1

THE FEDERAL DEMONSTRATION PARTNERSHIP

PHASE V UPDATE

NECA Conference, August 21, 2012

What is the FDP?• The FDP is a cooperative effort among federal research

agencies, universities and other research organizations aimed at streamlining and improving the federal/university research support relationship and reducing administrative burden.

• The National Academy of Science’s Government-University-Industry Research Roundtable (GUIRR) serves as the neutral convener and secretariat of the FDP.

• The FDP began in 1988 as the Florida Demonstration Project and is now entering Phase V which will extend through 2014.

3

FDP MISSION STATEMENTThe mission of the FDP is to examine, improve and streamline the administrative processes involved in

the competitive appointment, allocation and management of federal funds which support research

activities at institutions of higher education throughout the country. This supports the primary goal of streamlining with accountability to decrease

researcher time focused on administrative requirements and so maximize the time available for

research.

Institutional Members

• 119 Research Organizations– Large, Medium & Small Research Universities– Emerging Research Institutions (ERI)– Hospitals– Independent Research Organizations

Federal Agencies• 10 Federal Agencies

– National Institutes of Health– National Science Foundation– Office of Naval Research– US Department of Agriculture– National Aeronautics and Space Administration– Army Research Office– Air Force Office of Scientific Research– Army Medical Research and Material Command – Environmental Protection Agency– US Department of Homeland Security

Affiliate Organizations

• 7 Affiliate Organizations– National Council of University Research

Administrators (NCURA)– Society of Research Administrators (SRA)– Council on Governmental Relations (COGR)– Association of Independent Research Institutes (AIRI)– American Association of State Colleges and

Universities (AASCU)– Association of American Universities (AAU)– National Organization of Research Development

Professionals (NORDP)

7

MEETINGS

• Three meetings per year

• Format of the meetings is informal utilizing– Broad plenary sessions– Break out sessions for working groups,

committee and task force meetings– Networking opportunities

8

PARTICIPATION• Being a member of the FDP is about participation.

• All members are encouraged to join and be active participants in standing committees and task forces.

• Participation from the floor during general sessions is always encouraged and ample time is provided for questions and comments.

• The membership, by design, is diverse so as to represent all parties affected by new research funding and administrative requirements.

9

FACULTY AT FDP• Faculty representation at FDP was introduced in

Phase III and this group is still evolving although its influence and participation has grown significantly over the last two phases.

• The faculty representatives elect a Co-Chair of their standing committee who also sits on the Executive Committee along with the Chair.

• The Faculty Chair serves as the Vice-Chair of the Executive Committee.

10

FDP STANDING COMMITTEES

• Executive Committee• Operational Standing Committees

– Membership• Mentoring Initiative

– Finance• FDP Foundation• Investment strategies

– Communications• Update Promotional Material and Website• Social Media Initiatives

11

FDP STANDING COMMITTEES

• Functional Standing Committees– Faculty

• Update of Faculty Workload Survey• Export Controls/Select Agents/Biosafety• Growing Burden Associated with Compliance Activities• Published Family Workplace Initiative Report

– Electronic Research Administration (ERA)• Joint Application Design (JAD) Team providing information to

Grants.gov• Collaborating with Compusearch on FedConnect issues• SCIenCV Demonstration• InCommon SSO – Single Sign-on for Agency Portals

FDP STANDING COMMITTEES (cont’d)

• Functional Standing Committees– Research Administration Committee

• Open Government Subcommittee• Contracts (Troublesome Clauses Study Phase II)• Subawards Task Force (FFATA Implementation, Subrecipient Monitoring A-

133)• STAR METRICS Working Group• Published report on actual costs of ARRA awards

– Finance, Audit and Costing Committee• Project Certification Pilot Project• Direct-charging of Administrative Costs

– Research Compliance Committee• Human Subjects Subcommittee• Animal Care and Use Subcommittee• Conflict of Interest• Export Controls

13

Success Stories

• Expanded Authorities

• Faculty Burden Survey

• Subaward Agreement

• Standard Government-wide Terms and Conditions

• Emerging Research Institutions GUIRR Partnership Workshop

• STAR METRICS Pilot Demonstration

• FDP as key sounding board for Research Business Models Subcommittee of the Committee on Science, grants.gov, research.gov, etc.

