News, Announcements, & Meetings Archive
**Our site is moving!! After July 1, 2026, please find all updated content at https://intranet.med.virginia.edu/office-grants-and-contracts [Netbadge login required]**
SOMOGC News, Announcements, & Meetings - 2026
Meeting Recording
Passcode: BX0+LOsE
Meeting summary
Quick recap
This was the final session in the Huron Demo Series cycle, focusing on clinical trials processes in the Huron grants and agreements system. Lauren Armstrong, Assistant Director of the Office of Grants and Contracts in the School of Medicine, led the demonstration covering the dual submission process required for clinical trial agreements, which involves both funding proposals and separate agreement records. The session covered how to create and link CSA (Clinical Study Agreement) records with funding proposals, manage relationships between the two systems, and complete required fields including sponsor information, counterparty details, and protocol data. Key technical details were discussed around handling CROs versus sponsors, managing new entities not found in the system database, and completing budget records with the minimum required 1% PI effort. Sarah from the OSP clinical trial negotiation team provided additional guidance on required supporting documents like protocols and ICFs, and emphasized the importance of complete information for efficient negotiation processes.
Summary
Clinical Trials Demo Series Final
Lauren Armstrong led the final session of the Huron Demo Series focused on clinical trials, explaining that clinical trials require a dual submission process involving both a funding proposal and an agreement record in separate modules of the Huron system. She demonstrated how to navigate the grants and agreements modules, emphasizing that the Clinical Study Agreement (CSA) should be started first as it goes to the contract negotiator for review and execution, while the companion funding proposal builds the foundation for the eventual award. The session was designed to be interactive, with Lauren inviting questions and noting that the team would restart the demo series next month covering general navigation topics on a rotating basis.
Agreement Record System Demonstration
Lauren demonstrated how to create an agreement record in the system, starting with the agreement rather than the funding proposal as Alex had questioned. The team clarified that while agreements can be created from funding proposals, the reverse process is not directly available. Lauren showed the step-by-step process including selecting the agreement type, populating administrative details, and uploading the draft agreement, using a CSA (Clinical Study Agreement) as an example involving both a sponsor and CRO.
CSA Form Submission Process
Lauren and Sarah discussed the process for submitting Contract and Sponsored Agreement (CSA) forms, emphasizing the importance of including supporting documents like prior communications with sponsors and protocols. They clarified that UVA does not need to provide funding for CSAs as they involve incoming rather than outgoing money. The discussion focused on correctly entering counterparty information, particularly when the CRO (ICON) is different from the study sponsor (Ascendus), and highlighted the importance of completing counterparty contact fields before submission.
CRO Indemnification and Authority Process
Sarah explained that when a CRO signs a CTA, UVA requires a letter of indemnification from the sponsor and a letter of authority, though these are not required upfront. She clarified that while these are separate agreements, they are handled under the same CSA record in the Huron system, with the LOI needing to be fully executed before the CTA can be signed. The discussion also covered how to properly input project information when both a CRO and sponsor are involved, including questions about study phases, funding sources, and contact information.
CRO Identification in Clinical Research
Sarah and Lauren discussed the process of identifying parties in clinical research agreements, particularly focusing on CROs and their roles in payments and administration. They emphasized that the signature page provides the clearest indication of the counterparty, and recommended entering new entities directly if they don’t appear in system searches rather than using “TBD.” Lauren noted that CROs are increasingly involved in both contracting and payment management, which can affect how funding proposals and award records are completed.
Sponsor Review Database Process
Lauren and Sarah discussed the process of reviewing sponsors and entering data into the database, emphasizing the importance of completing additional study-specific questions, even though they are not required, as they inform the negotiation process. They explained that these questions were designed by OSP and Huron to assist contract negotiators and help streamline the process. The discussion also covered the workflow for agreement records, including ancillary reviews, the role of the submit button, and linking agreement records with funding proposals.
Funding Proposal Process in Huron
Lauren explained the process for creating and linking funding proposal records with clinical trial agreements (CTAs) in the Huron system. She demonstrated how to complete key fields in the funding proposal, including sponsor information, PI details, and budget requirements, noting that clinical trials require a minimum 1% effort for the PI. The group discussed best practices for including email correspondence between investigators and sponsors, with Susan suggesting this context be included in the CSA record. Lauren clarified the status updates that occur during the review process, particularly how funding proposals move to “award anticipated” status to facilitate conflict of interest reviews.
AI can make mistakes. Review for accuracy.
Meeting Recording
Passcode: mLCH5R8%
Meeting summary
Quick recap
The May School of Medicine RAM meeting focused on two main topics: a demonstration of a new AI-based tool for converting CVs to NIH biosketches presented by Dr. Pankaj Kumar from the Bioinformatics Core, and updates on ancillary reviews in the Huron system. Dr. Kumar demonstrated how the Chrome browser extension can automatically extract information from existing CVs to populate biosketch forms, reducing manual data entry while allowing users to edit and customize the generated content. The meeting also covered changes to ancillary review processes in Huron, including new options for organization-level reviews and specific requirements for export controls, foreign influence reviews, and sponsor vetting. Additional updates included reminders about Malign Foreign Talent Recruitment Program certifications, new requirements for domestic subaward prior approvals effective June 1st, the elimination of continuous submission privileges after August 10th, and updates to data management and sharing plan requirements with a new template effective for applications on or after May 25th.
Summary
NIH Biosketch Conversion Tool Demo
Dr. Pankaj Kumar from the Bioinformatics Core demonstrated a new Chrome browser extension tool that automatically converts CVs and biosketches to NIH biosketch format, extracting information from existing documents to save time on data entry. The tool works for multiple funding agencies including NIH, NSF, USDA, and DOE, and requires UVA network connection and Chrome browser with the appropriate extension installed. Catherine asked about including publication information, which Pankaj clarified can be edited and removed if not appropriate for submission. The meeting also covered changes to ancillary reviews in Huron, explaining the option to choose either individual reviewers or organization-based review groups for proposal submissions.
Ancillary Review Process Updates
Lauren provided a comprehensive overview of ancillary review processes for proposals and agreements, explaining different types of reviews including collaborating unit verification, department school review, and export controls. She covered important policy updates including the requirement for Malign Foreign Talent Recruitment Program certification and subaward prior approval requirements taking effect June 1st. The meeting also addressed changes to continuous submission policies, new data management and sharing plan requirements effective May 25th, and updates to budget thresholds for domestic subawards.
AI can make mistakes. Review for accuracy.
Meeting Recording
- Passcode: GRorg?&2
Meeting summary
Quick recap
This meeting focused on the second half of the post-award non-financial module, covering sections 4 through 7, including reporting requirements, effort reporting, and soft skills in post-award management. The discussion covered various tools and processes for tracking reporting requirements, with participants sharing their experiences using both Huron and Workday systems. Sherry and Stephanie discussed their approaches to managing deliverables and working closely with pre-award teams, while Alex demonstrated a new UBI module for proactive salary cap management in Workday. The group also addressed challenges around effort reporting, payroll certification, and the importance of communication and transparency with faculty members. Key topics included managing closeouts, record retention requirements, and the process of relinquishing awards when PIs transfer to other institutions. The conversation ended with a discussion on essential soft skills for post-award administrators, with participants emphasizing the importance of clear communication and building trust with faculty.
Summary
Post-Award Non-Financial Management Discussion
Lauren facilitated a discussion on post-award non-financial management, focusing on sections 4 through 7 of the module, which cover reporting requirements and effort reporting. Sherry shared that she uses both Huron and Workday tools to track and compare budget information and award documents, and reaches out to colleagues or OSP when needed. The discussion began exploring how team members approach establishing reporting schedules after receiving awards, comparing organized planning methods versus reactive approaches.
NOA Review and Budget Processes
Sherry and Stephanie discussed their processes for managing NOA reviews and budget breakdowns, including using templates and conducting kickoff meetings for larger centers and newer faculty members. They highlighted the importance of communication between pre-award and post-award teams, with Sherry explaining that they work closely with pre-award colleagues and share the same server to facilitate collaboration. Stephanie shared her experience using Huron’s managed deliverables functionality to track and remind about important dates and tasks, while Lauren noted that Workday’s scheduling features are more commonly used by OSP post-award teams.
Deliverables System Setup and Management
Lauren demonstrated how to set up and manage deliverables in the system, showing the process of creating a progress report with annual occurrences due on May 15th. She explained that while documents can be attached to deliverables, it’s recommended to upload them separately under the award documents section to maintain editability. The discussion also covered how to access different system functions by changing roles using the Manage Access feature.
Grant and Subcontract Closeout Process
Sherry discussed the process of managing closeouts for grants and subcontracts, emphasizing the importance of reminding PIs and subcontractors about upcoming deadlines and requirements. She explained that different processes are followed depending on the sponsor, including requesting spending estimates, handling technical reports, and managing invention and property reporting. Lauren highlighted the need to understand which offices oversee specific closeout processes and the importance of coordinating with these offices for compliance and verification.
Patent Management Process Discussion
Lauren and Sherry discussed the process of managing patents and closeout forms, emphasizing the importance of checks and balances, including confirmation with the PI and relevant departments. Lauren highlighted the need for congruence between federal invention reporting and iEdison data, and the importance of confirming information with fixed assets and OSP’s post-award office. The group clarified that UVA now uses payroll certification rather than effort reporting, managed through the PAC module in Huron, to ensure compliance with grant commitments and oversight responsibilities.
Federal Grant Salary Compliance Requirements
Lauren and Alex discussed effort reporting requirements for federal grants, noting that reductions exceeding 25% must be tracked cumulatively across awards. Alex demonstrated a new UBI module in Workday that allows proactive monitoring of salary cap compliance, enabling administrators to track salary charges against grant limits in real-time rather than waiting for periodic reports. The discussion covered both federal salary caps and non-federal caps established by sponsors, with Lauren explaining that non-federal caps typically require separate cost share grant lines. The meeting also addressed record retention requirements and the process for transferring awards when PIs leave, emphasizing the importance of early communication with both the receiving institution and subawardees to avoid last-minute complications.
AI can make mistakes. Review for accuracy.
Meeting Recording
- Passcode: 3ds9m@=A
Meeting summary
Quick recap
This meeting focused on demonstrating the Huron system functionality for non-funded agreements, specifically covering material transfer agreements (MTAs) and data use agreements (DUAs). Lauren led the demonstration, walking participants through the smart form process, including navigation, required fields, and best practices for entering information. Bill provided important clarifications about required documentation, particularly the research data certification form needed for both sending and receiving data, and emphasized the importance of accurate information for contract negotiations. The discussion covered how to properly link agreements to funded projects using the manage relationships feature and the proper approval process through ancillary reviews. Participants asked several questions about handling biohazards, animals, and the integration of DUAs with outgoing subawards, with Bill and Lauren providing guidance on these specific scenarios. The session concluded with a review of the workspace functionality, including correspondence tracking and document management within the Huron system.
Summary
Huron Non-Funded Agreements Demonstration
Lauren led a Huron demonstration session focused on non-funded agreements and agreement types, building on previous sessions about outgoing subaward agreements. The session covered system navigation, including how to search and filter agreements through the dashboard, and the process of creating new agreements as standalone items or linked to existing transactions. Lauren explained the initial agreement setup process, including selecting agreement types from a dropdown menu which populates additional required fields, and emphasized the importance of providing detailed descriptions to help contract negotiators. The session also covered best practices for project identifiers and naming conventions to ensure easy identification of agreements in the system.
DUA Project Title Best Practices
Bill discussed best practices for creating project titles and descriptions for DUAs (Data Use Agreements). He emphasized the importance of using specific titles that differentiate one project from another, particularly for unfunded agreements where titles are often vague. Bill also recommended including information about the counterparty PI in the description to help streamline the process when sending agreements to external parties. Lauren suggested pulling specific examples from the dashboard to illustrate these points, and Bill mentioned an upcoming quick reference guide for DUAs that will provide additional guidance.
Agreement Request Documentation Challenges
Lauren discussed challenges with incomplete agreement requests, emphasizing the importance of including PI information and email communications in supporting documentation. She highlighted available resources on OSP’s website and the School of Medicine’s website for guidance on contractual issues and agreement types. Lauren also explained how to use smart forms to modify agreement types and enter counterparty information, noting that certain fields are required for submission and highlighting the importance of accurate contact details for contract negotiations.
Research Agreement Compliance Requirements
Lauren and Bill discussed the importance of accurately answering questions in research agreement forms, particularly highlighting that seemingly minor details can significantly impact agreement terms and compliance requirements. They emphasized that questions about student involvement, international elements, and intellectual property should not be overlooked, even if initial responses are “no,” as these details may require additional approvals or oversight. Lauren stressed that while most questions are not required, providing accurate information helps streamline agreement negotiation and ensures compliance with relevant regulations.
Agreement Template Information Requirements
Bill and Lauren discussed the importance of detailed information in agreements, particularly for materials and data transfers. They highlighted key fields in the agreement template, such as contact information, terms, and specific requirements like publication recognition and disposal methods. Lauren demonstrated how the form adapts based on the type of transfer (MTA or DUA) and emphasized the significance of including the source of funds to ensure compliance with related agreements and funding terms.
Material Transfer Documentation Requirements
The team discussed requirements for documenting material and data transfers, particularly focusing on how to handle biohazards and animals received from other institutions. Bill and Lauren clarified that supporting documentation for biohazards should be uploaded in question 7 of the agreement upload section, while animal-related documentation would go in the supporting documentation section. The discussion also covered the importance of establishing managed relationships in Huron to link transfers to related funded agreements, particularly to avoid duplicate agreements when standalone DUAs or MTAs already exist. Lauren mentioned that additional questions about data security plans and PI self-certification would appear when documenting data sendouts.
Research Data Certification Requirements
Bill and Lauren discussed the requirements for the research data certification form, explaining that it is needed for both sending and receiving data, though the system only prompts for it when indicating data is being sent. They clarified that PIs must self-certify the proper data category under HIPAA regulations, and the form needs to be uploaded appropriately whether for receiving or sending data. Bill mentioned they are working to revise the confusing form to better distinguish between data sharing scenarios. Kayla raised a follow-up question about data security plans versus certification forms, which was left for further discussion with Bill after the meeting.
