I see what you're saying, and it definitely makes a lot of sense. The PI obviously has to spend time on the project in order to complete the work. I think the true answer simply depends on each individual submission. Look at who you are applying to, how much work will be spent on the project and what part(s) of the year, etc. in determining how this should be stated in the proposal. Kristy Ford Grant Management Manager Memorial University Medical Center Savannah, GA 31404 (912)350-6379 >>> Kellie Dyslin <xxxxxx@WPO.CSO.NIU.EDU> 6/25/2008 1:34 PM >>> While I am with you in abhoring unecessary cost share on a proposal, please allow me to present another side to this argument (or maybe a corner). At the recent NIH Regional in Chicago, I specifically queried a panel of NIH Program Officers, peer review experts, grants managers, and policy officers about the importance of PIs reflecting realistic estimates of the time they will spend on a project in their applications. I asked because our faculty (are encouraged to) only specify the amount of time for which they are seeking funds in an application, for all of the very valid reasons stated below. So, for example, a faculty who requests summer months but plans to spend 30% academic year time on a grant as well, which is covered by her devoted research time and does not create additional costs to the department or university, does not normally state that academic year time commitment in the grant. The NIH panel resoundingly said this was a BAD idea, both because it can affect the application's chances of getting funded and because it creates audit issues: (1) The project must be realistic to get a good score, and adequate staffing is part of that. Peer reviewers will not, in most cases, feel that the summer time stated in the application is enough to reasonably conduct the project, and while they may realize that PIs have dedicated research time, they don't know how much of that time is being committed unless it is written in the application. (2) While blatantly stating committed time creates cost share, a policy officer at NIH indicated that there are also pretty serious audit implications of not clearly stating the time commitment. Basically, auditors know that PIs have dedicated research time and may ask the PI during an audit how they have been spending their time. When the PI discloses they've been working on the grant, this creates the cost share obligation anyway. Granted, this is specific to NIH, from whom institutions can request reasonable money to cover a PI's time on a project, especially with the larger mechanisms (one issue we have is PIs submitting multiple small grants versus moving up to R01). I'd be interested in asking this same question at an NSF Regional conference to see if the answers were the same, especially for their social science programs which almost never fully fund PIs time (if at all). >>> "Kris A. Monahan" <xxxxxx@WELLESLEY.EDU> 6/24/2008 4:35 PM >>> I completely agree with Kristy. Many PIs have the misconstrued notion that their proposal will be "more competitive" by offering voluntary cost share. This is simply not the case. Kris Research Administration Discussion List <xxxxxx@hrinet.org> writes: >When you include donated time to a project on a proposal budget and are >then awarded, that "donated" time becomes mandatory voluntary >cost-sharing, which is subject to audit. If the sponsor does not require >cost-sharing/matching, do not include that voluntary (donated) time on >the proposal budget or anywhere else in the proposal. Often times >principal investigators/project directors and other key personnel spend >more time on the project than what is in the budget. However, if you do >not specifically state that to the sponsor, you are not accountable for >time and effort on that donated time. It's safer to not include it in >the proposal when it is not required. > >Kristy:) > >Kristy Ford >Grant Management Manager >Memorial University Medical Center >Savannah, GA 31404 >(912)350-6379 > > >>>> Michelle Wrenn <xxxxxx@KP.ORG> 6/24/2008 4:25 PM >>> >All: We are debating here about how and when to list Donated time on >budgets and/or justifications. > >I have always included all donated time on budgets (while leaving the >salary totals at $0) and on justifications in order to effectively show >effort devoted to the project even when we are not requesting actual >funds >for that time. I have seen this done from other insitutions as well. > >Recently however, I am hearing more often that sponsors do not want to >see >the effort for donated time or in fact, won't allow that time listed on >the budget. > >I cannot find any guidance on this in the PHS or 424 instructions. Has >anyone had any experience with this situation? If there is any formal >guidance on this I would love to see the documentation. > >Any help would be greatly appreciated! Kris A. Monahan Director of Pre-Award Services Wellesley Centers for Women www.wcwonline.org e-mail: xxxxxx@wellesley.edu Phone: 781 283-2508 Wellesley College 106 Central Street Wellesley, MA 02481-8203 ====================================================================== 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") ====================================================================== ====================================================================== 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") ====================================================================== ====================================================================== 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") ======================================================================
