Hi-

Pat said:
"I think we also need to be assured that the PI has thought
 about all of his/her costs as a "check" to ensure that the budget matches
 the technical narrative (I get hung up on the A-110 language that says
 the budget is the financial expression of a project).  The institution
 continues to have a responsibility to submit an appropriate application,
 even if NIH doesn't want an itemized budget."

Could anyone comment further on this?

Does "budget" mean a summary of costs planned or actual expenditures?

If NIH asks for a total cost figure based on $25,000 modules, is that not
then the "financial expression" of the project as for as the application is
concerned?  Does the "appropriateness" of the application need to be
defined by more than a reasonable expectation of total costs?

I think that part of the problem here is that for years many successful
researchers and administrators have prided themselves on writing clear and
even elegant budget justifications.  Some have suggested that this part of
the NIH application was key for good review.  If NIH no longer wants this
verbiage, mind sets will have to change.  This will be true from the
laboratory to the study section meeting.  What is really being implemented
here is a system whereby investments are going to be made based on quality
of science and the people performing it with very little attention at the
dollar level to how money will be spent.  Isn't this how GRANTS should be
made?

While it is clear that NIH is shifting much burden from Bethesda to the
grantee institutions, can't we think of ways to also simplify things for
research administrators?
If only 20% of applications receive awards, does it make sense to be
concerned with cost accounting requirements on the other 80%?  Perhaps
pre-award grants management (is this an oxymoron?) could begin
post-IRG/pre-council rather than at time of submission.

Charlie Hathaway

At 01:44 PM 1/14/99 PST, you wrote:
>  Hi Jane,
>
>  We out here in Duck Country (Univ. of Oregon) have made an announcement
>  about the availability of modular grants via our office listserve, but
>  haven't worked out how we're going to handle them yet.  We're wrestling
>  with the questions you raise; I'm still not sure how we can avoid asking
>  for a detailed budget for our internal processing.  Seems to me we still
>  have to know if there are graduate students on the budget (tuition
>  remission issue), in addition to other things like subcontracts and
>  equipment.  I think we also need to be assured that the PI has thought
>  about all of his/her costs as a "check" to ensure that the budget matches
>  the technical narrative (I get hung up on the A-110 language that says
>  the budget is the financial expression of a project).  The institution
>  continues to have a responsibility to submit an appropriate application,
>  even if NIH doesn't want an itemized budget.
>
>  This reminds me very much of Phase II of the Federal Demonstration
>  Project when FDP schools were given the expanded authorities that all
>  colleges and universities now enjoy thanks to A-110 revisions (no-cost
>  extensions, rebudgeting, etc.).  These FDP schools still had to have an
>  OPAS/IPAS type system in place to do these things--the difference was
>  that the institution approved them instead of the funding agency.  There
>  was no change in the "paperwork" or process involved at UVa (where I had
>  my FDP experience).  There still had to be a system in place to review
>  and approve those changes, and there still had to be a justification for
>  these actions even though the sponsor didn't care to know about them.
>
>  I'll be interested to hear what others say about this.
>
>  By the way, I think the Scarlett O'Hara method is a great philosophy to
>  follow.  Beats the heck out of the Rhett Butler method.
>
>
>
>  Pat Hawk
>  Sponsored Projects Administrator
>  Research Services and Administration 106 Riverfront Research Park
>  voice:  541/346-2504
>  fax:  541/346-5138
>  internet:  xxxxxx@oregon.uoregon.edu
>
>
>______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
>Subject: NIH Modular Grants
>Author:  Research Administration Discussion List <xxxxxx@hrinet.org> at
>GATEWAY
>Date:    1/14/99 12:37 PM
>
>
>After the next big NIH deadline on February 1, the new era of modular grants
>is upon us.  I'm wondering if any of you have given thought to how you are
>going to handle these, particularly at the proposal end.  Will you required
>detailed budgets or not?  Are you planning on having any special faculty
>awareness programs regarding the modular grants?  Are you planning on
>putting any special procedures into effect for modular grants?  Or, do you
>just want to get through February 1 and think about modular grants later
>(aka the Scarlett O'hara syndrome, of which I am chronically afflected...)?
>
>Admittedly, the NIH Guide announcement was fairly recent, but I was just
>curious if any of you had given this much thought yet.
>
>Hoping all of you in the cold country are staying warm...
>
>Jane
>
>Jane A. Youngers
>Director
>Office of Grants Management
>University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio
>7703 Floyd Curl Drive
>San Antonio TX  78284
>voice:  210-567-2333
>fax: 210-567-2344
>email:  xxxxxx@uthscsa.edu
>
>
>=============================================================================
>
>
>=============================================================================
>
>
**************************************
Charles B. Hathaway, Ph.D., Director
Office of Grant Support
908A Belfer
Albert Einstein College of Medicine
1300 Morris Park Avenue
Bronx, NY 10461
Phone: 718 430-3642     Fax: 718 430-8822
email: xxxxxx@aecom.yu.edu
http://www.aecom.yu.edu/ogs

 ============================================================================