Len,

At Long Beach we have a variable return rather than a fixed one.  The higher
the rate the higher the return to the P.I.  If it is written at 40% MTDC
then the P.I. will get 40% of the indirected retrieved ... 30% then 30% ...
and so on.  This turns out to be a fairly good incentive to reduced the
quibbling that you refer to.

At 07:28 AM 5/21/96 -0400, you wrote:
>See my <<<<<responses>>>>> to your questions below.
>
>Len Paplauskas
>Asst. VP for Research
>UCONN Health Center
>Farmington, CT   06030
> ----------
>From: Research Administration Discuss
>To: Multiple recipients of list RES
>Subject: Policy regarding IC reductions
>Date: Monday, May 20, 1996 3:05PM
>
>We are implementing a new incentive plan for research whereby a fixed
>percent
>of indirect cost recovery (and other variables) are returned to the
>investigators.  Through this discussion a few questions have surfaced and I
>am
>sharing them with the listserve participants in the hope of receiving some
>insight into how others are treating similiar situations.
>
>The first of two questions:
>    What policy does your institution have with respect to an
>    investigator's request to reduce an audited indirect cost rate
>    in order to meet the budget parameter of a perspective sponsor?
>
>    All too often we hear the PI say:"My budget is already bare-bones.
>    The only place I can cut is the indirect cost rate."
>
><<<<<At UCHC, we do not waive or reduce IDC on federal (which is what I
>assume you mean by "audited" IDC rate) awards.  At times, if sufficient
>programmatic justification is presented, the HC will "rebate" IDC to the
>investigator.  In essence, we make a decision to provide the investigator
>with institutional funds, which come from the fund created by IDC recovery.
> The programmatic justification must show that the specific grant funded
>program is important to the strategic goals of one of our two schools
>(Medicine and Dentistry), and must be supported by the Dean of the
>respective School.  By "supported", I mean that the Dean's Office must agree
>to "pay" for 50% of the rebate by a concomitant reduction in annual
>allocation from the IDC income fund.>>>>>
>
>
>Second question involves "liaison" or industrial work:
>    What policy does your institution have with respect to managing
>    the interactions between faculty (research centers and institutes) and
>    industrial concerns?  Specifically I would like to know if there
>    are institutions charging different indirect cost rates for sponsored
>    research funded by public companies vs. "purchase of service" type work
>    performed for public companies.
>
>
><<<<<At UCHC all work sponsored by private industry is charged a 26% IDC
>rate.>>>>>
>
>
>    We have in place larger centers/institutes that charge  "liaison
>    membership" fee to companies that benefit from the collaborative efforts
>    of a center.  In addition specific "liaison projects" are sometimes an
>    offshoot of this membership and are funded separately - since the work
>is
>    often very specific and unique to the company.  Often the PI will ask
>for
>    a break on the IC since the company is a "paying" liaision member.  What
>    if any of you have a policy with respect to such a situation?
>
>Does any of this sound familiar?  If you would like to share your
>experiences
>please respond either thru the server or directly to me.
>
>Thanks
>
>Tom
>
>Tom Meischeid, Director
>Office of Research & Sponsored Programs
>Lehigh University
>e-mail: xxxxxx@ lehigh.edu
>telephone: (610) 758-3021
>fax: (610) 758-5994
>
>
Jim
310-985-5314
xxxxxx@csulb.edu