1. Award Acceptance Process for Externally Sponsored Projects as Proposed by the eRPM Governance Team 1

2. eRPM Governance Team Carole Bach (ISR) Dennis Cebulski (DRDA) Amanda Coulter (DRDA) Linda Forsyth (College of Engineering) Cathy Handyside (ITS Research Administration) David Mulder (ITS Research Administration) Heather Offhaus (Med School) Carolyn Pappas (ITS Research Administration) Cathy Seay-Ostrowski (UMTRI) Scott Stanfill (School of Social Work) Kate Strzempek (DRDA) Peggy Westrick (LSA) 2

3. Why we want to change the process for Award Acceptance  Currently we (UNITS and DRDA) spend many hours making sure proposals are perfect before submitting to sponsor  UNIT Administrative review and signature are required for every proposal  When award is forthcoming, DRDA does not require the UNIT Administrative Stream to approve  DRDA works directly with PI and PI might need to alter the committed UNIT Resources (effort, space, cost share)  PAN is the first time UNITS know about how the award was negotiated, and how the UNIT Resource Commitments were handled  When everyone along the project isn’t notified of changes, relationships can be hurt  Often a lot of time is spent in the Post Award project period solving the problems created because of this lack of communication  Those problems could have been resolved at Award Acceptance 3

4. What is Award Acceptance? Occurs when a sponsor approaches the institution with a final agreement to initiate a sponsored project 4

5. Current Process for Award Acceptance DRDA PI (& possibly support staff) Agreement reached to accept award PAN Issued All Departments / Schools / Colleges Notified Emails back and forth 5

6. Current Process for Award Acceptance  DRDA reviews and may involve PI to accept changes at the award acceptance stage  Only the PI and DRDA are aware of these changes at the award acceptance stage.  Communication is mostly done by emails  Departments/Schools/Centers are not aware of changes to resource commitments prior to the PAN  Budget / Financial issues  Changes to effort commitments  Possible changes to cost sharing commitments  Only documentation required by sponsor is produced – does not always require a re-evaluation of the budget  Resource Commitments are the responsibility of the administrative home stream of the project  Including the burden of making sure project resources are delivered 6

7. Current Process for Award Acceptance  Reallocation of effort plans without unit agreement  Agreement to accept proposed scope even when there is not enough budget in award to accomplish – causing “institutional investment” to complete  Some project reps at DRDA do include the administrative home stream, but on a case-by-case basis.  This proposal asks DRDA to create a business process that would ensure that all DRDA Reps would handle the Award Acceptance process the same way for all sponsors. 7

8. New Award Acceptance Process  Not all budget changes would follow this new path  Only projects with a material change (expect 10% of all awards) from the last proposed funding would be impacted  Of this 10% of Awards, the Administrative Home Stream would be involved in the review and acceptance of awards –“Material” is currently defined in DRDA policy as a change +/- 20% from budget OR a change to cost sharing or IDC rate 8

9. New Award Acceptance Process Employed when the project has a material change DRDA PI (& possibly support staff) PAN Issued All Units/ Departments / Schools / Colleges Notified of the final award Administrative Home Stream Indicate agreement In eRPM, sends project back to PI / Team In eRPM, PI indicates interest/ attaches new budgets/info as needed At this point, participating units are also notified that the project has a material change Routes to DRDA DRDA negotiates and/or finalizes award 9

10. Recap of the New Award Acceptance Process  Only applies when the award arrives and the award is materially different from the last proposed  DRDA routes the proposed award to the PI/Project Team via eRPM  PI indicates his/her input in eRPM whether DRDA should decline, accept, or negotiate the award  The Project Team uploads needed information  Decline ends the process  If Accept or Negotiate routes the proposed award to the Administrative Home stream for review and approval  Other participating departments are notified via eRPM that the award is different from the last proposed  Once Admin Home stream approves, eRPM will route the proposed award to DRDA for final processing or negotiation 10

11. Recap of Discussion  eRPM Governance Team has asked for more school input and oversight at award time  DRDA is willing to join in the process, however, sees this proposal as a substantial change to the existing process and perceives additional work for documenting changes and approving in eRPM  Perceived time for administrative home approvals could add time to the acceptance of the award  No perceived significant change in work for the PI  Work will now happen in eRPM instead of email  Perceived prioritization requirements to accept awards at the same time as juggling other issues 11

12. Recap of Discussion (continued)  The projects targeted are limited in number, but considered significant in the material changes  Discussions on resource commitments would be held by those responsible for the commitments  Trade off of administrative time spent may save on future administrative time resulting from unanticipated financial implications  In eRPM, there will be transparency and data – any delays in the process can be identified and addressed 12

13. When asked: “Why should we do this?” “This ounce of preventative administrative time at award acceptance will save a pound in post-award implications.” by Scott Stanfill 13

14. Questions & Comments 14