recent Proposal Statistics

• Since 1/1/07 SRS has reviewed and approved
  approximately 300 proposals
• Since mid January 22 applications have been late
  or incomplete
• Breakdown by College
• 17 Engineering
• 3 A S
• 2 Medicine

5
Good News in Engineering

• GA reports applications seem to be arriving
  earlier, two or three days before the deadline
  vs. one day, as February comes to a close.
• On the right track to meet 5 day deadline

6
Feds Preferred Business Model

• E-Find E-Apply
• Presents unique challenges to all
• Lived through the NSF transition to FastLane
• Moved up to Grants.gov
• Workload has doubled sometimes tripled

7
Lessons Learned Last 9 Months

• SRS cannot sustain individualized service 5 days
  before any deadline
• 30 days ahead, yes
• SRS can no longer provide administrative support
  to departments without sufficient department
  business staff

8

• Grants.gov is here
• for NSF too!

9
What is Grants.gov

• Grants.gov, part of the Presidents Management
  Agenda to improve government services to the
  public, provides a single Government-wide portal
  for finding and applying for Federal grants
  online. Federal agencies must use this system.

10
NSFS IMPLEMENTATION

• In furtherance of the President's Management
  Agenda, in Fiscal Year 2006, NSF has identified
  specific programs that will either authorize, or
  require, use of Grants.gov to prepare and submit
  proposals to NSF.

11
Grants.gov Required

• 06-574 Living Stock Collections (BIO) 6/4/2007
• 06-535 Advanced Learning Technologies (CISE)
  4/25/ 2007
• 06-584 CEDAR, GEM, and SHINE Postdoctoral
  Research (GEO) 2/5/ 2007
• 07-511 Research in Disability Education (EHR)
  2/12/ 2007

12
Grants.gov Required

• PD 05-1635 Infrastructure Materials Applications
  and Structural Mechanics (ENG) 2/15/ 2007 and
  10/1/ 2007
• PD 98-1352 Geography and Regional Science (SBE)
  8/15/ 2007
• 06-554 Antarctic Artists and Writers (OPP) 6/
  6/ 2007
• 07-502 Scientific Computing Research Environments
  for the Mathematical Sciences (MPS) 1/25/ 2007

13
Grants.gov Required

• NSF adds more to this list each month

14
Why Is NSF Taking it Slow

• Two reasons
• Grants.gov needs a solution to the collaborative
  proposal process
• Grants.gov needs a solution to the fellowship
  application process

15
Communicate
Interpret
Negotiation
Triage
Account Set up
Award Process
Data Entry

Create Agreement
Subaward
Proposal Process
Web
Ongoing administration
Professional development

• E-PRF

Data queries
Quarterly Meetings w/ BAs
Reporting
Closeout
Educate
Enforce
16
Why Intense Review

• Cost Accounting Standards
• Current hot audit topics
• Human subjects
• Conflict of Interest
• Effort of key personnel
• Cost sharing documentation
• Cost transfers
• Export controls

17
Institutions Pay Attention

• University of Minnesota
• Misuses federal funds
• 32 Million
• Univ of Southern California
• Questioned costs (HHS)
• 400,000
• East Carolina Univ
• Questioned costs (HHS)
• 2.4 Million
• Florida International University
• Effort certification and direct cost
• 11.5 Million
• Univ Alabama/Birmingham
• Effort certification and clinical research
  billing
• 3.4 Million in April 2005

• University of S. Florida
• Costing issues
• Suggested 4 Million repayment
• Harvard University
• Costing issues (self reported)
• 2.4 Million in June 2004
• John Hopkins
• Effort Certification
• 2.6 Million in Feb 2004
• NYU Medical Center
• Inflated costs
• 15.5 Million
• Mayo Foundation
• Mischarging federal grants
• 6.5 Million in May 2005
• Northwestern University
• Committed time/effort
• 5.5 Million in Feb 2003

