Our organization has an MTDC indirect cost rate - equipment and
subawards are not included in the base.

We currently use an equipment definition of $500 or more.  We plan to
switch to a threshold level of $5000, as allowed by both Federal, and
now our State, regulations.  As we make this change, it will affect
(increase) the indirect cost recovery on current Federal and some other
projects.

I would like to know how other organizations have dealt with this issue
during the transition phase.  We are aware that, with new budgets, this
can be resolved.  We are concerned about the impact the change might
make during existing budget periods.  Did any of you, for instance, agree
to waive the additional indirect costs during the transition period?  How
did your PIs feel about the change - was there concern about "losing"
direct costs during the transition  period?  Did you communicate with
your funding agencies about the change in advance?  Did you implement
the change at the beginning of your organization's fiscal year, or at a
time when a number of projects began their fiscal years simultaneously?
Is there an advantage to one or the other?

If you have had an experience changing the basic definition of equipment
as noted above, or if you have any thoughts that might be helpful as we
plan, I'd be more than grateful to receive them.  You may answer through
the listserv, call or fax, or send me email at: xxxxxx@publichealth.org.
Thanks!

Patricia Spear
Director, Grants and Contracts
Public Health Institute
2001 Addison Street, 2nd Floor
Berkeley, CA 94704
(510) 644-8200
(510) 644-9319 (fax)