For years, we have used the phrase, "you can't impose more on us as a
subcontractor than the Feds would impose on us if they were funding us
directly."  I am not sure that is completely accurate.  It often works but
one day it will be challenged and I would like to have a better (more
official sounding) response.  That is, can someone point me to the spot
where it is stated in black and white.

I read something recently (can't remember if it was A-21, A-110 or A-133)
that said that under some state cooperative agreement act or some such,
that states could potentially impose tighter restrictions than what we
would get if we were the direct recipient of the fed funds.  I believe it
was an attempt to recognize some of the state laws and procedures that the
feds really don't want to dictate.

Any advice is appreciated.  Oh, BTW - I have to defend my position by 9:30
central time this morning so.......

Thanks.

======================================================================
 Instructions on how to use the RESADM-L Mailing List, including
 subscription information and a web-searchable archive, are available
 via our web site at http://www.hrinet.org (click on "Listserv Lists")
======================================================================