Let me first clarify that nonprofits are not subject to A-21, which are the cost principles for universities. Most nonprofits are subject to A-122, however, SRI and others identified in Attachment C to A-122 are subject FAR 31.2, the cost principles for commercial entities. This means that we have multiple rates (e.g., fringe benefits, indirect costs, G&A, support cost burden, etc.) that apply to different categories of cost. It's really quite complicated ...and after two years I'm still not sure how to apply all of them.
As a nonprofit, however, we are still subject to A-110 and A-133....so, yes, we do have an annual A-133 audit. Additionally our cognizant federal audit agency, DCAA, has auditors located right on our campus and audit our contracts, as well as our time keeping, accounting and procurement systems very closely. Indeed, we are subject to much more direct government audit oversight than most universities -- think Lockheed and not your university's systems.
So, why do we not reveal our rates (salary and indirect cost rates) to any but the federal government? As it turns out, SRI is concerned about its competitive advantage with similar type organizations with whom we complete, primarily for contract and non-government work. If we were to allow non-government access to our proprietary information through subcontracting to other organizations our direct competitors could perhaps obtain this information. So, we don't show our rates in proposals either.
When we work with our competitors as our subcontractors, they act towards SRI in the same manner that you find so strange. They will not provide their rate information to us for proposals, but instead offer it to us in sealed envelopes to pass on with our proposal to the feds or provide it directly to the government...and we do the same when working with them when we are the sub. Actually, this is how the commercial world works.
Personally having worked for several different universities, and being
knowledgeable about the subrecipient monitoring requirements of A-133,
I understand that what SRI is asking sounds quite unusual....if not inappropriate.
However, we are frequently in the prime grantee role, so we also are mindful
of and try to accommodate the prime grantee's responsibility to monitor
its subrecipents...we just have to be creative about it. And,
since we do a lot of subcontracting with universities, we have found creative
ways to accommodate both parties needs....so, please, work with us.
Thanks,
Pat
GSchmidt wrote:
Interesting problem here. You have an obligation as a recipient of--
federal funds to ensure that subawardees use their funds in accordance
to A-21 and 110. You can't get out of that. Neither can they. How
would they do an audit if they were direct recipients? Do they have to
do an annual A-133 audit (probably do)? Couldn't you do a desk review
of that looking at the auditor comments? That's pretty much what we do
with each other when we do subawards with another college.You could also restructure the relationship so that it is a purchase of
service contract and not a subaward.I am surprised, though, that a non-profit is acting like this. Usually
if it's payroll info they want to protect, it isn't to prevent their
competitors from knowing, its an internal privacy issue. They don't
want their own people knowing what each other's salaries and benes are.Good luck.
Greg Schmidt