We have had a couple of successful approches.  The first is
to have all the co-directors (e.g. WMU PI, UM PI, OSU PI)
sign the cover page.  This caused some discussion on our
campus, but clearly indicated the nature of the project.  Of
course, the correct subcontract paperwork would be included
(e.g. institutionally signed budgets from each).  The second
is to sole-source the subcontracts using the rationale that
the particular institution was specifically listed in the
proposal narative and budget.  Their expertise and
capabilities were essential in securing the award and to
change that component would require approval of the awarding
agency.  Both approaches have been successful in cases where
WMU was the Prime and in cases where WMU was the
subcontractor.
------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 8 Oct 1998 09:52:55 -0500
From:    Ann Lessem <xxxxxx@TEEXNET.TAMU.EDU>
Subject: Auditing of Collaborative Projects

We are having a problem with auditors on our collaborative
projects. The auditors do not see a difference between
projects
that are developed collaboratively by several institutions
(working as partners) and projects developed by one
institution
with the intent to subcontract once funds are awarded.

 We have explained to them that collaborative projects
involve
 partners
who have worked together to develop the statement of work
but
the sponsor requires one partner to serve as fiscal agent.
Therefore, funds for the partners must be disbursed through
a
subcontract.  However, the auditors insist that a
subcontract is
a subcontract is a subcontract, and that we must receive
bids
before we make an award.

We, obviously, have no desire to go back to a partner and
tell
them we got the funding, but they now have to re-compete in
order to receive their share.  We have included names of the

partners in the contract with the sponsor and have even
gotten
letters from the sponsor acknowledging that a partner is
part of
the project, all to no avail.

How do some of you handle this situation?

Ann Lessem, Ph.D.
Program Manager
The Proposal Office
Texas Engineering Extension Service
Texas A&M University System

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 8 Oct 1998 08:21:00 -0700
From:    "Cephas, Lesley" <xxxxxx@SRNET.UCLA.EDU>
Subject: Re: Auditing of Collaborative Projects

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does
not
understand this format, some or all of this message may not
be
legible.

------ =_NextPart_000_01BDF294.95694E30
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset="iso-8859-1"

Hi Ann,

Even if your auditors never come around to your way of
thinking,
your Purchasing Department would have some sort of "sole
sourcing" policy that would apply here, especially since the

primary award pretty much *requires* you to "subcontract"
the
"work" to the institution(s) named as partners in the
proposal.
I'm surprised the auditors don't understand this.

Lesley

Lesley K. Cephas, Contract Officer
Business Research Partnerships
Sponsored Research
University of California, Los Angeles
xxxxxx@ucla.edu

 -----Original Message-----
 From:   Ann Lessem
 [SMTP:xxxxxx@TEEXNET.TAMU.EDU] Sent:
 Thursday, October 08, 1998 8:10 AM To:
 xxxxxx@HRINET.ORG Subject:        Auditing
of
 Collaborative Projects

 We are having a problem with auditors on our
collaborative projects.
 The auditors do not see a difference between
projects that are
 developed collaboratively by several
institutions (working as partners)
 and projects developed by one institution
with the intent to subcontract
 once funds are awarded.

 We have explained to them that
collaborative projects involve partners
 who have worked together to develop the
statement of work but the
 sponsor requires one partner to serve as
fiscal agent. Therefore, funds
 for the partners must be disbursed through a
subcontract.  However,
 the auditors insist that a subcontract is a
subcontract is a subcontract,
 and that we must receive bids before we make
an award.

 We, obviously, have no desire to go back to
a partner and tell them we
 got the funding, but they now have to
re-compete in order to receive
 their share.  We have included names of the
partners in the contract
 with the sponsor and have even gotten
letters from the sponsor
 acknowledging that a partner is part of the
project, all to no avail.

 How do some of you handle this situation?

 Ann Lessem, Ph.D.
 Program Manager
 The Proposal Office
 Texas Engineering Extension Service
 Texas A&M University System

--
****************************************
*   Wil Emmert                         *
*   Research and Sponsored Programs    *
*   Western Michigan University        *
*   Kalamazoo, MI 49008                *
*   Phone: (616) 387-8280              *
*   FAX:   (616) 387-8276              *
*   xxxxxx@wmich.edu                   *
****************************************
Talk doesn't cook rice. -Chinese proverb