News & Announcements Archive
SOMOGC News & Announcements - 2025
Meeting Recording
- Passcode: QK$bC*1$
ZOOM AI Meeting Summary
Quick recap
The meeting covered various aspects of compliance and research administration, including discussions on training modules, IRB processes, and potential changes to funding mechanisms for foreign entities. The team explored ways to streamline grant-related research processes and addressed concerns about potential cost-cutting measures and their impact on operations. They also discussed the implications of recent NIH notices and the evolving landscape of research funding, concluding with plans to work on the M guide for the following week.
Next steps
• Linda to ask admins to keep a tally of IRB protocols that don’t have assurance forms.
• Lauren to reach out to OSP for clarification on the new NIH notice regarding foreign sub-awards.
• Lauren to update the meeting schedule with additional sessions for the cost transfer module and FAFADA M-Guide.
• Research administrators to explore alternative funding sources (e.g., corporate foundation relations, development) for faculty affected by potential funding changes.
• All attendees to stay informed about upcoming changes to NIH and NSF funding policies.
Summary
Compliance Module and IRB Approval
Lauren led a small group meeting, discussing the compliance module and its various areas of focus. Suzanne mentioned accidentally completing next week’s module for this week, but appreciated the assessment being integrated into the module. Lauren planned to add extra meetings and modules to the end of the series. The group discussed the overlap between compliance modules and the importance of consistency. Alex raised concerns about the IRB approval process, particularly with expedited reviews. Lauren mentioned a new pattern where the IRB is no longer providing the assurance form, instead referring to a screenshot of IRB Pro.
Improving Grant Research Approval Process
Alex and Lauren discussed the need for a more efficient and structured process for handling grant-related research, particularly in relation to human subjects. They agreed that the current system, which often requires lengthy approval processes, can be a hindrance to research progress. They suggested the creation of a separate committee or group to review protocols related to funded awards, which could potentially expedite the process. They also discussed the need to raise this issue through the VPR to the IRB and to advocate for a more flexible approach to grant reviews. The conversation ended with the suggestion that a new investigator compliance training related to research data security would be launched soon.
New Training and Foreign Grant Rumors
Lauren informed the team about a new training that will be required for all Amrs and new awards, which will be held until the training is completed. She also mentioned that the training will have to be repeated every few years. Linda suggested that the team’s admins keep a record of studies without assurance forms for documentation. Amber brought up rumors about cutting funds to foreign grants, to which Lauren responded that there was a notice from Nih about their intention to change the structure of awarding funds.
Foreign Subaward Mechanism Changes Discussed
Lauren, Alex, and Amber discussed the potential changes in the subaward mechanism for foreign entities. They agreed that the proposed changes would eliminate the subaward mechanism entirely and issue direct dual awards, similar to the Dod partnering PI type of situation. They also discussed the increased administrative work and potential transparency issues with the new system. The team questioned the logic behind the changes, particularly the potential impact on the Federal and Administrative (F&A) rate. They also discussed the potential impact on ongoing subawards and the possibility of not issuing awards that include a subaward to a foreign entity.
Cost-Cutting Measures and Operational Impact
The team discussed the potential cost-cutting measures and the impact of these changes on their operations. They considered the possibility of moving certain tasks to other departments and the potential savings this could bring. However, they also acknowledged the extra work this might entail. The team also discussed the potential legal implications of these changes and the need for careful planning. They also touched on the potential impact of these changes on their collaborations and the need to adapt to new workflows.
NIH Notice and Funding Strategies
Lauren expressed uncertainty about the implications of a recent notice from NIH, stating that there was no clear plan or guidance. Alex advised staying the course and not making significant changes based on the notice, as it could change again in a week. Alex also suggested that research administrators should help faculty find new avenues for funding, as the world of research funding is evolving. The team agreed to start working on the M guide for the next week.
AI-generated content may be inaccurate or misleading. Always check for accuracy.
Meeting Recording
- Passcode: %Q1PcxDX
ZOOM AI Meeting Summary
Quick recap
Lauren and Suzanne discussed the completion of the Research Development module and the process of obtaining certificates for each module completed. They also discussed the role of research development in universities, particularly in the context of Virginia Tech and UVA, and the current state of government funding. The team agreed to continue with the schedule for the levelup module, with the next meeting on June 27th, and to play it by ear for the following weeks.
Next steps
• Lauren to update the meeting schedule to include the new cost transfers module and the additional M Guide on FAFETA.
• Lauren to extend the meeting schedule through July 11th, skipping June 20th and July 4th.
• All attendees to review the compliance module for next week’s meeting.
• All attendees to be more vigilant about including foreign justifications in future grant proposals, even for seemingly minor foreign involvement.
• Lauren to update the calendar invite with the new meeting dates.
Summary
Module Completion and Certificate Discussion
Lauren and Suzanne discussed the Research Development module and its completion. Suzanne inquired about the overall certificate for completing all modules, including past ones. Lauren clarified that individual certificates are awarded for each module completed, and there might be an acknowledgement for completing all of them. Suzanne was considering whether to complete the remaining past modules for her CRA recertification hours. Lauren suggested that the modules could still be available for completion in the future, but the access would need to be monitored based on need.
Research Development in Universities Challenges
Lauren and Suzanne discussed the role of research development in universities, particularly in the context of Virginia Tech and UVA. Lauren explained that while there are elements of research development happening at the department level, it is not as focused and intensive as described in a certain module. She also mentioned that the research and development office under the VPR is still trying to find its mission and scope. Kim and Lauren discussed the current state of government funding, with Lauren noting that they have not received new awards for a couple of weeks but are seeing steady continuations. They also discussed the potential for more awards being cancelled or reduced in funding. Lauren shared that the School of Medicine has had five proposals rejected due to lack of foreign justification, and they are now scrutinizing all letters of support for any foreign involvement.
Levelup Module Schedule and Cost Transfers
Lauren discussed the upcoming schedule for the levelup module, including the addition of a new module for cost transfers and the need to extend the schedule. She also considered the possibility of pausing the schedule for the summer, but decided to continue with the current plan. The team agreed to continue with the schedule, with the next meeting on June 27th, and to play it by ear for the following weeks.
AI-generated content may be inaccurate or misleading. Always check for accuracy.
Meeting Recording
- Passcode: Yd8DSV.#
ZOOM AI Meeting Summary
Quick recap
The meeting focused on research development and its applicability to administrative roles, with discussions on the Research and Development office’s services and the use of funding opportunity databases. Participants shared experiences and suggestions for improving research support, including creating a bank of researchers’ interests and joining professional networks. The team also addressed platform navigation issues and agreed to continue their discussion on remaining research and development modules in the next meeting.
Next steps
• All attendees to review the Research Development module in LevelUp before the next meeting.
• All attendees to consider joining the Community of Research Development (CORD) listserv and attending their monthly meetings.
• All attendees to ensure they are subscribed to the Limited Submission Opportunities listserv.
• All attendees to explore the Grant Forward database for funding opportunities relevant to their faculty.
• All attendees to consider creating short research focus blurbs for their faculty to share with Corporate Foundation Relations.
• All attendees to check out the Corporate Foundation Relations “Find Funding” section on their website.
Summary
Research Development Module Navigation
Lauren led a discussion on the topic of research development, which some participants found applicable to their work. However, others, like Shawn, were still in the process of completing another module. Vita expressed confusion about the module’s location in the platform, which Lauren attributed to recent changes in the platform’s organization. The group acknowledged the need for more intuitive navigation in the platform.
Research Development for Administrators
Lauren initiated a discussion about the applicability of research development to their day-to-day roles as administrators. Kim and Alex shared their experiences with the Research and Development office, highlighting the office’s role in networking and its potential for strategic development. They also discussed the office’s services, including corporate foundation relations and the importance of diversifying funding sources. Alex suggested creating a bank of researchers’ areas of interest to facilitate connections with potential sponsors.
Foundation Progress Report Requirements Discussed
In the meeting, Alex and Lauren discussed the varying requirements of different foundations and trusts for progress reports. They also explored the use of Grant Forward, a funding opportunity database, to assist faculty in their research activities. Lauren suggested joining the Community of Research Development (CORD) for monthly meetings and to stay updated on limited submission opportunities. Kim emphasized the importance of being proactive in assisting faculty research and the value of the limited submission notices. The team also discussed the internal submission process for limited opportunities and the need to check with the school office for any requirements.
Team Collaboration and Research Discussion
Lauren and Alex discussed the positive experience of working with a particular team, emphasizing their proactive, communicative, and collaborative nature. Lauren recommended reaching out to them and suggested ending the meeting early to enjoy the warmer weather. The team agreed to continue their discussion on the remaining sections of the research and development modules the following week.
AI-generated content may be inaccurate or misleading. Always check for accuracy.
Meeting Recording
- Passcode: fX0^^16^
Meeting Recording
- Passcode: 3Ty&d1jZ
ZOOM AI Meeting Summary
Quick recap
The meeting covered the postponement of the Scienceev event and updates to related web pages. Discussions focused on budgeting processes for clinical trials, including the use of a new budget module and the importance of consistency in negotiations across departments. The group also addressed recent changes in research administration, emphasizing the need for maintaining established processes and providing support for faculty during uncertain times.
Next steps
• Lauren to send an email about the postponement of ScienceCV to the School of Medicine listserv.
• Lauren to review and potentially update the budgeting template for clinical trials with Alex.
• Amber to add the foreign justification document to the grant resubmission.
• Phillis to request an advance account for the renewed grant starting at the beginning of June.
• Lauren to call Kayla on another line to discuss the FP issue.
Summary
Postponement of Scienceev and Budget Template
Lauren, Phillis, and Kayla discussed the postponement of the Scienceev, which was confirmed by Lauren. Phillis was informed about the postponement and planned to share the information with her faculty. Lauren also mentioned that they had seen an update on the other support and Biosketch Web page but there was no official communication about it. The team also discussed the budgeting template for the School of Medicine, which was created by a group led by Alex.
Budget Module for Clinical Trials
Lauren explains the usefulness of the budget module for conducting feasibility studies and building budgets for clinical trials. She notes that UVA doesn’t do many investigator-initiated studies, and most are industry-funded with pre-established budgets. Lauren clarifies that budget negotiations happen at the departmental level, not by the OSP contracts team. She emphasizes the importance of consistency in budget negotiations across departments to avoid sponsors using discrepancies against the institution. Lauren mentions that the School of Medicine’s Clinical Trials Unit offers budget-building and negotiation services for a fee to help bring consistency to the process.
Research Administration Changes and Consistency
The group discusses recent changes in research administration and the importance of maintaining consistency and following established processes. Lauren emphasizes the need for research administrators to provide a calming influence for faculty amid uncertainty. Kayla shares an example of how checks and balances prevented the improper termination of a grant. The group also discusses practical considerations for grant resubmissions, such as updating budgets for new salary caps. Lauren advises caution when setting up advanced accounts and recommends having conversations with faculty about spending limitations.
AI-generated content may be inaccurate or misleading. Always check for accuracy.
Meeting Recording
- Passcode: R#$445YY
ZOOM AI Meeting Summary
Quick recap
The meeting began with casual conversation before transitioning to a discussion on clinical research management, focusing on types of studies, IRB reports, and the role of research coordinators. The team then explored resources for learning and assistance, including standardizing procedures across departments and utilizing helpful modules for determining clinical trial status. Finally, they addressed the importance of understanding various office roles in human subjects research, the process for non-funded agreements, and the distinction between exempt IRB review and non-human subjects research.
