What have been the benefits of managing the University of Kansas' grants through your CRINC? ************************************************* Leonard P. Paplauskas Assistant Vice Chancellor for Research University of Connecticut Health Center Farmington, CT 06030-5355 860.679.3173 (voice) 860.679.2670 (fax) -----Original Message----- From: Kim Moreland [SMTP:xxxxxx@RGSPS.WPO.UKANS.EDU] Sent: Monday, July 27, 1998 6:12 PM To: xxxxxx@hrinet.org Subject: Re: Research Foundations & Implications for Indirect Costs Howie -- I'm not absolutely sure I've followed your questions, but I'll try below: Kim Moreland, Director Contract Negotiations & Research Compliances The University of Kansas Center for Research, Inc. 785/864-7431 (phone) 785/864-5049 (fax) email: xxxxxx@ukans.edu >>> "Howard M. Kaplan" <xxxxxx@GSVMS2.CC.GASOU.EDU> 07/23 11:43 AM >>> Hi Kim - Thanks for the information. I am hoping that we will be able to do here what you are in the process of completing. I think that your answer is exactly what I need but - just in case your institution and foundation follow a different procedure - let me make explicit the detail that underlies my question. When we make our Research Foundation the award recipient, we then "subcontract" the actual effort to the University. >>>Here's the deal. We don't subcontract. We have a master agreement between the University and CRINC (awful name for the foundation) that sets forth all the stipulations, principally that CRINC will manage all sponsored projects for the university. Here, CRINC has been in existence for 30 years, but was confined to engineering. We modified the original agreement. And, CRINC has the same IDC rate as KU -- that's always been a stipulation in our agreement. We did check with HHS when we began to move projects, but they had no problem. The foundation is just an administrativie arm -- a controlled affiliate here -- the university. All the faculty and facilities of the University still have to be covered with an F&A rate, because conceptually, the foundation and the university are one big entity that have divided up the research functions. With other subawards, the University would get its negotiated Indirect Costs. When the University "waives" its Indirect Costs, are we, in essence, telling our cognizant agency that we really don't need any F&A support in order to maintain our research infrastructure? If your institution has not run into any attempts by its cognizant agency to reduce the university's F&A rate, that would remove any of my administration's concerns. >>>The costs of managing and performing research are still basically the same as before. Your foundation has to have the resources of the university to function. When we "waive" IDC, we're not sayiing that we don't have costs, just that in this particular instance, we're willing to cover the costs from other sources, namely from the university and the foundation. Let me know if I've missed the point! Kim Thanks again. Best regards, Howie At 04:51 PM 7/22/98 -0500, you wrote: >Howie -- > >We began the process of moving all sponsored projects from the University to our foundation in July 1997. For us, the IDC follows the grant. That is, the grants that are still in transition and have not moved to the foundation earn IDC that is given to the university by the sponsor. The university can do with it what it chooses. The grants that have made the transition -- which takes a while! -- and are in the foundation have their IDC on deposit with the foundation. > >We have had no problems with that particular aspect. If you want more information, please give me a call. This has NOT been a simple process. > >Kim > >Kim Moreland, Director >Contract Negotiations & Research Compliances >The University of Kansas >Center for Research, Inc. >785/864-7431 (phone) >785/864-5049 (fax) >email: xxxxxx@ukans.edu > >>>> "Howard M. Kaplan" <xxxxxx@GSVMS2.CC.GASOU.EDU> 07/22 4:05 PM >>> >I have a question about the impact of an institution's decision to allow >its Research Foundation to retain all recovered Indirect Costs. Here's the >context. My institution's recently incorporated, nonprofit Research >Foundation is about to become operational and the intention is to have the >Foundation be the applicant/recipient for all awards. The university is a >unit of a state-wide system of public colleges and universities. The >System has established a formula for determining each institution's share >of the Indirect Costs recovered by its Research Foundation. My question: >what are the implications for the institution's federally authorized >Indirect Cost Rate if the university chooses to waive its share of the >Indirect Costs - i.e., to let the Foundation keep all of the Indirect Costs >it recovers from external sponsors? (There are three points of information >that might affect the implications. First, the university's authorized >rate was negotiated using the "short form"; second, the rate is applied to >a Salaries-and-Wages base; and, third, there is a single rate for all >sponsored programs - including research, instruction, and service awards; >both on campus and off.) > >Thanks for your insights. > >Howard M. Kaplan, Director >Research Services & Sponsored Programs >Georgia Southern University >P.O. Box 8005, Highway 301 So. Building >Statesboro, GA 30460-8005 >Tel. 912-681-5465; FAX. 912-681-0719; e-mail. xxxxxx@gasou.edu >