18
Is It Science or Compliance

• Faculty have little tolerance for administrative
  rules
• Compliance is part of the bargain institutions
  make at proposal submission
• Accepting sponsored funding means acceptance of
  many laws and regulations

19
How Is SRS Notified

• Business person
• PI
• Paper arrives
• E-Proposal Routing Form (e-PRF)
• Auto notification

20
Internal Competitions

• Submit short proposal (PI)
• Decision by Associate VP or VP Research
• Ensure only designated proposals are submitted
  (GA)

21
Find

• Find the funding announcement
• Not always an easy task
• Normally not provided by department

22
Read Funding Announcement

• Read the funding announcement (FOA) and highlight
  important criteria investigate submission
  process to ensure SRS is familiar with the
  sponsors system
• Watch for new systems or system upgrades appear
  often change frequently

23
Prepare for E-System

• Become familiar with the sponsors system
• Consumes an enormous amount of the staffs time

24
Seek Expertise with FOA

• Forward problematic terms and conditions in
  funding announcement or Request for Proposal to
  Contract Division for disposition and response to
  key issues
• Publication restrictions
• Citizenship restrictions
• Data ownership
• State law issues

25
Review of Application

• Begin review of the application by gathering all
  the documents and emails that have been submitted
• It is not unusual to have 20 30 emails on a
  single application
• Often there are 60 or 70
• Sometimes 100 or more if lots of changes are made

26

• Use the proposal review document to guide you
  through this process
• 54 pages long
• Covers every possible scenario given current
  regulations

27

• Log the proposal in and document the date and
  time of receipt
• Multiple versions received multiple time stamps
• Forward information on late or incomplete
  proposals to Director and Executive Director for
  disposition
• Consistent implementation of policy

28

• Check to see if application has all the required
  approvals on the proposal routing form
• Often listed faculty have no idea they have been
  included in a proposal
• Check for paper signatures not every one uses
  e-PRF yet

29

• Check the information on the proposal routing
  form for completeness and accuracy correct where
  necessary
• Lots of errors on this form
• Forward form to ERA division for data entry in
  Coeus

30

• Check for any conflict of interest on the e-PRF
  bring to the attention of the Executive Director
  
• Direction given to resolve issue before proposal
  is submitted

31

• Check to make sure the completed application is
  free of any system errors
• Electronic submissions only
• Return any application with system errors to the
  department/PI without review

32

• Check to make sure all of the sections of the
  application are there as required by the sponsor
• Abstract or summary
• Research plan project description
• Biosketch current and pending support
• Facilities resources
• Certifications and assurances
• Main reason for E-PRF signatures
• Other sponsored required sections

33

• Check font and page limitations for each section
• Review and check other sponsor specific
  requirements

34

• Start the review of the budget and budget
  justification
• Use internal checklist to assist with this
  process and advise department of problems that
  must be corrected

35

• Read the summary of the project to classify the
  activity (research, instruction or other)
• Determine the appropriate overhead rate for the
  project
• Note any compliance issues that require
  additional information

36

• Check the budget to make sure the costs are
  consistent with sponsor requirements and UC
  policies

37

• Check the effort and salary of each faculty
  listed on the project
• No salary communicate with POC further
  justification required
• Sponsor salary limitations need special attention
  (NIH NSF)
• Check individual base salaries and fringe rates
  in the HR flex system
• Check graduate student salary and tuition (see
  specific college requirements)

38

• Check for non-faculty salaries and ensure
  appropriate justification
• Technical support
• Administrative and clerical
• requires detailed justification

39

• Continue checking other costs categories in the
  budget according to procedures
• Equipment
• Travel
• Service centers
• Animal Costs
• Patient Care
• All other

40

• Are there subawards is the documentation
  complete
• Scope of work
• Budget and budget justification
• Endorsement from authorized individual
• Verification of overhead rate
• Other as required by sponsor

41

• Are there consultants on the project
• Check collaboration letters to determine if
  subaward would be more appropriate
• Federal requirements flow down
• Colleagues

