The government should make efforts to reduce focus on the micro accounting of grant expenditures and move towards a system where the peer review process and program managers base future funding decisions on broader measures of appropriate expenditures of cost. Princeton University suggests that one useful guide might be the IRS rules: in general, any expenditure that would normally be considered taxable income (apart ...more »
PIs at Princeton University spend a large amount of their time during proposal preparation on compliance approvals. One recommendation would be for the federal government to impose a pre-compliance standard at submission, which could include a document from the sponsored research office listing areas where they know that strict compliance has not been met. The compliance can then be fully implemented once/if the proposal ...more »
Faculty at Princeton University find it frustrating that each agency requires different data in different formats and that not all the web portals work well. For example, the DOE-BES PAMS system does not always save entries, and this can lead to loss of edits. Clicking to save an entry often takes the PI to the login page, often resulting in loss of data. So having a robust portal that automatically saves data entered ...more »
Given that the main product of federally-funded research is typically publications, Princeton University suggests that it would seem sensible to allow submission of PDFs of publications where they have already appeared as a result of the work funded by the grant, and reduce the reliance on extensive research summaries. If nothing has been published, then it makes sense to ask for a report on preliminary progress. NSF ...more »
Princeton University submits that the Uniform Guidance benefits higher education institutions in many ways, but only so long as the federal awarding agencies interpret the rules of the Uniform Guidance consistently. The following captures a few areas where consistency is needed: A. Sections 200.203(a)(5), Notice of funding opportunities (CFDA Numbers), and 200.301, Performance measurement – neither of these sections ...more »
Codify the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) to eliminate potential interpretation differences of future auditors and inspectors general between Uniform Guidance and FAQs.
Princeton University suggests that the Federal Audit Clearinghouse (FAC) should provide more guidance (e.g. definitions, acronyms) on how to access and leverage annual reports to monitor subrecipients per Uniform Guidance requirements in order to reduce the burden. Assistance in navigating through the forms similar to guidance provided to comply with the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) would ...more »
The OMB Compliance Supplement for the Single Audit increased the threshold for known or likely questioned costs from $10,000 to $25,000. Princeton University suggests that consideration should be given for a threshold higher than $25,000, particularly when extrapolation could occur throughout the rest of the organization. An alternative solution would be to make the threshold related to a percentage of expenditures ...more »
The RPPR continues to evolve into more financial and administrative reporting than it has to do with scientific/technical progress ever since you eliminated annual FFR's for SNAP grants. Institutions are getting hammered on follow-up questioning from Grants Mgmt Specialists regarding unobligated balances, effort reported on the participants tab, other support, use of IDP's and MyNCBI noncompliant pubs. Many followup ...more »
Grant Proposals indicate all institutions involved and require separate budget submissions. Not only is it a waste of taxpayer $ to pay institutions F&A on the first 25K of each sub, but it is so inefficient to dole out the $ to us to turn around and pay out the subs when you can utilize a LOC payment system. Then you impose subrecipient monitoring on us and everybody has to document everyone else's audit report/FCOI ...more »
Research administrators work in a world of constant and continuous audits by various Federal OIGs. These are in addition to the ongoing annual "A-133" audits designed to attest to our having systems and procedures in place to provide proper stewardship over Federal funds under our purview. The OIG audits have been extremely aggressive and are characterized by initial allegations of wrongdoing, high cost disallowances, ...more »
Since the publication of the Uniform Guidance UG), institutions have seen various Conflict of Interest (COI) terms and conditions embedded within broad agency announcements and proposal solicitations, despite the lack of formal agency-wide policies or guidelines in most cases. The specific requirements for what financial interests and relationships need to be disclosed, the nature and timing of reviews, and even definitions ...more »