Barbara,

The only thing I don't know about South Carolina at this point is the
incorporation status of your institution.  Are you also a state agency? ...
or a public corporation? ... or a private, or what?  Should this make a
difference, you might ask?

Assuming that you were denied your IDC by the State as any contractor would
have been (i.e., regardless of  your status), and assuming that you did not
charge the loss off to some State account, and assuming that the amount did
not appear in your budget on the first contract, then ... I would guess that
there is no such thing as "IDC" on the first contract the moment you signed
it.  Accordingly, it does not exist in your "bank" or the State's or
anyone's to be withdrawn later for other purposes.  What you have there,
besides a coastline which will have to be remapped again and again (just
like ours out here ... but for different reasons, of course) ... what you
have is a pocket stuffed with good will.

Ask the State if they have visited http://maps.yahoo.com/yahoo/?  I mean no
disrespect, actually, I came from a southern state myself.  (anyway, it's
pronounced yaHOO! .. as in down a rollercoaster .. not YAhoo, as in the
thickets of youknowwhere.)

By the way, if you are a State agency with the same financial code governing
you as the State agency with whom you are working (and believe it or not we
were governed by the same financial code as Fish and Game and DMV ... and
Boy! is that a round of laughs) ... then, depending on what that code says,
when you forgave the IDC, the State agency might claim that it (too) forgave
it, but late in the day, I still can't see how you  or the State agency can
warp that cash into match on a new contract with a new Federal source.

A guy buys a car, nothing down.  Because there was no down payment, the car
does not have a spare tire.  That's it; special Saturday afternoon deal.  He
drives it around town for a year.  One specific drive is up and down Main
Street every day to show it off.  Yes, that's one of the other parts of the
deal.  Well, before the contract is fully paid on the car, he goes into the
same agency and starts talking about another new car, not the same brand,
but another brand made by another company entirely.  It's a car, four
wheels, and capable of doing Main Street. It comes with or without a spare
tire.   The dealer says to him, Jack, I can get you this car any color you
want, but I have to have the spare tire off the old car to show the company
or they will raise hell (for reasons that only the dealer and the agent in
the company and the Honorable Senator from that town know anything about).
Jack, he may be a little dizzy from Main Street an' all, but he ain't no
fool an' he say, "What?!  You mean that you're gonna tell the second company
that I gave back a spare tire I never got from you and you never got from
the first company and that is going to make it possible to get any color I
want an' I still may have to do Main Street for another damned year?  Hold
on, man!"

At 04:32 PM 5/1/96 -0400, you wrote:
>        We have received a rather strange request from one of our funders
>regarding use of uncollected indirect costs as match to another of the
>funder's projects.  Right now, the Controller and I are not comfortable with
>meeting their request.  However, before we make a final decision, I would
>like to know if anyone has had a similar situation and how it was handled.
>Suggestions from OMB Circular experts would be particularly welcome.  Here
>are the details of the situation:
>
>        State Agency has received a federal grant from Federal Agency A to
>fund Project A.  There is no matching requirement.  State Agency has, in
>turn, subcontracted some of the federal funds to University.  However, State
>Agency will not reimburse University for indirect costs.  University is not
>required to provide match.
>
>        Now State Agency has received a grant from Federal Agency B for
>Project B, which requires a 60:40 (federal:non-federal) match.  State Agency
>apparently is short of match and is trying to find it elsewhere in order to
>draw down the maximum amount of federal funds available from Federal Agency
>B.  (I have no idea how they got the federal grant without documenting the
>proposed match or why they are coming up short now!)
>
>        Project B consists of four components, only one of which has similar
>activities to those which comprise Project A (GIS mapping of the local
>coastline).  The technician doing the mapping for Project A will be asked to
>provide some maps for Project B.  State Agency has asked if it can use the
>indirect costs "contributed" by University on Project A as match for Project
>B.  (Note that I have not yet been able to determine whether some of the
>maps produced in Project A will also be used in Project B or whether new
>maps specifically for Project B are being requested.)
>
>        If new maps are being requested, then I believe my response should
>be to request compensation from Federal Agency B via subcontract with State
>Agency.  It would seem reasonable, then, to only allow the uncollected IDC
>on the Project B subcontract, if any, to be counted as match on State
>Agency's grant from Federal Agency B.
>
>        If, however, some of the maps generated on Project A can also be
>used on Project B, how much, if any, of the uncollected indirect costs from
>Project A can be applied to Project B?  Is there some "rule" about how
>closely the two projects must be related?  If so, where does it come from?
>How does one classify the uncollected indirect costs on Project A--as
>federal or non-federal (the issue being the prohibition of matching federal
>with federal)?  If we agree to State Agency's request, who is responsible
>for determining and documenting the relatedness of the projects?  What
>instrument would we use to show our commitment of uncollected indirect costs
>on Project A to Project B?  How do we document the situation and agreement
>to the satisfaction of federal auditors?  If this practice were to be
>disallowed, who would the auditors come after--State Agency or University,
>or both?
>
>        Please post responses to the list, as I suspect they will be
>sufficiently varied to make a good discussion for all.  Thanks in advance
>for the input.
>
>
>Barbara H. Gray                           Telephone:  803-953-5673
>Director of Sponsored Programs            FAX:        803-953-1434
>University of Charleston, SC              e-mail:     xxxxxx@cofc.edu
>Charleston, South Carolina  29424
>
>
Jim
310-985-53143
xxxxxx@csulb.edu