Data Use Agreements and Subawards
The meeting focused on data use agreements (DUAs) and subaward processes. Bill explained how outgoing subawards can incorporate DUA components through a research data certification form, which is currently being revised to be less burdensome. The team discussed ways to help research administrators remember when DUAs are needed, including updates to help text and QRG documents. Lauren demonstrated various functionalities of the workspace, including managing relationships between agreements, adding ancillary reviews, and accessing correspondence and history tabs. The conversation ended with information about upcoming training on clinical trial agreements in early June.
AI can make mistakes. Review for accuracy.
Meeting Recording
- Passcode: *78mtVyg
Meeting Recording
- Passcode: ^4=tqr#Y
Meeting summary
Quick recap
Lauren led a discussion on the first three modules of the post-award non-financial administration SRA LevelUP module, focusing on sponsor types, regulatory oversight, and award management processes. Participants shared experiences about managing different types of sponsors, including industry, federal, and foundation awards, highlighting varying levels of flexibility and strictness in budget management. The group discussed the importance of understanding award terms and conditions, accessing information through systems like Huron and Workday, and effective communication with PIs and internal partners. Regulatory compliance requirements, including conflicts of interest, human and animal subjects, and export controls, were briefly addressed, with emphasis on the administrative responsibilities involved. The conversation ended with a discussion on managing at-risk accounts and the rationale behind the 6-month maximum at-risk period.
Summary
Post-Award Sponsor Management Discussion
Lauren led a discussion on the first three modules of the post-award non-financial administration SRA LevelUP module, focusing on sponsor types and their impact on award management. Participants shared experiences about managing awards from different sponsors, noting that industry sponsors tend to be more flexible, while federal and foundation sponsors have stricter regulations and budget requirements. The group discussed the importance of understanding specific sponsor guidelines, including per diem limits, travel restrictions, and the need to follow detailed terms and conditions, particularly for state-level funding.
Multi-Year Award Budget Management
The group discussed managing multi-year funded awards, particularly those with upfront funding from sponsors like NIH and Gates. Lucy shared her approach of breaking down front-loaded budgets into annual segments to help PIs better understand spending allocation over the award period. The discussion addressed challenges around re-budgeting within line items and the importance of understanding sponsor guidelines, with Lauren emphasizing the role of research administrators as translators between PIs and funding requirements. The conversation concluded with guidance that while there are no specific written resources, researchers should use Ctrl-F searches and contact OSP’s post-award office for questions about terms and conditions.
Sponsored Research Resource Challenges
The team discussed challenges with creating centralized resources for prior approval decisions in sponsored research. Bill explained that previous attempts to consolidate information were hampered by frequent changes in federal requirements and guidance. Susan inquired about a previous AI initiative to automatically flag important information in notices of award, which Bill confirmed he had worked on but abandoned due to reliability concerns with the AI tool. The discussion concluded with Lauren emphasizing that any resources or tools should supplement, rather than replace, fundamental knowledge and understanding of rules and requirements.
UVA Research Administration Challenges
The group discussed challenges in UVA’s research administration due to the large scale of the enterprise and the handoffs between different roles, particularly between pre-award and post-award teams. Jamie shared an example of a post-award issue that arose after she left her previous job, highlighting the need for better communication and knowledge sharing across departments. Lauren emphasized the importance of informed communication across all team members to catch potential issues before they become problems. The discussion concluded with a review of a decision-making pyramid that guides risk assessment and policy application, starting with institutional policies and progressing to federal laws and regulations.
Award Access Permission Discussion
Gina raised concerns about accessing awards outside her cost center through Huron, and Lauren explained that broader access within Huron is limited by cost center restrictions. Lauren suggested that individual access can be granted at the award level through the Manage Access function, and Kylie and Sherry clarified that Workday provides broader access and includes award documents and attachments, which can be accessed through the attachments tab.
Workday and Huron System Training
Lauren demonstrated how to use Workday and Huron systems to access award information, including notices of award, grant budget versus actual data, and award terms and conditions. She explained that while Workday provides a high-level overview suitable for basic needs, more detailed information can be found in Huron, including deliverables, human/animal subject information, and billing details. Sherry shared that their team uses award tasks for tracking financial reports and closeouts, particularly working with Joyce Gredler on property reports, and noted that proposal documents are now being uploaded to the system.
Award Management and Protocols
The meeting focused on award management processes and communication protocols. The group discussed how notifications about award changes are automatically sent through Workday based on grant hierarchies, with Jenna clarifying that these emails are triggered when there are different cost centers involved. Sherry shared their team’s practice of reviewing new awards and distributing information to relevant stakeholders, including PIs and managers. The discussion concluded with a brief overview of regulatory oversight areas including conflicts of interest, human subjects, animal subjects, and export controls, with Lauren noting that administrative compliance requirements often involve disclosures, trainings, and patent policies that administrators need to monitor.
Federal Training Requirements and Compliance
Lauren presented a pyramid diagram explaining how federal laws trickle down into requirements for individual investigators, with Susan and Jaime discussing specific modules and sections within the training materials. The group explored topics including at-risk spending, with Sherry noting caution in managing at-risk funds, and Lauren explaining that the institutional standard is to set up at-risk accounts for a maximum of 6 months to ensure regular check-ins on award status. Phillis asked about the reasoning behind the 6-month timeframe for at-risk accounts, which Lauren clarified as a point at which flags should be raised if no communication has occurred with the sponsor.
AI can make mistakes. Review for accuracy.
Meeting Recording
Passcode: #BDZKS1B
Meeting summary
Quick recap
Lauren led the April School of Medicine RAM meeting, focusing primarily on the new PF5 International Collaboration Grant program and recent NIH policy updates. The meeting covered key details about the PF5 application process, including submission requirements, foreign component definitions, and the need for foreign justification documentation, with a follow-up meeting scheduled for next Thursday to provide more detailed guidance. Lauren also discussed recent policy changes eliminating continuous submission deadlines after August 10th and reducing the late application window to four calendar weeks for study section members. Additional topics included new requirements for prior approval of domestic subawards added after award, the elimination of AIDS-specific submission deadlines, and updates to research security training requirements for federal proposals.
Next steps
- All participants: Review the slides for the PF5 International Collaboration Grant meeting scheduled for April 23rd and send any questions to Lauren ahead of the meeting.
- All participants: Ensure international partners have the necessary Commons registrations (both institutional and individual) to meet the May 25th proposal submission deadline for PF5 grants.
- All participants: Communicate registration requirements to international partners and assist them as needed with Commons IDs.
- All participants: Invite foreign collaborators to the April 23rd PF5 meeting if desired.
- All participants: For RPPR submissions involving outgoing subawards, begin using the new subaward certification cover page as of July 1, and submit it as a required document.
- Bill/Simon/OSP: For any pending outgoing subawards subject to new prior approval rules, attempt to process and sign agreements before June 1 cutover; research and clarify the exact cutover criteria and communicate guidance to relevant staff.
- All participants: Encourage investigators to complete required research security training and ensure COI disclosures are up to date before May, to avoid delays in federal proposal submissions.
- All participants: Register for the SRA Virginia Special Interest Group meeting at William & Mary on July 17th if interested.
- All participants: Register for the OSP Research Administration Symposium on September 30th if interested.
- All participants: Attend upcoming Level Up discussion groups and/or Huron Demo series as announced.
- All participants: For June RAM meeting, prepare for presentation by Andrea Denton and Ryan Hendrick on data management and sharing policy updates.
Summary
PF5 International Collaboration Grants Meeting
Lauren opened the April School of Medicine RAM meeting and announced an upcoming meeting dedicated to PF5 International Collaboration Grants on Thursday, March 23rd from 3-5 PM. She explained that the grants follow a single application structure submitted by UVA, which could result in multiple awards for international partners, and outlined key registration requirements including Commons registration for both institutional and individual partners. Lauren emphasized that while Commons IDs are required for proposal submission, other registrations like SAM.gov will be needed later in the process, and reminded attendees to review the slides ahead of time and submit questions in advance of the May 25th deadline.
Foreign Partner Submission Guidelines Update
Lauren addressed questions about foreign partner submissions for PF5 applications, confirming that foreign partners can submit directly as applicant organizations. The discussion covered foreign component definitions, including any performance outside the US and collaborations that may result in co-authorship, with emphasis on including foreign justification documentation in applications. Lauren also announced that the continuous submission deadline will be eliminated after August 10th, and the late application policy window for study section service has been reduced from 2 months to 4 calendar weeks.
Policy Updates and Deadline Changes
Lauren discussed two key policy updates: the August 10th deadline being the final late submission date for June applications, and a new requirement for prior approval of new domestic subawards that were not part of the original proposal, effective June 1st. Bill noted that subawards should be processed before the June 1st cutoff if possible, and Lauren clarified that the timing would be based on signature date rather than start date. The meeting also covered the elimination of AIDS-specific deadlines after May, changes to document submission requirements in Commons, and reminders about research security training requirements for federal proposals starting in May.
Science TV Subaward Challenges
Lauren and Phillis discussed challenges with designating lead PIs and award amounts for subawards in Science TV. Lauren suggested including additional details in the project description field as a workaround and recommended using Commons or NIH Reporter to verify award amounts, with the most recent notice of award being the source of truth. The conversation ended with a reminder about the upcoming June meeting featuring Andrea Denton and Ryan Hendrick from the Health Sciences Library, who will discuss updates to the data management and sharing policy.
AI can make mistakes. Review for accuracy.
Meeting Recording
- Passcode: 6N5J=U@*
Meeting summary
Quick recap
The meeting focused on discussing Section 4 of the Proposal Development Module, covering various aspects of proposal review and preparation. Participants shared experiences using AI tools like Copilot to create checklists and review solicitations, though concerns were raised about NIH’s confidentiality policies regarding AI usage with proposal content. The group discussed the importance of understanding different sponsor terminology (such as Project Narrative vs. Project Description) and the varying levels of support provided by research administrators across different institutions. Key topics included the challenges of supporting junior faculty and new investigators in proposal development, the value of providing templates and guidance for budget justifications, and the difficulties in creating comprehensive proposal training programs due to the decentralized nature of universities. The discussion also covered data management and sharing requirements, current and pending support documentation, and the role of administrators in helping faculty navigate complex proposal processes while recognizing that many administrators are learning alongside their faculty colleagues.
Summary
AI Tools for Proposal Checklists
The group discussed using AI tools, particularly Copilot, to assist with creating checklists for proposal solicitations and reviewing proposal components. Angela shared her experience using AI to generate checklists from solicitations, while Meredith described using AI to generate detailed checklists for proposal requirements, including budgetary restrictions and formatting guidelines. The discussion highlighted concerns about using AI for reviewing proposals due to confidentiality requirements, particularly regarding proprietary information and NIH guidelines. The conversation concluded with a brief mention of existing resources, including a basic checklist available on the Raptor website, and began touching on the topic of abstract review for congruence with research plans.
Research Proposal Abstract Guidelines
The group discussed the importance of abstracts in research proposals, particularly how they serve as public-facing documents for sponsors like NIH. Angela clarified that proposals remain confidential unless funded, and only then do abstracts become public. Lauren highlighted the need to better understand how different stakeholders, especially junior faculty and students, comprehend the purpose and usage of proposal components like abstracts and project narratives. The discussion also touched on the potential for varying terminology across different sponsors and the importance of bridging knowledge gaps for researchers.
Proposal Development Process Variations
The group discussed variations in proposal development processes across different institutions and roles, highlighting that responsibilities can greatly depend on the specific situation, including the PI’s experience and the institution’s structure. Lauren and Jeff noted that PIs often learn the process as they go, which can lead to misunderstandings about timelines and requirements. The conversation emphasized the importance of patience and clear communication when supporting proposal development.
Scientific Guidance for Administrators
The group discussed challenges in providing scientific guidance to researchers, particularly for administrators in the School of Medicine who are not scientists by training. Susan highlighted difficulties in understanding complex scientific concepts and logic models, while Lauren emphasized that administrators can still provide valuable support and learn along the way. The discussion then shifted to data management and sharing requirements, with Lauren noting that the Health Sciences Library provides significant support for these evolving requirements, though she asked about resources available in other parts of the institution.
Data Management Resource Planning Discussion
Susan expressed a desire for a comprehensive resource covering proposal requirements, data management implications, and repository guidelines. Lauren acknowledged that while such a resource doesn’t exist yet, the team is learning and adapting as data management and sharing policies evolve, particularly in response to NIH’s data management and sharing policy. Lauren emphasized the importance of carefully reviewing solicitation information regarding required repositories and noted that proper planning from the outset can prevent issues later in the process.
Proposal Development Checklist Guidelines
The group discussed the importance of creating detailed checklists and providing guidance for proposal development, particularly for newer faculty members and postdocs. Meredith shared her experience of being too vague with an investigator about budget requirements, emphasizing the need for specific instructions. The discussion highlighted the value of early meetings with PIs, ideally 45 days before proposal deadlines, to help understand requirements and provide support. The group also noted the importance of clarifying that checklists are not just for administrative use but should be shared with PIs to ensure all necessary components are included in proposals.
Standard Proposal Training Challenges
Shawn asked about the lack of standard proposal training for PIs at UVA, suggesting it could benefit the institution in the long run. Lauren and Jaime explained that creating comprehensive training is challenging due to UVA’s decentralized structure, with different schools approaching processes differently. They noted that while some training programs exist, such as the School of Medicine’s R01 immersion program, developing a universal solution across all departments and schools would be difficult.
Research Administration Learning and Adaptability
The team discussed the importance of continuous learning and adaptability in the research administration field. They emphasized that administrators often need to find answers to unfamiliar questions and help researchers navigate complex processes, comparing their roles to detectives. Lauren highlighted the value of understanding human and animal subject requirements to help investigators avoid potential pitfalls in their applications.
