1 / 31

Proposed Agenda for CWG Meeting, May 16, 2001 Morning Session

Proposed Agenda for CWG Meeting, May 16, 2001 Morning Session. Consensus on existing interfaces Analysis of feedback from CWG members Commons V 2.0 Architecture J2EE Concept and Benefits Timeline for design and development Anticipation of V 2.0 Functional Requirements

Albert_Lan
Download Presentation

Proposed Agenda for CWG Meeting, May 16, 2001 Morning Session

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Proposed Agenda for CWG Meeting, May 16, 2001Morning Session • Consensus on existing interfaces • Analysis of feedback from CWG members • Commons V 2.0 Architecture • J2EE Concept and Benefits • Timeline for design and development • Anticipation of V 2.0 Functional Requirements • Institutional Registration : DUNS • Profiles: Single point of ownership • Status: Improved Reporting to include “institutional view”

  2. Proposed Agenda for CWG Meeting, May 16, 2001Afternoon Session • Why is there a Noncompeting Award Process? • Grants Policy Considerations • Historical Perspective • What we’ve tried before • Proposed changes in current SNAP process • Administrative information • Scientific Progress Report and Related information • Assurances and Certifications

  3. Progress Reporting—Policy & Historical Perspective

  4. Scientific Reporting Requirements45 CFR Pt 74.51 (A-110) • At least annually, not more frequently than quarterly • Final report within 90 days after expiration • Should include: 1) comparison of actual accomplishments w/goals & objectives; 2) reasons why established goals were not met; 3) other pertinent info e.g., cost overruns • Should immediately report developments that have significant impact on the award-supported activities, including problems, delays or adverse conditions

  5. Scientific Reporting Requirements(HHS GAM) • HHS GPD 2.04: B.2 Optional Policy for Noncompeting Continuation Applications: • OPDIVs can accept progress reports in lieu of complete application packages when evaluating noncompeting continuation award.

  6. Fiscal Monitoring (45 CFR Pt 74.52) • Financial Status Report (SF269 or SF269A) • Due 90 days after the end of each specified reporting period • Annual requirement can be waived when PMS272 will provide adequate information to meet its needs. However, final FSR still required at completion of the project period • Report of Federal Cash Transactions (PMS-272)--Quarterly submission

  7. Efforts to Streamline Progress Report • FDP T-5 Simplification Pilot • Began 10/1/89 • Eliminated Budget Page (unless change of scope) • Eliminated Other Support (unless changed) • NIH Withdrew from pilot 9/30/92

  8. Efforts to Streamline Progress Report (cont.) • SNAP Phase 1 (FY 95) • Eliminated budget page • Eliminated estimated report of expenditures • Added SNAP Qs on key personnel changes, significant rebudgeting, other support, unobligated balances > 25%

  9. Efforts to Streamline Progress Report (cont.) • SNAP Phase II (FY96) • For T-5s, eliminated categorical awards (lump sum DC & F&A costs only) • Simultaneously implemented total cost commitments for future years for all awards • Also implemented most recent definition of significant rebudgeting

  10. Efforts to Streamline Progress Report (cont.) • SNAP Phase III (July 1996) • Eliminated annual FSR--required only at end of competitive segment • NIH staff uses PMS 272 as fiscal monitoring tool • Still have 1 SNAP question that addresses large balances

  11. Efforts to Streamline Progress Report (cont.) • Revised 2590 (4/98) • SNAP Process incorporated in instructions • Eliminated Checklist unless change in performance site that affects F&A • 7/99 Amended instructions to include requirement of checklist if program income anticipated

  12. Efforts to Streamline Progress Report (cont.) • E-SNAP • Development began FY97 • Pilot began 7/99 • Pilot concluded 3/01 • Revised NIH GPS (3/01) • Redefined Significant Rebudgeting (now only a change in scope indicator)

  13. Efforts to Streamline Progress Report (cont.) • Revised 2590—Proposed Changes FY01 • Changed name to “Progress Report” • Eliminates concept of “Application” • SNAP Q on significant rebudgeting eliminated

