Sponsored Projects News and Announcements

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/

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

A new All About Grants Podcast produced by the NIH Office of Extramural Research (OER) features Dr. Pat Brown, Director, OLAW, who explains what must be included in your grant application if you use vertebrate animals in your research. Listen to Writing Your Vertebrate Animal Section (MP3) or read the transcript (HTML).

NIH is changing the policy concerning appeals of thei initial peer review process. This notice provides further information.

The Office of Extramural Research (OER) presents conversations with NIH staff members in their podcast “All About Grants”.  They provide  “insights on grant topics from those who live and breathe the information”.  Topic catagories include preparing successful grant applications, understanding how a grant application is reviewed, keeping up with what’s hot, being an NIH investigator and suggested topics. Subscriptions to the podcast are available through RSS or in iTunes.

Current federal funding beginning fiscal year October 1, 2011 has been distributed under an budget not approved by the federal government, therefore funding has continued under a series of Continuing Resolutions (CR) in order to avoid a federal shutdown.  The most recent CR will end at midnight, April 8, 2011 and without an approved budget or new CR, the federal government will shut down.

This shutdown may impact federally funded sponsored projects, however in most instances, currently awarded existing projects may proceed as usual and work can go forward, unless the sponsoring agency issues a stop-work order. UNR’s Office of Sponsored Projects would receive a project-specific notification and will inform the Principal Investigator if this occurs.  

New awards or award modifications which are pending (no-cost extensions, renewals, etc.) are likely to be put on hold by the sponsor.  

OMB has compiled the plans from the agencies. 

Agency specific information:

NSF:  and National Science Foundation Assistance and Contract-Related Policy and Systems Issues During the Funding Hiatus

NIH:

NIFA:

NASA:

Please contact your Office of Sponsored Projects if you have any questions about specific awards.

The Office of Extramural Research (OER) presents conversations with NIH staff members. Designed for investigators, fellows, students, research administrators, and others, they provide insights on grant topics from those who live and breathe the information. In mp3 and updated every other week. Users can subscribe via RSS, or iTunes. http://grants.nih.gov/podcasts/All_About_Grants/index.htm

Here’s info on the most recent podcast on writing the human subjects section of the application:

“Continuing the podcast series on grant writing, the next topic we tackle is the human subjects section. Do you need to include this section in your application? Should you include this section if you are using human tissue samples without their personally identifying information? Listen to “Human Subjects Risk and Protection” for answers to these questions and more.”

NSF has updated the GRFP Administrative Guide for Fellows and Coordinating Officials (NSF 11-031, replacing NSF 09-62) and is changing how institutional awards are handled – both at NSF and at the grantee institution. Below are highlights of those clarifications and changes. The updated Guide applies to the 2011-2012 fellowship year forward. The new Funding Model will begin with the 2011-2012 fellowship funding cycle and 2010-2011 institutional reporting requirements.

GRFP Funding Model:  Summary of Changes

-Direct involvement of the sponsored program/research administration in the financial reporting (addition of a Financial Official, FO), in cooperation with the Coordinating Official (CO)

-Progress towards providing GRFP funding to all institutions earlier and incrementally, based on the availability of funds

-Reducing the number of reports and multiple submissions

-Submission/resubmission of a program-level Grants Roster eliminated

-Program-level Expense Report, which was submitted as preliminary and final, incorporated into the Annual Report

-Annual Report consists of expenses, fellow outcomes, and fellow highlights

-Incorporating real-time award accounting into the GRFP FastLane Financial Summary Module

GRFP Guide:  Summary of Updates

-Incorporated annual program solicitation changes

-Added annual program cycle deadlines; acronyms, definitions, terms, links and contacts; satisfactory progress; responsible conduct of research; acknowledgment of NSF support; additional opportunities of interest; and appendices sections

-Clarified fellowship service expectations; deferrals; status definitions; tenure beyond degree completion; cost-of-education (COE) allowance; fellow and institutional responsibilities; and award management

-Discontinued Fellows Abroad and one-time International Research Travel Grant options – new opportunities for international research experiences to be announced

On September 29, 2010 NIH released a notice regarding the required use of updated electronic application forms in 2011 for applicants  to NIH, AHRQ, CDC, FDA and NIOSH. Deadlines after May 7, 2010 all applicants will be required to use the ADOBE-FORMS-B1 forms. There are exceptions that could require applicants must use ADOBE-FORMS-B1. These include: Individual Research Career Development Award Programs (Ks), Institutional Training and Career Development Programs (Ts and Ds), or Individual National Research Service Awards (Fs). Additionally upadted forms will be incorporated into new and existing FOAs. All new FOAs that are posted with ADOBE-FORMS-B1 must use the B1 package. Click here to find out how to tell if you have the right electronic forms for your NIH Application.

