*To participate in the dialogue, you can submit a new idea by clicking "Submit New Idea" to the right, or you can vote and comment on existing ideas below.
OMB circular A-133:
Uniform Guidance (2 CFR 200):
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 »
Do the feds have a formula they want us to use when reporting on partner stations that DO NOT collect unduplicated individuals served? Every year we run up against this issue and how to dissect a number of all served, usually duplicated, to how that breaks down as far as number of individuals served by RSVP volunteers.
Harmonize Requirements and Standardized Collection of Non-Financial Training Prior to Issuance of an Award - Non-Financial Investigator training requirements (e.g. Financial Conflict of Interest, Responsible Conduct of Research, Research with Human Subjects), are convoluted because acceptable subject matter and timelines for completion vary by agency. Non-financial training requirements should be harmonized to reduce ...more »
1. Achieve a true single audit. IHEs are still subject to multiple audits of their individual programs and compliance processes, despite the Single Audit Act of 1984, OMB Circular A-133 and 2CFR-200 Uniform Guidance which mandate single audits for non-federal entities that receive federal funding. The University is subject to a major compliance audit, desk audits and program audits each year.
Comment from June 10 Data Act Summit breakout session on Recipient Reporting:
I’m interested in Entity Classifications- better classifications, better utilization of existing classifications. I want to, for example, be able to look in USASpending.gov and analyze the dollars going to non-profits.
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 »
In at least some areas of NSF there is a two-stage proposal process: A short preliminary proposal goes to an initial screening. If it passes that initial screening then a full proposal must be written. I would propose that NEH adopt this process as well. Given the intense competition for NEH grants, with a success rate hovering around 15%, although for the most competitive grants it’s about 6%. Writing grants is a ...more »
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 »
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 »
Right now the federal conflict of interest statements are due at the application and then reconfirmed upon award. Since most grants aren't funded, it would save hours of time to not have this due until the Just in time documents.
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 »
Currently Modified Total Direct Cost (MTDC) only allows inclusion of subcontracts up to the first $25,000 of each subaward or subcontract (regardless of the period of performance of the subawards and subcontracts under the award). We suggest increasing this to the first $50,000.