research administration for scientists comp 290-083 tim quigg associate chair for administration and...
TRANSCRIPT
Research AdministrationFor Scientists
COMP 290-083
Tim Quigg
Associate Chair for Administration and Finance
Department of Computer Science
UNC-Chapel Hill
TNT’s From Last WeekTNT 1: Learn as much as you can about the agency, the
program and the program officer.
TNT 2: Prepare a written proposal development timeline and follow it.
TNT 3: Agencies fund people, not just ideas.
TNT 4: Quality Trumps Quantity Every Time.
TNT 5: Budget should be the “right size”, neither too large nor too small.
TNT 6: Criticism from the right sources can be helpful.
TNT 7: When the time comes to “push the button”, don’t be afraid even if the proposal isn’t
perfect.
COMP 290-083
“A good plan executed right now is far better than a perfect plan executed next week.”
George S. Patton
• If you wait to have children till you can afford them, you never will have them
• Likewise, if you wait till a proposal is perfect, you’ll never submit one
• And, if you never submit one – you dramatically reduce your chances of getting one funded!
TNT 7: When the time comes to “push the button”, don’t be afraid even if the proposal isn’t perfect.
COMP 290-083
• “Don’t push the river. It will flow by itself.”
• Be patient, many funding agencies take about six months to complete process
• It is considered inappropriate to contact the program officer while a proposal is under review
• Successful proposals usually get a call from the program officer
TNT 7: When the time comes to “push the button”, don’t be afraid even if the proposal isn’t perfect.
COMP 290-083
• Rejections usually come by snail mail or email
• If the time frame listed in the program announcement has passed, it is acceptable to inquire of the program officer to see if the timeline for the review process has been revised
TNT 8: Treat every rejected proposal as an opportunity to learn.
COMP 290-083
“Failure is the opportunity to begin again, more intelligently.”
Henry Ford
• Many good, fundable proposals are not funded because the agency ran out of money
• Request a copy of the reviewers comments (andnumeric score where applicable)
TNT 8: Treat every rejected proposal as an opportunity to learn.
COMP 290-083
• Accept the comments as valuable input
• The reviewer may not have understood your point.
• But whose job is it to make them understand?
• Obviously it’s yours!
• How can you more clearly communicate your message?
• They may have found “holes” in your presentation.
• How can you improve the description of the science?
TNT 8: Treat every rejected proposal as an opportunity to learn.
COMP 290-083
Remember
Proposal writing is an iterative process.
Many successful proposals were not
funded on their first submission!
TNT 9: Don’t give up! Proposal writing is a learned skill.
COMP 290-083
“Life is like riding a bicycle. You don’t fall off unless you stop pedaling.”
Claude Pepper
When did the
federal government
become involved
in funding
university research?
• Before WWII
COMP 290-083
History: External Support for University Research in U.S.
• Mainly internal sources
• Notable exception – Agriculture
• Morrill Act of 1862: Land-Grant Colleges
• 30,000 acres of federal land/congressional representative to each State
COMP 290-083
History: External Support for University Research in U.S.
• Sold to provide an endowment for:• “at least one college where the leading object shall be,
without excluding other scientific and classical studies and including military tactics, to teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and the mechanic arts…”
• Kentucky (50¢/acre) – Cornell ($5.50/acre)
COMP 290-083
History: External Support for University Research in U.S.• Second Morrill Act of 1890
• In order to get $, State had to show that race was not a criterion for admission to land-grant
institution or
• Designate a separate land-grant college for blacks
• “1890 land-grants” created all over the then-segregated South
COMP 290-083
History: External Support for University Research in U.S.• Hatch Act of 1887: Agriculture Experiment
Station• Annual appropriation – State match required
• Smith-Lever Act of 1914: Cooperative Extension Service
• Annual appropriation – State match required
• Current federal $ from various acts > $550 million annually
• During WWII
COMP 290-083
History: External Support for University Research in U.S.
• University scientists mobilized to apply expertise to war effort
• National Defense Research Council
• Formed by FDR in June, 1940
• Forum for bringing university/industry/ government scientists together
• 18 month “head-start” on Pearl Harbor
COMP 290-083
History: External Support for University Research in U.S.
• Office of Scientific Research and Defense (OSRD)
• May 1941
• Dr. Vannevar Bush, Director
• Mission “to explore a possible government role to
encourage future scientific progress.”
• Civilian, not military, control
COMP 290-083
History: External Support for University Research in U.S.
• OSRD contracted work to other institutions
• Large rocket lab at Carnegie Institute of Technology
• Radiation lab at MIT
• Bush’s final report The Endless Frontier
• Two principles for expanding R & D in U.S. universities
• Federal government as patron of science
• Government support should ensure a free rein of investigation by scientists into topics and methods of their choice
COMP 290-083
History: External Support for University Research in U.S.
• This report lead to the establishment of National Science Foundation (NSF) in 1950
• Independent government agency
• National Science Board
• 24 members plus director
• Appointed by President
• Responsible for promoting science and engineering
• $3.3 billion/year
• 20,000 active research and education projects
• NSF $ = approximately 3% of all federal R&D expenditures
Types of Support
COMP 290-083
Federal Assistance
• Mandatory – block grants, formula-driven• Discretionary – competitively awarded
Modes of Support• Grants – assistance• Contracts – procurement/acquisition• Cooperative Agreements – assistance but with
strings attached
COMP 290-083
Grants
• Broad Agency Announcements (BAA), Program Solicitation• Financial Assistance Award• Made for stated purpose (proposal/award)• Made for stated period of time (project period)• Made to an organization in the name of a Principal
Investigator (PI)• No substantial programmatic involvement by awarding
agency• Funding may be annual, multi-year or for entire budget
period• Minimum of limiting conditions
COMP 290-083
Contracts
• RFP and IFB• Mutually binding legal relationship that binds the seller to
deliver certain specified goods or services (deliverables) in exchange for certain specified consideration (e.g., money)
• Terms are usually detailed and specific
• Activities frequently dictated by sponsor (buyer)
• Less latitude to modify scope of work and line-item expenditures
• Funding may be incremental, tied to work components, final payment (e.g. 10%) may be held till “acceptance” of
deliverables
• Process governed by the FAR (Federal Acquisition Regulation)
COMP 290-083
Contract Types
• Pays allowable costs to extent provided• Contractor must have adequate accounting system
to track applicable costs• Contains limitation of costs clause (LOC) – government will only pay estimated costs
• Variations include:• Cost-sharing (CSC)• Cost-plus-incentive fee (CPIF)• Cost-plus-fixed fee (CPFF)
• Cost-Reimbursement (CRC)
COMP 290-083
Contract Types
• Fixed Price (FPC)
• Price-based, not cost-based• Price defined in contract (by unit or deliverable)• May be firm or adjustable (Economic circumstances, profit, etc.)
COMP 290-083
Cooperative Agreements
• Financial Assistance Award• Similar to grant except
• There is substantial programmatic involvement by awarding agency.
• Principal purpose is to transfer money or something of value to recipient in order to accomplish a public purpose.
COMP 290-083
Cooperative Agreements
• Agencies have substantial freedom to structure the terms and conditions (T&Cs)
• Agencies must issue CA regulations
• Often differ from standard assistance regulations and may even resemble acquisition regulations
Contracting ProcessPurchase Request (Requisition)• Requirements• Authorization• Administrative Detail
Contract Office
Solicitation
Request for Quotation (RFQ) -Information Only (Standard Form 18)
Request for Proposal (RFP)
• Other-than-sealed-bids (offers)• Uniform contract format• Negotiated procurement
• Bargaining• Offerors may revise offer
• Awards made on quality and cost factors• Technical excellence• Management capabilities• Personnel Qualifications• Prior experience
Contract Issued
Invitation to Bids (IFB)
• Sealed Bids (offers)• Uniform contract format• Public opening• Price and price-related factors considered
3 P’s – Patron (Grant): Partner (Co-op Agreement): Purchaser (Contract)
• Idea for the project is initiated by the investigator.
• No substantial involvement between the grantor and grantee.
• Grantor has no expectation of a specified service or end product
Grant
DISTINGUISHING CONTRACT, GRANTS AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS
Research Requirement
Procurement Contract
YESNO
Principally forPublic supportOr stimulation
Co-op Agreement (SubstantialRelationship)