Federal Demonstration Partnership (FDP) Overview and Updates from January 2018 Meeting

1. Federal Demonstration Partnership (FDP)Overview and Updates from January 2018 Meeting Melissa Korf and Melissa Maher SPA/Office of Research Administration Harvard Medical School February 14, 2017

2. What is the FDP? Researchers doing science, not administration! The Federal Demonstration Partnership (FDP) is an association of federal agencies, academic research institutions… and research policy organizations that work to streamline the administration of federallysponsored research. … The goal of improving theproductivity of research without compromising its stewardship has benefits for the entire nation. The FDP uniquely offers a forum for individuals from universities and nonprofits to work collaboratively with federal agency officials to improve the national research enterprise. At its regular meetings, faculty and administrators talk face-to-face with decision-makers from agencies that sponsor and regulate research. They… test new ways of doing things in the real world before putting them into effect. 154 institutional recipients of federal funds and 10 Federal Agencies

4. What kind of activities does the FDP do? • At its regular meetings, faculty and administrators talk face-to-face with decision-makers from agencies that sponsor and regulate research. • Test new ways of doing things in the real world before putting them into effect. • Information exchange – common practices shared. • Examples of successes: • FDP Subaward Agreement template • Standard Government-wide Terms and Conditions (what we now know as the Research Terms and Conditions began with the FDP!) • FDP FCOI Clearinghouse • Expanded Clearinghouse

5. Updates on current FDP activities and January 2018 meeting FDP Meets 3 times per year: January, May, and September

6. January 2018 Agency Updates - NIH • Reminder that as of 10/1/2017, the Project Outcomes section of the final and interim RPPRs will be made publically available via the RePORTER. These sections should not include any confidential information and be written for a lay audience. • Reminder that we must now be careful to submit to the correct funding opportunity based on whether or not the proposal is for a clinical trial (under NIH’s new, broader definition).

7. January 2018 Agency Updates - NSF • Most recent version of the Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) posted in October 2017 with an effective date of January 29,2018. NSF will not revise the PAPPG again in October 2018. • Modernizing Account Management: System enhancements to be released March 26th will allow NSF to enforce each individual having a single NSF ID. • Proposal Submission Modernization: Effective April 2018, proposers will be able to prepare and submit non-collaborative proposals in research.gov. Preview will be available in February 2018.

8. “Rigor and Transparency of Scientific Research” Mike Lauer (Deputy Director for Extramural Research, NIH) • Dr. Lauer's full presentation slides • Small samples, regression to the mean, prior probability, multiple comparisons, and mis-understood P-values all contribute to challenges with the rigor and reproducibility of research. • There is an ethical component – it’s wasteful, especially when human or animal subjects are involved. • NIH’s approach to Rigor and Reproducibility focuses on 4 key components: • Premise – The scientific premise forming the basis of the proposed research • Design – Rigorous experimental design for robust unbiased results • Variables – Consideration of relevant biological variables • Authentication – Authentication of key biological and/or chemical resources

9. FDP Expanded Clearinghouse

10. Tell me more about the Expanded Clearinghouse! • Link: https://fdpclearinghouse.org/ • Reviewed 133 Subrecipient Commitment forms from FDP member institutions to develop the list of information that would be included in each entity profile. • Each profile includes data about the entity's most recent Single Audit, F&A, and fringe benefit rates as well as suspension and debarment, PHS financial conflict of interest policy status, Federal Wide Assurance number, other compliance-related information, and a wide variety of federal codes (DUNS, EIN, CAGE, etc.) and contact information (senior authorized official, FFATA, Financial, billing, COI, etc.) that are commonly needed for various types of subawards. • If you are asked to complete a Subrecipient Commitment form in connection with a Subaward proposal, first ask if the other institution will accept a link to our Expanded Clearinghouse profile instead!

11. Subaward Agreement templates Development Process • Generally updated once per year, in September • FDP work group proposes updates and incorporates feedback from members • Additional updates may be made on an as-needed basis for major changes such as new laws or regulations that would change the terms (i.e. Uniform Guidance) • Modifications to these templates is NOT permitted • HMS reviews and comes up with guidelines for drafting before adopting Major changes for 2018 • Overall content generally the same • Update to invoice language: Sub must submit invoices “not more often than monthly and not less frequently than quarterly.” This does not require $0 invoices if no expenses (face page) • Choice to require final statement of costs at end of Project Period or Budget Period (face page) • Federal Award Date, FAIN, CFDA, and Key Personnel spaces added to Attachment 2 • Attachment 3 reorganized to emphasize data needed for FFATA reporting, simplify completion • Carryforward terms moved to Attachment 4 • Separate FDP group working on model for subs under federal contracts (not a fixed template)

12. Faculty Workload Survey • Third Faculty Workload Survey is kicking off now; Harvard is one of over 100 other institutions participating. Approximately 50,000 faculty across the country will receive the survey to complete. • The purpose of the survey is to collect data on how much time is spent on administrative activities rather than research and identify priority areas for reduction of administrative burden. • If we have enough participation, we will be able to receive our own institution-specific report of the results. Results from previous surveys have even been referenced in congressional hearings on the need to reduce administrative burden! • OVPR will create a draft communication that individual schools can send to faculty to let them know about the survey and encourage participation.