Sponsored Projects News and Announcements

PI Handbook blog site provides information and resources for University of Nevada faculty and staff preparing or managing all types of sponsored projects. Users may subscribe to the PI Handbook RSS feed to receive new content, tips, tools and up-to-the-minute information regarding sponsored projects.

Software vendor, InfoEd Global, will be visiting the Office of Sponsored Projects (OSP) April 29 – May 2 to perform business process mapping for the new grants management software suite currently being implemented. During the visit, the OSP software implementation team will participate in hands-on software functionality demonstrations and information sessions.

OSP is very excited about the new grants management software which will include features such as electronic proposal routing, proposal development, system-to-system grant submission and proposal and award tracking. The software is intended to be utilized campus-wide and is expected to be fully implemented in spring 2014.

The recent federal sequester, which implemented across-the-board spending cuts, could have substantial impacts on Nevada as well as federal grant recipients at the University of Nevada, Reno. A few of the agencies most likely to be affected by the sequester are the Department of Energy (DOE), the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF). For further information about potential impacts of sequestration, please consult the resources listed below.

• Impact of Sequestration on Nevada
• Impact of Sequestration on DOE Awards
• Impact of Sequestration on NIH Awards
• Impact of Sequestration on NSF Awards
• SRA International Sequestration Resource Center

Policy Overview

Implemented in 2008, the NIH Public Access Policy acts to ensure that the public has access to published results of NIH funded research. More specifically, the policy requires NIH funded investigators to “submit or have submitted for them to the National Library of Medicine’s PubMed Central (PMC) an electronic version of their final, peer-reviewed manuscripts upon acceptance for publication, to be made publicly available no later than 12 months after the official date of publication” (http://publicaccess.nih.gov/policy.htm). The policy further requires submitted manuscripts to comply with citation guidelines.

Recent Changes to the Public Access Policy  

In April, 2013, NIH will begin auditing PMC publications to ensure they are compliant with the NIH Public Access Policy. NIH will delay the processing of an investigator’s non-competing continuation award (with a start date of July 1, 2013 or beyond) until it is demonstrated that all publications arising from that award are compliant (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-13-042.html).

Managing Publication Compliance with My NCBI

Fortunately, tools are available to assist investigators with publication compliance. My NCBI is a publication database developed by the National Center for Biotechnology Information that can be used to manage publication compliance. Within My NCBI, investigators can use the My Bibliography to list all associated NIH sponsored publications. My Bibliography will then indicate the compliance status of those publications so that investigators can correct any instances of non-compliance (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK53595/#mybibliography.Managing_Compliance_to_th).

NIH Research Performance Progress Report (RPPR) and the Role of My NCBI

Many investigators are likely familiar with the PHS 2590, eSNAP and PHS 426-9 used for progress reporting in the non-competing award process. NIH, however, is in the process of transitioning from these formats to the RPPR. Once the transition is fully implemented, progress reports will need to be submitted electronically through the NIH RPPR module in eRA Commons. In preparing the RPPR, investigators will need to use My NCBI to enter publications onto progress reports. Publications can be associated electronically using the RPPR or included in the PHS 2590 using the My NCBI generated compliance report (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-13-042.html).

As a cautionary measure, the RPPR will inform investigators if associated publications are not in compliance with the Public Access Policy by generating a warning message. If the RPPR is then submitted with non-compliant publications, an automated email will generate, and investigators will be required to verify that all associated publications are in compliance with the Public Access Policy (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/rppr/rppr_instruction_guide.pdf).

RPPR with Non-Compliant Publications and the Progress Report Additional Materials (PRAM)

 If the RPPR containing non-compliant publications has been submitted, investigators will receive an automated email indicating non-compliant publications. Investigators will then need to demonstrate publication compliance no later than two weeks prior to the start date of the next budget period. Investigators will use the PRAM feature in eRA Commons to respond to non-compliant publications. Note that NIH plans to expand the PRAM functionality in the future (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/rppr/rppr_instruction_guide.pdf).

Further Information Links

• Public Access Policy
• Citation Guidelines
• PubMed Central
• Policy Applicability
• My NCBI
• My NCBI Compliance Report
• Determining if an Award has Transitioned to RPPR
• RPPR Instruction Guide
• RPPR FAQ

1. Travelers must have effort or have some other direct connection (e.g., project participant) to the projects that are paying for their travel.
2. Principle Investigators (PIs) must obtain prior approval for travel from the sponsoring agency if required.  Documentation of the prior approval should be maintained in the PIs records for up to 6 years after the end date of the award in the event that such documentation is needed for an audit.
3. PIs must ensure that all foreign airfare that will be charged to an award funded by the federal government (UNR account that starts with 1320) is compliant with the Fly America requirements.  For more information about this topic view the Fly America tutorial at http://www.unr.edu/ospa/video.html.
4. If you are travelling outside of the U.S., make sure that all equipment or other technology you take is allowable under the export control regulations.

For more information on this topic contact:

Tammy Freeman, CRA
Program Manager, Research Compliance
775-784-6360
tlfreeman@unr.edu

Effective January 14, 2013, NSF will implement revised merit review criteria based on the National Science Board (NSB) report, “National Science Foundation’s Merit Review Criteria: Review and Revisions.” While the two merit review criteria remain unchanged (Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts), guidance has been provided to clarify and improve the function of the criteria. Revisions based on the NSB report have been incorporated into NSF’s policies and procedures manuals, websites, and systems. Proposers should familiarize themselves with the Merit Review Principles and Criteria described in the NSF Grant and Proposal Guide (GPG) Chapter III.A. For comprehensive outreach and training materials visit the Revised Merit Review Criteria Resource site.

Offered By: NVDPS-NVOTS

Application Period: 08/01/2012-03/31/2013

Application Due Date: 03/31/2013

Description:

The Nevada Department of Public Safety, Office of Traffic

Safety awards federal funds to state, local, and non-profit organizations, up to a maximum amount of $5,000 per grant year, to fund projects that are limited to receipt of fixed deliverables. Fixed deliverables are one-time events or purchases (and not necessarily a full grant year project). Projects that are funded will contribute to the reduction of traffic fatalities, injuries and crashes on Nevada roadways.

Contact the Office of Sponsored Projects if you are interested in applying for this opportunity.

This checklist is being offered by the Office of Sponsored Projects as a tool to assist PIs when preparing applications under the R01 funding mechanism for NIH and other PHS Agencies. It is not intended to be exhaustive, but it does highlight important information found on the SF 424 R&R Application Guide.

When responding to a specific RFA or PA which have specific application instructions, those instructions take precedence over conflicting instructions in the SF424 Application Guide. If there are any conflicts between this checklist and sponsor provided instructions or the application guide, sponsor-provided instruction and guides should be followed.

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which leads National Institutes of Health (NIH) efforts to provide proposal-writing resources, has posted four funded R21 proposals and accompanying summary statements online. These recent successful examples reflect the reduced NIH page limit. Each includes a one-page specific aims section, a 12-page research strategy, budget information, and biosketches of key personnel. While the proposals have an allergy/infectious disease research focus, they give researchers in all fields a view into excellent proposal development.

Samples: http://www.niaid.nih.gov/researchfunding/grant/pages/appsamples.aspx

Part of successful grantsmanship is to develop rapport with program officers in the areas where you typically submit proposals.  If you missed it, you might want to read the following article that appeared in the Chronicle of Higher Education

http://chronicle.com/article/What-to-Say-and-Not-Say-to/131282/

NSF has posted Important Notice 132, Implementation of Revised National Science Board-approved (NSB) Merit Review Criteria to the NSF website.    This Notice provides information regarding the Foundation’s implementation of the National Science Board (NSB) Report entitled, National Science Foundation’s Merit Review Criteria: Review and Revision.

NIH has updated its frequently asked questions Web page on the financial conflict of interest regulation, which goes into effect at the end of August. The 10 new and three updated FAQs, posted March 21, address a variety of topics, including blind trusts, payments on behalf of investigators made to institutions and the differences between significant financial interests as defined in the new regulation versus the 1995 rule. Of interest to those grappling with how to implement the travel expenses disclosure requirements, which are not subject to a payment threshold, is a new question with a three-part answer. The item indicates that institutions “have the discretion to determine which details of the sponsored or reimbursed travel, for example, source of funding, destination, duration of travel, etc., drive further institutional review.” Policies could dictate, for example, that anticipated participation in annual meetings and medical society gatherings “may not require further institutional review to determine if the travel constitutes a FCOI,” the FAQ states.
Link: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/coi/coi_faqs.htm#3383

From Report on Research Compliance 3/22/12

The National Science Board (NSB) recently released recommendations for altering the NSF’s Merit Review.  Among the recommendations:

•  NSB Core Principles for defining merit review criteria
• All NSF Funded projects should be of the highest quality and have the potential to advance, if not transform, knowledge and science.
• NSF projects, in the aggregate should contribute more broadly to achieving societal goals. PIs may accomplish their projects’ broader Impacts through the research itself, through activities that are directly related to the research, or through activities that are supported by, but are complementary to, the project.
• NSF should base its meaningful assessment and evaluation of funded projects on appropriate metrics, “keeping in mind the likely correlation between the effect of broader impacts and the resources provided to implement projects.
•  Potential Revisions to the merit review process
•  When evaluating merit, NSF reviewers will consider whether the proposed research project:
•  Advances knowledge and understanding within its own field or across the different fields ;
• Benefits society or advances desired societal outcomes;
• Suggests and explores creative, original or potentially transformative concepts;
• Has a well-reasoned, well-organized plan for carrying out the proposed activities, based on sound rationale; and
• Incorporates in its plan a mechanism to assess success NSB continues to support review of items of:
•  How well-qualified is the PI, team or institution to conduct the proposed activities
• Are there adequate resources available to the PI, either at the home institution or through collaborations, to carry out the proposed activities?
•   NSF Possible Implementation plan for the above recommendations:           
• Treat both merit review criteria (broader impacts and intellectual merit) as important;
• Include a separate section in the project description describing the proposed activities’ broader impacts;
• Require a description of the PIs accomplishments relating to both of the merit review criteria in separate sections contained in the “Results of Prior Support” (renewal projects); and
• Require and enforce a description of how the project addresses both criteria in all public award abstracts.
• New annual and final project report templates that include space to address progress specific to all projects activities, including broader impacts activities that are not directly related to the research;

On March 1, 2012 NSF posted FAQs regarding the accellerated spending memo (M-11-34) that OMB released on September 15th, 2011.

Key impacts:

• Waiver requests for all grants, except for CAREER awards, need to be submitted by March 2^nd(today).
• This includes awards whose expiration date is beyond 9/30/13. If a waiver request is not submitted for such an award, “NSF will amend your award to modify the expiration so that your project cannot continue past September 30, 2013.”
• Waiver requests for cooperative agreements need to be submitted by March 9^th
• For CAREER awards, all of which were issued with expiration dates in 2014, “NSF is working to develop a strategy for a programmatic waiver request to cover all CAREER PIs.” Waiver requests for CAREER awards do not need to be submitted at this time, but recipients are reminded that there is no guarantee that OMB will approve the waiver request.

(Courtesy of FDPMAIN-L@LSW.NAS.EDU)

Notice Number: NOT-OD-11-109

Release Date: August 22, 2011

Issued by
National Institutes of Health (NIH), Office of Extramural Research

Purpose

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is issuing a final rule in the Federal Register (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-08-25/pdf/2011-21633.pdf) that amends the Public Health Service (PHS) regulations on Responsibility of Applicants for Promoting Objectivity in Research for which PHS Funding is Sought (42 C.F.R. Part 50, Subpart F) and Responsible Prospective Contractors (45 C.F.R. Part 94).  The final rule specifies compliance dates in the “Dates” section, as discussed further below. 

Background    
           
Since the promulgation of these regulations in 1995, the growing complexity of biomedical and behavioral research; the increased interaction among Government, research Institutions, and the private sector in attaining common public health goals while meeting public expectations for research integrity; as well as increased public scrutiny, all have raised questions as to whether a more rigorous approach to Investigator disclosure, institutional management of financial conflicts, and federal oversight is required.   The HHS decided to explore the need for revisions to the 1995 regulations by publishing an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on May 8, 2009 (74 FR 21610). 
           
