I had posed a question about "salary savings" to the NCURA
Region 3 list and these were the results.  My questions were a
little different but there is some cross-over. I thought this might be
interesting to those asking questions on this subject.

Mike Ludwick
College of William & Mary

------- Forwarded Message Follows -------

Listmembers,

Thank you AGAIN for your response to my query regarding the charging
of release time, replacement costs vs. salary and fringe of PI.
Below is the summary of responses.

Of the 24 responses I received the overwhelming response was that
PI salary and fringe benefits are charged for release time, not
replacement costs.

A few comments from respondents:
* Why should we allow an external sponsor to buy a faculty member for
a lower rate than we must pay?  And why should a faculty member be
willing to sell his services cheaper to a sponsor than to his own
employer?

*We CONSISTENTLY (not generally) charge the PI's salary and FB.  I am
surprised that schools would ask the grant to pay the replacement cost.
In effect, the grantee institution would therefore be cost sharing the
difference between the PI salary and the replacement salary, right?
I'll bet those budgets ignore this angle and fail to show this cost
sharing.

*When we charge for the PIs time and effort, we always use the PIs salary
etc.  I don't see how you can charge replacement cost since the
replacement has nothing to do with the purpose of the sponsored project.
But, that is just my opinion and since the cost is less, I'm sure the
gov't doesn't care.

Only one school said they generally charged replacement costs.

That is not to say that most folks don't sometimes only charge
replacement costs in certain circumstances:
1) the budget is limited
2) cost-share is needed (and using the difference b/w PI salary and
fringe and replacement costs can be used as cost share).

In general, everyone tries to get the PIs salary and fringe whenever
possible.

As to who gets the resulting "salary savings" over half said the
funds went to the depts or offset the dept account.  In several
cases the Dean or Provost controlled the money, and a few
people mentioned funds going back into the general fund or the
PI.  Also there we a few who had some combination where the Deans got
some %, Depts gots some %, and some % went to the PI.  Sounds like
the possibilites are endless.

I did not ask one question but it is an important one:  In those
instances when it may be appropriate to charge only replacement and
write off the rest as cost share, WHO DECIDES that only replacement
costs will be charged?  The apparently obvious answer would be
whomever is doing the cost-sharing, meaning whomever will not be
getting the salary savings, being the PI, chair, dean, VP or provost.

Assuming that, then I am guessing that their signature on the routing
form is the final indication that they approve the "cost-share" (i.e.
charging replacement only.)

If anyone would else would like to chime in on this feel free to post
it to the list. THANKS AGAIN to you all and I hope this info is
helpful to you.

Mike

Michael Ludwick, CRA
Associate Director of Sponsored Programs
Grants and Research Administration
College of William & Mary
P.O. Box 8795
Williamsburg, VA  23187-8795
phone: 757.221.3485  fax: 757.221.4910
email: xxxxxx@grants.wm.edu
website: http://www.wm.edu/AI/Grants/index.html
***************************************************