  14. SNAP: Progress Reporting

  15. SNAP: Progress Reporting

  16. SNAP: Progress Reporting

  17. SNAP: Progress Reporting

  18. SNAP: Progress Reporting

  19. IPF Number • Basic Identifier for Grantee Institution • IPF# is absolutely fixed for grant award • No IPF# = No Award • 7 digits (8 available) • Fixed relationship between IPF# and EIN# • One to many (There may be several EIN’s for a single IPF)

  20. IPF Limitations • Not Universal – unique only to NIH • Limited number of combinations • Will need to retool for 8 digits within the coming year • Not easy to adjust to new institutional hierarchies • e.g. institutional relationships with foundations, sub-campus hierarchies

  21. DUNS Numbers • Dunn & Bradstreet – • Leading provider of business information for credit, marketing, purchasing, and receivables management decisions worldwide. • 9 digit number (+ 4 optional) • 9 digits verified, 4 digits at institutional discretion • e.g. university campus = first 9, additional 4 = school/dept etc. • Obtained free • Via Web • Confirmed by D&B staff • Verifiable on-line…anytime

  22. DUNS Benefits • Universal number adopted by 62 million businesses worldwide • DUNS provides links to describe organizational hierarchies • Used as identifier by U.S. Govt. Contracting • Required for Central Contractor Registry • Promoted by Federal Commons for grantee unique identifier

  23.  Normal Processing Manual Verification Current IPF Implementation Grantee Organization IMPAC II Paper ApplicationElectronic Application Assignment of IPF by DEIS staff to correspond with one or more EIN#’s Entry of EIN to IPF specification in IMPAC II CSR R & R Interface compare EIN on form with IMPAC II Include EIN# on Form 398

  24. Normal Processing   Normal Processing Manual Verification Proposed Implementation of DUNS Grantee Organization NIH Commons IMPAC II Paper ApplicationElectronic Application Assignment of DUNS number(s) by D & B Commons Registration • . Verification of DUNS by IMPAC II Staff • . Inclusion of DUNS in IMPAC II institutional profile Creation/ modification of Commons IPF to include DUNS numbers CSR R & R Interface compare DUNS on form with IMPAC II Include DUNS on Form 398 Log onto Commons with DUNS Access to Restricted Commons Interfaces – eventual submission of electronic applications

  25. DUNS Implementation Questions • Necessary modifications to IMPAC II database and related interfaces? • Necessary modifications to Commons database and related user interfaces? • Outreach: institutional awareness and receipt of DUNS numbers? • Deployment of Commons to support extended use of DUNS? • Must allow for transitional use of IPF and DUNS • Must allow for tansitional use of DUNS on 398 and DUNS via electronic applications

  26. Single Point of Ownership for PPF-Related Information Premise PPF-related information; name, address, expertise, employment record, educational experience, publications, funding record, can be likened to similar information found in a curriculum vitae. In this respect it must be treated as personal property. Without the expressed permission of the owner of the information, others should not modify such elements of a personal electronic record any more than they would modify a paper-based c.v. record.

  27. Benefits of Single Point of PPF Ownership • Data Accuracy – Owner has most accurate assessment of information. Allowing any second party to change the information potentially affects accuracy • Data Timeliness – The owner is the first to know of any bone fide changes in the information, e.g. change in name or address. They can have the most timely effect to maintain an accurate record

  28. Single Point of Ownership Benefits…cont. • Removal of Multiple Profiles – Multiple profile records can be resolved (once and for all) with singly-owned profiles. This will save ~$2,000,000/year currently being spent to resolve and remove duplicate profiles. • Streamlining of Commons/IMPAC II Replication – Replication design for “Race” conditions can be streamlined with singly-owned profiles. This also translates into lower operations and maintenance costs

  29. Single Point of Ownership Benefits…cont. • Simplified Interagency Information Exchange – Federal Commons-related information exchange will be more reliable with uniform singly-owned profiles.

  30. Single Point of Ownership Drawback • Inconvenience to IC Staff – IC staff rely on preferred version of personal information.

  31. Suggested Design to Accommodate Single Point of Ownership • Observe single point of ownership • Profile creation yields unique IMPAC II person profile I.D. • I.D. is immutable • I.D. always points to same profile • Can only be modified by profile owner • Allow for NIH staff to create surrogate profiles • Variants of any profile created by NIH staff • Variant always bounded by singly-owned profile through IMPAC II person profile I.D. • i.e., NIH view can change, but profile is constant

More Related