Next steps
• All attendees to review the Human Subjects 101 course offered by the VPR’s office.
• Lauren to share the feasibility study template with the group before next week’s session.
• All attendees to revisit and review the clinical research management module before next week’s meeting.
• Shawn to provide feedback to SRI about showing correct answers for wrong responses in the module assessments.
• All attendees to prepare for discussion on budgeting for clinical studies in next week’s session.
Summary
Casual Friday Morning Team Chat
Alex, Kim, Shawn, and Vita had a casual morning meeting on a Friday. Kim expressed relief at the end of a long week, and Alex mentioned that more people would join soon. The team briefly discussed a shirt Kim was wearing, which had a coffee-related sentiment. Alex then proceeded to share some notes, but the transcript does not provide further details on the content of the meeting.
Clinical Research Management and IRB Reports
In the meeting, Alex introduced the sections on clinical research management, focusing on clinical studies and trials. The discussion highlighted the importance of understanding the types of clinical research, the role of IRB reports, and the history of human subject research. Kim shared her experience with the process of obtaining de-identified data and the need for understanding IRB levels. The team also discussed the role of clinical research coordinators in managing studies and the varying expectations of research administrators in different departments.
Clinical Trials Resources and Assistance
Alex and Shawn discussed resources for learning and assistance. Shawn mentioned reaching out to James Davis and Martin Braun for help with clinical trials. Alex suggested that the university is trying to standardize procedures across departments. They also discussed a helpful module that provides context for determining whether a project is a clinical trial, which can assist in completing forms.
Exempt IRB Review vs Non-Human Subjects
Lauren and Alex discussed the confusion between exempt IRB review and non-human subjects research. They emphasized the importance of understanding the distinction between these two concepts, as they are often used interchangeably. Alex highlighted the need for faculty members to understand that even if a study is exempt, it still needs to go through the IRB process. Lauren suggested that if there is any doubt, it is safer to assume the study is a regular clinical trial and proceed with the required documents. They also mentioned the availability of online modules for non-human subject determination. The conversation ended with the importance of consulting the IRB before making any determinations.
Understanding Office Roles in Human Subjects
In the meeting, Alex discussed the importance of understanding the roles of various offices in human subjects research, including the Central Office and the PI and department. Lauren suggested that the module could be useful for faculty and study team members. Alex also mentioned the need for a departmental pricing guide for clinical studies. Shawn expressed a desire for the module to provide feedback on incorrect answers.
Non-Funded Agreements and Human Subjects
Alex discussed the process of obtaining non-funded agreements, particularly those involving human subjects. He clarified that such agreements require corresponding IRB approval and often involve a reliance agreement. Lauren added that if data or samples are de-identified, they are not considered human subject research. The team also touched on the importance of ensuring the type of information being received aligns with the protocol. No further questions were raised.
AI-generated content may be inaccurate or misleading. Always check for accuracy.
Meeting Recording
- Passcode: i+iNpBc5
ZOOM AI Meeting Summary
Quick recap
The meeting covered various aspects of grant management and compliance, including account creation, award negotiation, and the importance of adhering to grant requirements and deadlines. Discussions focused on improving processes, creating tools for better tracking and communication, and addressing issues related to security roles and grant hierarchies. The team also reviewed upcoming training modules and addressed concerns about a specific grant termination situation.
Next steps
• Kayla to create a draft fact sheet or checklist for grant information and award setup.
• Lauren to review and provide feedback on Kayla’s draft fact sheet/checklist.
• Lauren to send an email to School of Medicine staff regarding increased scrutiny on grant applications and the importance of following guidelines precisely.
• All attendees to be more vigilant about including foreign justification documents for applications with foreign involvement.
• All attendees to ensure charges are placed on the correct accounts and to use at-risk accounts when necessary to avoid retroactive transfers.
• All attendees to complete LevelUp modules and assessments by May 31st if seeking badges or credit.
• Lauren and Alex to assist anyone needing access to the LevelUp system for upcoming Clinical Research Management module.
Summary
Account Creation and Award Negotiation
Lauren leads a discussion about account creation and award negotiation processes. The team focuses on issues with security roles and grant hierarchies, with Alex mentioning ongoing work to address these. Kim shares her department’s approach to assigning roles and improving communication between pre-award and post-award teams. The group discusses the importance of understanding both pre-award and post-award processes, even if specializing in one area. Lauren proposes developing a checklist for reviewing awards and tracking key information, and Kayla mentions a recent training session for scholars that could provide a starting point for this checklist.
Grant Management Guide Development
Kayla and Lauren discussed the idea of creating a guide or fill-in-the-blank document to help with grant management tasks such as tracking carryover, RPPR due dates, and special terms and conditions. They also considered consolidating various pieces of information into a single, easily accessible document. The document could potentially be a Word Doc in the OneDrive, with the last update date and version available for download. This would help streamline the grant management process and make it easier for both the PI and research administrators to access necessary information.
Tracking Restrictions in Federal Awards
Lauren discussed the importance of tracking restrictions in federal awards, emphasizing that once funds are drawn down, all terms and conditions are accepted. She shared a recent example of a year-long delay in resolving an incorrect F&A calculation, which put an account at risk. Lauren also warned about the increased scrutiny on application compliance, citing three instances of missing foreign justification documents in recent applications. She urged everyone to be more diligent in following application guidelines to avoid potential issues.
Grant Compliance and Fringe Rate Changes
The team discusses the importance of adhering to grant requirements and deadlines, as there is increased scrutiny on compliance. Kayla mentions needing to verify the status of a specific report. Lauren addresses questions about salary caps and fringe rates, explaining that current rates must be used until a new rate agreement is finalized. The group discusses the implications of fringe rate changes on budgeting and potential rebudgeting requirements for foundation grants. They also touch on the impact of the continuing resolution on rate agreements and the uncertainty surrounding potential changes to indirect rates.
LevelUp Program Final Module Schedule
Lauren discusses the upcoming final modules of the LevelUp program, emphasizing the importance of completing assessments for badges by May 31st due to the current license expiration. She mentions that Clinical Research Management, Research Development, and Compliance modules are scheduled for April and early May. Lauren also invites participants to bring colleagues from the clinical side to join the discussions, especially for the Clinical Research Management module. The group is reminded that while the main modules will end, there may be opportunities to continue with additional End Guides beyond the current schedule.
AI-generated content may be inaccurate or misleading. Always check for accuracy.
Meeting Recording
- Passcode: 9=CgLd0N
ZOOM AI Meeting Summary
Quick recap
Lauren discussed issues with the meeting invite and the transition to a new platform, assuring everyone that their progress would not be lost. The team also discussed the recent changes to a training platform and its impact on their work, with Alex reporting that completed progress should eventually transfer to the new system. The team also discussed their access to a new platform, with Lauren reminding them that the current institutional license for the modules runs through the end of May.
Next steps
• Lauren to reach out to Simon and see if someone from the OSP contracting team can join next week’s meeting to discuss subcontracts and vendor agreements.
• Lauren to contact Yelena and J. Fox for information on setting up an internal service core through iLab.
• Alex to confirm with SRA about the transfer of completed modules from the old platform to the new one.
• All participants to complete as many modules and assessments as possible before the end of May, when the current institutional license expires.
• Lauren to investigate future licensing options for the SRA modules after May.
Summary
New Platform Transition and Certification Issues
Lauren discussed issues with the meeting invite and the transition to a new platform. She assured everyone that their progress would not be lost. Suzanne and Eileen shared their experiences with the new portal, with Suzanne noting that her previous progress was not retained. Lauren mentioned that Alex Torres might join later to provide tips on the new platform. Lauren also expressed her difficulty in navigating the new portal and the inability to go back to previous questions in the certification exam.
Training Platform Changes and Internal Services
The group discusses the recent changes to a training platform and its impact on their work. Alex reports that completed progress should eventually transfer to the new system, though work in progress might not. Lauren notes the availability of new on-demand content, which she was previously unaware of. The conversation also covers the process of setting up internal service cores or labs that provide services to other departments or external entities. Alex suggests contacting specific individuals to start the process of establishing an internal service provider through iLab. Catherine inquires about streamlining the contract process for faculty seeking alternative funding sources, to which Lauren suggests exploring the option of setting up a core service for repetitive services, though this process may take several months.
Platform Access and Content Issues
The team discussed their access to a new platform, which included a variety of content such as on-demand webinars and modules. They noted that their views were different, with some seeing more content than others. The team also discussed the possibility of being part of the Srai members, with some members being active and others not. They also encountered issues with previewing certain content, with some members receiving an invalid login message. The team agreed to further investigate the differences in their access to the platform.
June Meeting Schedule Confirmation
Lauren confirmed that everyone has an invite for the second week of June, with no meeting on May 30th. She asked for feedback if the invite doesn’t match what’s on people’s calendars. No other topics or questions were raised.
Team Discusses Module License and Platform
Lauren reminded the team that the current institutional license for the modules runs through the end of May, and it will likely not be unlimited in the future. She encouraged everyone to complete as many courses as possible before the end of May, especially the exams or assessments to earn the badges. The team discussed the new platform, with Shawn and Kim noting that it seems to have fewer options than before. Alex confirmed that they see all the team members in their database of learners. Lauren also mentioned that they have 16 things in their list, and Kim suggested that it might just seem less when it’s listed out as a list versus the big square boxes. The team agreed to focus on the second half of the negotiation and setup module for the next week, which gets deeper into contracting terms and actual awards setup. Lauren also mentioned that she will try to get someone from the contracts team or the subcontracts team to be available for questions.
AI-generated content may be inaccurate or misleading. Always check for accuracy.
Meeting Recording
- Passcode: 7RHv2x6!
Discussion Topics
Section 4 – Award Management
- Cost Considerations – Allowable vs Allocable, Consistency
- Cost Transfers
- Effort Reporting
- Budget Monitoring – Carryover/NCE/Rebudgeting
- Cost Reimbursement vs Fixed Price Awards
Section 5 – Award Closeout
- Final Invention Reporting
- Equipment/Property Reporting
- Subaward Invoicing
- Residual Grant (RG) Funding
- PI Transfers
Section 6 – External Audit
- Who do you contact at UVA if you get an audit request?
ZOOM AI Meeting Summary
Quick recap
The meeting focused on clarifying details about the 90-day requirement for retro approval in their financial system, and discussed allocability and allowability of costs on an award. They also discussed the concept of reasonableness in allocating expenses to grants, and the issue of employees using sharpies on grants. The team addressed the process of approving purchases, particularly those involving grants, and the use of overhead and F&A funds in grants.
Next steps
• Lauren to send an email regarding the scheduling of next week’s meeting due to Spring Break.
• Ryan and Kayla to revisit the “allowable versus unallowable” project for purchasing guidelines.
• Post Award team to create a document outlining general guidelines for allowable and unallowable grant purchases.
• Grant managers to submit FSR memos as early as possible to trigger final reconciliation by Post Award.
• Research administrators to build relationships with lab managers and purchasers to improve communication about allowable expenses.
• Grant managers to familiarize themselves with the Grant Hierarchy report in Workday to understand role assignments.
• School of Medicine and Biomedical Engineering staff with Anaplan access to review the RG Residual Grant funding report for potential unused funds.