Budget Justification Review Strategies
The group discussed strategies for reviewing and preparing budget justifications in research proposals. Jamie shared her experience identifying common errors in budget justifications, particularly discrepancies between budget amounts and descriptions. Susan recommended aligning budget justifications with the corresponding budget categories, while Lauren emphasized the importance of making documents clear and understandable for reviewers. The discussion concluded with a suggestion to provide faculty with templates and language examples for different budget components, allowing them to take ownership while ensuring accuracy and consistency.
Faculty Budget Justification Challenges
Jeff and Lauren discussed the challenges of helping faculty write budget justifications, with Jeff sharing his experience of taking 10 years to move faculty away from using generic language like “I’m requesting support” toward explaining how they calculate their budget numbers. Jaime suggested that creating templates could simplify the process, and Jeff agreed, noting that different funding agencies like NSF and DOE have specific requirements that need to be followed. The discussion highlighted that while some faculty appreciate having templates and guidance, others prefer working collaboratively with administrators to develop the justifications.
Resource Sharing and Management Tools
Lauren discussed the importance of sharing resources and templates through forums to help newer field members understand their responsibilities and build mutual respect with faculty. Jeff suggested creating an AI tool to generate budget justifications using key information inputs. The group briefly touched on current and pending support, with Jaime sharing her experience using a central repository for managing this information, though Lauren noted challenges arise due to issues with Science CB access and delegated authority.
AI can make mistakes. Review for accuracy.
Meeting Recording
- Passcode: PP&!nWa0
Meeting summary
Quick recap
The meeting focused on discussing the LevelUP module’s principles and proposal development, with participants sharing experiences across different funding agencies and institutional processes. The group explored differences between formal and informal proposals, particularly regarding NSF and DOE funding mechanisms that use rolling deadlines versus specific solicitations. Participants discussed challenges with limited submission opportunities (LSOs), including communication gaps and the complexity of multi-tiered review processes. The conversation covered best practices for managing different types of proposals in Huron, including non-competing renewals, competing renewals, resubmissions, and revisions. Special considerations were addressed for career development awards, SBIR/STTR programs, and the importance of grantsmanship from a research administrator’s perspective, including the value of professional formatting and content editing to improve proposal success rates.
Summary
NSF Proposal Submission Processes
The group discussed differences between formal and informal proposal processes, particularly focusing on NSF submissions. Susan inquired about how NSF proposals work, leading to a discussion where Kim described NSF proposals as having rolling submission windows without specific deadlines, while Jeff explained that in physics, most funding comes from NSF and DOE through rolling open calls managed by program managers who work closely with PIs on 3-year grants that are renewed annually. The discussion highlighted how different funding agencies and departments have varying processes for proposal submissions.
FY26 Solicitation Process Changes
Jeff explained that the FY26 solicitation process is less deadline-driven than other funding opportunities, making it more manageable administratively. He noted that while renewals typically require 6 months’ advance notice, the current Genesis initiative is shifting DOE funding toward AI-focused projects requiring collaborations with national labs and industry, with a strict April 28th deadline. Jeff expressed concern that this new approach will affect approximately $2 million in renewal funding and may close down existing programs due to the short notice required for new collaborations.
Proposal Development and Funding Processes
Lauren and Jeff discussed the importance of proactive proposal development and administrative awareness of funding opportunities. Jeff highlighted challenges with limited submission processes, particularly regarding PIs not being informed due to missing listserv notifications, and noted that Arts and Sciences has recently hired staff to improve proposal development efforts. The discussion also covered UVA’s approach to deadline management, with Jeff explaining that while some last-minute tweaks occur, the department generally meets deadlines a day or two ahead of time, particularly for hard deadlines from funding agencies like DOE and NSF.
LOI and Limited Submission Processes
The group discussed processes for handling Letters of Intent (LOIs) and limited submissions across different departments. Jeff explained that while many LOIs are submitted without going through the full institutional process, those requiring institutional signature or containing budget information are subject to review. Catherine raised concerns about communication gaps in limited submission processes, particularly when opportunities are announced early and closed before all relevant faculty can express interest. The discussion highlighted the need for better coordination between departments and the VPR’s office to ensure proper handling of limited submissions and prevent missed opportunities.
Limited Submission Process Challenges
The group discussed challenges with limited submission processes, particularly when multiple proposals are submitted for the same opportunity. Jeff noted that issues often arise when PIs don’t carefully read funding announcements, while Lauren suggested administrators can help by ensuring eligibility requirements are met and promoting the limited submissions listserv. Catherine emphasized that approved PIs must submit their own proposals and cannot delegate to co-PIs, especially when cross-school collaborations are involved. Bill warned about content-based limitations where PIs might modify their science to fit different topic areas than originally approved. Susan highlighted the involvement of Corporate Foundation Relations Office in managing limited submissions and mentioned the common two-tiered approach with LOI and pre-proposal stages.
Huron Proposal Process Clarification
The group discussed proposal processes and system functionality in Huron. They clarified the differences between various proposal types including pre-proposals, LOIs, non-competing renewals, competing renewals, resubmissions, and competing submissions. The team confirmed that non-competing renewals are typically submitted outside the Huron system using the sponsor’s required mechanism, while competing renewals and resubmissions must be initiated from the original funded proposal in Huron. They also noted that career development awards and STTR/SVIR awards were briefly mentioned as topics for future discussion due to their complexity.
NIH Reference Letter Challenges
The group discussed common issues with NIH reference letters, particularly for fellowship awards and career development grants. They highlighted challenges with matching funding opportunity information and PI Commons IDs, and noted that reference letters must be resubmitted for each application. The discussion also covered PI eligibility requirements, distinguishing between sponsor and institutional requirements, and the need for faculty appointments by the time of award for certain grants. The conversation touched on SBIR and STTR programs, noting that the NIH SBIR program is currently on hold, and discussed UVA’s involvement in these programs and special considerations for PIs.
Conflict of Interest Guidelines Discussion
The meeting focused on conflict of interest issues and guidelines for handling situations where PIs have roles in small businesses. Kim discussed challenges with PIs not properly disclosing roles or declaring income, while Lauren emphasized the distinction between conflict of interest and conflict of commitment issues. Susan highlighted that universities should not prepare primary applications for SBIR/STTR proposals, only serving as subcontractors. The discussion concluded with a brief mention of the SPR-STTR program’s status in Congress, noting that while both House and Senate passed it, the President had indicated he would not sign the bill.
Proposal Development and Grantsmanship Practices
The group discussed proposal development and grantsmanship practices. Alex shared experiences about editing responsibilities varying by department and PI preferences, while Lauren emphasized the importance of administrators providing feedback on proposal quality from a reviewer’s perspective. Catherine highlighted the significance of professional formatting and presentation, noting that even small details like consistent fonts and margins can impact success. The discussion concluded with agreement on the value of knowing faculty reviewers who serve on grant panels, particularly for helping junior faculty and those whose English is not their first language.
AI can make mistakes. Review for accuracy.
Meeting Recording
- Passcode: A+6AL&MM
Meeting summary
Quick recap
The School of Medicine RAM meeting for March focused on DUA (Data Use Agreement) training highlights presented by Bill Schoeler from OSP. Bill discussed recent process improvements and requirements for DUA submissions, including the mandatory research data certification form that is now required for all DUAs and other agreements involving data flow. He emphasized the importance of complete and detailed information in DUA submissions, noting that insufficient descriptions of data or projects would result in the agreement being returned for revision. Bill also mentioned that OSP is working on clarifying the form to better address reciprocal DUAs and situations involving different types of data flows.
Next steps
Summary
DUA Training Review Meeting
The School of Medicine RAM meeting for March began with Lauren welcoming new participants and introducing the main topic, which was a review of the recent DUA (Data Use Agreement) training conducted by Bill Schoeler in OSP. Bill confirmed that the training took place two weeks prior, and the meeting aimed to highlight key points from the training and address any questions attendees might have about DUAs.
DUA Agreement Process Overview
Bill explained the process for handling DUA agreements, highlighting the importance of the research data certification form and clear data descriptions. He noted that OSP reviews submissions for completeness, including the required form and sufficient project descriptions, and emphasized that vague submissions will be returned for clarification. Bill also mentioned ongoing efforts to revise the form for clarity and to integrate DUAs into outgoing subawards when possible.
AI can make mistakes. Review for accuracy.
Meeting Recording
- Passcode: gd77S#3c
Meeting summary
Quick recap
The meeting focused on budgeting strategies for research grants, with a particular emphasis on personnel costs, F&A (indirect) costs, and cost sharing. Lauren led a discussion on institutional-based salary calculations, administrative supplements, and the complexities of budgeting for both UVA and UPG (University Practice Group) faculty members. The group explored how to handle salary caps, particularly for NIH grants, and discussed strategies for averaging salaries over multiple years to present flat budgets to sponsors. They also covered the importance of considering F&A rates when budgeting, with Nate highlighting how his department calculates the impact of subawards on overall costs. The conversation ended with a discussion about the distinction between allowable and allocable costs, and the challenges of determining appropriate F&A rates for different types of research activities, particularly in the School of Medicine where off-grounds vs on-grounds designations can significantly affect rates.
Summary
Institutional Salary and Supplements Discussion
Lauren led a discussion on institutional-based salary and administrative supplements at UVA, focusing on budgeting for grants. She explained that administrative supplements are supplements to base salary for additional duties, not supplements to existing awards, and are included in the full institutional-based salary. Lauren mentioned the RAD report as a resource for accessing and understanding the breakdown of components that make up a faculty member’s base salary, including UPG portions and supplements. The discussion highlighted the importance of accurately budgeting for these components in grant applications.
Workday Payroll Costing Data Training
Lauren demonstrated how to access and interpret Workday Payroll Costing data in RAD, specifically showing how to view institutional-based salary information for employees including academic salary plans, administrative supplements, and total IBS calculations. The discussion revealed important budgeting considerations, particularly that when budgeting against salary caps, researchers need to work with total IBS numbers but adjust when scheduling labor to match controlled academic salary amounts rather than the full total IBS. Alex explained the complexity of managing UPG portions, noting that while UPG salary can exceed $100,000 without increasing UVA salary costs, the UPG scheduling process is more difficult and requires finance department involvement for corrections.
Administrative Supplements and Costing Allocations
The group discussed administrative supplements and costing allocations, focusing on how to handle IBS (Indirect Budget Salary) and post-award charges. Kayla explained that while the overall percentage remains the same, administrative supplements can have their own funding sources, allowing for specific allocation without needing to switch between different pay components. Nate raised concerns about UVA policy requiring IBS to be the basis for post-award charges, questioning how this aligns with the ability to carve out specific funding sources for supplements. The discussion concluded with plans to conduct a deeper review of costing allocations and post-award management strategies in a future session, particularly regarding shared faculty and different department approaches to supplements.
Cost-Sharing and Salary Cap Guidelines
Lauren explained that voluntary cost-sharing can negatively affect F&A rate negotiations, recommending to avoid it when possible by using vague statements about personnel roles instead of quantifying specific effort commitments. She clarified that salary caps, whether federally mandated or imposed by foundations, are treated the same in budgeting, but non-standard caps require creating a cost share budget in Huron to prompt the creation of a separate GR for tracking. The system automatically calculates salary over the cap amounts and combines them with voluntary cost-sharing commitments when creating cost share budgets in Huron.
Research Grant Budgeting Strategies
The meeting focused on budgeting strategies for research grants, particularly around F&A (Facilities and Administrative) rates and cost sharing. Key topics discussed included upcoming changes to capital equipment and subaward thresholds effective July 1st, strategies for handling cost of living increases in grant budgets, and the importance of correctly categorizing expenses to maximize F&A recovery. The group also addressed challenges in determining appropriate F&A rates for different types of activities, especially in clinical settings where work locations can affect rate calculations. Next steps include a future meeting focused on proposal development modules in April.
AI can make mistakes. Review for accuracy.
Meeting Recording
- Passcode: F!RbTNk2
Meeting Recording
- Passcode: ^&1mn8a$
Session 3 – Principles in Pre-Award Research Admin Discussion Topics
Meeting summary
Quick recap
The meeting focused on discussing the pre-award module of the LevelUp platform, with participants exploring key concepts, policies, and processes related to research administration. Lauren led the discussion, addressing questions about integrating LevelUp modules with existing training and highlighting the importance of understanding roles and responsibilities between PIs and administrators. Participants shared experiences and challenges, particularly around PI eligibility policies, compliance requirements, and managing funding mechanisms. The group discussed the complexities of distinguishing between sponsored awards and gifts, as well as the shifting responsibilities in managing systems and data entry. Suggestions were made to create a network of subject matter experts to share resources and best practices across departments, emphasizing the need for clear communication and early involvement in the proposal process.
Next steps
- Lauren: Post the recording and AI transcript of the meeting, hopefully by the weekend.
- All participants (implied): Consider sharing department-specific checklists and resources (e.g., NSF proposal checklists, RO1/R21 checklists) for potential central collection and sharing across units.
- Jaime/Cora (implied): Consider organizing or facilitating presentations or a network of subject matter experts for various sponsor systems (e.g., NSF, NIH) to help orient new users, possibly using existing resources/checklists.
- Lauren (implied): Add interested participants to the Huron demo series invite list upon request.
Summary
LevelUp Platform Pre-Award Module
Lauren discussed the pre-award module in the LevelUp platform, noting its more technical focus compared to previous modules. She encouraged participants to ask questions about unfamiliar terms or concepts. Gina inquired about the integration of this module with existing pre-award and post-award resources on the website, particularly those related to the RA at UVA program. Lauren explained that while some information overlaps with what Jamie and Erica are developing for the RA program, there isn’t a direct correlation due to the timing of their creation.
