The University of Texas at Arlington Office of Research and Office of Accounting and Business Services Brown Bag Traini

1. The University of Texas at Arlington Office of Research and Office of Accounting and Business Services Brown Bag Training Session V: The Federal Demonstration Partnership (FDP)

2. UTA Involvement • FDP includes three representatives from each research institution: • Policy and Procedure Issues: Dr. Marianne Woods – mwoods@uta.edu • Faculty concerns: Dr. Kaushik De – kaushik@uta.edu • Electronic Research Administration: Jeremy Forsberg – j.forsberg@uta.edu

3. About FDP • FDP has developed into a vital forum where institutional representatives and Federal agencies can air common concerns and issues regarding developing processes and policies

4. About FDP • FDP: • Is a formal collaboration between federal agencies and research institutions • Streamlines the administrative process and minimizes administrative burden while maintaining effective stewardship of federal funds • Is a place where federal agencies and institutions can evaluate new ideas relative to research administration

5. About FDP • The FDP: • Is a forum to discuss and evaluate options • Is a test bed for demonstrations • Increased research productivity

6. About FDP • Issues and Policies are evaluated and reported by committees and task forces • Demonstrations or Pilot Projects may be created to test ideas • Cost Analysis performed for the reduced or increased burden • Federal Agencies participate and want to know results

7. About FDP • How does a group of government bureaucracies create or enforce change in policy for the better? • Representatives from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) attend FDP meetings and receive cost analysis reports • Federal Government Agencies are graded with scorecards • Example: Various Federal Electronic Systems – Increased time Faculty spent on administrative tasks and decreased their research time

8. FDP History • Phase I (Florida Demonstration Project) 1986 - 1988 • Phase II (Federal Demonstration Project) 1988 – 1996 • 21 institutions/consortia & 11 federal agencies • Phase III (FDP) 1996 – 2002 • 65 institutions & 11 federal agencies & 6 affiliate members • Phase IV (FDP) 2002 – 2008 • 90 institutions & 10 federal agencies

9. FDP Phase I and IIAccomplishments • Implemented (mostly) common, streamlined terms and conditions for research grants • Increased budget flexibility • No cost time extensions • Pre-award costs • Carry-forward across continuation years • Technical progress reports / minimal continuation proposals • Revised OMB A-110

10. Phase II Survey • A survey on the impact of these expanded authorities on principal investigators produced striking results-73% of the time saved by PI’s was redirected to research.

11. Highlights of Phase III • Electronic Research Administration (ERA) • Cost Sharing and Effort Reporting • Award Terms and Conditions • Subawards

12. FDP Phase I - III • Accomplishments • Expanded Authorities • Clarification of OMB circulars • Federal government and institutions realized cost savings • Simplified terms & conditions

13. FDP Phase IV • Participating Federal Agencies • National Science Foundation (NSF) • National Institutes of Health (NIH) • Office of Naval Research (ONR) • Department of Energy (DOE) • Department of Agriculture (DOA) • Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR) • Army Research Office (ARO) • Army Medical Research & Materials Command (AMRMC) • National Aeronautics & Space Administration (NASA) • Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

14. FDP Phase IV • Specific Terms and conditions for FDP member institutions • Only pertain to Federal grants • Apply only to Federal Agencies participating in FDP • Typically apply only to new or competing renewals awarded after September 2002

15. Phase IV Electronic Research Administration (ERA) • Issue: • Each Federal Agency wanted to create their own system based on their individual forms • Universities created their own ERA systems • Universities and Federal Agencies kept recreating the wheel

16. Phase IV Electronic Research Administration (ERA) • Solution: • E-grants (www.grants.gov) • Standard Data Elements • Web based • One stop portal for Federal grant proposal submission and award administration • Expected to be completed by October 2003

17. Phase IV Top Policy Issues • Common electronic standards for proposal/award and payment processes • Compliance issues including costs, development of education & training modules, and Institutional Conflict of Interest policies. • Cost Sharing and Effort Reporting • Sub-Awards and Contracts

18. Phase IV Top Policy Issues • Post 9-11 • Security and compliance • Student Visas • Additional policies and burden

19. FDP Faculty Involvement • It gives academic researchers an opportunity to inject the faculty perspective into research administration issues, as well as a forum to take on broad issues of interest to the research community, such as research outcome measures, the interrelationship of teaching and research, and voluntary, uncompensated effort contributed to federally funded research projects

20. FDP Research Administration Involvement • For administrators it offers a chance to help change federal policies and practices that may appear redundant or burdensome through open dialogue with their federal partners and through use of a standard set of grant provisions for all participating federal agencies

21. FDP Federal Government Involvement • For federal agencies the FDP is a realworld laboratory for developing and testing innovations

22. FDP Benefits • For the nation, the FDP saves taxpayer’s dollars and lets researchers concentrate on research • Find out more at : www.thefdp.org

23. Brown Bag Training Session • March – To be Announced • Cost Sharing Basics • Pro’s and Con’s