Summary
Clarifying Retro Approval Calculation and Allowable Costs
The meeting focused on clarifying details about the 90-day requirement for retro approval in their financial system. The group established that the trigger for the 90-day requirement is the date when an expense hits the account, which is considered a regular calendar day. This was discussed in response to Lamoria’s query about the calculation of the 90-day limit. Alex clarified that the system only triggers a questionnaire for accounting adjustments and Pate, not for journal entries. The team also discussed the difference between allowable and allocable costs, with Lauren suggesting a potential discussion to ensure clarity.
Allocability vs. Allowability of Costs
The team discussed allocability and allowability of costs on an award, emphasizing the importance of understanding the differences between these definitions. Alex shared examples of how specific costs were handled, such as the allocation of time to large program grants and the use of indirect costs for filing cabinets. Kayla highlighted the importance of consistency across the institution and the need to apply rules consistently, even if a sponsor permits a cost. They also discussed the need for thoughtful budgeting and the potential challenges of allocating funds towards the end of a grant.
Reasonableness in Grant Expense Allocation
Ryan from post-award discusses the concept of reasonableness in allocating expenses to grants. He explains that the most restrictive provision always applies when considering allowability, using an example of bagels being disallowed on an NSF grant despite being in the budget justification. The group discusses the importance of documentation, especially for unusual circumstances or expenses. They also touch on allocation methods for general lab supplies, noting that engineering has a specific approved process. Lauren emphasizes the need for clear communication and documentation throughout the grant lifecycle, as different people are involved at various stages. The conversation concludes with a discussion about training lab staff on allowability and allocability of expenses, particularly in the context of electronic purchasing systems.
Training for Grant Employees
Eileen, Ryan, and Gina discussed the issue of employees using sharpies on grants. Gina suggested that training should be provided, especially for those who are self-approving purchases. Kayla mentioned that departments with labs and multiple PIs may not have enough administrative staff to handle the workload. The team agreed that a general guide for employees on what can be purchased with grant funds would be helpful. Ryan offered to put something together, and Eileen expressed her intention to implement this in her division.
Grant Purchasing Process Approval
In the meeting, Eileen, Lauren, Kayla, and Gina discussed the process of approving purchases, particularly those involving grants. They considered the possibility of self-approval, but concluded that it wouldn’t be ideal. They also addressed the issue of people using T&E cards for various purchases, acknowledging that training could be more effective if it were grant-specific. The team recognized the need for a broader conversation about the purchasing process, particularly regarding allowable and allocable charges.
Clarifying Overhead and F&A Funds Use
The discussion revolved around the use of overhead and F&A funds in grants. Lauren clarified that these funds are meant to support indirect costs rather than being charged directly to the grant. Eileen and Kayla brought up challenges faced by departments that restrict the use of F&A funds, leading to potential misuse of startup funding. Alex emphasized the importance of working with post-award staff to ensure compliance and avoid issues. Ryan and Kayla suggested that researchers should be encouraged to ask about the allowability of expenses and that post-award staff should be willing to explain the rules. The team also discussed the importance of avoiding cost transfers and the need for clear communication with researchers about what is and isn’t allowed.
Discussing Grants Management and Closeout Process
The group discusses the importance of regular reconciliation and careful purchasing processes to avoid unallowable charges on grants. Ian describes his department’s system of multiple approvals for purchases, which is praised as a good practice. Lauren emphasizes the need to reevaluate and potentially change ineffective processes. Kayla highlights the importance of building relationships with lab managers and purchasers to facilitate smoother operations. The conversation then shifts to the closeout process, with Ryan stressing the importance of submitting FSR memos early. Alex introduces a useful Anaplan reporting tool for identifying potential RG funding in the School of Medicine and Biomedical Engineering.
AI-generated content may be inaccurate or misleading. Always check for accuracy.
Meeting Recording
- Passcode: 7+0@bTG?
ZOOM AI Meeting Summary
Quick recap
The team discussed the principles of post-award financial research administration, the integration of internal and external systems, and the roles of the Departmental Research Administrator and the Central Grant Accountant. They also explored the challenges and differences between pre-award and post-award work, the importance of attention to detail and communication, and the potential of using AI tools for automating tasks. Lastly, they addressed the redundancy in the content of a recent module, the challenges faced in the research administration process, and the potential benefits of bringing back the “GIRB” system.
Next steps
• Lauren to update the information on the SOM website as requested by Cynthia.
• Ian to test using AI to compare previous and new notices of award to identify differences and new requirements.
• Alex to follow up with the working group about best practices for reviewing notices of award.
• IRB team to clarify if they are bringing back GIRBs (Grant-specific IRB approvals) as a long-term solution or temporary measure.
• Susan to investigate what peer institutions are doing to show congruence between protocols and grants in the absence of GIRBs.
Summary
Discussing Project Progress and Time Change
Alex welcomed everyone to the meeting and mentioned that it was the 6th or 7th week of their project. Susan clarified that Lauren was on a plane and would be returning the following day. There was some confusion about the time difference and the time change. Alex joked about how the time change always gets him. The meeting was expected to have more participants joining and would start shortly.
Post-Award Financial Research Administration Principles
Alex led a discussion on the principles of post-award financial research administration. He highlighted the importance of basic math and accounting skills for research administrators, and the need to understand the chart of accounts, particularly when salary caps come into play. Alex also emphasized the significance of account reconciliations and certifications, and the need for research administrators to understand the general finance world. The team was encouraged to share their thoughts on the discussed topics.
Workday Integration and Grant Management Roles
Alex discussed the integration of their internal and external systems, specifically Workday and their financial management system. He highlighted the importance of attention to detail, communication, intellectual curiosity, and conscientiousness in their functional skills. Alex also explained the roles of the Departmental Research Administrator and the Central Grant Accountant, emphasizing their importance in initiating transactions, ensuring compliance, and providing quality control. He underscored the significance of these roles in managing grants and interacting with Principal Investigators (PIs). Whitney asked for clarification on the roles of the post award team and their interaction with the PI.
Differences Between Pre-Award and Post-Award Roles
Alex, Whitney, Nate, Suzanne, and Ryan discussed the challenges and differences between pre-award and post-award work in their departments. They highlighted the varying roles and responsibilities within each department, emphasizing the importance of collaboration and relationship-building. Whitney and Suzanne shared their experiences with both pre-award and post-award roles, with Suzanne expressing her appreciation for the departmental role. The team also discussed the importance of understanding each other’s perspectives and the need for grace in their interactions. In addition, they addressed a question about updating information on the website, confirming that Lauren, the webmaster, would handle this task.
Award Setup and NoA Review
In the meeting, Alex discussed the main topics of the award setup, including the regulatory and policy framework, the difference between gifts and grants, and the technical aspects of the ERP system. Alex also highlighted the importance of reviewing the Notice of Award (NoA) and the effort levels in the NoA. Susan brought up the topic of a working group to tackle NoAs and the new messages from OSP regarding new awards. Ian shared his experience of missing a requirement for an interim report in a NoA and suggested using AI to compare previous and new NoAs to avoid such misses in the future.
AI Tools, Language, and Financial Systems
In the meeting, attendees discussed the challenges of using AI tools for automating tasks, highlighting the importance of accurate and clear language in legal documents. The group also explored the usefulness of the co-pilot tool for summarizing information and the potential of leveraging chat tools for free. The attendees also discussed the need to check AI outputs for accuracy. Further, the discussion covered the importance of checking for Continuing Resolution and the need to rebudget as part of the financial system. The attendees also touched on the topic of funding, emphasizing the need for clear post-award procedures.
Grant Management, Budgeting, and Reporting
Alex discussed various topics related to grant management and budgeting. He highlighted the importance of understanding different types of cost sharing, direct costs versus indirect costs, and the nuances of budgeting, particularly in relation to equipment and salary caps. Alex also emphasized the need for proper encumbrance of indirect costs and the use of calculators for scheduling people and allocating costs. He mentioned the upcoming deadline for effort reports and the need to understand the different types of program income. Lastly, he stressed the importance of selecting the right effort report for the university.
Addressing Redundancy and IRB Delays
Alex led a discussion about the redundancy in the content of a recent module, noting that some sections felt repetitive, especially when broken up into two weeks. Eileen and others shared their observations about the content being simplified to the level of kindergarten education. Nate discussed the importance of compartmentalizing and maintaining a poker face in dealing with faculty. Cynthia raised a concern about the slow processing of IRB approvals, which Alex acknowledged as a common issue. The team agreed to continue discussing these topics in future meetings.
Addressing Research Administration Challenges
In the meeting, Alex, Candice, Nate, Susan, and Eileen discussed the challenges they face in the research administration process, particularly with the Institutional Review Board (IRB) and the lack of synergy between research administration and clinical research infrastructure. They noted that the IRB seems to be shocked by the need for certain approvals to secure funding, and there’s a lack of understanding about the urgency of these processes. They also discussed the potential benefits of bringing back the “GIRB” system, which was previously used to tie grants to specific projects. The team also touched on the issue of data agreements and the confusion around when these processes apply. The conversation ended with a discussion about the costs associated with IRB board reviews and the need for better budgeting practices across all divisions.
AI-generated content may be inaccurate or misleading. Always check for accuracy.
Meeting Recording
- Passcode: %0.!Ugz8
ZOOM AI Meeting Summary
Quick recap
The team discussed the post-award sections, focusing on reporting, award closeout, skills and responsibilities, and final thoughts, with a particular emphasis on managing budget cuts and grant transfers. They also explored the challenges of managing salary over the cap, the process of transferring versus changing projects, and the importance of constant communication and close relationships with post-award and pre-award personnel. Lastly, they touched on the decentralized structure of their institution and the roles and responsibilities of different groups in the research administration process.
Next steps
• Alex to find and share the name/title of the Office of Financial Management (OFM) contact at NIH who can help expedite the transfer of relinquished funds.
• All attendees to maintain close communication with their OSP pre-award and post-award contacts to ensure efficient grant management.
• All attendees to review the HERD survey process and ensure accurate reporting of expenses, including salary over the cap.
• All attendees to utilize the School of Medicine and OSP calculators for accurately calculating salary over the cap during the current effort reporting period.
• All attendees to check the SOC recon reports in the PAC system to identify any missing salary over the cap on their grants.
Summary
Continuation of Post-Award Sections
Alex led the meeting in the absence of Lauren, who was traveling. The discussion revolved around the continuation of the post-award sections, specifically sections 4 to 7, which covered reporting, award closeout, skills and responsibilities, and final thoughts. Alex shared his screen to outline these sections and encouraged feedback from the team. The team seemed to agree that the section was descriptive and informative, particularly in its coverage of progress reports, effort management reporting, and institutional reporting.
Handling Budget Cuts in Grants
In the meeting, Alex and Jingyi discussed their experiences with budget cuts in federal grants, specifically from the NIH. Alex shared his experience of having to reduce the PI’s effort by more than 25% due to a significant budget cut, and advised that it’s best to request such changes before the grant is officially awarded. Kim asked about the process of rebudgeting when an award comes in with a big cut, and Alex emphasized the importance of keeping the research admin in the loop upfront to potentially secure prior approval for such changes. The team also discussed the importance of proportionally cutting all aspects of the grant when faced with significant budget cuts.
Progress Reports Updates and Management Process
Alex led a discussion about progress reports, focusing on the frequency, submission platforms, modifications, and management process. The team discussed the challenges of managing salary over the cap, particularly for non-DHHS sponsors, and how they handle it in their departments. Alex also highlighted the usefulness of calculators and reports within the pack system for managing effort reports. The team also discussed the importance of records retention and the soft skills needed to manage the process. Lastly, they touched on the topic of award closeouts, specifically the scientific, invention, and financial aspects, and the process of relinquishing requests and changing the PI versus transferring organizations.
