I agree with Bob from UMich as this topic has been regularly debated over this listserv. I fail to see the rationale to publicly disclose an incentive refund mechanism for Indirect Costs to P.I.'s which distorts the perception of these administrative and facility costs as anything other than real cost reimbursements to the institution. With all of the changes in A-110 and A-21, most institutions are scrambling to balance their budgets in the black. This is not to say, however, that a departmental unit with a larger robust research enterprise should not receive a larger share of the associated indirect costs compared to a smaller unit. ,,,,,,,,gary Gary P. Naegel Administrator, Pharmacology Yale School of Medicine 333 Cedar Street P.O. 208066 New Haven, CT 06520-8066 (203) 785-4373 (203) 785-7670 FAX xxxxxx@yale.edu ---------- From: Research Administration Discussion Group To: Multiple recipients of list RESADM-L Subject: Re(2): Policy regarding IC reductions Date: Thursday, May 23, 1996 11:18AM If you return the indirect cost to the PI why collect it in the first place. Allow a reduced rate with the assumption that you would have given it to the PI anyway. At the University of Michigan, the Indirect Costs are real costs which must be paid by the recovery of the money from the federal, industrial and sometimes non-profit sponsor. There is no money to "return" to the PI. We use the recovered money to pay for utilities, department and university-level administrative costs, the library, facilities and such. Rather than reduce the amount of money in the budget which is requested for indirect costs, we attempt to find ways to cost-share direct costs items such as salary or equipment. Otherwise how can you justify the need for as high a rate as you have negotiated? We are moving to a Value Center Management system of finance so the indirect cost recovery will go directly to the Value Center (usually a school or college) and that center will be responsible for paying for the administrative and facilities costs and paying a share of the University-level administrative costs. This places more incentive on the Dean to insist on the full recovery of indirect costs. Bob xxxxxx@umich.edu Senior Project Representative Division of Research Development and Administration The University of Michigan ------ From: Research Administration Discussion Group, Wed, May 22, 1996 ------ 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
