Yep, we heard that one, too. But they continued to state that they would require
us to submit earned interest on advance billings in excess of 3 days cash needs.
I really didn't see the point of it all. We were killing ourselves to advance
bill and then sending them a check for interest? I don't think so. I'd rather
the PI's spend their money according to schedule. I don't know if the situation's
changed at the Fed, but they're not screaming over rates of expenditures any
more. My heals are dug in on this one.
"Matthew E. Clark" wrote:
> The Air Force went through a similar end-of-fiscal-year
> proof-of-expenditure crunch a couple of years ago and we were scrambling
> to show expenditures on several of our Air Force funded projects. Then
> the Air Force came up with the idea of allowing us to "advance bill" for
> expenditures that would occur within the next 90 days (like payroll,
> etc.)
>
> Our corporate sponsors that were flowing the Air Force funds to us
> weren't too quick on the draw with this revelation, so we had to educate
> them a bit, but now we're all on the same wavelength and everyone up and
> down the line is quite happy. Perhaps NASA will take a lesson.
>
> Good Luck,
> Matt
>
> gschmidt wrote:
> >
> > Sounds like their unexpended funds are reverting to Treasury... . Probably
> > to pay for our tax relief.
> >
> > NASA has been hard hit over the amount of "carry-over" funding they've been
> > having. Apparently, the rates of expenditures are rather low, so Congress
> > is asking why the need for new money when the old hasn't been expended yet.
> > NASA hasn't figured out outstanding obligations yet, so the only recourse
> > is to spend the money or draw it. Of course, if you draw it (which shows as
> > an expenditure on their side which would make them happy), you'll owe them
> > interest.
> >
> > Laurie Chamness wrote:
> >
> > > Have you ever heard of NASA saying that funds on a Training Grant
> > > Supplement must be spent by the end of NASA's fiscal year (Sep 30, 1999)
> > > even though the project expiration date on the Training Grant is not
> > > until Feb 28, 2000?
> > >
> > > We have received incremental funding (6 Supplements) on a NASA Training
> > > Grant. A NASA Contract Officer told me that NASA considers the project
> > > expiration date to be Feb 28, 2000, because that is the expiration date
> > > on Supplement 6. However, the appropriation code on Supplement 2 shows
> > > that Supplement 2 funds are NASA's 1998 funds, which expire on Sep 30,
> > > 1999. We are being told by NASA that we must spend the Supplement 2
> > > funds by Sep 30, 1999, even though the project expiration date is Feb
> > > 28, 2000.
> > >
> > > This same NASA contract officer said that a no-cost extension would
> > > extend the project ending date, but would not effect the deadline by
> > > which the grant funds must be expended! I would appreciate hearing from
> > > anyone who has encountered this situation with NASA.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Laurie
--
Greg Schmidt
Manager, Contract & Grant Accounting
Florida A&M University
201 FHAC
Tallahassee, FL 32307-3200
DUNS: 623751831
College of the Year - 1997
850/561-2956 voice
850/561-2461 fax
======================================================================
Instructions on how to use the RESADM-L Mailing List, including
subscription information and a web-searchable archive, are available
via our web site at http://www.hrinet.org (click on "Listserv Lists")
======================================================================