Grant Transfer Challenges Discussed
Alex discussed the challenges of transferring grants, particularly from NIH to UVA. He noted that the process is more complicated for the receiving institution, UVA, than for the relinquishing institution. Kim shared her experience with a PI transfer where the home university held back a significant amount of money, which was higher than the budgeted amount. Both agreed that this situation was frustrating and required careful budgeting.
NIH Fund Transfer Challenges Discussed
In the meeting, Kim, Alex, and Whitney discussed the challenges they faced with the transfer of funds from the NIH. They highlighted the long waiting periods for the transfer of funds, which could take up to 10 months to a year and a half. They also discussed the difficulties in estimating the amount of funds to be transferred and the bureaucratic inertia at the NIH. Alex suggested finding a person in the Office of Financial Management (OFM) who could expedite the process. They also discussed the need for a second Notice of Change (NCE) when funds are delayed, and the challenges of dealing with rare awards that do not allow for an NCE.
Research Administrator Roles and Responsibilities
In the meeting, Alex discussed the process of transferring versus changing projects, and the implications of stop work orders and terminations for cause versus convenience. Alex also highlighted the importance of communication, attention to detail, and basic math skills in their job as research administrators. The discussion also touched on the decentralized structure of their institution, which Alex believes makes life easier for faculty members. The roles and responsibilities of different groups, including the central sponsor projects group office and department research administrators, were also discussed. The conversation ended with an open invitation for others to share their thoughts on the discussed topics.
Building Strong Relationships for Smooth Operations
Alex emphasized the importance of constant communication and close relationships with post-award and pre-award personnel, as well as with the signatory office. He highlighted the benefits of using platforms like Teams and Zoom chat for quick problem-solving and clarification. Alex also encouraged everyone to establish strong relationships with their post-award and pre-award contacts to ensure smooth operations and avoid issues. He ended the conversation by stating that he would be reviewing the post-war financial section the following week.
AI-generated content may be inaccurate or misleading. Always check for accuracy.
Meeting Recording
- Passcode: MidN!sE8
Discussion Topics
Section 2 – Post Award Fundamentals
- Sponsor Types
- Federal
- Industry
- State
- Non-Profits
- Compliance/Regulations
- COI
- Human & Animal Subjects
- Export Controls/Foreign Influence
- Reading the NOA
- Key Terms?
- Checklists?
- Cross check internal account setups
Section 3 – Award Management
- Managing Awards
- Costing
- Managing Subs and Consultants
- Post Award Changes
- Expanded Authorities (FDP Matrix) – know what requires prior approval!
ZOOM AI Meeting Summary
Quick recap
The team discussed their experiences with the week, focusing on the 1st half of the Post Award non financial module in the levelup series, and the challenges of understanding the clinical research process. They also discussed the roles and responsibilities matrix created by OSP, the post-award accounting and compliance processes, and the complexities of budgeting and account setup for sponsors. Lastly, they discussed the use of AI for comparing new and old notice of awards, the challenges of navigating complex legal terms in contracts, and the use of Workday and Huron for tracking and reporting deliverables.
Next steps
• Ian to explore using AI (e.g., ChatGPT) to compare new and old notices of award to identify differences quickly.
• Lauren to find and share the link to OSP’s roles and responsibilities matrix.
• Alex to consider initiating a working group to develop best practices for managing deliverables and invoicing for clinical trials.
• Shawn to reach out to the Clinical Trials Office for guidance on managing clinical trial invoicing and budgeting.
• All participants to review the second half of the post-award non-financial management module for next week’s discussion.
Summary
Post-Award Module Discussions and Challenges
In the meeting, the team discussed their experiences with the week, which they found to be long and slow. They also discussed the 1st half of the Post Award non financial module in the levelup series. The team acknowledged that the module contained some repetition and basics that they had already seen in other modules. They also discussed the difficulty in distinguishing between financial and non-financial post-award due to the crossover of many pieces. The team agreed that the non-financial piece could be broken down into larger activities that aren’t specifically related to accounting and financial reporting. They also looked forward to the post-award financial modules, which they expected to be more specific to accounting standards and financial reporting.
Clarifying Pre-Award and Post-Award Roles
Shawn expressed his difficulty in understanding the clinical research process due to the lack of clear columns for comparison. Lauren clarified the confusion around the terms ‘pre-award’ and ‘post-award’ in their institution, explaining that while the ‘pre-award’ team handles financial management and day-to-day post-award management, the ‘post-award’ team is primarily focused on accounting and financial reporting. Gina and Alpana sought further clarification on this, with Gina understanding that invoicing falls under the ‘post-award’ category. Whitney, who has experience in post-award management, confirmed that she works in Workday, handling the financial aspect of post-award management.
Roles and Responsibilities Matrix Discussion
Gina and Lauren discussed the roles and responsibilities matrix created by OSP, which can be used to determine who to contact for specific transaction-related questions. They emphasized the importance of not bypassing school-level teams when seeking answers, as they often manage post-award activities. Lauren also mentioned the need to differentiate between sub-awards and subcontractors. Alpana, a senior accountant from OSP, confirmed the importance of the roles and responsibilities matrix.
Post-Award Accounting and Compliance Processes
Alpana discussed the post-award accounting and compliance processes at OSP, which involve reviewing financial invoices and reports, checking compliance, and collaborating with departments. She also mentioned the role of the pre-award team in setting up the award and the importance of reviewing the notice of award. Lauren highlighted the importance of financial compliance and the use of Workday for tracking progress reporting. Kim emphasized the need for departments to double-check award setups in Workday to avoid overspending and to ensure compliance with restrictions. Whitney agreed, noting the increased workload for departments in rebudgeting due to changes in Workday’s functionality.
Navigating Sponsorship Budgets and Accounts
Whitney and Lauren discussed the complexities of budgeting and account setup for sponsors, highlighting the need for careful planning and communication to avoid errors. They emphasized the importance of understanding the nuances of account setup, especially for those who are not involved in the initial proposal or submission process. Eileen added that monitoring the modified total direct costs throughout the life cycle of an award is crucial to avoid imbalances between direct and indirect costs. Lauren stressed the need for awareness of the terms of the award and the flexibility in rebudgeting, especially for Federal awards with expanded authorities. The team agreed on the importance of teamwork and communication to ensure successful management of awards.
AI for Notice of Award Comparison
Ian proposed the use of AI to compare new and old notice of awards to identify changes and potential issues. He shared his experience of missing an interim report requirement in a notice of award, which caused a delay in obtaining a cost extension. Lauren and Kim agreed that this was a good idea, but emphasized the need for human verification to ensure accuracy. Lauren also mentioned an ongoing effort to use AI to consolidate important data from various sources, but noted that non-standard terms and conditions might still require human attention.
Navigating Complex Contracts and FDP
Lauren discussed the challenges of navigating complex legal terms in contracts, particularly in non-standard or legalistic agreements. She suggested the creation of a checklist or community effort to identify key terms and conditions to look for in contracts. Lauren also introduced the FDP matrix, a useful tool for understanding which changes require prior approval in Federal awards. She emphasized the importance of internal discussions to determine if changes fall under expanded authorities or if they require prior approval. The conversation ended with an open invitation for further thoughts, questions, and discussion topics.
Workday and Huron for Deliverables
Lauren initiated a discussion about the use of Workday and Huron for tracking and reporting deliverables. Alex suggested that Workday isn’t as nimble as other tools for deliverables, and only certain roles can complete them. Alex also expressed difficulty in managing the volume of clinical trials, which often require different approaches. Whitney and Shawn shared their experiences with clinical trials, noting the varying levels of expertise and support. Lauren suggested reaching out to the Clinical Trials Office for assistance with best practices and standard processes for invoicing and budgeting in clinical trials.
Lauren’s Absence and Program Extension
Lauren announced that she would be unavailable for the next two weeks due to travel, with Alex taking over as the group’s leader. The group discussed the post-award non-financial management module and the first half of the post-work financial management module for the following weeks. Shawn raised a question about the potential extension of the current program past May, but Lauren clarified that no final decisions had been made. She also mentioned that the program could be extended or purchased individually if needed. The group ended the conversation with Lauren wishing everyone a good weekend.
AI-generated content may be inaccurate or misleading. Always check for accuracy.
Meeting Recording
- Passcode: qc%k52if
ZOOM AI Meeting Summary
Quick recap
Lauren led a discussion on the second half of the proposal development module, focusing on specific sections of the applications and attachments, and best practices for preparing them. The team also discussed the future of their training program, the uniformity of career paths in research administration, and the challenges of onboarding and training new faculty members. Lastly, they touched on the upcoming changes to the NIH’s Biosketches and other support documents, and the need for administrators to guide faculty members in human subjects research.
Next steps
• All attendees to complete remaining LevelUP modules and assessments by May 31st.
• Lauren to provide updates on future licensing options for LevelUP modules after May 31st.
• Nate to share the link for the “Evaluate My Project” tool in the chat.
• All attendees working with NIH awards to start transferring faculty biosketch information to SciENcv.
• School of Medicine administrators to attend February RAM meeting for SciENcv demos and guidance.
• All attendees to review the newly posted SciENcv job aid on the Grants and Contracts website.
• All attendees to prepare for discussion on post-award non-financials for next week’s meeting.
Summary
Proposal Development Module Discussion
Lauren initiated a discussion about the second half of the proposal development module, focusing on specific sections of the applications and attachments, and best practices for preparing them. She encouraged the team to share any questions or tips they had. Shawn reported an issue with his camera in Zoom and Teams, which he was investigating. The team confirmed they were going through the modules as they were being discussed, to stay on schedule and ensure they completed the assessments.
Institutional License and Course Discounts
Lauren informs the group that the current institutional license for assessments and courses expires on May 31st. She explains that while they may continue with a more limited license in the future, it would likely be based on a token system for specific modules. Gina inquires about potential discounts for additional courses, but Lauren clarifies that there are no specific discounts related to the institutional license, and individual memberships would be separate expenses.
Training Program Expansion and Funding
Shawn and Lauren discussed the future of their training program, which was initially based on modules. They considered the possibility of using the program as a basis for a training program, but noted that the decision would depend on the needs of other units and schools. They also discussed the potential for other schools to offset some of the costs. Lauren mentioned that the program’s numbers were higher for the first three modules and expected them to increase as they moved through the series. Shawn asked if anyone had reached out to Sr. about adding anything similar or adjacent to the program, to which Lauren responded that Sr. was partnering with other educational institutions to apply for an NSF grant to expand the program and establish a job field framework.
Career Path Uniformity and Training
Lauren and Gina discussed the uniformity and uniformity guides for career paths in research administration. Gina appreciated the references and glossary in the modules, which she found helpful for finding specific terms and definitions. Lauren suggested that the modules could do a better job of using alternative terms and language. Gina proposed using the modules as a base for training research administrators, with a preface to each module explaining how the content translates to their institution. Lauren agreed that this would be their long-term goal, but they haven’t had the time to do it yet. They also discussed the differences in application sections and attachments depending on the sponsors they work with.
Support and Training for Faculty
Lauren initiated a discussion about current support and human subjects research, highlighting the need for administrators to guide faculty members. Nate mentioned the launch of the ‘Evaluate My Project’ tool on the website, which he recommended to faculty. Shawn raised a question about training new faculty members on research protocols, expressing concern about the lack of comprehensive training. Lauren responded that while there is a new faculty retreat, the information provided is often overwhelming and not detailed enough. The team agreed that finding a balance between providing necessary information and not overwhelming new faculty members is a challenge.