42

• Is this project on or off campus
• Travel budget must support
• Internal form completed
• Check to make sure the overhead is calculated
  correctly using one of UCs negotiated rates
• Ensure reduced rates are documented or waived

43

• Prepare addendum to overhead waiver (F A)
• Get Directors approval
• Forward to Executive Director
• Discuss with VP Research

44
Why All the Documentation on F A

• Federal government must get UCs best rate

45

• Is there any cost sharing
• Check to make sure the cost sharing is required
  by the sponsor and properly documented on the
  e-PRF or via email
• Discourage non mandatory cost sharing
• Encourage moving to resource section of
  application

46

• Read the budget justification to ensure
  consistency with the budget as you review
• Check for cost sharing in the budget
  justification that is not listed in the budget or
  required by the sponsor
• Question unnecessary cost sharing

47

• Check the language of budget justification for
  fringe and overhead and make sure this is correct
• Ignore insignificant miscalculations

48

• Check to make sure the budget and budget
  justification are in the format prescribed by the
  sponsor

49

• Check the sponsor forms to make sure the budget
  and budget justification have been transferred to
  the forms correctly

50

• Browse the science to see if any cost sharing is
  hidden in this section
• Suggest moving this cost share to the facilities
  or resource section

51

• Check current and pending support to make sure it
  is consistent with sponsor requirements
• Look for any effort issues that might be
  problematic

52

• Do a final check of all compliance issues
• IRB
• Animals
• Bio-safety
• Radiation Safety
• Conflict of Interest
• Environmental impact

53
IRB

• Check One Stop and make sure there is a pending
  protocol if sponsor requires

54
Animals

• Check to make sure protocol is active or pending

55
Bio-safety

• Check for key words if found forward description
  of project to bio-safety office for review and
  approval

56
Environmental Impact

• Make sure forms are filled out correctly
• Ensure file has a copy of forms signed by PI if
  UC needs to sign
• Determine if Jan Utrecht needs to review
• Make sure PI signs before Director

57

• Compile a list of recommended and necessary
  changes for the department business contact or PI
• Explain why the changes need to be made

58

• Review changes with your mentor before forwarding
  to department (new staff members)
• Due to large turnover some SRS staff members are
  inexperienced

59

• Advise the point of contact for this proposal of
  necessary and recommended changes

60

• Organize and flag the file as required for
  Directors review
• Include a complete copy of the funding
  announcement final proposal application
  pertinent communications
• Forward to Director for approval

61
Application Moves to Director

• Review funding announcement
• Review key sections and compliance areas
• Ensure all internal approvals are complete
• Communicate changes to the Grant Administrator

62
Application Returns to GA

• Communicate changes to department or PI (Grant
  Administrator)

63
Application Back to Director

• Indicate approval to submit application to
  sponsor (Director)
• Return application file to Grant Administrator

64
Approved Application

• Submit application to the agency or advise
  department application is ready for pick-up
• Advise department and PI of successful submission

65
Risk of Last Minute Proposal

• Errors wont get corrected
• Inconsistent application of sponsor regulations
  and UC policy
• Indicates systemic problems
• Applications rejected by sponsor
• Deadlines missed by seconds
• Faculty and staff unduly stressed, disappointed,
  angry and tearful

66
SRS Guarantee

• What can faculty expect
• SRS will review and approve all on time,
  complete proposal within 5 business days
• Proposals will be reviewed and approved on a
  first come, first serve basis
• SRS will work whatever hours necessary to submit
  all proposals that meet the 5 day policy

67

• Expectations contd
• Incomplete proposals will be put in the queue for
  review once the application is finalized
• Late proposals can not get priority processing
• SRS will do its best to submit, but cannot
  guarantee on-time submission
• Communicate how many proposals are before yours

68
Challenging Applications

• Application arrives on time
• Application is complete
• Lots of corrections required
• New faculty without business support
• Non-traditional departments
• Individuals who do not take advantage of
  educational opportunities
• Individuals who refuse to read directions

69
Discussion

• Are there any questions