1 / 28

DGA Community Meeting December 13, 2011

DGA Community Meeting December 13, 2011. DGA Community Meeting: Agenda December 13, 2011. Welcome and Introductions. Sponsored Project Records Retention Kira Homo, Electronic Record Archivist. Vendors vs. Subrecipients How do you decide? Liz Denecke. Subrecipient. Subrecipient.

ramya
Download Presentation

DGA Community Meeting December 13, 2011

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. DGA Community MeetingDecember 13, 2011

  2. DGA Community Meeting: AgendaDecember 13, 2011

  3. Welcome and Introductions

  4. Sponsored Project Records RetentionKira Homo, Electronic Record Archivist

  5. Vendors vs. SubrecipientsHow do you decide?Liz Denecke

  6. Subrecipient

  7. Subrecipient

  8. Subrecipient

  9. Vendor

  10. Vendor

  11. Vendor

  12. Budget Tips • SPS FY2011 Annual Report • Posted to the SPS website • BUDGET TIP • If the Party meets the definition of a Subrecipient, BUDGET this cost under the sub-award/sub-contract line item. • BUDGET TIP • If the Party meets the definition of a Vendor above, then BUDGET the Vendor under the supplies, consultants, or other line item.

  13. Example 1 • 1. University wants to agree to co-host a conference with another organization. The organization does not typically meet the definition of a Vendor, e.g. Nonprofit or university. The statement of work provides that the Organization would coordinate the production of meeting materials, conference meals, conference meeting rooms and AV equipment. UO was to reimburse Organization for half of those costs.

  14. Conclusion 1 • 1. We concluded this was a procurement. Even though Organization is not a Vendor, University was not transferring any programmatic effort to Organization.

  15. Example 2 • 2. A colleague at a private institution has effort on a project and a statement of work that states he/she will be obtaining, analyzing and interpreting data. The UO PI wants to list this colleague as a Co-PI on the project. The collaborating institution prefers to be paid via a PSC.

  16. Conclusion 2 • 2. We concluded that this was a subaward relationship and therefore the Co-PI should be paid via a subaward. The preference of the collaborating institution is not determinative.

  17. Example 3 • 3. A project requires software specific to the purpose of the award. The software must be developed, and the development is to be performed by a professor at another institution. That institution has responsibility for making decisions about how to develop the software to specifically meet the purpose of the project.

  18. Conclusion 3 • 3. We concluded this was a subaward: The second institution had responsibility for making programmatic decisions in developing the software that would be central to the overall success of the project.

  19. Example(s) 4. Three SD contracts • Example 4.A: • School District (SD) will provide publicity, rooms, equipment, food/refreshments and parking for workshops. UO will reimburse SD for costs associated with providing those items. • SD will arrange for substitute teachers to replace teachers while the teachers attend the workshops. UO will reimburse SD for the cost of the substitute teachers.

  20. Conclusions (4) SD contracts • Example 4.A. We concluded this was a procurement. There was no programmatic effort.

  21. Example(s) 4. Three SD contracts • Example 4.B: • SD will allow UO staff access to students for testing. • SD will help UO staff schedule teachers for professional development training. • SD will give UO demographic data. • UO will reimburse SD for substitute teachers to cover teachers while in the development trainings. • UO will pay SD teachers an incentive for providing trainings.

  22. Conclusions (4) SD contracts • Example 4.B. We concluded this was a procurement. There was no programmatic effort.

  23. Example(s) 4. Three SD contracts • Example 4.C: • SD staff will communicate weekly with UO Staff. • SD will assist with implementing UO research activities in SD schools. • SD will assist in development of research protocols and materials. • SD will assist in the analyses, reporting and dissemination of project results. • UO will reimburse for substitute teacher costs to free up teachers to participate in the project. • UO will reimburse for extended contract hours for teachers to participate in the project. • UO will reimburse SD for project materials.

  24. Conclusions (4) SD contracts • Example 4.C. We concluded this was a subaward because the SD assumed programmatic activities that would be central to accomplishing the intellectual purpose of the grant.

  25. STILL UNSURE WHETHER A PARTY IS A VENDOR OR A SUBRECIPIENT?

  26. Post-Award General Updates

  27. Post-Award General Updates • SPS FY2011 Annual Report • Posted to the SPS website • Post-Award Associate Director Candidate • Friday – this week! – 1:30 – 2:00 PM • ORSA (SPS) Conference Room • DGA Community Training: Cost Transfers • Review why Cost Transfers are so “high risk” • Discuss how to best complete the Cost Transfer Justification Form • Review some tips and tricks for using the UO systems – PHAREDS and JVs!

  28. Pre-Award General Updates

More Related