Grants Blog

Archive for the ‘General’ Category

We’ve just posted information about our annual Federal Grants Update course to the Management Concepts web site. This one-day seminar is a great way to keep track of the latest developments in grants management and to learn about pending changes that may impact your day-to-day grants work.

This year we’ll be discussing OMB’s plans for consolidating and revising the grants management circulars, new grants oversight boards, A-133 audits, suspension and debarment, and much more.

Classes start the first week in April and run throughout the summer in cities around the country. We can also bring the course to your location. Visit the web page here for additional information about the topics that will be covered, locations and dates, and registration information. And if you have any other questions, feel free to contact me.

There has been a lot of talk in Congress about grants accountability, but mostly in the realm of post-award administration. Now comes a bill that addresses those topics before an award is made. HR 3433, the s-called GRANT Act, would call for some rather dramatic shifts in the way discretionary grants are awarded.

For example, federal agencies would have to establish and publish merit-based selection criteria. And before an award is made, agencies would have to evaluate whether the applicant is capable of properly managing federal awards and successfully completing the project. This seems fairly noncontroversial to me and aligns with current OMB circulars and administrative requirements.

But the legislation would make all of the preaward information available to the public — everything from the applicant’s proposal to the award notice and the final award decision and applicant rankings.

Further, agencies would post each recipient’s final report on a public website, along with any other information that could be useful to “future researchers or the public.”

As for A-133 single audits, the proposed legislation would require OMB to report on how the process could be made more useful and efficient, something OMB has been working on for years.

This legislation, which you can read here, is just now beginning to make its way through Congress, but I thought some of the above points are very interesting and show lawmakers’ continued interest in grants. Do you see anything else in the bill that you find interesting?

Federal agencies are asking for your help in finding ways to reduce the administrative burdens and costs associated with cost principles compliance in federally sponsored research projects. Colleges, universities, grants offices, associations, and others involved in research have until July 28 to offer their ideas.

For several years, a federal interagency task force has been looking at 2 CFR 220 (Circular A-21) with respect to its application in federally sponsored research at educational institutions. That task force has gathered preliminary information on areas that could be improved, and is now inviting the public to offer their comments on these issues. Specifically, the task force is seeking input in the following areas:

• effort reporting,
• recovery of direct costs associated with administrative and project management support for investigators,
• institutional eligibility for the Utility Cost Adjustment,
• consistency among agencies that establish governmentwide
  F&A rates,
• programs with F&A reimbursement at other than governmentwide rates,
• rationalization between agencies of regulations and reporting requirements
• audits of research institutions and awards, and
• definitions of general and research equipment

All comments must be submitted electronically to:

http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfi_files/a-21/add.htm

You can read the full request for information here.

The task force plans to produce a summary of the suggestions by September, and will then begin to draft a set of recommendations that it will forward to OMB for review.

Yesterday, a House subcommittee held hearings on “Improving Oversight and Accountability in Federal Grant Programs.” Officials from OMB, GAO, federal agencies, and the private sector all testified. And while (in my opinion) there was not a lot of new information or new ideas, the fact that Congress is now paying more attention to grants management is a fairly significant development.

So here is a link to the subcommittee’s website, where you can find testimony and watch a recorded version of the hearing.

I’m curious to see what action Congress, agencies, or the administration actually take. What do you think? Will we see concrete steps toward improved effectiveness and use of single audits? Will there be changes in the preaward process? Will regulations be amended? Take a look at the testimony and let me know what you think.

This week Congress will vote on a continuing resolution to fund the federal government for the remainder of the current fiscal year. I’ve been looking at the proposal and noticed a few things that might be of interest to grants professionals.

First, while the theme of transparency and accountability grow, Congress is planning to slash funding for electronic government initiatives by about 75 percent. This would impact sites such as USAspending.gov where the public has access to information about federal aid recipients. With only $8 million to spend on e-gov, federal officials would have to make some tough choices about which transparency sites to maintain and which ones to shut down or scale back.

The second interesting tidbit is that the funding proposal would implement an across-the-board cut for all non-defense programs, but agencies would still have discretion over the funding levels for many of their individual programs.

Finally, one of the federal government’s innovation efforts is being de-funded. The Partnership Fund for Program Integrity Innovation would be zeroed out, with only enough funding to cover the projects OMB already committed to. This initiative, originally funded $34 million, was intended to support innovative programs that promoted efficiency and cooperation among federal agencies and states, local governments , and nonprofit organizations.

So, those are my first thoughts on this massive spending package for FY 11. Anyone else have comments they would like to share?

Just about an hour ago, OMB issued guidance to agencies about how to prepare for a federal government shutdown. I haven’t had a chance to read through the whole thing yet, but I thought it important to let everyone know as soon as possible.

The memo is available here.

I’ll pass along any other information I come across as soon as possible.

If you purchase goods or services using federal grant funds, you might be interested in this: the simplified acquisition threshold for procurements under grants has not changed, even though the FAR level was recently increased to $150,000.

The threshold for grants – which is detailed in OMB’s grants management circulars – is based on the FAR’s underlying statute, not the FAR itself. According to OMB’s Office of Federal Financial Management, an interagency workgroup is looking into whether OMB should change the grants threshold to $150,000 for consistency with the FAR. However, they want to consider what impact this would have on the various grants communities before they make any change.

So for now, the simplified acquisition threshold for grants remains at $100,000.

Information about Management Concepts’ annual Federal Grants Update seminar is now available. This one-day course is a great way to keep track of the latest developments in grants management and to learn about pending changes that may impact your day-to-day grants work.

This year we’ll be discussing GPRA, subaward reporting, transparency and accountability, audit guidance, presidential and congressional priorities, and more.

Classes start the first week in April and run throughout the summer in cities around the country. We can also bring the course to your location. Click here to see dates, locations, topics, and registration options.

In another new memo promoting open government, OMB offers details of how the fast-approaching Transparency Act subaward reporting process will work and the related responsibilities of federal agencies, prime grantees, and subgrantees.  

For example, in any new awards issued as of October 1 2010, federal agencies must include a new award term that delineates the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) subaward reporting requirements.

Prime grantees will be required to register in two systems to meet the act’s subaward reporting requirements: the Central Contractor Registration, and the FFATA Subaward Reporting System (FSRS). (FSRS was set up as the portal for Transparency Act subcontract reporting and is now being used to also report subgrants.)

The memo also clarifies that subawardees are not required to do the actual reporting; that is the prime recipient’s responsibility. However, the subawardee is required to provide the prime with all of the information needed.

Further, entities that are already reporting this information for Recovery Act grants through FederalReporting.gov will not be required to duplicate that reporting in FSRS.

These are just a few examples of the information included in the memo. You can view and download the entire 51-page guidance here.