• Report on family and parental benefits available to research trainees

Current Projects• Research Administration

– Troublesome Clauses – STAR Metrics Working Group– FFATA Reporting – Open Government

• Research Compliance– IRB Exempt Status Decision Tool– Human Subjects Practical Guide to Reduce Burden– Financial Conflict of Interest (FCOI) Clearinghouse

• Costing and Audit– Project Certification Demonstration

• Faculty– Faculty Workload Survey II

• ERA– Grants.gov – Joint Application Design – TeamSCIenCV Demonstration

Troublesome Clauses– Created to gather evidence of inconsistent

applications of terms & conditions in research grants & contracts

– Data from Phase I was used by COGR & AAU to publish white paper

– DoD used data to align practices across agencies– Used by members as a reference for negotiating

clauses– Data from Phase II is now being analyzed for new

trends

Grants.gov Initiative

• Joint Application Design Team– FDP ERA committee working with Grants.gov

to deliver the applicant perspective and priorities for fixes and new development

– Focusing on System-to-System issues, Forms and Documentation

– Helps test system changes before they are moved into production

STAR METRICS• SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY FOR AMERICA’S

REINVESTMENT: Measuring the Effect of Research on Innovation, Competitiveness and Science – Collects data from various sources to document the

outcomes of science investments to the public– Build on this information in future to allow for

measurement of science impact on economic outcomes, scientific outcomes, and social outcomes

– Gathers information from existing sources with minimal effort once the feeds are set up

– Level II data expansion

Project Certification• Effort Certification Alternative

– Purpose: to make effort certification a more relevant and effective process in the management of sponsored research awards.

– Process being piloted: require certification of all direct effort allocated to a sponsored award on an annual basis and at the end of the project. The annual cycle being defined by the project anniversary date.

– Currently there are four FDP schools that have submitted proposals to their cognizant federal agency under OMB Circular A-21.

• George Mason University• Michigan Technical University• UC Irvine• UC Riverside

– Federal IG’s to review pilot in 2013

19

Project CertificationDescription Effort Reports Payroll Certification

Certification focus Individuals Grant/Contract (award)

Certification Cycle Academic semesters or semi/annual fiscal periods

End of each award budget year (every 12 mos.) and at the end of the award

Approver Individual or PI PI

Confirmation focusIndividual’s percentage of effort is reasonable basedon overall effort

All salaries/wages directly charged to the award are reasonable based on work performed

Type of funds All sponsored funds Federal funds

20

Project Certification

UniversityIndividual Effort Reports per yr

(approx)

Total R&D Expenditures

2009

Federal R&D Expenditures

2009

George Mason U. 2,700/yr $78.5M $55.7M

Michigan Tech. U. 6,700/yr $58.4M $27.0M

U. CA - Irvine 10,500/yr $325.5M $177.1M

U. CA - Riverside 5,058/yr $130.2M $54.0M

21

Project Certification

University Individual Effort Reports(approx)

Individual project Payroll Certification Reports

(approx)

George Mason Univ. 2,700 / yr 700 / yr

Michigan Tech Univ. 6,700 / yr 700 / yr

Univ. of CA - Irvine 10,500 / yr 1,400 / yr

Univ. of CA - Riverside 5,058 / yr. 752 / yr

Faculty Burden Survey II• FBS II

– The survey was conducted in January and February

– Engaging the same company as the first survey to publish the survey and gather the data

– Over 17,000 respondents– Data has been cleaned and analysis in

ongoing– Report should be published by the end of the

year

Research Compliance

• IRB Exempt Status Decision Tool• HS Common Rule Harmonization Project• IRB Practical Guide to Reducing

Regulatory Burden• JIT Procedures for Animal Care

Subaward Working Group

• FFATA Coordination– Revised and clarified Subaward Template

• Revised Subaward Templates– Updated Agency-specific attachments

(including new NIH COI requirements)

• On-going encouragement to use Templates where applicable

Conflict of Interest Project

• FDP Model COI Policy and Disclosure Form

– For potential adoption by subrecipients who may not have their own policy

•FDP Clearinghouse for FCOI Compliance Certification

– Open to FDP Members– Open to Non-FDP members

27

28

29

30

QUESTIONS