ORS Quarterly Grants Managers Meeting

1. ORS Quarterly Grants Managers Meeting 05/15/14

2. Three Year Trend: 5/14

3. Rebudgeting Scenarios • Review GLs 099600 and 099800 • Heather Quadlin • NSF Updates • Formatting Matters • The Two-months Rule • Keith Hurka-Owen • SPS on the Web: Rollout • Susan Lasley • Various Updates • OSA—Sponsored Projects • FDP—Subrecipient Monitoring Agenda

4. Rebudgeting Scenarios • Review GLs 099600 and 099800 • Heather Quadlin Agenda

5. 099600--This G/L account is used for two primary purposes: • To reduce the amount of the award by the amount the sponsor will not be awarding. • To increase the amount of the budget by the amount awarded when no budget has been submitted. Rebudgting Scenarios

6. The sponsor cuts our $100,000 budget by $5,000. • Our PI has been told that the $5,000 will come in on a future modification. • OSP has a budget for the original $100,000. • What happens in SAP? Rebudgting Scenarios

7. Current Practice • 099600-Restricted Amount • 600000- Administrative Effort • 610000-Fringe Benefits • 645000-Lab &Research • Total Budget • 5,000 • 60,000 • 20,000 • 20,000 • $95,000 Rebudgting Scenarios

8. Departmental Options The Award Comes in • Option 1: Don’t do anything. • ORS processes the modification and sends it to OSP. • OSP removes the restricted amount from 0996. • Budget total is $100,000. Rebudgting Scenarios

9. Departmental Options From To • 55,000 • 20,000 • 20,000 • $95,000 • Option 2: Rebudget the restricted amount to another category. • 5,000 • 60,000 • 20,000 • 20,000 • $95,000 Rebudgting Scenarios

10. Departmental Options The Award Comes in • Option 2a: Rebudgetthe restricted amount to another category. • The Department submits a budget for $5,000 to ORS. • ORS processes the modification and sends it to OSP. • OSP keys the budget as it normally would. • Budget total is now $100,000. Rebudgting Scenarios

11. Departmental Options The Award Comes in • Option 2b: Rebudgetthe restricted amount to another category. • ORS processes the modification without a budget and sends it to OSP. • OSP adds the $5,000 to 099600 pending plan from the department. • The Department uses the rebudgeting tool to redistribute the funds. Rebudgting Scenarios

12. Current Practice • 099600-Restricted Amount • 600000- Administrative Effort • 610000-Fringe Benefits • 645000-Lab &Research • Total Budget • 5,000 • 55,000 • 20,000 • 20,000 • $100,000 Rebudgting Scenarios

13. Formatting Matters. • The Two-months Rule. NSF Updates

14. ORS Proposal Review (Required) • Cover page or application form • Proposal abstract (draft) • Budget (final) • Budget justification (final) • PI and co-PI signatures on page 3 (Assurances) of the DPAF printed from SPS • Forms required by the sponsor, including certifications and representations • Subcontract endorsements, subrecipient checklist, budget and justification, and statements of work, FCOI, and certifications and representations if applicable • Request for Cost Sharing Form, if applicable • Conflict of interest disclosures, if applicable NSF Updates

15. ORS Proposal Review (Required) • FY2000 • ORS located in the North Building (previously housed in the Allen Building). • ORS entered all proposal data in SPS. • Targeted NIH and NSF form sets. • NSF moves to FastLane. • Last minute reviews. • Never, or rarely if ever saw the whole proposal. • The department or PI had to put all of the pieces together, run the copies and get it in the mail. NSF Updates

16. Fastlane Rollout • FY2001 (Fall) • Fundamentally changed the game. • Submitters had to convert files into pdfs. • Early Career Deadline (2002)—one day. • Now spread out over 3 days. • Proposal routes to ORS for final review and approval. (We hit the button). • Suddenly ORS has to become much more interested in the other pieces of the proposals. • Proliferation of systems puts more pressure on all of us to get things submitted correctly. NSF Updates

17. Formatting Matters. • Second set of eyes never hurts. • ORS will try to scan for issues in the entire proposal, but only if we have enough time. • When pressed for time, then we will review what we’re required to review and rely on the PI and the Department for the rest. NSF Updates

18. Formatting Matters. Rejection Reasons. • Broader Impacts not discussed in adequate depth. • Proper format for prior results not followed—omitted some of the required data points. • use of “et al” instead of listing all co-authorsin references cited. • Biosketches: • Exceeding 2 page limit. • 6 synergistic activities instead of 5. • Documents included in Appendices when not required by the FOA. NSF Updates

19. The Two-months Rule. NSF Updates

20. The Two-months Rule. • NSF limits faculty compensation to 2/9ths. • Senior Personnel • Anyone who will be responsible for the scientific or technical direction of the project. • Any individual considered by the performing institution to be a member of its faculty or who holds an appointment as a faculty member at another institution, and who will participate in the project being supported. • Anyone who is considered a faculty member. NSF Updates

21. The Two-months Rule. • Scenario One • Faculty member X is a PI on two NSF grants. • Grant A has a budget year from January to December • Grant B has a budget year from October to September. • 2 months charged to grant A: July and August--2013 • 2 months charged to grant B: May and June--2014 NSF Updates

22. The Two-months Rule. • Duke’s fiscal year dominates. • The PI can receive not more than 2 months during Duke’s fiscal year: July—June. NSF Updates

23. The Two-months Rule. • Scenario Two: • PI on an NSF grant wants to include a newly hired assistant professor on her grant. • The recently hired faculty member was not named on the awarded budget. • Does the salary limitation apply? NSF Updates

24. SPS on the Web: Rollout

25. RAD has no experience with web application usage demands like we expect with SPS Web. • Performance could degrade if the number of users is increased too rapidly. • RAD has done its best to beef up servers in anticipation of an increase number users. • RAD will closely monitor the system to ensure that it handles the new demands. • Gradual rollout will allow for time to make adjustments should issues arise. SPS on the Web: Rollout

26. ORS will coordinate with Departments to develop a rollout list. • Phased rollout will begin in early July. • Goal: all Departments brought on-line by October. • Legacy SPS user access will disappear for a majority of people. • Central offices will retain Legacy SPS access. SPS on the Web: Rollout

27. OSA—Sponsored Projects • FDP—Subrecipient Monitoring Various Updates

28. OSA—Sponsored Projects • ORS, ORA, OSP and Procurement are developing a new OSA for sponsored projects. • Driver: Close Out • Must include an “invoice by” date to meet new close out requirements. • 60 days after expiration of the grant Duke may no longer be able to draw down funds. • Reminder: Please use the current sponsored projects form to hire consultants. • Reminder: Please use buy@duke with G/L codes 6220 (professional services--individual) or 6916 (contract work--company) as appropriate. Various Updates

29. FDP—Subrecipient Monitoring • Unified Guidance: OMB Circular A-81 • AKA: Various Updates

30. FDP—Subrecipient Monitoring UG! Various Updates

31. FDP—Subrecipient Monitoring • Subaward Committee Working Groups • Subrecipient Monitoring. • Purchasing/Procurement. • Admin/clerical salaries. Various Updates

32. Q and A