Onboarding Faculty and NIH Biosketch Changes
Lauren, Kim, Shawn, and Phillis discussed the challenges and potential solutions for onboarding and training new faculty members. They highlighted the need for more direct educational settings and the importance of administrators in facilitating this process. They also discussed the upcoming changes to the NIH’s Biosketches and other support documents, which will be moving to the Science CV format. Lauren mentioned that these changes will reduce the formatting work for administrators. Phillis asked about the delegation process for managing these documents, and Lauren confirmed that this would be necessary for updating or creating documents. The team also discussed the upcoming training and education sessions on these changes.
Post-Award Non-Financials and Next Meeting
Lauren ended the conversation early, as there were no pressing topics for discussion. She announced that the next meeting would focus on post-award non-financials, and she would rely on the team’s expertise for this discussion. Lauren also mentioned that she would follow up with other subject matter experts if necessary. She wished everyone a good weekend, despite the expected weather, and looked forward to the next meeting.
AI-generated content may be inaccurate or misleading. Always check for accuracy.
Meeting Recording
- Passcode: ftt%N.9J
Discussion Topics
Section 2 – Proposal Types
- Research Proposals
- Non-Competing Renewals (Continuations)
- Competing Renewals
- Resubmissions
- Competing Revisions (Supplements)
- Career Development
- Fellowships
- SBIR / STTR
- Education & Outreach
- Conference/Event
- **Training
Section 3 – Grantsmanship
- Knowing the audience
- Connecting with POs
- Finding the right sponsor/institute
- Finding the right NOFO
- Reading the review criteria in the NOFO
- Project Management during Proposal Development/Pre-Award
- Budget is key!
- Format & Style
- Templates / boilerplate language
ZOOM AI Meeting Summary
Quick recap
The meeting focused on the proposal development module of the Levelup courses, covering various aspects of grant writing and administration. Discussions included different types of proposals, budgeting, conflict of interest management, faculty transfers, and the role of research administrators in the grantsmanship process. The team also explored strategies for streamlining the grant proposal process, including the use of templates, boilerplate language, and timeline management, while emphasizing the importance of early preparation and clear communication between faculty and administrators.
Next steps
• Research Development Office to provide hands-on training for using the Grant Forward search engine.
• Administrators to create and maintain templates and boilerplate language for common proposal sections (e.g. facilities, resources, equipment).
• Administrators to implement a dual deadline policy for proposal submissions, separating administrative and technical components.
• PIs to complete non-science sections of proposals early in the process.
• Administrators to create checklists and timelines for proposal development, especially during busy competition periods.
• Administrators to review the boilerplate templates available on the I-THRIVE portal.
• Administrators to continue submitting grant applications as normal unless specific funding opportunities have been cancelled or modified.
• Interested parties to sign up for the COGR listserv for updates on federal research policy changes.
Summary
Proposal Development and Training Grants
In the meeting, Lauren initiated the fourth session of the study group for the Levelup courses, focusing on the proposal development module. She highlighted the discussion on different proposal types and grantsmanship, particularly training grants. Shawn expressed interest in learning more about training grants, but Lauren clarified that there are no specific resources available at UVA. She offered to connect Shawn with experienced training grant administrators for further guidance.
Budgeting and Proposal Process Navigations
Lauren and Kobby discussed the importance of establishing a budget early in the proposal process, as it helps to minimize changes and allows the PI to focus on their science. They also discussed different types of proposals, including non-competing renewals, competing renewals, resubmissions, and competing revisions. Lauren highlighted the nuances of the Huron system, such as the need for the original funding proposal to be in a specific state before a resubmission or revision can be initiated. Kobby agreed with Lauren’s points and emphasized the need for clear decision-making and budgeting in the proposal process.
System Limitations and Proposal Clarifications
Lauren discussed the limitations of the system in displaying project numbers and sponsor IDs on the funding proposal screen. She suggested adding identifying sponsor information to the short title before closing out funding proposals. Lauren also addressed the confusion around the term ‘career development proposals’, which includes fellowships, and clarified that both are types of proposals for junior faculty to move into more senior positions. Susan raised a question about the PI on the SBIR or STTR submission to NIH being the same individual as the PI on the Subaward to the University of Virginia. Lauren acknowledged this issue and promised to address it further.
Managing Conflicts of Interest Process
Lauren and SL7ZU discussed the process of managing conflicts of interest (CoI) in situations where faculty members serve both for the business and the university. Lauren explained that a conflict of interest management plan is required, which involves engaging the right parties and going through varying levels of review and approval. She also mentioned that the CoI Committee meets once a month, so applications must be submitted by a certain time the previous month to get on the docket. Susan raised a question about transferring applications to the University of Virginia from other institutions, specifically regarding NIH proposals that require a certification letter from both institutions. Lauren confirmed that such a policy exists and has been enforced more recently.
UVA Faculty Transfer and Compliance
Lauren discussed the process of transferring a faculty member to the University of Virginia (UVA), emphasizing the importance of early communication with the VPR’s office to ensure necessary documents are ready for the transfer application. She also outlined the steps for a new faculty member, including obtaining a computing ID, contacting the VPR’s office to activate their status as an active investigator, and affiliating any previous city accounts. Lauren noted that some compliance measures may need to be redone, and that Qlik Sense is the primary tool for checking compliance requirements, although it does not update in real time. Susan thanked Lauren for her explanation.
Administrators’ Roles in Grantsmanship Process
Lauren discussed the role of administrators in grantsmanship, emphasizing that they can assist in various aspects of the application process. Gina asked about the role of project managers in collaboration with research administrators, to which Lauren explained that the Research Development Office has project managers for large-scale projects. Amber inquired about the frequency and effort required for post-award project managers, to which Lauren responded that it varies but should be considered for complex projects. Candice asked about capturing information from the PI regarding correspondence with program officials, and Lauren suggested including this information in cover letters or ancillary documents. Lauren also mentioned the Nih Reporter’s matchmaker functionality for finding the right sponsor or institute for research funding.
Grant Forward and Research Opportunities
Lauren discussed the role of the research development team in directing proposals and the use of the Grant Forward search engine to broaden funding opportunities for faculty. She suggested that this tool could be particularly helpful for junior faculty or those with research crossing multiple topics. Susan inquired about the availability and training for the search engine, to which Lauren confirmed its continued use and availability, and suggested reaching out to Kim Mayer for further assistance. Lauren also highlighted the role of the Corporate and Foundation Relations group in building relationships with sponsors and the importance of understanding the review criteria in funding opportunities.
Budget Preparation and Faculty Status
Lauren emphasized the importance of early budget preparation and maintaining stability to avoid unnecessary complications. She also discussed the flexibility in rebudgeting, especially for federal funding, and the potential for post-award impacts. Linda brought up the issue of verifying faculty’s 12-month or 9-month status, which Lauren addressed by suggesting the use of the Workday payroll costing sheet in ClickSense. The team was encouraged to collaborate and define how to budget faculty members with less than 12-month appointments.
Deadline Policy and Proposal Review
Lauren and Nate discussed the importance of setting a 5-day deadline for reviewing documents to ensure thorough compliance checks. Nate emphasized the value of a deadline policy to ensure faculty adhere to the review process. Lauren suggested that faculty often don’t understand the value of the review until they see the changes identified. Nate also mentioned the possibility of rejecting proposals if they don’t address all sections. The conversation then shifted to the use of templates and boilerplates in proposal writing, with Lauren expressing interest in how others manage this. Amber shared her experience of collecting boilerplate information over the years, which she finds helpful in preparing documents for PIs.
Streamlining Grant Proposal Process Strategies
The team discussed strategies for streamlining the grant proposal process. Amber shared her approach of providing a draft for PIs to edit, which they found more efficient than using outdated templates. Nate suggested creating a website with basic research expenditure facts and numbers for easy reference. Lauren emphasized the importance of creating templates and boilerplate language for proposals, which can be edited and updated as needed. Amber also stressed the importance of forcing PIs to complete non-science sections early in the proposal process to avoid last-minute stress. The team agreed on the value of creating a clear division of responsibility and maintaining a culture of teamwork and efficiency in the grant proposal process.
Creating Timelines and Managing NIH Grants
In the meeting, Nate and Lauren discussed the importance of creating a timeline for busy competition periods, with administrative documents due earlier than science documents to allow for budget revisions. Lauren also shared her experience with the School of Medicine’s dual deadline policy, which separates administrative and technical components. Cynthia raised a question about the status of current NIH grants, to which Lauren responded that there had been no changes to current processes and that applications should continue as normal. Lauren also recommended keeping an eye on the COGRA listserv for updates and encouraged everyone to bring their questions and topics for discussion in the next meeting.
AI-generated content may be inaccurate or misleading. Always check for accuracy.
Meeting Recording
- Passcode: ^0K6T2WW
Discussion Topics
Section 6 – Budget Concepts and Development
- Planning / Preparing Budgets – best practices?
- Templates
- Maintaining version control
- Working with collaborators
- Huron budgeting
- Budget categories
- Direct Costs
- Personnel
- Other Direct Costs (ODC) / Other Than Personnel Services (OTPS)
- Equipment
- Participant Support vs Patient Care
- Indirect Costs / F&A / Overhead
- TDC vs MTDC
- F&A waivers
- Upcoming changes with Uniform Guidance
- Direct Costs
- Allowable vs Allocable Costs
- Subrecipient vs Vendor
- Cost Sharing
-
- Mandatory vs Voluntary
- Voluntary Committed vs Uncommitted
- Mandatory vs Voluntary
- Budget Justifications – best practices?
Section 7 – Review and Submit the Proposal
- Key Roles / Responsibilities
- Huron How-Tos?
- Validation errors vs “real” errors
Section 8 – Next Steps
- Tips?
ZOOM AI Meeting Summary
Quick recap
The LevelUp study group focused on the second half of the pre-award module, discussing budgeting variations, cost sharing, and the strategic decision-making process around cost sharing in research projects. The team also discussed the complexities of payroll allocations, the process of budgeting for payroll and personnel costs, and the allocation and justification of costs in research projects. Lastly, they discussed the purchasing of research materials by their respective research labs and the implications of different financial management strategies within departments or units.
Next steps
• Anatolii to work with Nate to find a better way to access salary information for wage employees in the system.
• Lauren to share the budget calculation example document with the group.
• Eileen to review the engineering department’s documentation methods for allocating costs like paper towels and lab coats to grants.
• All attendees to review the payroll costing reports in Click Sense for accessing employee salary information.
• All attendees to consider putting detailed cost allocations in pre-award budgets to avoid issues in post-award.
Summary
Budgeting and Cost Sharing Clarifications
Lauren led the third week of the LevelUp study group, focusing on the second half of the pre-award module, which primarily dealt with budgeting and proposal submission. The discussion was open to questions and clarifications, with a particular emphasis on budgeting variations among different units and sponsors. Kim raised a question about cost sharing, specifically when it’s mandatory and when it’s voluntary. Lauren explained the difference between mandatory and voluntary cost sharing, and how it applies to various scenarios. She also clarified the concept of cost match, which is sometimes confused with cost sharing. The conversation ended with an open discussion on the topic.