SRAI LevelUP Integration at UVA
The team discussed the integration of SRAI LevelUP modules into UVA’s professional development offerings, with basic modules being made available for free to all staff. Jaime explained that while managers aren’t required to mandate these courses, they should be encouraged as valuable training, particularly for new research administrators. Gina inquired about which modules post-award staff should focus on, and Lauren advised that while some content overlaps, staff can select relevant sections based on their interests and needs. The team also discussed the development of a new UVA-specific module that will build on the SRAI basics course with institution-specific policies and procedures.
PI-RA Role Shifts and Expectations
The discussion focused on the changing roles and responsibilities between PIs and research administrators, particularly in light of new electronic systems and security measures that are shifting some administrative tasks back to PIs. Kim and Susan shared experiences about managing these changes, with Kim noting that while some PIs accept the new requirements, others are resistant to the increased workload and expectations. The conversation highlighted the need to differentiate technical knowledge between PIs and administrators, with Lauren suggesting that research administrators should focus on supportive roles that mitigate administrative burden while acknowledging their own unique expertise.
Research Administration Compliance Challenges
The meeting focused on various aspects of research administration, including PI eligibility policies, sponsored awards versus gifts, and system access challenges. Participants discussed the importance of early identification of funding mechanisms and the need for clear communication with PIs about compliance requirements. The group explored ways to share resources across departments and create a more comprehensive training program for research administrators. They also addressed the complexities of human subjects research and the challenges of accurately identifying and documenting compliance requirements. The conversation ended with a discussion about the importance of accurate data entry in Huron and the need for ancillary reviews in certain cases.
AI can make mistakes. Review for accuracy.
Meeting Recording
- Passcode: !7Z3ND3!
Meeting slides
Meeting summary
Quick recap
The School of Medicine grant meeting focused primarily on foreign components in NIH applications and the new PFI funding mechanism, which will allow direct funding to foreign entities starting May 25th. The discussion covered how to handle foreign components in standard R01 applications and the process for submitting PFI applications through the ASSIST system, including budget considerations and indirect cost rules. The meeting also addressed updates to RPPR requirements, including a new certification for online foreign talent recruitment programs that must be uploaded for each senior key person, and covered changes to NIH salary caps, data management requirements, and compliance procedures for fellowship awards.
Next steps
- All faculty/administrators: Continue to work with faculty to get their other support and biosketches into ScienceCV, ensuring the first three steps (creating ORCID, linking to eRA Commons, linking both to NCBI) are completed by the PI.
- All faculty/administrators: Ensure required AOR letter of support is obtained from international partners and included in the international project component of PF5 applications.
- All faculty/administrators: For RPPR submissions, gather and upload the required Online Foreign Talent Recruitment Program certification for every senior key person at all collaborating institutions, ensuring each is a flattened PDF with the correct file name, and upload in Section G1 of the RPPR.
- All faculty/administrators: For proposals involving foreign components, ensure appropriate ancillary reviews (e.g., export controls) are requested in Huron if there is any foreign travel or international collaboration, even if only potentially anticipated.
- All faculty/administrators: Update budgets to reflect the new NIH salary cap ($228,660) and, if applicable, the new MTDC base and equipment threshold for awards starting after July 1, 2026.
- All faculty/administrators: For RPPR submissions involving subawards, begin collecting the new standardized subaward documentation/checklist as outlined by OGC, including cover page with certifications and AOR signature, even though not yet strictly required.
- OGC/Meeting organizers: Post meeting slides and recording on the website by tomorrow or by the weekend.
Summary
NIH Foreign Component Funding Updates
The meeting focused on discussing foreign components in NIH grant applications and the new PFI funding mechanism. The group reviewed the definition of foreign components, which include collaborations with foreign investigators, financial support, and certain types of travel. They explained that starting May 25th, researchers will need to use the PFI mechanism to request foreign subawards, which will be issued directly to foreign entities by NIH. The meeting also covered how to prepare PFI applications using the ASSIST system, which requires setting up multi-component proposals.
Grant Application Submission Process
The group discussed the submission process for a grant application involving both domestic (UVA) and international components, with the entire application to be prepared in ASSIST despite having separate components. They reviewed how the budget and application forms would appear in ASSIST, noting that while the system uses standard forms, there are some uncertainties about how different application types like R01s and R21s would be handled within the PF5 mechanism. The discussion revealed several open questions about the review process, including whether applications for different mechanisms would be reviewed together or separately, and how review panels would be established for various application types.
International Grant Component Discussion
The group discussed a new funding opportunity that allows for multiple international project components to be bundled into one grant, with each component having its own research strategy and aims. SOMO explained that the international project component is limited to 6 pages, while the domestic portion is 12 pages. Kim raised concerns about the learning curve for international collaborators, particularly regarding NIH submission and reporting requirements. The group acknowledged that foreign institutions would need to establish appropriate registrations and financial systems to handle U.S. federal funding, which could be challenging.
Multi-Component Application Submission Process
The group discussed the management of multi-component applications, with SOMO?GC explaining that these would be handled at the site level and submitted as a single consolidated package. Kim raised concerns about potential timeline changes for foreign components, to which SOMO?GC clarified that while foreign collaborators could access and upload documents through ASSIST, the overall submission would remain the responsibility of the main applicant. Colleen inquired about documentation requirements from subawards, and SOMO?GC indicated that these would no longer be necessary as awards would be made directly to institutions, though some form of consortium commitment or institutional approval might still be required.
Foreign Grant Components and Reviews
The team discussed foreign components of grants, including the continuation of existing Type 3 supplements for foreign collaborators and the requirement for an AOR letter of support for international projects. They clarified that the prime domestic applicant can claim F&A on the first $50,000 of domestic subawards but not on the international project portion. The group also reviewed additional ancillary reviews required at the proposal stage, including export controls and foreign influence reviews, and discussed the extended leniency period until May 2026 for including science CV documents in progress reports.
NIH Proposal Submission Relief Period
SOMO explained that NIH has provided a leniency period for researchers experiencing technical issues with submitting proposals and RPPRs due to system access problems. She emphasized that while this temporary relief is available, researchers should continue working with faculty to complete ScienceCV documentation, as the deadline will approach again in May. She highlighted three critical steps that PIs must complete personally: creating an ORCID ID, linking it to their ERA Commons profile, and connecting both to their NCBI account. SOMO also recommended using the NPSM-33 table, a government resource linked in the instructions, to ensure correct reporting of various activities in both biosketches and other support documents.
NIH Grant Updates and Requirements
The meeting covered several updates and requirements for NIH grants. The fiscal year 2026 salary cap was set at $228,000, and the $500,000 budget cap for direct costs is no longer in effect, eliminating the need for prior approval. There was emphasis on improving data management and sharing plans to align with NIH expectations, with guidance provided on selecting appropriate data repositories. A new requirement for certification of online foreign talent recruitment programs was introduced, which must be signed and uploaded to the RPPR for each senior key person at all collaborating institutions.
Research Certification Process Updates
The meeting focused on the certification process for key personnel in research projects. Lauren explained that the certification applies to all designated key personnel, not just those listed in the NOA, and must be included in Section G of the application, even if other support documents are required. She also mentioned that the OGC website has been updated to include the new certification requirement. The group discussed the process for external subawards, including a new checklist and cover page with certification statements and demographic information. Lauren clarified that while the fully signed form cannot be reused across multiple awards, it may be used for multiple RPPRs with the same deadline.
NIH Compliance and Budget Updates
The meeting covered several compliance and administrative updates. SOMO?GC clarified that multiple awards can be submitted together if they have the same deadline, and explained that NIH will eliminate separate AIDS deadlines after May 2026, using standard NIH deadlines instead. The team discussed changes to budget thresholds, including a new $50,000 PF5 submission threshold and increased equipment threshold of $10,000, with updated budget templates available on their website. The meeting also addressed compliance requirements for fellowship and mentored awards, emphasizing that fellows and mentors must complete necessary disclosures and trainings before proposals can be submitted, with specific instructions provided for handling COI disclosures in the Huron system.
Export Control Review Process
The discussion focused on export control reviews for funding proposals, particularly regarding foreign travel. SOMO explained that while anticipated foreign travel triggers an ancillary review, it’s not necessary to automatically assume foreign travel for all proposals. Kim inquired about the process for proposals where foreign travel details aren’t separately requested, and SOMO clarified that while early review helps identify potential issues, there are additional review processes required when actual travel occurs. The conversation ended with a note that slides and recording would be posted to the website by the weekend.
AI can make mistakes. Review for accuracy.
Meeting Recording
- Passcode: 7fl@b*QW
Session 2 – The PI-RA Partnership Discussion Topics
Meeting summary
Quick recap
The meeting focused on discussing a new training module about managing relationships with Principal Investigators (PIs), which participants found engaging and helpful. The group explored various communication methods and their effectiveness, including email, phone calls, and Teams chats, while acknowledging generational and cultural differences in communication preferences. Participants shared strategies for balancing institutional requirements with PI needs, emphasizing the importance of clear communication, building trust, and finding solutions that work for both parties. The discussion highlighted the challenges of managing multiple relationships and adapting approaches to different PIs. The conversation ended with appreciation for the Office of Grant Compliance’s support and the collaborative nature of their work.
Next steps
- All participants: Complete the first 5 sections (1 through 5) of the pre-award module in preparation for the next discussion session on the 25th.
- Anyone still struggling with access to LevelUUP or needing to be added to the system: Contact the meeting organizers to request access or assistance with navigation.
Summary
PI-RA Partnership Training Module
The team discussed a new training module on PIRA partnerships, which Lauren had added to the schedule. They all agreed it was an excellent module, providing valuable reminders about professional communication and relationship-building skills. The module was particularly praised for its engaging content and practical advice, even for experienced researchers. The team planned to focus their discussion on soft skills and relationship-building strategies, with an emphasis on sharing personal experiences and anecdotes.
PI Relationship Management Strategies
The group discussed the importance of follow-through in managing relationships with PIs, emphasizing the need for responsive communication and regular status updates to build trust. They explored the challenges of balancing customer service with collaboration, particularly when working with PIs of different generations and varying levels of technical proficiency. The conversation also touched on the administrative burden of managing research documentation, including the transition to new software systems, and the difficulties of adapting to constant changes in processes.
Research Admin Communication Strategies
The group discussed communication preferences and challenges in their roles as research administrators. They explored different forms of communication, including email, phone calls, and Teams chats, and how these methods serve their needs differently. The discussion touched on the importance of adapting communication styles to meet the preferences of PIs and the need to balance institutional and PI perspectives. They also discussed strategies for managing communication, such as providing clear explanations and acknowledging receipt of messages. The group agreed that effective communication involves understanding and accommodating different preferences while maintaining professionalism and clarity.
AI can make mistakes. Review for accuracy.
Meeting Recording
- Passcode: L^3*RwC6
Meeting Summary
Quick recap
The meeting focused on demonstrating the Huron system’s functionality for creating funding proposals and SF424 applications. Lauren Armstrong, Assistant Director in the Office of Grants and Contracts, led the session, walking participants through the process of creating a funding proposal and transferring information to an SF424 application. The group discussed key features such as system-to-system submissions, compliance requirements, and the importance of accurate data entry. Participants shared tips and tricks for navigating the system, including character limit considerations and the significance of proper file naming conventions. The session highlighted the need for careful attention to detail and validation processes to avoid errors in the submission process.
Next steps
- Lauren: Post the recording of this session on the Grants and Contracts website and send the link to all meeting invitees.
- All participants (especially those preparing NIH proposals in School of Medicine): Continue to use 11 spaces before the school/department code in proposal short titles to allow for OSP’s award ID, unless otherwise advised by your unit.
- All participants: For each proposal, confirm the correct funding opportunity/package ID with the PI before proceeding, especially for complex solicitations (e.g., R01s with multiple options).
- All participants: For proposals requiring COI disclosures, click the “send to COI” activity in Huron to link investigators to the COI system and ensure disclosures are completed before submission.
- All participants: If a PI or key personnel does not receive the COI disclosure notification email, direct them to complete their disclosure via alternative links provided by School of Medicine or OSP, as email delivery issues may occur.
- All participants: When making changes to budgets or key personnel in the funding proposal, ensure to update and re-push information to the SF424 as needed, and carefully check the cover page and other fields to avoid overwriting or version control issues.
- All participants: For system-to-system submissions, ensure all required documents are attached with unique filenames (within character limits) and avoid special characters/symbols, especially for DOD and DOE proposals, to prevent validation errors.
- All participants: Run both the SF424 smart form and workspace validations in layers to address all errors before finalizing and locking the SF424 for submission.
- Lauren: Extend future session invitations to 2 hours to accommodate detailed discussion and Q&A.
- All participants: Check with your submitting office or school for any school/unit-specific naming conventions, required fields, or local processes when preparing funding proposals and SF424s.
Summary
Huron Funding Proposal Demonstration
Lauren Armstrong, Assistant Director in the Office of Grants and Contracts, led the second session of the Huron demonstration series. Due to a scheduling mix-up, the focus was shifted from SF424s to funding proposals and budgets. Lauren demonstrated how to create a funding proposal in the stage environment, using a fictional example. She explained the process of inputting basic information and the importance of following naming conventions for proposals. Kim raised a question about the spacing in short titles, which Lauren confirmed was still a good practice, especially in the School of Medicine. The session was interactive, with attendees encouraged to share tips and tricks related to creating funding proposals.
Funding Proposal Guidance and Requirements
Lauren provided guidance on completing the funding proposal form, emphasizing the importance of using wildcards when searching for sponsors and entering accurate sponsor information for OSP vetting. She explained that the choice of research location affects the default F&A rate, with on-grounds research defaulting to a 61% rate. Lauren also discussed the process of uploading biosk and other support documents, advising against uploading these documents to the funding proposal if not required, to avoid version control issues.
Research Classification for Funding Proposals
Lauren and Bill discussed the importance of accurately marking basic versus applied research and clinical research versus clinical trials in funding proposals, particularly when working with non-federal sponsors. They emphasized that this information is crucial for OSP when negotiating agreements and setting up awards. Lauren also highlighted the need to carefully consider the responsible department and project personnel, as this information influences award setup and budget preparation. She advised attendees to reach out for clarification if unsure about any questions in the system, as the data may be used for reporting purposes later on.
