Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

DGA Community Meeting December 13, 2011 1. DGA Community Meeting: Agenda December 13, 2011 Agenda ItemDiscussion Leader Welcome and IntroductionsMarisa.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "DGA Community Meeting December 13, 2011 1. DGA Community Meeting: Agenda December 13, 2011 Agenda ItemDiscussion Leader Welcome and IntroductionsMarisa."— Presentation transcript:

1 DGA Community Meeting December 13,

2 DGA Community Meeting: Agenda December 13, 2011 Agenda ItemDiscussion Leader Welcome and IntroductionsMarisa Zuskar Sponsored Project Records Retention Kira Homo Marisa Zuskar Vendors vs. SubrecipientsLiz Denecke Post-Award General UpdatesMarisa Zuskar Pre-Award General Updates

3 Welcome and Introductions 3

4 Sponsored Project Records Retention Kira Homo, Electronic Record Archivist 4

5 Vendors vs. Subrecipients How do you decide? Liz Denecke 5

6 6 Subrecipient FEDERAL LANGUAGE A (b) MODIFIED DESCRIPTION (b) Federal award. Characteristics indicative of a Federal award received by a Subrecipient are when the organization: A subaward is the transfer of a portion of a sponsored award to a Subrecipient (Sub) for the purpose of the Sub contributing programmatic effort on the project. 1. Determines who is eligible to receive federal financial assistance. 1.Sub has the authority to issue a subaward/subcontract to a 3 rd party. 2. Has its performance measured against whether the objectives of the Federal program are met. 2. Unlike a Vendor who only has to provide the required goods or services to be evaluated successfully, a Sub’s performance is evaluated based on how well its work helped to meet the objectives of the project.

7 7 Subrecipient FEDERAL LANGUAGE A (b) MODIFIED DESCRIPTION 3. Has responsibility for making programmatic decision making. 3. A Sub takes full responsibility, including intellectual leadership, for the portion of UO’s Statement of Work (“SOW”) that it will undertake. In other words, UO assigns a defined portion of their SOW’s intellectually significant activity to the Sub to fulfill. 4. Has responsibility for adherence to applicable Federal program compliance requirements. 4. The Sponsor’s Terms and Conditions accepted by UO “flow down” to the Sub, who must agree to comply and be capable of complying with them (e.g. audit/conflicts of interest/IRB and IACUC).

8 8 Subrecipient FEDERAL LANGUAGE A (b) MODIFIED DESCRIPTION 5. Uses Federal funds to carry out a program of the organization as compared to providing goods or services for a program of the pass-through entity. 5. Work is performed by Sub’s personnel using Sub’s resources, usually at their site in a noncommercial setting, in an area or field in which they have specific expertise.

9 9 Vendor FEDERAL LANGUAGE A (c) MODIFIED DESCRIPTION (c) Payment for goods and services. Characteristics indicative of a payment for goods and services received by a vendor are when the organization: A procurement action is the purchase of goods/service with no transfer of programmatic effort from a Professional Service/Vendor (a dealer, distributor, merchant, or other seller providing goods or services). A Professional Service/Vendor: 1. Provides the goods or service within normal business operations. 1. A Vendor is a business selling either a product or goods (e.g. widgets) or services (e.g. routine soil testing). Under this definition, the professional services of a consultant could be treated as Vendor costs if they also meet items 2-5 below.

10 10 Vendor FEDERAL LANGUAGE A (c) MODIFIED DESCRIPTION 2. Provides similar goods or services to many different purchasers. 2. A Vendor sells its goods or services to many different purchasers. 3. Operates in a competitive environment. 3. A Vendor competes with other Vendors selling similar goods or services. 4. Provides goods or services that are ancillary to the operation of the Federal program. 4. A Vendor provides a good or a service that might be necessary to the success of the sponsored project. Vendors do not make programmatic decisions regarding the scope of work or their performance. Vendors are not critical to the intellectual purpose of the Statement of Work, e.g. widgets or routine soil testing.

11 11 Vendor FEDERAL LANGUAGE A (c) MODIFIED DESCRIPTION 5. Is not subject to compliance requirements of the Federal program. But see A (f) 5. A Vendor is subject to less constrained federal compliance requirements, and is NOT subject to federal program-specific programmatic compliance requirements. See A (f)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

25 25 STILL UNSURE WHETHER A PARTY IS A VENDOR OR A SUBRECIPIENT? SPS PREAWARD:SPS CONTRACTING: Kari Vandergust Rebecca Roby Glen Bennett Liz Denecke John Sites Orca Merwin

26 Post-Award General Updates 26

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

28 Pre-Award General Updates 28


Download ppt "DGA Community Meeting December 13, 2011 1. DGA Community Meeting: Agenda December 13, 2011 Agenda ItemDiscussion Leader Welcome and IntroductionsMarisa."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google