This seems like a good time to jump into the discussion with a
couple of nagging thoughts.

(1) Recipents of federally supported grants are charged with
accurately reporting the costs of research projects.  From the award
notice, we know that a certain federally funded project supports 2
months of PI salary for summer work and nothing during the Academic
Year.  We should also know that the PI is assigned the equivalent of
one or more courses (say 25% time each) during each semester of the
Academic Year to conduct research.  Since the grant pays the bills
for travel, lab techs, supplies, publication and other costs
occuring the AY, shouldn't that confirm that some PI research time
is being devoted to this project during the AY.  Whether the award's
required cost share line is zero or not, wouldn't accurate reporting
of costs would require including cost sharing?  Shouldn't accurate
Time and Effort reporting reflect the contributed AY time?  What do
you call reporting the costs of this AY effort in some other cost
pool so as to increase your F&A research rate?  Dispite National
Science Board policy, isn't NSF in effect requiring cost sharing by
generally refusing to support Academic Year PI salary?

(2) The effect of Cost Sharing on the F&A rate eventially boils
down to the fraction (indirect cost base/ total research costs) and
looks at the obvious increase in the denominator by adding cost
sharing.  What is the impact on the numerator?  If space and
equipment are now used for funded research projects that were used
for something else before, doesn't that increase the numerator?
Seems to me that the PI's lab which could only be included in the
research base only for 2 months (summer funding in the example
above) and could now be at least partially included for 9 additional
months would add to the numerator.  Mathematically the fraction will
increase only when this additional inclusion is equal to or larger
than the direct cost share, so perhaps cost sharing makes monetary
sense for scientific labs with expensive equipment but not for
inexpensive education ones.

Wil

######################################################
Bill,

Personally, I don't think the Dept. of Ed. is a good example as a
basis
for your practice on cost sharing!  The program managers that I've

worked with at Education are overwhelmed serving the role of
program
manager and administrator.

I think if you would quantify contributions by the department or a

center in the budget notes of any other agency, you would run the
risk
of a grants officer or an auditor picking up on it and requiring
that it
be counted as voluntary cost share.

IMHO,

Ruth Tallman

Bill Campbell wrote:

> Carolyn, I quantify them if I possibly can.  A program officer at
ED
> (or maybe USDA, can't remember for sure) told me once that if a
match
> doesn't show up on the cover sheet or budget form, they don't pay
any
> attention to it.  So I've been putting numbers in the narratives
ever
> since.
>
> And I agree completely, budgets should be reasonable and the
project
> has to deliver.  If the matches aren't legitimate, I don't
include
> them anywhere.
>
> Regards, Bill
>
>Bill Campbell
>Director, Grants & Research
>University of Wisconsin-River Falls
>410 S. 3rd St.
>River Falls, WI 54022
>715/425-3195
>FAX 715/425-0649
>
>
>
>
> Carolyn Elliott-Farino wrote:
>
>> Bill,
>>
>> But do you quantify these resources that you include in the
project
>> narrative and budget narrative? It's one thing to say that "the

>> department will contribute supplies," quite another to say "The

>> department will contribute $5000 in supplies." My understanding
is
>> that if the resources you describe are quantified at all, they
become
>> voluntary cost share. I think you can show institutional
commitment
>> without quantifying the amount. So if you don't quantify, I
guess I'd
>> agree with you. If you do quantify, I'm not sure.
>>
>> Whatever, budgets should be reasonable, and projects should give
some
>> bang for the buck, right?
>>
>> >>> xxxxxx@UWRF.EDU 2/9/2006 12:36:06 PM >>>
>> RESADMers--
>>
>> Normally, I agree with Spanky--but not on this issue.  I've
served as
>> a reader for Dept of Education on many occasions, and as a
reader I'm
>> impressed when a proposal narrative or letter of commitment
describes
>> the resources the institution is committing to a project.  And
yes,
>> my impressions are reflected in my scoresheet.  So when I write

>> proposals for ED, I always describe the resources we will use
for
>> match in the narrative.  And I include them in the budget
narrative
>> as well.  BUT--I do NOT include matching funds on the official
budget
>> forms or list them on the cover sheet, unless of course a match
is
>> required.  If I put matching funds on the official budget form
and
>> cover sheet, we're accountable for them, we'll have to report
time &
>> effort, etc.
>>
>> I follow that strategy with other agencies as well, especially
USDA.
>> Not so much with NSF, not at all with NIH.
>>
>> Regards, Bill
>>
>>Bill Campbell
>>Director, Grants & Research
>>University of Wisconsin-River Falls
>>410 S. 3rd St.
>>River Falls, WI 54022
>>715/425-3195
>>FAX 715/425-0649
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Mike McCallister wrote:
>>
>>> Fer sure this is a "just say no" thing.  Never, ever provide
>>> unrequired match.  It's a waste of scarce resources.  That's
the kin
>>> do fcrapola you hear from rookies.  And that's just what I tell
them.
>>>
>>> Spanky
>>>
>>> At 03:25 PM 2/8/2006, you wrote:
>>>
>>>> That is an urban myth. It is the quality of the proposal and
the
>>>> proposer, not any cheap-jack price, that results in an award.
You
>>>> cannot buy an award, and if it would be funded anyway, why
>>>> subsidize the project; there are better ways to spend your
money.
>>>> Mandatory cost sharing excepted, of course.
>>>>
>>>> Chuck
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> At 01:00 PM 2/8/2006, you wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Good afternoon-
>>>>>
>>>>> I have PI's who are using the "if I cost share I have a
better
>>>>> chance of getting funded" justification for cost share.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there any communique from NIH that dispels that idea?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thx!
>>>>>
>>>>> Camilla
>>>>>
>>>>> *Camilla Curnow*
>>>>> Director of Research Administration
>>>>> Internal Medicine
>>>>> Box 801020
>>>>> 243-7186
>>>>> 243-0399 Fax
>>>>>
>>>>>
======================================================================

>>>>> 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
>>>>> <http://www.hrinet.org/> (click on "Listserv Lists")
>>>>>
======================================================================

>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Herbert "Chuck" Chermside, CRA
>>>> Director Emeritus, VCU Sponsored Programs
>>>> Executive Director, Research Administrators Certification
Council
>>>> 1915 Robindale Rd.
>>>> Richmond, VA 23235-3931
>>>> 804-320-5502
>>>> xxxxxx@verizon.net
>>>>
>>>>
======================================================================

>>>> 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
>>>> <http://www.hrinet.org/> (click on "Listserv Lists")
>>>>
======================================================================

===============================
Wil Emmert, CRA
Research Administration
Western Michigan University
2303 Friedmann Hall
1903 West Michigan Avenue
Kalamazoo, MI 49008-5340
269-387-1576  FAX:  269-387-3999
e-mail:  xxxxxx@wmich.edu
===============================
Write the bad things that are done to you in the sand,
 but write the good things that happen to you on a piece of
marble.
-Arabian adage

======================================================================
 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")
======================================================================