Strategic Cost Sharing in Research
Lauren and Nate discussed the strategic decision-making process around cost sharing in research projects. They emphasized that the more an institution supports a research project, the lower the future F&A rate will be. Lauren noted that while they try to avoid committed voluntary cost share, it’s sometimes unavoidable. She also mentioned that the more the institution supports the research, the more the F&A rate will be driven down. Nate highlighted the importance of educating faculty about cost sharing early in the process and the implications of quantifying cost share in proposals. Lauren also discussed the balancing act administrators face in supporting faculty while considering the institution’s compliance and policy requirements. Erin expressed confusion about the in-kind support portion of the other support document, and Lauren clarified that institutional start-ups are not required to be reported as in-kind support.
In-Kind Support and Cost Share Discussion
In the meeting, Lauren and Erin discussed the concept of ‘in-kind’ support, where a student’s effort supports a faculty member’s research without direct funding. They also discussed the importance of quantifying such support and the potential for it to become cost share. Erin raised a question about reporting philanthropic gift funds, to which Lauren explained that if these funds support the research, they should be included in the other support section. Lauren also clarified that the salary cap is expected to increase, but until NIH officially adopts the new cap, they continue to budget according to the current cap. Lastly, Lauren and Susan discussed the institution’s minimum effort policy for principal investigators (PIs) and how it can lead to cost share situations.
External Grants and Effort Policy
Lauren and Nate discussed the policy of allocating 1% effort for projects, which could span across a 12-month period including summer. They clarified that this policy applies to all external grants, unless there are exceptions, such as equipment grants. They also mentioned that the minimum effort policy is FNI 28, and that exceptions are listed in Appendix A of the policy document. Nate provided an example of a special case award, the Vata awards, which are for supplemental funds and do not require the 1% effort. Ian confirmed that this was the policy he was thinking of.
Handling Cost Share and Salary Over Cap
The team discussed the handling of cost share and salary over the cap in grant allocations. Eileen raised a question about the difference in handling between the two, to which Alex explained that real cost share needs to be tracked separately, while salary over the cap does not. He clarified that the latter is not reported to the sponsor but is included in effort reports. Lauren added that salary over the cap is considered cost share and is included in their F and A calculation. The team also discussed situations where a faculty member’s effort exceeds the minimum requirement, leading to a cost share of that effort. Lastly, Alex mentioned a rare situation where both cost share and salary over the cap are present on one grant, and how to handle such cases.
Payroll Allocations and Reporting Challenges
The team discussed the complexities of payroll allocations, particularly for physicians and staff. They agreed that the workday payroll costing report, which includes institutional base salary, is a useful tool for determining total base salary. However, they noted that wage employees are not included in this report, which is a blind spot. They also discussed the need to include supplements in the total base salary calculation. The team agreed to further investigate the issue of non-exempt employees not appearing in the IBS report.
Payroll, Personnel Costs, and Budgeting
The team discussed the process of budgeting for payroll and personnel costs, with a focus on the academic salary plan for Upg and the University Physicians group. They also discussed the potential impact of a new salary cap, with the understanding that they are not required to redo budgets if the cap is implemented. The team also touched on the distinction between allowable and allocable costs, with a focus on their impact on direct and indirect costs. The conversation ended with a discussion about the cost standards, including allowability, allocability, reasonableness, and consistency.
Research Project Cost Allocation Discussion
In the meeting, Gina, Lauren, Nate, and Eileen discussed the allocation and justification of costs in research projects. They emphasized the importance of having a defensible methodology for cost allocation, especially for general lab supplies and specialized software. They also highlighted the need for documentation to support these allocations. Eileen mentioned a presentation by the engineering department on how to document costs for items like paper towels and lab coats. The team agreed that thorough budgeting in pre-award stages can reduce post-award issues.
Research Material Purchasing and F&A
In the meeting, Eileen and Lauren discussed the purchasing of research materials by their respective research labs. They agreed that the people responsible for purchasing should be aware of the decision-making process and methodology for allocating funds. Eileen raised a concern about a PI needing pens, which was denied as it was not allocable to the F&A account. Lauren suggested that the PI should discuss this with their department. They also discussed the implications of different financial management strategies within departments or units. Lauren explained the concept of a central tax, which is a percentage of the research activity’s funding paid back into the central offices. This tax can impact the recovery of funds from grants with full F&A recovery. The team agreed to reconvene next week to continue their discussion on the post-award module.
AI-generated content may be inaccurate or misleading. Always check for accuracy.
Meeting Recording
- Passcode: 8AY?0dS@
Discussion Topics
Section 2 – Defining the Roles
- Organizational structure at UVA
- What are the roles for Dept | School | Central/OSP?
- What are the responsibilities of the PI vs Admin?
- Who can be PI? (RES-011 https://uvapolicy.virginia.edu/policy/RES-011)
Section 3 – Understand the Proposal Requirements
- Funding mechanisms
- Determine Gift vs Grant/Contract (FIN-001 https://uvapolicy.virginia.edu/policy/FIN-001)
- Determine Subcontract vs Vendor
- SBIR/STTR and Faculty Startups
- RFP review
- Checklist and/or Matrix?
- Deadlines at UVA
Section 4 – Electronic Research Administration
- How do systems interface with Grants.gov?
- What common systems to we use at UVA?
- How to get access to systems or accounts
Section 5 – Managing Compliance
- FCOI disclosure and management
- Required compliance trainings and frequency
- Human/animal compliance
- HSR vs Exempt HSR vs Non-HSR
- Subrecipient risk assessment and monitoring
ZOOM AI Meeting Summary
Quick recap
The meeting focused on the pre-award module and research administration processes at UVA, discussing the roles of various offices, grant management complexities, and compliance requirements. Participants explored the organizational structure, responsibilities of different departments, and the challenges in managing grants across multiple units. The discussion also covered topics such as proposal setup, collaborations with external parties, system access, and the importance of understanding compliance regulations, particularly regarding Financial Conflict of Interest and human subjects research.
Next steps
• Attendees to review the PI eligibility policy (Res-11) for externally funded sponsored programs.
• Attendees to consult with OSP or local administrative office before attempting to register or create accounts in various research administration systems.
• Attendees to ensure faculty complete the four required administrative compliance items: annual financial disclosure, COI training, undue foreign influence training, and patent agreement.
• Attendees to be aware of the difference between human subject research, exempt research, and not human subject research when working with human data or samples.
• Attendees to follow up on providing IRB approval to lift restrictions on awards, when applicable.
• Attendees to be aware of the subrecipient risk assessment process and its relation to the consortium commitment form.
Summary
Pre-Award Module and UVA Structure
Lauren initiated a discussion about the pre-award module, focusing on the first five sections. She sought to clarify the organizational structure at UVA, particularly the roles of OSP, the Office of the Vice President for Research, and the School of Medicine’s Grants and Contracts office. Emily asked about the differences between OSP and the Office of Research, and Lauren explained that OSP is the central office for research administration, while the Office of Research is more involved in proposal development. Steven confirmed Kim Mayer’s title as Director of Research Development. The conversation ended with Lauren encouraging further questions and discussions.
Roles and Responsibilities in Research Administration
Lauren discussed the roles and responsibilities of different offices within the institution, particularly in the School of Medicine. She explained that the Office of Sponsored Programs (OSP) is responsible for negotiating and approving terms and conditions, managing financial transactions, and handling external reporting. However, she noted that the process is not linear and involves various stakeholders, including the Institutional Review Board (IRB), the Clinical Trials Office, and the Vice President for Research (VPR). Steven added that data management and certification processes also involve different offices, leading to potential confusion and delays. Lauren emphasized the importance of understanding the various parts of the research administration process and liaising with the relevant experts. She also highlighted the complexity of deciding where to house awards, which can affect funding and space availability for different units. Kim asked about the decision-making process when grants are submitted by two different departments, and Lauren indicated that it’s not always straightforward, with the bulk of the funding and effort potentially going to one department.
Managing Grants and Funding Complexities Grants and Funding Complexities
The team discussed the complexities of managing grants and funding across different departments and schools. They highlighted the importance of setting up separate grant lines for better financial tracking and reporting. The need for clear communication and collaboration between pre-award and post-award teams was emphasized. The team also discussed the challenges of tracking credit for multi-PI situations and the need for better system reporting. They touched on the policy regarding who can be a PI on a sponsored award and the process for requesting exceptions. Lastly, they discussed the importance of understanding the difference between a grant and a gift, and a subcontractor and a vendor.
Proposal Setup and Conflict Management
Lauren discussed the complexities of setting up proposals and collaborations with outside parties, emphasizing the importance of understanding the specific definitions and requirements for subcontractors and vendors. She also highlighted the challenges of managing conflicts of interest in SBIR and STTR awards, suggesting close collaboration with faculty, the VPR’s office, and the COI committee. Lauren also mentioned the usefulness of a matrix or flow chart for managing large teams and the availability of a checklist on the Raptor website for reviewing funding opportunities. Nate added that the subcontractor versus vendor form can be difficult to interpret and recommended consulting with OSP for clarification. The conversation ended with a discussion about the applicability of Res. 11 to self-funded or departmental studies, with Lauren suggesting that it primarily applies to externally funded, sponsored programs.
Exception Approval for Research Projects
Lauren, Steven, and Nate discussed the process of exception approval for research projects, particularly in the context of the School of Medicine. They emphasized the need for faculty appointments and the importance of a progression plan for the individual involved in the project. They also touched on the electronic research administration system, specifically how it interfaces with grants.gov, which serves as a hub for various Federal funding opportunities. Nate suggested looking at the Rfa internally for specific eligibility criteria. Lauren mentioned the role of the department chair, immediate supervisor, and the Dean’s office in the approval process, which then goes to Stuart Craig or the Director at OSP for final approval.
UVA System Access and Guidance
Lauren clarified the structure of system access for new employees at UVA, emphasizing the importance of reaching out to local offices or OSP for guidance on accessing various systems. She noted that different systems require different levels of access and that institutional profiles often precede individual ones. Jayde shared her experience of trying to access research.gov, which required a connection with the institution, and Lauren confirmed this process. Lauren also suggested using the Raptor portal for information on major systems and their access procedures.
FCOI Compliance and Training Overview
Lauren discussed the topic of compliance, specifically focusing on the Financial Conflict of Interest (FCOI) requirements for faculty. She explained that FCOI is part of a larger compliance umbrella, which includes financial compliance, human and animal subjects, and export controls. Lauren highlighted the changes brought about by the Huron FCOI module, which was introduced about a year ago. She outlined the four parts of administrative compliance: the annual submission of significant financial interest disclosure, the compliance training module, the training module on undue foreign influence, and the patent agreement. Lauren emphasized that the annual disclosure and the FCOI training, which occurs every four years, are the most critical for sponsor programs. She also mentioned that changes might be coming to the requirements at the Federal level, which could affect the training and frequency of compliance.
Co-Investigator Roles and Research Responsibilities
Lauren and Emily discussed the role of a co-investigator in research projects. Lauren clarified that a co-investigator typically implies a senior key person but doesn’t necessarily mean they are responsible for the design, conduct, or reporting of the research. Emily asked about the implications of this role. Lauren also mentioned that there are other areas of training specific to the work done, such as human subjects training, lab safety, and responsible conduct of research. The discussion also touched on the roles of the Institutional Review Board (IRB) in human subject research, with Lauren explaining the distinction between the Social and Behavioral Sciences (SBS) and the Health Sciences Research (HSR) sections.
IRB, IACUC, and Reliance Agreements
Lauren discussed the differences between the Institutional Review Board (IRB) and the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC), emphasizing that they are responsible for animal and human subject research respectively. She highlighted the importance of understanding the nuances in determining whether a study is human subject research or exempt research. Lauren also mentioned a new tool from the IRB to facilitate studies that are not human subject research. She further explained the concept of reliance agreements, particularly in the context of single IRB (sIRB) or central IRB, and the need for these agreements to be up-to-date. Lastly, she touched on the sub-recipient risk assessment and monitoring process, emphasizing the importance of providing necessary information to the Office of Sponsored Programs (OSP) for this process.
The team discussed the complexities of managing grants and funding across different departments and schools. They highlighted the importance of setting up separate grant lines for better financial tracking and reporting. The need for clear communication and collaboration between pre-award and post-award teams was emphasized. The team also discussed the challenges of tracking credit for multi-PI situations and the need for better system reporting. They touched on the policy regarding who can be a PI on a sponsored award and the process for requesting exceptions. Lastly, they discussed the importance of understanding the difference between a grant and a gift, and a subcontractor and a vendor.
AI-generated content may be inaccurate or misleading. Always check for accuracy.
Meeting Recording
- Passcode: =m6Y9Tu.
ZOOM AI Meeting Summary
Quick recap
The team discussed the Levelup Study group, a course purchased by the team last summer, and considered whether to renew it at different levels or purchase a set number of tokens for specific modules or courses as needed. They also discussed the importance of relationships in research administration, the challenges of navigating the complex structure of their institution, and the potential of using a training program as a baseline for institution-specific training. Lastly, they discussed potential changes in funding for NIH grants under the incoming administration, the roles and responsibilities within their institution, and the challenges of onboarding new faculty and researchers.
Next steps
• Shawn to follow up with SRA about accessibility options for the LevelUp modules.
• Lauren to look into potential screen reader options for the LevelUp modules.
• Lauren to consider reordering the LevelUp modules based on group feedback.
• Lauren to add additional sessions to cover new LevelUp modules on cost transfers.
• RAMP UP group to consider creating a roles and responsibilities checklist for new faculty and grant administrators as a future project.
• Lauren to share information about the upcoming Virginia chapter meeting for Research Administrators at University of Richmond in July.
Summary
Levelup Study Group Renewal Discussion
The meeting was a discussion about the Levelup Study group, a course purchased by the team last summer. The course is set to end in May 2025, but there’s a possibility of renewing it. The team is considering whether to renew at different levels, possibly purchasing a set number of tokens for specific modules or courses as needed. The first module discussed was about relationships, roles, and responsibilities, and the team was open to discussing any thoughts or questions related to the content.
Improving Relationships and Communication in Research
In the meeting, Lauren, Eileen, Erin, Alex, Steven, and Helen discussed the importance of relationships in research administration, particularly with Principal Investigators (PIs). They noted that these relationships can be strained and that there’s a need for better understanding and communication. They also discussed the challenges of navigating the complex structure of their institution and the varying expectations of new faculty members. Helen suggested the creation of a checklist outlining roles and responsibilities to help new faculty and grant administrators. The team agreed that this would be a valuable tool for clarifying responsibilities and improving communication.
Raptor Group Project and Mentorship
Lauren proposed the idea of creating a draft for a project that could be tackled by the Raptor Group, which could also be a great project for the ramp-up mentorship program. Helen suggested bringing this up at the next general meeting to see if anyone didn’t have an assigned project and would like to take it on. Lauren agreed, noting that as staff changes and processes evolve, having a baseline would be beneficial. Candice provided a link to OSP’s roles and responsibilities matrix, which Lauren found very detailed. Erin expressed interest in learning more about funding avenues beyond NIH and Dod, while Shawn found the assessment broad but useful for general information.
Training Program and Audio Functionality
The team discussed the potential of using a training program as a baseline for institution-specific training. They agreed that the program could provide a general understanding of the field, which could then be tailored to their specific needs. The team also discussed the functionality of the program, with a particular focus on the lack of audio components. Erin suggested the possibility of accommodations for those who need audio, and Shawn agreed to inquire about this. The team also considered the possibility of using browser plugins to read websites, which could be a helpful tool for those who prefer to read and listen simultaneously.
Improving Educational Content and Training
The team discussed the challenges and potential improvements of their current educational content, which they found to be dense and reading-intensive. They agreed that in-person training would be beneficial, but also acknowledged the need for remote learning options. The team also discussed the addition of new modules, including one on cost transfers, and the potential for expanding their training program. They also touched on the development of a new framework by Srai to standardize career progression in research administration. The team expressed a desire for more interactive and engaging content, and the possibility of earning CRA credits through their current training program.
NIH Grant Funding and Staffing Changes
The team discussed potential changes in funding for NIH grants under the incoming administration. Lauren expressed less concern about drastic changes like eliminating F&A or indirect costs, but anticipated changes in funding priorities. Steven agreed, noting that such changes could be implemented more easily than drastic measures like eliminating F&A. Lauren also mentioned the possibility of initiatives from the government accountability or efficiency office potentially leading to open positions not being filled or reductions in staffing. The team acknowledged the uncertainty of these changes and the possibility of being wrong about their predictions.
Clarifying Roles in Pre-Award and Post-Award
The team discussed the roles and responsibilities within their institution, particularly in relation to pre-award and post-award processes. They noted that many departments handle both pre-award and post-award tasks, which can lead to confusion. The team also discussed the potential for cultural change and better-defined terminology to clarify these roles. They considered the impact of systems like Workday on these processes and the potential for a shift towards more specialized roles. The team also discussed the challenges of managing deadlines and other award management tasks simultaneously.
Onboarding Faculty and Sponsored Programs
In the meeting, Lauren, Shawn, Steven, CDT8P, and others discussed the challenges of onboarding new faculty and researchers at the institution. They discussed the need for better communication and understanding of the processes involved in sponsored programs administration. Lauren suggested that creating a community where everyone knows they have support can help in this process. They also discussed the development of onboarding documents and modules to guide new faculty through the specifics of sponsored programs administration. The team also discussed the upcoming Virginia chapter meeting for research administrators. Shawn clarified the structure of the pre-award sections in the training module. The team agreed to continue their weekly meetings to progress through the modules.
AI-generated content may be inaccurate or misleading. Always check for accuracy.
SOMOGC News & Announcements - 2024
Meeting Recording: https://virginia.zoom.us/rec/share/DgTdO27HlMZp_RDP3CEWPu1p6ILFELAF_IG3_l05NlYcdwurtR0hUIbg7niGgjGg.eec9cy80bKIGdLrm
- Passcode: #p1wH0Pj
Audio Transcript: https://virginia.zoom.us/rec/share/Zo4bL2c8–7QPnPMk0FBvq_9HMYGP-L24q7KZ6lhmggtpYAi84jTXCoUCjuaU7OI.FbDAxJa5mF1VVB88
- Passcode: #p1wH0Pj
Meeting Slides & Resources
- SEAS’ NSF Proposal Preparation Slides
- SciENcv – Delegation Instructions
- SciENcv – Generating an NSF Biosketch
ZOOM AI Meeting Summary:
Quick recap
The meeting covered various aspects of research administration, including data use agreements, contract negotiations, and tools for managing federally required documents. Discussions focused on the processes and challenges involved in data transfer, compliance requirements, and the use of platforms like Huron Forum and Science TV. The meeting also addressed changes in NSF proposal regulations and the importance of submitting all required documents for grant proposals.
Next steps
• Lauren to decide on format for December RAM meeting (newsletter or rescheduled meeting) and communicate decision to attendees.
• Steven to discuss research data certification team turnaround times with Jeff Martins.
• Jamie Petrasic and contracts team to develop a checklist/job aid for completing contract agreement types in Huron.
• Lauren to collect and share follow-up questions on DUAs/Huron with Sharon’s team and Jamie’s training team.
• Lauren to distribute Science CV guidance documents from Steven’s team to RAM attendees.
Summary
RAM Meeting: Data Use Agreements & NSF Proposals
In the meeting, Lauren welcomed everyone to the November RAM meeting and introduced the two main presentations for the day. The first was by Sharon Taraska from the OSP contracts team, who would discuss data use agreements. The second was by Steven and Rebecca from the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, who would discuss collaborative proposals between the School of Medicine and the School of Engineering for NSF. Lauren also mentioned that the December RAM meeting might not take place due to the approaching winter break, and instead, a newsletter-style update might be sent out. She encouraged feedback on this decision.
Data Use Agreement and Research Data
Sharon discussed the use of a typical data use agreement (DUA) for transferring research data. She explained that the DUA defines the terms and conditions of data transfer, storage, use, and disposal, and covers essential terms such as publication and liability. Sharon also mentioned that the FDP DUA template is designed for data derived from humans but can be adapted for other types of research data. She highlighted the advantages of using this template, including standard and non-negotiable terms, a pre-populated attachment for project-specific information, and fillable sections for project-specific details. Sharon also emphasized the importance of providing the legal names of the provider and recipient, the project title, and the IRB number and title in the agreement.
Preparing Data Use Agreement (DUA)
Sharon discussed the process of preparing a Data Use Agreement (DUA) for data transfer. She highlighted the importance of identifying the type of data, such as de-identified, limited data set, or personally identifiable information, as this determines the compliance requirements. Sharon also emphasized the need for a detailed description of the data and the project, including technical requirements and data handling after the agreement’s expiration. She noted that the contract negotiator typically drafts the DUA, but the provider of the data can also do so. Sharon also addressed questions about invoicing and payment for data preparation costs, stating that these would typically come from the department and would need to go through procurement if significant.
Research Approval and Compliance Process
Sharon, Tiffany, and Celeste discussed the process of obtaining approvals for research involving human subjects or data. Sharon emphasized the need for compliance documentation, such as IRB approval or exemption, before signing a DUA. Tiffany suggested that even if research appears non-human subjects, it’s still necessary to complete an online survey for documentation. Celeste added that uploading relevant IRB documentation with the smart form submission can be helpful. Sharon also mentioned that a data certification from the research data certification team is required for outgoing data derived from human subjects. The team acknowledged that the process is not straightforward and they are working to improve it.
Contract Negotiation and Collaborator Agreements
Sharon discussed the process of contract negotiation, emphasizing that only a specific team can make certain calls. She explained the standard liability provision and the typical no publicity clause in their agreements. Sharon also highlighted the need for amendments if the scope of work, collaborators, or attachments change. She clarified that collaborators must be aware of the terms of the agreement and that they should execute a substantially similar agreement. Sharon also addressed a question about regulatory violations, stating that even if another institution doesn’t require a Data Use Agreement (DUA), UVA does. She mentioned that the VPR’s office is working to streamline the requirements and turnaround times for outgoing research data.
Data Certification Process Challenges
Sharon, Steven, Lynn, Tiffany, and Celeste discussed the challenges they were facing with the data certification process. Steven expressed frustration over the lengthy time it was taking to complete the process, which was impacting their projects. Lynn explained that the data certification process was crucial for ensuring the correct terms were included in agreements to cover the level of data. However, she also acknowledged that the process needed to be improved. Celeste added that the data governance committee, which was more Med Center related, could also be involved in the review process, which could further delay the process. Steven agreed to bring up the issue with Jeff Martins and Laurie.
Huron Forum and Science TV Overview
In the meeting, Celeste and her team provided an overview of the Huron Forum, which is a tool used for managing contract agreement types. Lauren encouraged the team to ask questions or seek clarification on any issues they encountered with the tool. She also mentioned that Jamie Petrasic, part of the Vpro’s training team, is working on a checklist or job aid for completing contract agreement types. The team also discussed the changes in the regulations and requirements for NSF proposals, with a focus on the use of research.gov for submission. Na and Rebecca then introduced Science TV, a free tool developed by NIH in collaboration with other Federal agencies, which simplifies the process of creating and managing federally required documents.