Dear Colleagues: 

This email serves as a reminder that the new NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) (NSF 11-1) goes into effect for proposals submitted, or due, on or after January 18, 2011.   The significant changes to the PAPPG include 1) a requirement that all proposals submitted to NSF contain an up to two page Data Management Plan as a Supplementary Document and 2) implementation of the National Science Board’s recommendations regarding cost sharing.  A complete list of significant changes accompanies the PAPPG.

Please note that because January 15th is a Saturday, and Monday, January 17th is a Federal holiday, per Grant Proposal Guide Chapter I.F, the due dates are extended to the following business day.  Therefore, proposals submitted in response to funding opportunities whose deadline dates fall after close of business on January 14^th, will be due January 18^th, and will be subject to the requirements set forth in NSF 11-1.   This includes the requirement to submit a Data Management Plan as a supplementary document. 

FastLane will begin automated compliance checking for the data management plan starting January 15th and proposals (including unsolicited proposals) that do not comply with the requirement will be prevented from submission.   

 We encourage you to familiarize yourself with the new PAPP Guide, and visit the Policy Office website (http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/) for additional information.  We have developed an entire suite of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on topics such as general proposal preparation and award administration, Project Outcomes Reports, Responsible Conduct of Research, Data Management Plans and Cost Sharing.  The Policy Office updates these FAQs as new questions are raised, to keep the community aware of emerging issues, so please visit our site often to access the latest information on NSF policies and procedures.     

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

 *This announcement was sent out on behalf of the National Science Foundation. 

The National Science Foundation has posted a series of seven frequently-asked-questions concerning its revised cost-sharing policy, which goes into effect for proposals submitted or due on or after Jan. 18. Changes affect committed support on the part of principal investigators, as Jean Feldman, NSF policy director, described at the recent annual meeting of the National Council of Research Administrations. Questions posted on NSF’s website include the following: “If a PI already is charging two months of salary support per year on their active NSF award(s), should they not request support on any new proposals that are submitted? If they are not requesting salary support, would that constitute cost sharing?” and “If an institution addresses voluntary committed cost sharing in the proposal narrative, how will NSF proposal reviewers respond?”
Link: www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/csfaqs_dec10.pdf

Sometimes there is confusion on determining  if a partner on a proposed project is a sub-recepient or a vendor, as defined in the A-133. The differences between consultant vs. collaborator (consultant=vendor, collaborator=sub-contractor) is covered in this post. The determination will impact the project budget. A discussion about budgeting issues regarding sub-contracts or vendor agreement can  be found here.

Here is a decision matrix to help clarify the distinction between a subcontract or a vendor agreement. If the answer is ‘yes’ to any of the following questions a subaward may be appropriate:

• Does the entity’s statement of work represent an intellectually significant portion of the programmatic decision making?
• Could the entity’s work result in intellectual property?
• Does the entity have responsibly for programmatic decision making?
• Will the entity need animal and/or human subjects approvals for its portion of the work?

If the answer is ‘yes’ to any of the following questions  the entity fits the profile of a vendor and a subaward will not be the best solution:

• Does the entity commonly provide these goods and/or services as part of their normal business operations?
• Does the entity provide similar goods and/or services to other purchasers?
• Does the entity compete with comparable entities to provide the same goods and/or services?
• Are the goods and services being provided by the entity secondary to the central purpose of the project?
• Is the entity’s work carried out according to the Prime’s specifications using standard operating procedures?

If a vendor relationship is required remember that indirect costs  (F&A) will need to be charged on the entire amount of the transaction.

National Science Foundation Announcement

A revised version of the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide has been posted to the NSF website and is available electronically at: http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgovguide. This document is applicable to all applications submitted, or due, to NSF on or after January 18, 2011. 

 
Please refer to Page 2 of the Guide for a summary of the significant changes, clarifications and other changes.

Effective for proposals submitted on or after Jan. 18th, 2011 NSF requires a Data Management Plan be included in the proposal. 

For tips on creating a data sharing or management plan, check out the following websites:

• Association for Research Libraries. Guide for Research Libraries: the NSF Data Sharing Policy.
• NIH Data Sharing Policy and Implementation Guidance
• MIT Data Management and Publishing
• University of Minnesota Funding Agencies and Data Management Guidelines.
• UK Data Archive Managing and Sharing Data a Best Practice Guide for Researchers

On November 22, 2010 the National Science Foundation (NSF) issued a current Frequently Asked Questions On Proposal Prepration and Award Administration document. The  easy to use document lists questions in alphabetical order. Answers cover a wide range of topics including  data management plans and  project outcomes reports. The document can be found at:  http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/faqs11_1.pdf?WT.mc_id=USNSF_80

Grants.gov has experienced a hardware failure which resulted in the entire system being down. The issue has been identified and repaired. As of noon PST, Grants.gov is in the process of restoring the system.

Due to the system failure, NIH has extended the error correction window by one day for proposals due today. All other agencies must be contacted for guidance. Contact information can be found in the application package/RFP.