Grants Personnel Naming Protocol
Lauren and Jennifer discussed the process of identifying key personnel for grants and contracts, emphasizing that only those named in the proposal and budget should be listed, with a focus on lead investigators. MaryBeth and Lauren clarified that while all named personnel should be included, the system allows for different categorizations such as senior personnel and other significant contributors, with only certain categories appearing in the budget. They also explained that administrative personnel can be added for collaboration and access purposes, and while system-to-system submissions are common, proposers can opt for manual entry if preferred.
Funding Proposal Process Review
Lauren and Kim discussed the importance of confirming funding opportunity details with PIs to avoid errors, such as selecting the wrong R01 package. They emphasized the need to verify information in the system, as outdated forms or incorrect details can lead to submission issues. The team reviewed key aspects of the funding proposal process, including budget periods, compliance reviews, and the importance of accurate abstracts and program income information. They also highlighted the use of the workspace for managing attachments, reviewing personnel, and setting up ancillary reviews, with plans to discuss budgets in more detail in the next session.
System-to-System Funding Proposal Guidelines
The meeting focused on the process of building funding proposals, particularly regarding system-to-system submissions. Lauren and Na explained that system-to-system submissions are common for agencies like NIH and DOE, but not all sponsors allow this method. They emphasized the importance of checking the funding solicitation to determine the submission method. The group also discussed the SF424 form and compliance requirements, including the need for current COI disclosures. Lauren mentioned that she would post the recording of the meeting on the Grants and Contracts website for those who missed it.
COI System Integration Issues
The meeting focused on issues with the COI (Conflict of Interest) disclosure system in Huron. Lauren explained that clicking the “send to COI” button is crucial to link the COI system with active proposals, ensuring disclosures are properly recorded and accessible. MaryBeth clarified that the system pulls data from Workday HR and cannot be updated within Huron, so PIs must check their virginia.edu emails. Debbie raised concerns about discrepancies between the Qlik Sense compliance report and Huron’s COI disclosure status, which MaryBeth attributed to potential system linkage issues. The group emphasized the importance of ensuring the “send to COI” button is clicked to activate the necessary system connections.
SF424 Form Completion Process Review
Lauren and Neda discussed issues with faculty completing disclosures and the importance of ensuring the submit button is clicked. They reviewed the process of creating and updating SF424 forms, emphasizing the need to check and update cover page information when changes are made in the funding proposal. Lauren highlighted the importance of verifying institutional and applicant information, as well as ensuring consistency between the cover page and senior key personnel profiles to avoid errors in the system.
Brimmer Data Management for Medicine
Lauren explained how Brimmer data, specific to the School of Medicine, affects departmental information in applications, emphasizing the need to override default settings for accurate data feeds into Commons and the BRRMMR database. Na highlighted the importance of inputting division information for faculty with affiliated appointments, ensuring contributions to the School of Medicine’s overall ranking. Lauren advised being mindful of UVA-specific terminology and ensuring that information presented to federal sponsors is clear and applicable. MaryBeth warned about a recent bug causing errors with specific text strings on the cover page, urging users to avoid these phrases and consult an email thread for solutions.
SF424 Application Process Overview
Lauren demonstrated the SF424 application process, highlighting key features and potential pitfalls. She explained how to navigate the system, input data, and handle validation errors. Na emphasized the importance of layered review and provided tips for submitting applications to multiple sponsors. The group discussed the challenges of dealing with special characters and symbols in proposal submissions. Lauren announced that the next meeting would focus on preparing the budget and pushing it forward to the SF424.
AI can make mistakes. Review for accuracy.
Meeting Recording
- Passcode: K&&br3tN
Coding commands to add minor formatting to the personal statement or other Biosketch sections:
- <br> to insert line breaks
- <b>this will make bold</b>
- <i>this will italicize</i>
- <u>this will make underline</u>
Quick recap
Summary
NIH Biosketch SciEv Platform Guidance
ORCID and eRA Commons Linkage
NIH Biosketch Requirements Update
NIH Biosketch Format Updates
SciENECV Biosketch Guidance
Meeting Recording
- Passcode: &S&XFUm4
Coding commands to add minor formatting to the personal statement or other Biosketch sections:
- <br> to insert line breaks
- <b>this will make bold</b>
- <i>this will italicize</i>
- <u>this will make underline</u>
Quick recap
Next steps
- Lauren: Post the video recording of this session (and the 4pm session) on the grants and contracts website.
- Andrea: Share troubleshooting information about ORCID/My Bibliography duplication issues on the library page.
- Lauren: Send out FAQ information about in-kind contributions and other support requirements to attendees.
- Faculty/administrators: Update and submit revised biosketches as needed, with flexibility allowed past the administrative deadline due to the timing of this session.
- Faculty: Consider adding appropriate delegates in SciENcv/NCBI with correct ERA Commons email addresses for access and submission support.
- Faculty/administrators: Review and follow updated NIH guidance regarding in-kind contributions, particularly regarding data sharing and MTAs, consulting FAQs as needed.
- Faculty/administrators: If questions or issues arise while working in SciENcv or with biosketch/other support, reach out to Lauren or the Office of Grants and Contracts for support.
Summary
NIH SciENcv System Navigation Guide
NIH Fellowship Biosketch Updates
ORCID and My Bibliography Integration Challenges
Character Limits for Applications
NIH Biosketch Format Updates
Meeting Recording
- Passcode: 5ayERK6%
LevelUP Study Group Schedule
Session 1 – Relationships, Roles, and Responsibilities Discussion Topics
ZOOM AI Meeting Summary
Quick recap
The meeting focused on discussing the application of research administration principles at UVA, particularly around the award lifecycle and roles/responsibilities. Participants explored how different departments and schools manage pre- and post-award activities, with particular attention to the challenges of contract negotiations and the varying processes across UVA’s decentralized structure. The group discussed resources like RAD (Research Administration Dashboard) and institutional information tools, while addressing questions about allowable vs allocable costs and different types of funding mechanisms. The conversation highlighted the need for clear handoffs between research administrators and contract negotiators, with suggestions to improve communication between these roles to streamline processes. The conversation ended with technical support for LevelUp training module access issues, where participants discussed how to retrieve previously completed modules in the new system.
Next steps
- Lauren/Training Team: Work with units to put together process maps or workflow charts for each area showing handoffs and responsibilities in the award life cycle, to be added as resources (e.g., on Raptor website).
- Christine: Forward calendar invite for the RAD special session (February 3) to anyone who requests it.
- All interested: Attend the RAD special session on February 3 and/or the February 11 Core meeting for updates and questions about the new RAD dashboard.
- Phillis: Double check transcript in LevelUp system and, if needed, contact Lauren or managers to resolve missing module completion records before redoing modules.
- Lauren/Managers: Assist Phillis in verifying and restoring LevelUp module completion records if issues persist.
- Gina: Consider inviting a contract negotiator to a future meeting focused on contracts to provide perspective and clarify contracting processes.
- (Implied) All: Reach out to relevant negotiators before submitting contracts/agreements to OSP to ensure all required information is included and to clarify expectations.
Summary
UVA Training Module Context Discussion
The group discussed how to apply training module principles to UVA’s specific context, particularly focusing on the lifecycle of an award and the varying definitions of pre- and post-award across different departments. Susan and Christine noted that departmental understanding of these terms can differ significantly, and Christine suggested creating UVA-specific training that could show how different schools and units interpret these concepts. The discussion also touched on the role of research administrators in finding funding opportunities, with Shawn sharing that while they previously focused solely on pre-award activities, their current role combines both pre- and post-award responsibilities.
Alternative Funding Strategies Discussion
The group discussed strategies for finding alternative funding sources in today’s uncertain federal funding climate. Lauren shared that UVA has licenses for funding search engines Pivot and Grant Forward, and Catherine highlighted the role of corporate and foundation relations in helping faculty match their interests to industry sponsors. Ann and Alex described their department’s approach of creating research synopses for new faculty and leveraging these summaries to connect researchers with funding opportunities, including philanthropic donors. The discussion concluded with Lauren mentioning additional resources, including limited submission opportunities through the VPR’s office and NIH’s Matchmaker tool for finding funding matches.
UVA Grant Management Process Overview
Lauren and Susan discussed the process of managing grants and proposals at UVA, highlighting the differences between preparing proposals, submitting them, and managing awards. Lauren emphasized the importance of understanding the roles of OSP and departmental responsibilities in the process. Christine suggested creating a resource that outlines the specific steps and handoffs for different areas, which could be particularly helpful for new or transitioning staff members.
Process Documentation and Workflow Planning
The group discussed creating process documentation and workflow charts to clarify boundaries and responsibilities, particularly for submitting schools and OSP. They agreed that while a centralized graphic is helpful, more detailed school-specific resources could be beneficial, though maintaining up-to-date information across multiple courses would be challenging. The discussion also covered contracting processes, with Jennifer highlighting the need for clearer guidance on teaming agreements and NDAs, as these often face delays in the OSP system.
Enhancing Contract Negotiation Strategies
The group discussed challenges in contract negotiations and research administration, with Lauren and Alex emphasizing the importance of building strong relationships with negotiators and providing comprehensive information upfront. Gina suggested inviting contract negotiators to future meetings to provide their perspective and create a repository of FAQs. The discussion highlighted the need for better training and support for research administrators, with suggestions for creating clear expectations and improving handoffs between different stages of the process.
Survey Requirements for Training Grants
The group discussed survey requirements for training grants, with Phillis noting feedback from NIGMS about needing more trainee feedback and expressing uncertainty about using Qualtrics. Lauren advised maintaining a network of resources for managing training grants and suggested reaching out to the community or Cora for guidance. The discussion covered allowable versus allocable costs, with Christine clarifying the definitions, and touched on the importance of understanding federal regulations and agency-specific guidance. Lauren emphasized the order of precedence for these guidelines, with laws and federal regulations taking priority over institutional guidance.
RAD Dashboard and Funding Updates
The meeting covered updates on the new RAD dashboard, which will enhance data accessibility and reporting capabilities for call center hierarchies and school levels. Christine highlighted an upcoming session on February 3rd led by Michelle Gregory and Amanda Doherty to discuss the reimagining of RAD and address questions. The group also discussed institutional information resources, including OSP’s website for certifications and assurance numbers, and clarified the differences between grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other funding types at UVA. Susan raised concerns about conflicts of interest involving faculty members and their spin-off companies, which Lauren explained can be managed under LBG but may have different guidelines for PI roles and conflicts of interest.
LevelUp System Module Access Issues
Lauren and Phillis discussed issues with accessing completed modules in the LevelUp system. Lauren explained that the platform changed last year, which may have caused previous modules to disappear from users’ dashboards. She advised Phillis to check her transcript through the profile section and use the official transcript button to view completed modules. Lauren also suggested bookmarking the new system link and offered to help Phillis verify her completion status if needed.
AI can make mistakes. Review for accuracy.
Meeting Recording
- Passcode: 3F6=QhG%
TABLE: NIH Disclosure Requirements Related to Biographical Sketch and Other Support
Upcoming SciENcv PI Demos:
Thursday, January 29th
- 730am: https://uvahealth-org.zoom.us/j/96532153367?pwd=2t6XNqYizqmgbuuN8ktm5p5zXOocpC.1
- 400pm: https://uvahealth-org.zoom.us/j/94560941505?pwd=Yx0WFZ3bK3pO8JSBlbIVQmX2ga7pbO.1
Meeting summary
Quick recap
The meeting focused on ScienceCV system issues and updates, particularly regarding biosketches and other support documentation. Participants discussed challenges with ORCID and NCBI account linkages, with Cecelia sharing a successful resolution of a multiple NCBI account issue. The group reviewed the process for entering other support information, including the requirement to enter at least 1% effort for internal grants, and discussed discrepancies between current system requirements and NIH guidelines. Lauren announced upcoming PI training sessions on January 29th and provided updates on foreign components policy, COI disclosures, and the federal salary cap. The conversation ended with a discussion of required research administration training modules and the availability of Huron system demos.
Summary
Science CV System Troubleshooting
The RAM meeting focused on addressing issues with the Science CV system, particularly regarding biosketches and ORCID linking. Participants discussed challenges with multiple NCBI accounts and ORCID integration, with Cecilia sharing a successful resolution from the help desk. MaryBeth emphasized the importance of logging help desk tickets for potential application delays, while Lauren suggested using ORCID login information for better linking between ERA Commons and NCBI. The group also touched on upcoming updates and reminders, but the main focus remained on troubleshooting Science CV issues.
Research Systems Access and Formatting
Lauren and Catherine discussed issues with logging into various research systems and the challenges of linking accounts. They explained how to check linked accounts in ScienceCV and the process of adding delegates, emphasizing the importance of accurate communication. Lauren clarified that for NIH biosketches, it’s best to start with a blank document in ScienceCV due to formatting differences between old and new versions, rather than trying to import or copy existing documents. They also covered the input process for other support documents, noting that while the system provides formatting assistance, users remain responsible for ensuring the accuracy of their entered information.
Grant Effort Reporting Guidelines
The group discussed how to handle grant research projects with zero effort in the Science CV system, where entering zero is not allowed. Lauren explained that if there is truly zero effort, the project should not be included, but if it supports research endeavors, even if not paid or cost shared, some effort should be recorded. The team noted discrepancies between NIH guidance and Science CV system instructions, with Lauren mentioning that updates are being made to align them. Vita raised a previous recommendation to input 0.01 for zero effort projects, but Lauren advised reviewing guidelines to ensure accurate reporting, emphasizing consistency between internal effort reports and NIH submissions.
Research Compliance and Administration Updates
The meeting focused on several key topics related to research administration and compliance. Lauren provided updates on the use of ScienceCV for biosketches and other support documentation, emphasizing the importance of accurate effort reporting and the need to keep an eye on NIH’s FAQs for guidance. The team discussed the handling of foreign components in grant applications, noting that applications with foreign subcontracts have been rejected without review until new policies are implemented. Lauren also highlighted the requirement for faculty to complete various research administration trainings, including NIH other support training, and encouraged administrators to remind their faculty of these requirements. The conversation ended with a reminder about upcoming Huron demos and the availability of VPR training resources for compliance training.
AI can make mistakes. Review for accuracy.
Meeting Recording
- Passcode: 3F82*k99
TIPs for formatting Personal Statements, Contributions to Science, etc
- <br> to insert line breaks
- <b>this will make bold</b>
- <i>this will italicize</i>
- <u>this will make underline</u>
SOMOGC News & Announcements - 2025
Meeting Recording
- Passcode: #D$$1wRY
Resources
- **CORRECTION** NIH FAQ regarding submission of Biosketches for T and P applications due January 25th, 2026:
- “To allow for a small period of leniency given the size of Training and Center grant applications, NIH will withdraw any application that does not comply with the use of the Common Forms beginning with the February 5, 2026 standard application due date.”
- NIH SciENcv Job Aid [see “PRE AWARD – Application Preparation”]
- NIH Collaborative International Research Project Funding Opportnity (Parent PF5 Clinical Trial Optional)
- PA-26-002 [forecasted only at this time]
- RAPTR Huron Demo – General Navigation – January 7th @ 9am
- NIH ASSIST Demo / Q&A – January 9th @ 10am
- SciENcv NIH Biosketch & Other Support Q&A – January 13th @ 10am
- LevelUP Discussion Session – Relationships, Roles, & Responsibilities – January 14th @ 10am
ZOOM AI Meeting Summary
Quick recap
The December RAM meeting focused on updates to NIH biosketch and other support forms, which will be required for all applications, RPPRs, and just-in-time submissions starting January 25th. Lauren demonstrated the new Science CV system and addressed questions about ORCID ID linking, delegate access, and certification processes. The team discussed challenges with Huron system-to-system submissions due to formatting issues with the new certified documents, and Lauren offered to provide ASSIST training in January for those transitioning from Huron. Updates were shared on required trainings, including research security, NIH other support, and conflict of interest disclosures, all of which must be completed by January 1st. The conversation ended with a discussion about allowing staff biostatisticians to lead subprojects on internal submissions, with Susan and Melissa exploring potential policy implications and departmental procedures.
Next steps
- Lauren: Schedule and conduct ASSIST training/refresher sessions early in January for those interested, including sending out calendar invites and relevant training materials.
- Lauren: Update and/or repost the Science CV Biosketch requirements document to include instructions on how to link ORCID ID, and send out the link with the meeting recording.
- Sydni: Update the internal Science CV Biosketch document to include information on how to link ORCID ID and add delegates, and send out the updated link.
- Lauren: Post or send out the one-pager for PIs on required steps (e.g., associating ORCID ID, delegate setup) with the meeting recording.
- Lauren: Notify the group when the new funding opportunity for foreign subcontracts is fully published on Grants.gov.
- Lauren: Update the calendar invite or website with the schedule of Level Up module topics for the discussion groups.
- All PIs: Ensure they link their ORCID ID in their Commons/NCBI account before preparing new biosketches.
- All research administrators: Remind PIs to complete required trainings (Research Security, NIH Other Support, COI disclosures) by January 1, and ensure compliance before proposal submission or award actions.
- All research administrators: For upcoming NIH proposals due January 25th and later, prepare biosketches and other support documents in Science CV and submit via ASSIST until Huron system-to-system issues are resolved.
- All research administrators: For proposals started in ASSIST, ensure a funding proposal is still created in Huron for budget and award management purposes.
- All research administrators: For staff biostatisticians leading subprojects, coordinate with department chairs and OSP as needed to establish process/guidance for internal subprojects and F&A sharing, and confirm no policy barriers exist.
- All research administrators: For SBIR/STTR applications, do not prioritize or review until funding opportunities are officially announced; notify companies accordingly.
- All research administrators: For awards with foreign subcontracts, submit progress reports as usual and follow up with program officers/grants managers for specific instructions if needed.
Summary
Science CV Forms Implementation Update
The RAM meeting focused on updates regarding the new common forms for biosketches and other support, which are now available in Science CV and will be mandatory for all applications, RPPRs, and just-in-time submissions starting January 25th. Lauren emphasized that while there might be leniency between January 25th and February 5th for T32s and P awards, it’s advisable to prepare the forms as required unless specific guidance from program officers or GMS is received. Angela rejoined the team to assist with grants enrollment, and the group discussed the process of logging into Science CV using ERA Commons information, with PIs needing to use login.gov for two-factor authentication.
NIH Biosketch Format Updates
Lauren demonstrated the new NIH biosketch format in Science CV, explaining that it combines a common form with an NIH supplement section, and must be printed and certified by the PI before submission. The system uses ORCID IDs instead of Commons IDs for identification, and requires Times New Roman font for the final document, which cannot be edited or flattened once certified. Several participants reported technical issues with importing old biosketch templates, and Lauren advised double-checking imported information for accuracy, while also noting that delegates can enter information on behalf of PIs but cannot certify the document.
Science CV Transition and Training
Lauren discussed the transition to using Science CV for biosketches and other support forms, effective January 25th, and addressed issues with the Huron system. She offered to provide training on ASSIST and Science CV in January. The team discussed the need for PIs to link their ORCID IDs and the importance of completing required trainings by January 1st. Lauren advised against submitting SBIR/STTR applications due to the cancellation of the program. The group also touched on the upcoming Level Up training modules and Huron demo sessions. Finally, Melissa raised a question about staff biostatisticians leading subprojects, which led to a discussion about F&A sharing procedures and departmental policies.
AI can make mistakes. Review for accuracy.
Meeting Slides
Meeting Recording
- Passcode: .*1#6Hi&
ZOOM AI Meeting Summary
Quick recap
The meeting covered key compliance requirements and training updates for research administration, including new mandatory trainings and COI disclosure processes. The team discussed budget transfer procedures in Workday and addressed various technical issues related to publication linking and trainee PI setup in the funding proposal system. The conversation ended with updates on office operations, including the Level Up program’s return and upcoming Huron demonstrations, along with clarifications on referee letter submissions and COI investigator requirements.
Next steps
• All participants: Check the updated 2026 NIH deadlines on the School of Medicine Grants and Contracts website and report any issues or missing standard deadlines to Lauren’s office.
• All PIs/senior key personnel: Complete the NIH Other Support Training in Workday if not already done, to avoid delays in NIH award transactions.
• All COI investigators: Complete the new Research Security Training in the city module by January 1; annual requirement for COI investigators.
• All PIs/senior key personnel: Complete COI (Significant Financial Interest) disclosures in Huron COI module annually or within 30 days of a new disclosure, and ensure disclosures are up to date at time of proposal submission.
• Departmental research administrators: Proactively check COI disclosure status in Huron and click “send to COI” to trigger notifications to investigators who need to complete or update disclosures.
• Mary Beth: Message the UBI team to have the UFI training removed from the UBI compliance report before the holidays.
• Lauren: Update slides and website to reflect that COI training is required for COI investigators (not just senior key personnel), per Mary Beth’s clarification.
• Departmental research administrators: For proposals involving PIs from other institutions without a compliant COI policy, ensure outside investigators complete required disclosures using the provided PDF form and coordinate with Lauren’s office for compliance verification.
• Departmental research administrators: For student/fellow PIs without an HR record, contact Lauren’s office to have the student/fellow added to the Huron personnel database, add them to the funding proposal, and ensure they complete SFI disclosures before midnight the same day.
• Departmental research administrators: For mentored awards/fellowships, ensure both student/fellow and mentor are added to the funding proposal as appropriate and that all required compliance actions (SFI disclosures, COI training) are completed for both as relevant.
• Departmental research administrators: Proactively check the Qlik Sense report for compliance status and use the “send to COI” button in Huron as needed to ensure all investigators are compliant before proposal submission or award actions.
• Departmental research administrators: Remind PIs and trainees to complete the required Research Security Training (not UFI) as of January 1, and to prioritize Research Security Training for upcoming deadlines.
• Departmental research administrators: For resubmission proposals, ensure referees submit new reference letters for each resubmission and coordinate with applicants as needed.
• Lauren: Send out updated meeting slides and relevant links (including Qlik Sense report link) to all participants.
• Departmental research administrators: Attend and participate in Level Up program discussion sections in January, coming prepared with questions and topics for group discussion.
• Departmental research administrators: Attend Huron demo sessions (using Raptor office hours) and bring specific questions or issues encountered in the system for group troubleshooting.
Summary
Research Compliance and COI Requirements
Lauren led a meeting on compliance requirements for research administration, focusing on the definition of COI investigators and two new trainings: NIH Other Support and Research Security, both of which are now mandatory. She emphasized that proposals will be held until COI disclosures are complete, as per UVA policy and federal requirements. The team will check for the accuracy of COI investigator designations and ensure that Significant Financial Interest disclosures are up-to-date before submitting proposals.
UBI Reports and Compliance Updates
Lauren explained the status of UBI reports and compliance requirements, noting that RCR training is currently required only for USDA and NSF projects, not NIH. She clarified that for multi-PI projects, partner institutions must complete UVA’s consortium commitment form regarding their COI policies. Mary Beth confirmed that UFI training will no longer be accepted after December 31st, and Lauren agreed to update website materials to reflect this change. The discussion concluded with information about the patent agreement, which is a one-time requirement completed on LVG’s website.
Budget Transfer Process Explanation
Lauren explained the process for completing the internal budget transfer spreadsheet, emphasizing that it is used to move money between budget categories within a grant line but does not account for balances. She clarified that budget information in Workday determines which categories can be used for transfers, and she encouraged feedback on potential improvements to the process.
Budget Transfer Process Clarification
Lauren and Amber discussed issues with transferring budget amounts in Workday, explaining that discrepancies in entered numbers can cause a red indicator box, but if no discrepancy amount is shown, the transfer can proceed after verifying calculations. Kim clarified that after completing a transfer between grant lines, she can rebudget the receiving grant to allocate funds into different categories as needed. Lauren emphasized that users should check the plan of the new grant line to ensure budget alignment and encouraged reaching out for help if encountering difficulties with the process.
Grants and NIH Updates Discussion
The meeting covered several key updates and discussions. Lauren explained the timeline for processing tuition and stipend transactions, noting a typical turnaround of 5 business days. The office is working to address a backlog of automated emails that were quarantined during the government shutdown, which began flooding in recently. MaryBeth raised concerns about the lack of new NOAs from NIH, while Lauren clarified that while delays are expected due to NIH’s fiscal year-end activities, some communications have already been received. The group also discussed the potential impact of rescheduled deadlines and updated funding opportunities, with Lauren advising to monitor Grants.gov for the latest information. Lastly, the implementation date for ScienceCV, a new format for biosketches and other support, remains uncertain, with Lauren guessing it might be effective for Cycle 2 next year.
NCBI Publication Sync Troubleshooting
Lauren explained three common reasons why publications from NCBI don’t pull into the RPPR system. The first issue is that publications haven’t been added to the PI’s bibliography, which is self-explanatory. The second issue is that the award hasn’t been linked to the publication, even if it’s loaded into the bibliography. Lauren demonstrated how to manually associate an award with a publication through NCBI. The third issue is that the NCBI account hasn’t been linked to the Commons account, which requires the PI to log in with their Commons ID and password. Lauren emphasized that PIs need to manually enter their Commons password in NCBI to sync the two systems. If these fixes don’t work, Lauren advised troubleshooting further.
Student PI Setup for Funding
Lauren explained the process for setting up student or trainee PIs on funding proposals, noting that Huron allows such arrangements for mentored awards but requires proper system setup and timely completion of SFI disclosures. She emphasized the importance of adding trainees to the personnel database and starting the funding proposal early to ensure proper COI disclosure recognition. Mary Beth clarified that trainees who have never been listed as investigators before may see “no action required” in the COI system, highlighting the need to initiate the funding proposal to trigger the correct disclosure status.
COI Process and Program Updates
The team discussed the process of triggering COI disclosures in the funding proposal system, with MaryBeth clarifying that hitting the “send to COI” button multiple times won’t resend emails, and Connie learned she can hit this button as the admin contact. Lauren announced the Level Up program will return in January with community discussion sections on the second and fourth Wednesdays at 10 AM, and mentioned upcoming Huron demos during Raptor office hours on first Wednesdays. The team also addressed questions about checking referee letter submissions for fellowships, with Lauren explaining that letters won’t appear until after application submission, and Phillis received clarification that she can list her mentor as PI on a resubmission while still needing to add the student as a COI investigator.
AI can make mistakes. Review for accuracy.
Meeting Recording
- Passcode: *CQge91d
ZOOM AI Meeting Summary
The October RAM meeting focused on reviewing and improving website resources, including discussions about web form placement and navigation, with new team member Adrina Mason introduced to the PHS team. Lauren provided comprehensive coverage of institutional information, website resources, and compliance requirements, including updates to training modules and contact information. The conversation ended with discussions about NIH operations during the government shutdown, upcoming deadlines, and the reintroduction of Level Up modules and Huron demonstrations for research administration training.
Next Steps
1. Lauren to keep the site menu intact on the School of Medicine website based on feedback.
2. Lauren to add a table of points of contact for other submitting schools to the departmental contact page.
3. Lauren to update the OSP contract negotiator information on the contacts page to reflect recent portfolio changes.
4. Lauren to update the website with any department contact information changes provided by Catherine.
5. Lauren to look into issues with accessing the September meeting recording that Amber reported.
6. Lauren to create guidance on how to write an effective PI eligibility request letter.
7. Lauren to compile feedback from the Baltrix survey about Level Up modules support preferences.
8. Lauren to implement the Level Up modules with institutional license by January.
9. Lauren to start Huron demonstrations in January using the Raptor office hour time slot.
Meeting Recording
- Passcode: #rd%QA$6
ZOOM AI Meeting Summary
The meeting welcomed trainees from Tanzania’s Kibangoto Infectious Diseases Hospital who are working on a NIH-funded grant to build their Office of Sponsored Projects. The group discussed significant changes to NIH’s foreign subaward structure, including new submission requirements through ASSIST and direct funding arrangements, along with updates to budget templates and rate agreements effective in 2026. The meeting covered various administrative topics including PI eligibility requirements, the transition to new NIH biosketch formats, and submission requirements for different funding agencies.