Managing Researcher Profiles and Documents
Na discussed the workflow for researchers in creating and managing federally required Biosketch and other support documents for grant proposals and reporting purposes. She highlighted the importance of setting up an account using RA comments or login, assigning a destination for profile access, and linking an Orchid account, Google Scholar, or other research portfolio. Na also emphasized the need for PI to review and download documents, and for administrators to ensure all information is accurate before downloading other support documents. She also addressed the use of delegation, which allows multiple people to work on and manage a PI’s account, enhancing collaboration and streamlining the submission process.
Senior Personnel Documents and Submission
Na discussed the required documents for senior personnel working on a project, including a file sketch, current and pending support, collaborators and other affiliations, and synergistic activities. Na also mentioned that these documents can be generated by Syd and the PI can provide the collaborators and other affiliations. Na further explained the format for ordering Sf submission and the difference between NSF and NIH submission. Stephen asked about a template for POD other support, which Na promised to share later. Lauren confirmed that she could see the template shared by Na.
Proposal Submission and Document Management
Na discussed the importance of submitting all required documents for a proposal, emphasizing that without them, a submission cannot be made. Rebecca then shared her screen to demonstrate how to log in and accept delegation requests in CV. She explained the process of updating documents, including current and pending proposals, and the need for PIs to certify and download their documents. Lauren added that School of Medicine faculty should use their ERA Commons login for progress reporting. Rebecca also highlighted that while she can update documents as a delegate, she cannot download or certify them, which is a task the PIs must do themselves. Lauren suggested that the documents Rebecca shared could be helpful for disseminating to PIs.
AI-generated content may be inaccurate or misleading. Always check for accuracy.
Meeting Recording: https://virginia.zoom.us/rec/share/C8-wSrq_ONNyFRX2ACDFJp6gHQpegL12An2I0xGh1Mso1hQo67Zb0Hto8pj8Q2jG.CxqV1y3DHb52cv9i
- Passcode: .5SSt^AL
Audio Transcript: https://virginia.zoom.us/rec/share/nUKYTXEVaCQdQahCh0Jquovk6FaGvxP-2pOccHA0s3ufLtyLspQ4RNvMAa4McRa6.PA4L05IJEBVkrL7V
- Passcode: .5SSt^AL
Meeting Slides
- UVA Health Sciences Library: Open Access Research Symposium 2024
- SOMOGC Office Hours for NIH Fellowships – Friday, November 8th @ 10am
ZOOM AI Meeting Summary:
Lauren led the October school medicine RAM meeting, introducing new team members and discussing Nih updates and reminders, particularly the updated reporting requirements for data management and sharing plans. She also announced upcoming changes to the application forms, the importance of submitting complete applications before the internal deadline, and the compliance requirements related to research administration. Lastly, she discussed the process of initiating a resubmission funding proposal for NIH resubmissions, the importance of understanding which institutes participate in specific funding opportunities, and upcoming professional development events.
- Lauren to update the website to remove the duplicate Significant Financial Interest (SFI) link on the compliance requirements page.
- Lauren to post the new NIH Fellowship checklist on the grants and contracts website.
- Department administrators to establish internal deadlines for proposal submissions and work with chairs to enforce them.
- Lauren to organize a meeting on human subjects research exemptions and requirements for future RAM meetings.
- Lauren to resend information about the Open Access and Research Symposium on October 23rd.
- All attendees to review the new forms I package changes and prepare for implementation after January 25th.
October School Medicine RAM Meeting Highlights
Lauren led the October school medicine RAM meeting, introducing new team member Jayde, who recently joined from UC San Diego. Jackson, a new member of the cancer center team, also introduced himself. The meeting focused on Nih updates and reminders, particularly the updated reporting requirements for data management and sharing plans. Lauren explained the new requirements, including the need to report on these plans in the Pprs and the updated Rppr Instruction Guide. She also discussed the system validations built into the Rppr and the options for those without a plan. The team was advised to consult Lauren if they encountered any issues or questions during the submission process.
Application Form Changes and Science CV Implementation
Lauren announced upcoming changes to the application forms, set to be implemented after January 25th of next year. The changes include renaming fields, updating expiration dates, and updating field labels. The new forms will be applicable for applications submitted after the mentioned date. Lauren also mentioned that the updates to the Biosketch and other support have been pushed until May of next year. She encouraged the use of Science CV for standardizing the creation of these documents. Lauren also highlighted the importance of carefully selecting the correct forms package when preparing a funding proposal in Huron. Kim suggested the possibility of the NIH issuing a new funding proposal number with the I forms, but Lauren was unsure if this would be implemented.
Adjusting Deadlines and Preparing for Holidays
Lauren discussed the upcoming deadlines and holidays, emphasizing the need to adjust internal submission deadlines around holidays. She highlighted the November 5th resubmission, renewal, deadline, advising that applications should be submitted on November 4th to avoid missing the deadline due to the university holiday. She also mentioned the university’s winter break and the need to submit applications by December 13th to meet the January 1st deadline. Lauren also announced office hours on November 8th for those applying for NIH fellowships and the release of a new fellowship checklist to help prepare applications.
New Web Forms and Process Updates Discussed
Lauren announced new web forms for submitting F&A waivers and deadline policy exceptions, aiming to standardize processes and ensure timely processing. She emphasized the importance of using these forms and sending an email to Som Ogc when a request is ready for review. Susan asked about the necessity of using the new forms, to which Lauren responded that while not required, they are preferred for standardization and tracking purposes. Lauren also mentioned updates to the Nih Fellowship checklist and the consortium commitment form, and encouraged feedback on the website. Melissa raised a question about updating the abbreviated LoI with revised UG language, which Lauren confirmed was a topic of discussion.
Certification and Compliance Challenges in Subcontracting
Lauren and Melissa discussed the challenges of certification and compliance when working as subcontractors with other institutions. Lauren clarified that there are three consortium forms on their website, with the most updated one including all necessary certifications. She suggested that institutions should ask their prime applicants if they have a form like this, and if not, they can send one of their versions. Melissa agreed, suggesting that institutions could direct their subcontractors to the FDP for the required information. Lauren also noted that sometimes institutions request additional forms after the initial submission, which could be avoided if all necessary information was bundled together initially.
New Form for Consortium Commitments and Signatures
The team discussed the use of a new form for consortium commitments, which is now required by the University Grants Committee (UGC). They agreed that the form should be used whenever possible to ensure all necessary information is in one place. They also discussed the possibility of using the new form for ongoing projects, with the understanding that it might not be necessary for every year of the same award. The team also discussed the process of obtaining signatures from authorized organizational representatives, with the consensus that an email with the new certification language would suffice in some cases. The team agreed to use the new form whenever possible, but also to accommodate existing processes and proposals.
Managing Deadlines and Incomplete Applications
Lauren discussed the high number of requests for deadline exceptions and incomplete applications, emphasizing the importance of submitting complete applications before the internal deadline. She explained that applications submitted after the deadline may only receive a compliance review, and if errors are found close to the submission deadline, they may not be able to be fixed in time. Lauren also mentioned that they are tracking late requests by department and will meet with department chairs if the number exceeds five. She stressed the need for establishing internal deadlines to ensure everyone has time to do their job effectively. Catherine confirmed that their department has a written policy regarding deadlines.
Effective Policy Implementation and Compliance
Catherine and Lauren discussed the importance of setting an example from the top for effective policy implementation, particularly in the context of the School of Medicine. They agreed on the need for buy-in from chairs and the importance of stressing the role of each part of the process. Lauren also addressed the issue of filling out the deadline exception request, suggesting that while it might be more difficult with a web form, it’s still possible for anyone to complete it. The team also discussed the responsibility of faculty in the process. Lastly, Melissa asked about directing Principal Investigators (PIs) to complete compliance, and Susan confirmed that all necessary links are available on their website.
Compliance Requirements and Training Discussion
Lauren discussed the compliance requirements related to research administration, including the completion of two trainings in the city module and a patent agreement. She mentioned that the patent agreement is a one-time requirement, while the trainings need to be completed every four years. Lauren also noted that the Combined Institutional Conflict of Interest (COI) and External Activities (EAD) disclosure is now done in the system, which has been a point of struggle for some faculty. Melissa asked about the process of checking compliance, to which Lauren confirmed that a reporting system called ClickSense can be used. Susan raised a question about the timing of the COI and EAD training requirements, which Lauren confirmed are required at the award stage, not the proposal stage.
NIH Resubmission Funding Proposal Process
Melissa and Lauren discussed the process of initiating a resubmission funding proposal for NIH resubmissions. Lauren emphasized the importance of starting the resubmission from the original funding proposal to avoid having to redo the entire process. She also advised reviewing any pre-populated information in the resubmission, as it may not be up-to-date. Catherine added that salaries need to be manually updated in the resubmission, as the old information may still be present. Lauren also mentioned that highlighting changes in the technical documents is no longer allowed for NIH resubmissions, and these should be noted in the introduction instead.
Understanding Institute Participation and Deadlines
Lauren emphasized the importance of understanding which institutes participate in specific funding opportunities, such as the R. 21 parent funding opportunity, to avoid applications being withdrawn. She also highlighted the need to be aware of unique deadlines for certain institutes, like the National Cancer Institute, to avoid missed deadlines. Catherine and Susan added to the discussion, noting the requirement for a modular budget for R. 21 applications and the existence of clinical trial-specific funding opportunities.
NIH Application Process and Upcoming Events
Lauren discussed the NIH application process, emphasizing the 2-day pending review window where only minor changes can be made before the deadline. She stressed the importance of faculty reviewing previews of their applications to catch any issues. Lauren clarified the difference between exempt human subjects research, which still requires documentation, and non-human subjects research. She also reminded the team about restrictions on including dental insurance for graduate students on grants. Lauren announced upcoming professional development events, including the OSP Research Administrators Forum, and an NIH primer for those new to NIH funding. The next meeting will cover data use agreements and NSF proposal requirements.
Please find the meeting recording and passcode below.
Passcode: c!BiXzf5
Audo Transcript:
Passcode: c!BiXzf5
Please find the meeting recording and passcode below.
Passcode: 9Jcro*.Y
Please find the meeting recording and passcode below.
Passcode: PS$CN#8!
Please find the meeting recording, slides, and other resources below.
Passcode: x1=tnd@a
SRAI LevelUP Demo/Sandbox [available until May 28th]
Please find the meeting recording and other resources below.
Passcode: u&kF7&pX
Link to the F&A Sharing Procedure that was discussed during the meeting.
SOMOGC News & Announcements - 2023
Please find the meeting recording here.
Passcode: .FR!um7i
Please find the meeting recording here.
Passcode: 4J54QSG!
Please find the meeting recording here.
Passcode: Y7+&D7TF
Please find the meeting recording here.
Passcode: p9CLn&f7
Resources:
Link to Workday RAD. Click on the “Research” stream, then on the “Workday RAD” workbook.
Link to the UVA Business Terms page that was discussed and linked in the Zoom chat.
The new RPPR Cover Sheet, which is required for all RPPR submissions, can be found under “General Resources” on the Forms & Templates section of our website.
Please find the meeting recording here.
Passcode: ^8^4G1c@
The Huron transaction graphic that we shared can be downloaded below: