Martha - As you can see there are as many answers as there are administrators sometimes. First a word of warning regarding developing the budget. You say that others are providing "in-kind contributions." However, it is important to distinguish between cash contributions, in-kind (goods and/or services), and co-funding when developing the budget. You don't want to end up having to return a portion of the award because of failure to document "matching funds." A dispute between Fairleigh-Dickinson and NOAA (~1990-91) regarding the documentation of expenditures of matching funds, because of a difference (with federal auditors) in the interpretation of the term "matching" came close to being disastrous for the University. I can send you the case info and the resultant recommendations regarding terminology if you would like. A lot of universities have found these terms to be helpful in avoiding confusion for all projects so the terms have spread far beyond the original NOAA audit issue. However you decide to define the various types of support which partners provide, be consistent from proposal to proposal. Last, if you are declaring federal funding as a contribution make sure that there aren't any statutory prohibitions against doing so. For example, NOAA Sea Grant funding cannot be used as matching for another federal project. A quick place to check is the CFDA (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance) and/or your award, if you already have it. On the flip side - it will also tell you whether non-cash contributions are acceptable in meeting any statutory matching requirements for federal funding which you might be seeking. Having said that - on to the budget. Prepare a multiple column, itemized budget for expected cash awards/expenditures from all sources - minimum is a single column for the funds requsted from the agency. It might also include your own institution, an award from an industrial partner, a foundation or non-profit research concern, even, if allowable, another federal agency. Total the direct costs for each column. Apply your negotiated rate to each. For the agency column use your negotiated rate or the rate prescribed by the agency if different. If the agency restricts recovery to less than you would get from your negotiated rate, in most cases you can declare this underrecovery as part of your institutional contribution. (If allowable under the regs, move the underrecovery to your institutional contribution column.) Document "in-kind" goods or services in the same multiple column format, a separate section clearly identified, applying indirect cost rates appropriate to the source. For a foundation or non-profit, apply their negotiated rate, if any. Industrial partners usually don't have a rate but they may have a standard profit margin. If you include this profit margin do so as a direct cost, not as an indirect cost and identify it as such. (This may not be allowable in some cases.) Omit indirect costs for those partners who have no negotiated rate. An easy, acceptable method for determining the value of these goods and services is to use the amount generally charged by the research partner, or if they don't usually "sell" the item, determine the prevailing rate for a like item if procured from the private sector in your area. Personnel costs can be calculated using wage/pay scales and any benefits which accrue to the employee(s). Industrial partners like this method of valuation - especially if they are planning to "write it off" as a donation. And, they will generally provide an itemized budget, along with their letter of support, for you to use in preparing your proposal. In most cases, accounting requirements for these types of contributions are much less demanding than for cash contributions - e.g., a letter from the partner outlining the contribution(s) and the period during which they were made may be sufficient. An aside, industrial partners are more willing to provide goods/services if they don't have to spend a fortune keeping track of their contribution for you. We've had partners actually pull out because the cost of accounting for the contribution was more than the value of the contribution. It didn't take us long to catch on to the fact that we needed to make it as painless as possible for them to support our projects, and, where possible, to not jeopardize their ability to "write off" their contribution. We now do our best to place as few demands on these good Samaritans as possible and still comply with regs. Our rational for applying different indirect costs rates to contributions other than cash awards - our indirect cost rate reflects our cost of "doing research." It is not a valid indicator of our partner's cost of providing assistance. That is better defined by using their rate or, if allowable, usual markup for goods and services. I can fax you budgets from current projects which show this method for total costing of proposals if you would like to see some of the possible combinations and permutations. Just send me an email to my address rather than the listserv if you think it will help. --------------------------------------------------------------- Rosemary Ruff Proposal Officer School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences University of Alaska Fairbanks Fairbanks, AK 99775-7220 VOICE: 907-474-6735 FAX: 907-474-7204 email xxxxxx@ims.alaska.edu