Next Steps
1. All RAM members to familiarize themselves with the new NIH structure for foreign subawards that will require multi-component applications to be submitted through ASSIST.
2. All RAM members to use the updated School of Medicine budget templates for the new subaward MTDC base when preparing budgets for awards starting July 2026 or later.
3. RAM members to check notices of award carefully around July 2026 to ensure awards have been calculated with the appropriate MTDC thresholds.
4. RAM members to contact Lauren for access to the spreadsheet for large multi-component awards if needed for P award submissions.
5. RAM members to begin transferring faculty biosketches into ScienceCV to prepare for the eventual transition to the new common forms.
6. RAM members to ensure PI eligibility requirements are met per Res 11 policy and initiate the PI eligibility waiver process when necessary.
7. Virginia to submit PI eligibility waiver documentation for the research specialist submitting an R50 grant.
Tanzania Trainees Join RAM Meeting
Lauren welcomed a group of trainees from the Kibangoto Infectious Diseases Hospital in Tanzania to the delayed September RAM meeting. These trainees are working on a G11 grant funded by NIH through the Fogarty International Center, led by Amber Steen, to build their Office of Sponsored Projects and expand their funding portfolio. Lauren expressed gratitude for everyone’s flexibility in rescheduling the meeting and introduced the visitors who have been meeting with various departments all week.
NIH Foreign Subaward Structure Changes
Lauren discussed the new NIH structure for foreign subawards, explaining that multi-component applications will be submitted through ASSIST, which UVA hasn’t used in 3-3.5 years. She noted that foreign subawards will receive direct funding from NIH, while UVA will handle domestic subawards. Laura clarified that foreign subaward sites will submit their own RPPRs to NIH. Emily asked about UVA’s responsibility for foreign subawards, and Lauren explained that oversight will be reduced, with each site managing its own award individually. Kayla inquired about foreign subawards being awarded as administrative supplements, and Lauren explained the current process for managing these supplements, including separate financial reporting and budget management.
Budget Template and Threshold Updates
The meeting focused on budget template updates and changes to the UG budgeting process. Lauren explained that the new rate agreement, effective July 2026, will increase the equipment threshold to $10,000, the subaward threshold to $50,000, and the de minimis F&A rate to 15% for institutions without negotiated rates. She emphasized the importance of carefully checking notices of award for correct calculations and using the updated budget templates, which are available on Box due to platform limitations. Additionally, Lauren mentioned a large multi-component award spreadsheet for P awards, though its use is not widely publicized due to limited submission experience.
NIH Biosketch Format Transition
Lauren explained that a spreadsheet tool is available for submissions but hasn’t been widely publicized, and discussed the transition to new NIH biosketch formats. She clarified that while current biosketches can be entered into ScienceCV, the new common forms are only available for preview and not for downloading or submitting. Lauren advised starting the transition to the new format while there’s still time, as the implementation timeline remains uncertain but may be targeted for May next year. She also addressed questions about using ScienceCV for DoD and NSF submissions, confirming that NSF requires ScienceCV format for other support documentation.
PI Eligibility and NIH Updates
Lauren discussed PI eligibility issues, emphasizing that only elected faculty members at assistant professor level or above can serve as PIs, and outlined the waiver process for exceptions. She clarified that graduate students and postdocs can submit proposals if in mentored situations, but must be set up under an elected faculty member. Kim inquired about notifying the office of faculty promotions, and Lauren confirmed that Workday updates automatically reflect new roles. The group also discussed the upcoming implementation of new NIH biosketch and other support formats, expected in November, with encouragement to transition current biosketches to the available template.
AI can make mistakes. Review for accuracy.
Due to technical difficulties, there is no recording for this month’s meeting. Please find the AI meeting summary below and the relevant discussion slides here and here.
Meeting summary
Quick recap
Lauren led a comprehensive discussion on reviewing NIH notice of awards, covering key components like terms, conditions, funding details, and personnel requirements. She provided detailed explanations about multi-year funded awards, including reporting deadlines, unobligated balance management, and the importance of understanding specific funding terms and conditions. The conversation ended with updates on compliance requirements, including mandatory research security training, and covered upcoming changes to funding processes and deadlines.
Next steps
• All attendees to review notices of award carefully, especially Section 4 for any unusual requirements or restrictions.
• All attendees to follow up with OSP if they notice any errors or discrepancies in notices of award before drawing down funds.
• All attendees to set reminders for any interim reporting deadlines mentioned in notices of award.
• All attendees with pending prior approvals for no-cost extensions to follow up with Lauren’s team.
• All attendees to ensure investigators complete research security training before January 2026 deadline.
• All attendees to use the updated budget template for any budgets starting July 1, 2026 or later .
• All attendees to continue using current budget template for budgets beginning before July 1, 2026.
• All attendees to note the September meeting will likely be moved to the 4th Thursday to accommodate visitors from Tanzania.
Summary
NIH Notice of Award Review
Lauren led a meeting to discuss reviewing NIH notice of awards, focusing on understanding standard and uncommon terms, budget period dates, funding amounts, and key personnel requirements. She emphasized the importance of reviewing the notice of award carefully, contacting the office if there are discrepancies, and maintaining communication with OSP for award setup. Lauren also highlighted the need to be aware of program income treatment, carryover or offset terms, and the importance of drawing down funds to imply acceptance of the terms.
Notice of Award Document Overview
Lauren explained the structure and key components of a Notice of Award (NOA) document, including document numbers, fiscal years, and carryover policies. She highlighted the importance of reviewing both standard and specific terms and conditions, noting that the NIH Grants Policy Statement serves as the primary reference for award terms. Lauren also discussed the significance of identifying key personnel, data management policies, and budget details, emphasizing the need for accuracy in these areas before fund drawdown.
Multi-Year Funded Awards Overview
Lauren explained the details of multi-year funded awards, noting that all funding is received upfront rather than in increments. She emphasized the importance of reporting total costs for the current budget period and the need to double-check math for cumulative costs. Lauren also discussed the different reporting deadlines for multi-year funded awards, which are due annually on the project’s anniversary date rather than 45 days before the next budget period. She advised noting multi-year funded awards in the RPPR explanation boxes and managing unobligated balances carefully to avoid false assumptions about future funding. Lauren also highlighted that any unspent funds after 5 years from the date of issuance will revert to the Federal Treasury, emphasizing the importance of knowing the fiscal year of funding issuance.
NCI Multi-Year Funding Changes
Lauren explained that multi-year funded awards only count in the year they are issued and will not appear in future rankings reports. She noted that while multi-year funding has been rare, NCI is planning to issue more awards this way, potentially due to federal directives and budget constraints. Lauren also mentioned that if progress is not met, the money could be clawed back, and NCI might be more selective with the awards they fund.
RPPR Access and Compliance Guidelines
Lauren explained how to find and access RPPRs for multi-year funded awards through the status screen, not the RPPR module, and clarified that the due date is the anniversary of the current funded segment. She discussed common restrictions on human and animal subject research due to delayed IRB or IACUC approvals, emphasizing the importance of following up to avoid rejection of expenses and potential repayment. Lauren also highlighted other award-specific restrictions, such as reduced award periods or removed inflationary increases, and advised checking funding guidelines and special terms and conditions for any changes.
Grant Management and Reporting Basics
Lauren explained key aspects of grant management, including interim reporting requirements, PI effort commitments, and supplemental funding. She emphasized the importance of monitoring deadlines for interim reports, which are typically submitted via email to the Grants manager and PO. Lauren also discussed supplemental funding, noting that it is currently being used to support foreign subawards while new processes are established, and highlighted the need to review budget tables and special terms and conditions for any restrictions or reporting requirements associated with supplemental funds.
NIH Funding and Policy Updates
Lauren provided updates on several key topics. She clarified that NIH has re-enabled automatic no-cost extensions, but previous approvals need follow-up due to unavailable buttons. She noted that funding opportunity notices will no longer be posted in the NIH Guide as of October 1, requiring increased proactive searching on grants.gov. Lauren also highlighted upcoming deadlines for pre-doc and post-doc fellowships around Labor Day, reminding attendees to account for the holiday in their internal deadlines. Finally, she announced changes to the modified total direct cost base starting July 2026, including updated budget templates and increased de minimis rates for certain entities.
Research Compliance and Training Updates
Lauren announced updates to compliance requirements, including the mandatory research security training for investigators by January 2026, replacing the previous UFI training. She clarified that responsible conduct of research training is only required for NSF and NIFA, though it appears incorrectly marked as red for some investigators. Susan inquired about handling large unobligated balances in RPPR reports, and Lauren advised reporting the balances transparently while avoiding mid-project extensions to preserve the option for standard no-cost extensions. Lauren also mentioned that NIH is working on additional support training, expected around October, and announced that the September meeting will be rescheduled to the fourth Thursday to accommodate visitors from Tanzania.
AI can make mistakes. Review for accuracy.
Due to technical difficulties, there is no recording for this month’s meeting. Please find the AI meeting summary below and the relevant discussion slides here.
Simon Butcher’s slides regarding outgoing subawards are included here.
Meeting summary
Quick recap
The meeting covered administrative updates and processes related to subawards, amendments, and funding proposals, with emphasis on proper approvals, documentation requirements, and deadline adherence. Key discussions centered around challenges with late submissions, including research performance progress reports and grant proposals, along with concerns about tracking and consequences for missed deadlines. The team addressed issues with sponsor additions to funding proposals and clinical trial processes, while also exploring ways to improve departmental policies and faculty engagement to reduce submission delays.
Next steps
- Simon to share the slide deck with links to Quick Reference Guides (QRGs) for subaward processes.
- Laura to work on developing checklists and guides for the contracts team perspective on what is needed to move clinical trial agreements forward.
- SOMOGC team to track and analyze late submissions and after-the-fact submissions by department for the current fiscal year.
- Steve to attend faculty meetings in the next couple of weeks to address issues with late submissions.
- SOMOGC team to consider encouraging department chairs to implement and enforce departmental deadline policies.
- SOMOGC team to continue enforcing the late submission policy and potentially not approve submissions after 5 occurrences of issues (late or after-the-fact submissions).
Summary
Team Updates and Administrative Reminders
The meeting began with introductions, including Laura Kozma, who is moving to Charlottesville, and a reminder from Mary Beth about Angela Berend’s retirement next week, with Bill handling her agreements and the setup Admin team triaging award MOD requests. Simon Butcher, the outgoing sub-award manager, presented a reminder about certain administrative processes, noting that he would be available for a while longer.
Subaward Process and Compliance Updates
Simon discussed recent trends in subaward and amendment submissions, noting an increase in requests without proper approvals, particularly from the School of Medicine. He emphasized the importance of including School of Medicine approvals before submission and reminded everyone to use the correct process type (amendment vs. new agreement) and ensure adequate funding in Workday. Simon also highlighted the need for updated contact information and compliance details, particularly for human subjects research, and encouraged better communication about data sharing and material transfer aspects in subawards.
Subaward Review Process Clarification
Simon explained the process for handling subaward requests that bypass School of Medicine review and approval. He described how his team decides whether to kick back missing reviews or hold the requests in their queue, aiming to avoid delays while ensuring proper documentation. Susan Hennigan raised concerns about overlooked ancillary reviews, and Simon clarified that if a request appears complete but lacks notification, they will either add the review or return it for clarification.
Quick Reference Guides and Training
Simon discussed the Quick Reference Guides (QRGs) and mentioned that his team is working on developing a longer training document or presentation slide deck to be released later in the year. He clarified that for multi-PI awards, the team will review the award document, notice of award, and proposal record to extract the multi-PI plan, similar to how they handle data management plans. Simon encouraged attendees to reach out with further questions, as his contact information would be included in the handout.
Administrative Updates and Process Changes
The meeting covered several administrative updates, including a new naming convention for attachments and a process change for no-cost extensions, which now require prior approval and are not automatically processed. The team discussed that PIs are now responsible for certifying data use agreements, streamlining a previously time-consuming process. The meeting also touched on the sharing of screenshots for documentation requirements, with a reminder that required fields are marked by red asterisks.
Clinical Trial Proposal Process Changes
The team discussed changes to their clinical trial proposal process, where CSAs and funding proposals must now be submitted together rather than separately. Mary Beth confirmed that OSB is implementing a new check at the front end to ensure properly linked funding proposals are included with clinical trial records. Laura mentioned that they are developing checklists and guides to help the community understand the requirements for moving forward with contracts.
Sponsor Vetting and Proposal Updates
The discussion focused on the process of adding new sponsors to funding proposals and CSAs. MaryBeth explained that when a new sponsor requires vetting, there is typically a 5-day delay while the sponsor is reviewed and added to the system. She clarified that a proposal cannot move forward for sponsor review until the funding proposal has been updated with the correct sponsor information. SOMOGC shared a scenario where a sponsor was added to the CSA side but not the funding proposal side, which MaryBeth explained was likely due to the sponsor being added as an NFA (non-funded agreement) sponsor for a previous agreement, requiring a different vetting process.
Late Submission Concerns at SOM
The meeting focused on addressing concerns about late submissions and deadlines at the School of Medicine. SOMOGC emphasized the importance of checking the newly reinstated calendar for NIH deadlines and discussed plans to analyze last year’s late submission patterns across departments. They expressed concern about the increasing number of late submissions and mentioned attending faculty meetings to understand the underlying issues and offer support.