After analyzing public comments, HHS published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (75 FR 28688, hereafter referred to as “NPRM”) on May 21, 2010, proposing changes to the 1995 regulations to strengthen accountability and transparency.  The proposed changes focused on Investigators’ disclosure requirements of significant financial interests (SFIs), Institutions’ reporting and management of identified financial conflicts of interest (FCOI), and public disclosure of information regarding Investigator FCOI.           

On July 21, 2010, HHS published a Notice (75 FR 42362) extending the 60 day comment period for the NPRM by another 30 days and seeking comment on whether HHS should clarify its authority to enforce compliance with the regulations by Institutions and Investigators, and whether HHS should clarify how the regulations apply in circumstances in which an Investigator or a PHS-funded research project transfers from one Institution to another.

After considering all public comments, and consistent with the proposals articulated in the NPRM, HHS developed the final rule, which includes the following major changes to the 1995 regulations: 

Compliance Dates:

An Institution applying for or receiving PHS funding from a grant, cooperative agreement, or contract that is covered by the final rule must be in full compliance with all of the revised regulatory requirements:

• No later than 365 calendar days after the date of publication in the Federal Register, i.e. August 24, 2011; and
• Immediately upon making its institutional Financial Conflict of Interest (FCOI) policy publicly accessible as described in the final rule.

In the interim, Institutions should continue to comply with the 1995 regulations and report Investigator FCOIs to the Public Health Service (PHS) Awarding Component as required in the 1995 regulations.

NIH grant and cooperative agreement award recipients should continue to submit FCOI reports using the electronic Research Administration (eRA) Commons FCOI Module.  Once the institution is required to be in full compliance with the regulatory requirements, the additional reporting requirements must be met.  Therefore, if the eRA Commons FCOI Module is not updated by the time this occurs, the FCOI report should include an attachment that addresses the minimum elements of the FCOI report as provided in 42 CFR 50.605(b)(3).

Effective with grant awards with an initial Issue Date on/after December 23, 2011, the salary limitation is limited to Executive Level II of the Federal Pay Scale, $179,700.
NIH competing grant awards with categorical budgets reflecting salary levels at or above the new limit that have an initial Issue Date on/after December 23, 2011 will reflect adjustments to the current and all future years so that no funds are awarded or committed for salaries over the limitation.

See Announcement

PIs will especiall be interested in the “Making the Move to Research.gov” section.

January 2012 marks a new step forward in the National Science Foundation’s modernization of FastLane and transition to Research.gov. Financial administrators on projects funded by NSF must now access financial services through Reseach.gov and revised policy requires that institutions prepare and submit Federal Financial Reports (FFR) using the website’s FFR service.

Accessing Financial Functions on Research.gov

All financial users with the following access permissions – Cash Request User, Grantee EFT User, FFR Preparer and FFR Certifier – must use Research.gov to access NSF financial services. This means that you will log into Research.gov using your FastLane credentials to request cash transfers; modify and certify banking information for Electronic Funds Transfers (EFTs); and view your organization’s NSF financial reporting activity, cash requests and EFT updates. All financial users who try to access financial services through FastLane will be transferred directly to Research.gov to login.

Using the Research.gov FFR Service

Revised NSF policy requires that grantees prepare and submit quarterly Federal Financial Reports (FFRs) through Research.gov beginning with reports that are due on February 1, 2012. For further information, review Article 9 of the NSF Agency Specific Requirements to the Research Terms & Conditions posted at www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/rtc/nsf_212.pdf.

The process of preparing and submitting FFRs in Research.gov is similar to FastLane and has been available on Research.gov since November 2008. You can access the FFR service from the home page, after logging into Research.gov.

Making the Move to Research.gov

2013  will bring more change to Research.gov, including the introduction of a new award payment service and a new service for submission of annual, final, and interim progress reports. The financial services change may not impact you today, but now is the  time to start or continue your own transition to Research.gov.

What can you do? Try the following steps and make Research.gov a part of your daily work:

• Login using your FastLane credentials
• Bookmark Research.gov
• Use Research.gov as your “portal” to Financial Services
• Stay tuned for future changes

Research.gov Help Desk

For assistance, please contact the Research.gov Help Desk, 7 AM – 9 PM Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday (except for federal holidays).  You can contact the Research.gov Help Desk by emailing rgov@nsf.gov  or by calling 1.800.381.1532.

NIH and the National Science Foundation have each recently issued notices warning recipients of Recovery Act funding that previously automatic no-cost extensions will not be granted and that projects need to end by Sept. 30, 2013, unless the agency has given prior approval. This is necessary because the Office of Management and Budget has said projects funded with Recovery Act money should be completed by this date, or agencies will have to take steps to “reclaim funds that remain unspent.”

In its Dec. 13 notice, NIH noted that for projects that already have end dates beyond Sept. 30, 2013, “NIH staff administering these grants will also reach out to recipients to discuss possible strategies for accelerating progress and expenditures. Revised award terms will vary depending on the award terms provided in the current notice of award.”

In a nearly identical notice also issued on Dec. 13, NSF outlined the requirements for expenditures by Sept. 30, 2013, but also indicated that it may seek a waiver from OMB’s mandates. For any awards “anticipated to continue past September 30, 2013, NSF grantees must contact the program officer identified in the award notice in writing that an extension of the expiration date is vital for the completion of the project,” NSF said. “All requests must be received on or before June 1, 2012, regardless of the current project expiration date. Prior written approval to extend beyond September 30, 2013 will only be considered” based on OMB criteria and “only if NSF receives a waiver from OMB,” NSF said.

Other government agencies are expected to issue similar notices to grantees who received Recovery Act funding.
Link to NIH notice:
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-12-014.html

Link to NSF notice: http://nsf.gov/recovery/acceleration.pdf

Link to OMB memorandum: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2011/m11-34.pdf

NSF’s  entire suite of Award Terms and Conditions (see full listing below) has been revised to implement two new requirements, which are either mandated by regulation or legislation.  Each set of terms and conditions is accompanied by a comprehensive summary of the changes made to that document.

The revised Terms and Conditions will apply to all new NSF awards and funding amendments to existing NSF awards issued on or after February 1, 2012.  In addition to clarifications and other changes made to the conditions, significant changes include:

• Travel*, has been updated to incorporate revised circumstances under which use of a foreign-flag air carrier is permissible.  The Article provides information on recent modifications to the “Open Skies” Agreement with the European Union, and includes a link to the General Services Administration website for additional information.

• Academic Technology Transfer and Commercialization of University Research**, is a new Article which requires higher education institutions that have NSF research support and at least $25,000,000 in total Federal research grants in the most recently completed Federal fiscal year to submit to NSF the URL that contains information on their transfer of technology and commercialization of research results efforts.  This change has been mandated by the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act.

Revisions have been made to the following documents:

• NSF Agency Specific Requirements (ASR) to the Research Terms and Conditions (RTC);
• Grant General Conditions (GC-1);
• Cooperative Agreement Financial & Administrative Terms and Conditions (CA-FATC);
• Cooperative Agreement Supplemental Financial & Administrative Terms and Conditions for Managers of Large Facilities
• Cooperative Agreement Supplemental Financial & Administrative Terms and Conditions for Managers of Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCS)
• International Research Terms and Conditions
• Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)/Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) Phase I Grant General Conditions; 
• Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)/Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) Phase II Grant General Conditions; and
• Administration of NSF Conference or Group Travel Grant Special Conditions (FL 26).

* This article does not apply to the SBIR/STTR Phase I grant conditions.

** This article only applies to the ASR and CA-FATC grant conditions.

These Award Terms and Conditions have been posted to the NSF website and are available electronically at: http://www.nsf.gov/awards/managing/award_conditions.jsp?org=NSF.   

If you have any questions on these changes, please contact the DIAS/Policy Office on (703) 292-8243 or by email to policy@nsf.gov.