Electronic Submission of Administrative Supplement and Change of Institution Requests

1. Electronic Submission of Administrative Supplement and Change of Institution Requests David Curren and Emily Linde Office of Policy for Extramural Research Administration

2. Background • All new grant applications eligible for electronic submission are received through Grants.gov using the SF424 (R&R). • Some post-award applications cannot be submitted electronically and utilize paper-based PHS 398 forms. • Type 7 Changes of Institution • Type 3 Administrative Supplement Requests • NIH is looking for ways to accept these requests electronically.

3. Today’s Goal Collect Initial Feedback Before Performing Detailed Analysis or Development Work • Identify Pros and Cons to various approaches from the grantee perspective. • Discuss which approach best meets the applicable business needs. • Identify issues for future implementation discussions after we finalize which approach will work best.

4. Electronic Submission of Administrative Supplements Type 3s

5. Proposed Solutions for Type 3 – Administrative Supplements • Potential Solution 1: Create a generic “Administrative Supplement” FOA in Grants.gov grantees can use to request funds using the SF424 (R&R) package • Potential Solution 2: Create an eRA Commons module that can accept these requests and take advantage of existing grant data already in NIH systems.

6. Potential Grants.gov Solution – Proposed Design • Generic FOA for administrative supplements will be posted to Grants.gov. • Will include all SF424 (R&R) forms grantees potentially need • Utilize minimal validations since it would apply to so many activity codes. • Applicants will need to provide title and grant number of parent grant on application. • Budget will be based on new request, not based on original budget.

7. Potential Grants.gov Solution – Proposed Design • Application will be submitted through Grants.gov and will be viewable in the eRA Commons, per the usual process. • NIH will route the application directly to the awarding IC (and notify the proper NIH staff) who will consider the request.

8. Potential Grants.gov Solution – Pros and Cons • Pros • Uses the same process for all application types. • Does not require applicants to learn new system. • Infrastructure already in place; development only needed to adapt system to new use. • Easier for S2S users to accommodate. • Cons • Increased burden of requiring full SF424 applications from users • NIH flexibility greatly reduced • Continues reliance on Grants.gov system.

9. Potential eRA Commons Solution – Proposed Design • PD/PIs or AOs will access an existing grant on the Commons and see a link/button to the Supplement Request module • Module will include downloadable copy of the 424 forms or web-based form system for data entry. • PD/PI can fill out but only AO can submit • NIH will route the application directly to the awarding IC (and notify the proper NIH staff) who will consider the request.

10. Potential eRA Commons Solution – Pros and Cons • Pros • NIH will have flexibility of owning system. • Access to existing NIH grant data could be used to simplify application process. • Potentially more “user-friendly” than G.g system. • Cons • Requires different system than other applications • Duplicates existing Grants.gov functions and requires creation of new infrastructure to create and accept applications. • S2S users may have difficulty accommodating.

11. Potential Grants.gov Solution – Additional Questions • Overall, would one or both of these be an improvement over the current paper-based system? • Are there any show-stoppers to these approaches? • What are your biggest concerns to these approaches? • What are the largest benefits to these approaches?

12. Electronic Submission of Change of Institution Requests Type 7s

13. Potential Grants.Gov Solution for Type 7 – Change of Institution • Potential Solution 1: Create a generic “Change of Institution” FOA in Grants.gov grantees can use to request funds using the SF424 (R&R) package. • Same as for type 3s except: • Old institution would have to submit the PHS 3734 Relinquishing Statement separately, probably through the eRA Commons.

14. Potential Grants.gov Solution Pros and Cons • Pros • Same as type 3 • Cons • Same as type 3 except • Due to form constraints can’t submit budgets in non-modular increments and most T7s are no longer in modular increments. • System would not handle the PHS 3734, which would be submitted separately through the eRA Commons.

15. Potential eRA Commons Solution for Type 7 – Change of Institution Potential Solution 2: Create an eRA Commons module that can accept Type 7 applications and PHS 3734 and potentially take advantage of existing grant data already in NIH systems. • Same as for type 3s except: • Old institution would have to submit the PHS 3734 separately but this would be integrated into the same eRA Commons Module.

16. Potential eRA Commons Solution Pros and Cons • Pros • Same as type 3 except • System can handle submission of both the T7 application and PHS 3734 Relinquishing Statement in the same module. • Could potentially be programmed to handle budgets initially submitted as modular but no longer in modular increments. • Cons • Same as type 3

17. Potential Grants.gov Solution – Additional Questions • Overall, would one or both of these be an improvement over the current paper-based system? • Are there any show-stoppers to these approaches? • What are your biggest concerns to these approaches? • What are the largest benefits to these approaches?

18. Questions?