Addressing Late RPPR Submission Challenges
The meeting focused on addressing challenges with late Research Performance Progress Reports (RPPRs) and after-the-fact submissions, which are causing issues with NIH deadlines and budgeting. SOMOGC emphasized the importance of adhering to deadline policies and highlighted that late submissions are being tracked more closely, with potential consequences for departments that repeatedly miss deadlines. The discussion also touched on the difficulties in obtaining F&A waivers in the current funding environment and the need for proper budgeting, including accounting for minimum PI effort. Kayla inquired about research administrators seeking assistance with faculty engagement, and SOMOGC noted a recent increase in slippage and late submissions, suggesting that departments with clear departmental deadline policies tend to run more smoothly.
Grant Proposal Deadline Challenges
The group discussed challenges with grant proposal deadlines and administrative requirements. SOMOGC and Kayla noted that late submissions often result in incomplete proposals and minimal review, while departments have struggled to implement their own deadlines due to chair resistance. They agreed that enforceable policies with “teeth” are needed, though there’s a balance between review time and meeting submission requirements. The discussion concluded with clarification that letters of intent requiring institutional submission must meet deadline policies, while those without detailed budgets or institutional requirements can be submitted directly by faculty.
AI can make mistakes. Review for accuracy.
Meeting Recording
- Passcode: k0@%sSh5
Additional information about the SRAI Research Management Specialist Certification: https://www.srainternational.org/meetings/levelup-program/researchmanagementspecialist
ZOOM AI Meeting Summary
Quick recap
Lauren led a meeting about the NSFM guide for career proposal submissions and discussed the recent reset of learner progress in the M. Guide platform due to an update. The team addressed concerns about preserving user progress and completing certificates across different systems, with Lauren committing to investigate and follow up on these issues. Lauren also discussed plans for transferring UVA license users to a new system and mentioned pending meetings about cost transfer and the Fafada module.
Next steps
• Lauren to reach out to SRI contact Juliana about transferring user progress from the old platform to the new platform.
• Lauren to ask Amber or Ben for details about the 3-page paper requirement for the full course certificate.
• Lauren to schedule two additional meetings for the cost transfer and FFATA modules.
• Lauren to continue discussions with OSP/VPR about centralizing the SRI license for the next year.
• Lauren to follow up on the exact date when the current SRI subscription will end.
Summary
NSFM Career Proposal Guide
Lauren led a meeting about the NSFM guide for career proposal submissions, noting that this topic is not commonly covered in the School of Medicine. She mentioned that the content was informative for her and the attendees. No additional topics or questions were raised during the meeting.
Learner Progress Reset Discussion
The team discussed the recent reset of learner progress in the M. Guide due to a platform update, with Suzanne confirming she had completed all modules but only 11 certificates appeared in the new platform. Lauren noted that while their subscription might end in June, individual progress might not be lost, and she agreed to investigate with the platform providers about preserving completed work across the two systems. Vita expressed concern about losing her progress on incomplete modules, particularly the Fafada training, and Lauren committed to following up on this issue.
UVA License System Transfer Discussion
Lauren discussed reaching out to Juliana at Sri to explore the possibility of transferring UVA license users to a new system. She expressed concern about preserving user progress and ensuring proper credit for completed work. The team is considering having OSP/VPR take the lead on licensing for the upcoming year, with support from Eric’s team and the newly hired Laura Cosmo, who has a background in training. Lauren hopes centralizing this resource will make it more accessible to users.
Meeting Schedule Updates and Reminders
Lauren mentioned that she still needs to add two additional meetings related to cost transfer and the Fafada module to the schedule. She plans to complete this task today. The conversation ended with an open platform for questions and a reminder about the upcoming weekend.
AI-generated content may be inaccurate or misleading. Always check for accuracy.
Meeting Recording
- Passcode: n5?m?&+@
ZOOM AI Meeting Summary
Quick recap
Alex led the meeting in Lauren’s absence and discussed calendar updates for additional sessions, including plans to adjust scheduling around June vacations. Alex and Linda reviewed the NSF research grant guide and its applicability, highlighting key takeaways for proposal submissions and noting the rarity of NSF funding in their School of Medicine. The team addressed challenges with grant applications containing foreign components, discussed upcoming changes to resource access, and planned future meetings to cover NSF career development applications, with Linda reminding everyone about available office hours.
Next steps
• Alex to discuss with Lauren about updating the calendar invite with additional session information.
• Lauren to update the calendar invite with information on additional sessions and any skipped weeks in June.
• Linda to incorporate NSF grant application information from the M. Guide into the School of Medicine’s website resources.
• All team members to complete desired M. Guide modules and courses before mid-June due to potential changes in access.
• Research administrators to advise PIs to consider waiting or finding domestic expertise for projects with foreign components due to current NIH restrictions.
Summary
Meeting Schedule and Absence Updates
Alex informs the group that Lauren is absent and he will be leading the meeting. Suzanne inquires about the extra sessions added by Sri, and Alex confirms that the team agreed to add them, though the calendar invite hasn’t been updated yet. Linda clarifies that they plan to skip a couple of weeks in June due to vacations, but additional sessions will be scheduled to compensate.
NSF Proposal Guide Review
Alex and Linda discuss their limited experience with NSF proposals and review the M. Guide for NSF research grants. They agree that the guide is comprehensive and applicable to various grant applications, not just NSF. Alex highlights key takeaways, including familiarizing oneself with the PA/PPG, creating checklists, using boilerplate templates, and taking the lead on budget-related aspects. Linda suggests incorporating some of the guide’s information into their own website resources. They note that NSF funding is uncommon in their School of Medicine due to the focus on human-related research, and discuss the uncertainty surrounding future NSF funding for their type of research.
Challenges in Foreign Grant Applications
Alex and Linda discuss the challenges of submitting grant applications with foreign components, particularly in light of recent changes. They note that the Department of Defense (DoD) portal is difficult to navigate, and that the cancer center staff, particularly Kathy, likely have the most experience with these applications. They speculate that future systems might move towards a model similar to the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs (CDMRP), where partnering institutions each receive their own award. Linda advises researchers to consider waiting or finding domestic expertise instead of including foreign components, as these are unlikely to be approved in the current climate. They also mention that program officers are providing limited guidance, sometimes suggesting researchers “get creative,” which Linda considers unsound advice.
Model Access Changes and Updates
Alex informs the team that access to models and guides may end by mid-June due to potential changes in licensing, likely moving to a token-based system. He encourages everyone to use the resources they need before then. SRA plans to add two more modules by the end of the calendar year. The next meeting will cover the NSF career development application, and Linda reminds everyone about the SOM OGC office hours available for questions.
AI-generated content may be inaccurate or misleading. Always check for accuracy.
Meeting Recording
- Passcode: 8PCp59#T
ZOOM AI Meeting Summary
Quick recap
The meeting focused on discussing the RPPR guide and its practical applications, including recent changes in the federal landscape and their potential impacts on reporting processes. Participants explored challenges related to managing unobligated balances, subaward obligations, and participant data in CSV files for human subjects studies, emphasizing the importance of accurate data entry and adherence to template specifications. The discussion also covered the process of updating clinical trial milestone plans, enrollment data, and publication syncing between NCBI and the RPPR module, addressing issues with login processes and duplicate entries.
Next steps
• PIs to log in to NCBI using their eRA Commons credentials to ensure proper linkage with RPPR module.
• Administrators to assist PIs in associating publications with correct awards in NCBI when needed.
• Lauren to provide more guidance on handling non-compliant publications in NCBI and RPPR.
• Team to be cautious when entering participant data in human subjects CSV files, ensuring exact adherence to template requirements.
• Administrators to consider providing explanations for unobligated balances over 25% in RPPR section G.10, even when answering “No”.
• Alex to include explanations about outstanding sub-award obligations when reporting on unobligated balances in RPPRs.
• Team to review NSF research guide for next week’s meeting.
Summary
RPPR Guide and NIH Updates
Lauren and Shawn discussed the RPPR guide, which they found practical and easy to follow. They explored how recent changes in the federal landscape might affect RPPRs, with Lauren suggesting that while broad changes to forms are unlikely, there may be more agency-specific process changes and increased communication. Cynthia inquired about funding cuts and no-cost extensions for NIH awards, to which Lauren explained that while there have been some delays and uncertainties, funding cuts are typically only communicated through revised notices of award, and recent changes to Commons now allow for no-cost extension requests 90 days before the end date.
RPPR Balance Reporting Challenges
Lauren and Alex discussed challenges in reporting unobligated balances and subaward obligations on RPPRs. Lauren explained that while there’s no ideal section to proactively explain large balances, they sometimes check “yes” in Section F to provide context. Alex asked about estimating subaward obligations, and Lauren advised being strategic, noting that while it’s valid to report high obligations, it could lead to higher balances if the money isn’t spent as expected. They also discussed the limitations of the character count in explanations and the importance of thorough analysis before submitting RPPRs.
CSV Data Management for Studies
Lauren and Alex discussed the intricacies of managing participant data in CSV files for human subjects studies, emphasizing the importance of adhering strictly to the template’s specifications to avoid errors. Alex highlighted the finicky nature of the CSV file, noting that even minor discrepancies can lead to rejection, and shared tips on correct data entry, such as using “not Hispanic” instead of “Non Hispanic” and ensuring proper capitalization and formatting. Lauren explained the process of updating submission statuses in the RPPR system, noting that administrators with the administrative official role in Commons can access most RPPRs but require delegate access for specific actions. She also mentioned that PIs typically delegate authority for such actions, but administrators can request this access if familiar with the PI.
Clinical Trial Data Update Process
Lauren and Alex discussed the process of updating clinical trial milestone plans and enrollment data, emphasizing the need for accuracy and the finicky nature of the data template. They explained that manual updates are no longer possible for many cases, and data must be downloaded, updated in a template, and re-uploaded to reflect changes. Shawn clarified that the template is used to ensure consistency in responses, and Lauren noted the potential for errors when data is not entered exactly as specified. They also highlighted the importance of ensuring that the data matches between the template and the table, and Alex advised against asking PIs to handle data uploads due to the risk of errors and frustration.
NCBI-RPPR Publication Sync Process
Lauren explained the process of syncing publications between NCBI and the RPPR module through Commons, emphasizing the importance of faculty logging in with their Commons information to create the necessary linkages. She noted that while Commons requires login.gov for access, faculty can use their Commons credentials to log into NCBI without additional authentication. Lauren also described how administrators can assist by pulling awards and publications data, associating them with awards, and ensuring that the sync between NCBI and RPPR is maintained for each publication.
Login Process and System Updates
Alex and Lauren discussed the challenges with the login process for Commons and NCBI, highlighting the inconvenience of using different login methods. They explored solutions for linking publications and addressed issues with noncompliant items, suggesting ways to update statuses in the system. Lauren emphasized the unpredictability of fixing NCBI issues but offered guidance on potential solutions.
NCBI Compliance and Training Updates
Lauren and Alex discussed issues with duplicate entries in NCBI systems and how to handle non-compliant articles. They explained the process of creating compliance reports and sending them to the PMC help desk for validation. Lauren mentioned that the next training session would focus on NSF research funding, though she expressed uncertainty about the timing.
AI-generated content may be inaccurate or misleading. Always check for accuracy.
Meeting Recording
- Passcode: Ng*@be5G
ZOOM AI Meeting Summary
Quick recap
The meeting focused on discussing resources and training programs for NIH submissions and research administration. Participants explored the potential for creating internal training materials and interactive resources to supplement existing programs like SRAI Level Up. They also considered the implementation of a comprehensive training program for research administrators, drawing inspiration from Miami University’s model and emphasizing the need for dedicated staff to develop and maintain such initiatives.
Next steps
• Lauren to share additional NIH application resources and checklists with Shawn.
• Lauren to consider creating a working group of people who have completed the modules to provide feedback on areas needing additional information or resources.
• Lauren and team to explore creating internal Uva-specific content to complement the LevelUp modules, potentially including short videos on how to translate concepts to Uva processes.
• Lauren and team to revisit the future of LevelUp at Uva after the new AVP starts in June.
• Alex to send the link to University of Miami’s research administration training program to the group.
• Lauren to discuss with the new AVP (Laura) about implementing a comprehensive research administration training program at Uva.
• Lauren to present on Other Support at the upcoming CORA meeting.
• Lauren to discuss federal-level updates at the upcoming School of Medicine RAM meeting.
Summary
NIH Submission Guide and Resources
Lauren and Shawn discussed the M Guide for the R series submissions through NIH. They noted that the approach was more condensed compared to larger modules and felt like a condensed version of a submission application. Shawn expressed his interest in Lauren’s resources for a deeper dive into NIH submissions. Lauren offered to share these resources and mentioned a checklist on their grants and contracts website for general research award NIH research applications. They also discussed the possibility of presenting a PowerPoint presentation on NIH at UVA.
Interactive Nofo Video Resource Discussion
Catherine and Lauren discussed the usefulness of a 10-minute video on how to read a Nofo, which they found to be a valuable resource. They also talked about the potential of creating more interactive resources, such as guided videos, to help users navigate complex information. However, they noted that these resources would need to be carefully prepared and would likely require users to cross-check and conduct their own research.
Creating Internal Blueprint for Study Group
Lauren discussed the possibility of creating an internal blueprint for a study group similar to LevelUp, which could be available to people if they couldn’t continue with LevelUp. She mentioned that the School of Medicine is committed to purchasing a license and that they have talked to OSP and Erica Pretty’s training team about institutional support. Lauren also suggested creating a more structured conversation around the modules and translating the concepts into how they do things at UVA. Catherine and Shawn agreed with Lauren’s ideas and suggested mimicking the format of the modules for internal use. They also discussed the importance of making the content more engaging and relatable to UVA.
Research Administrator Training Program Discussion
The group discusses the upcoming start date of a new team member in early June. They review a training program implemented at Miami University, which includes a comprehensive series of courses for research administrators. Lauren mentions that Miami created these modules with a small team of four people. The group considers using SRAI Level Up as an interim solution while developing their own in-house training program. They also discuss the importance of having dedicated staff for creating and maintaining research administration-focused training, rather than prioritizing faculty-oriented programs.
AI-generated content may be inaccurate or misleading. Always check for accuracy.
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: