WELCOME Bob Beattie UMich e-Business Point of Contact UMich Grants.gov Liaison Managing Senior Project Representative for Electronic Research Administration Division of Research Development and Administration University of Michigan Editor, eRA Corner, NCURA Magazine (734)

I AM GOING TO DISCUSS Public Law No

BACKGROUND PART 1: Prime Awards January, 2008 Where to look. What is there. PART 2: Sub-awards January, 2009 What is supposed to be there. Who is doing what.

BACKGROUND

Congressional Record: September 13, 2006 (House) Page H6498-H6501 FEDERAL FUNDING ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY ACT OF 2006 Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 2590) to require full disclosure of all entities and organizations receiving Federal funds. The Clerk read as follows: S Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were suspended and the Senate bill was passed....

Tom Davis of Virginia “This legislation puts into place a framework that sheds light on the Federal grant process, allowing anyone with access to the Internet the ability to review and search financial assistance rewards. Sunshine, Mr. Speaker, is the best disinfectant. This legislation will provide greater transparency in the grant-making process and require continued improvement of the already existing, but inadequate transparency, in Federal contract awards.”

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, the bill we are considering today, S. 2950, requires the Office of Management and Budget to create a searchable database of federal grants and contracts accessible to the public on the Internet. I am pleased to support this bill. The bill before us today is stronger and more comprehensive than the bill passed by the House in June. While the House bill covered only grants, the database created under this legislation will include all federal grants and contracts. If this bill is implemented properly, any citizen with Internet access will be able to examine a comprehensive set of records for information about federal spending. For each grant or contract awarded, the database will include details about the recipient of the award, as well as the amount of the award, the purpose of the funding action, and other relevant information.

Do these guys really think that American citizens will be empowered with ability to hold the government accountable for each spending decision? Will there be a reduction in wasteful spending in the government?

The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (S. 2590) is an Act of Congress that requires the full disclosure of all entities or organizations receiving federal funds beginning in fiscal year (FY) 2007 on a website maintained by the Office of Management and Budget. This bill was introduced by Senator Tom Coburn and Senators, Tom Carper and on April 6, 2006 and passed unanimously in the Senate on September 7, 2006 and was passed in the House on September 13, The bill was signed into law by President George W. Bush on September 26, The Congressional Budget Office estimates S will cost $15 million over its authorized time period of The website USAspending.gov opened in December 2007 as a result of the act. Barack Obama John McCain

President Bush signs the bill.

Not later than January 1, 2008, the Office of Management and Budget shall, in accordance with this section, section 204 of the E-Government Act of 2002 (Public Law ; 44 U.S.C note), and the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403 et seq.), ensure the existence and operation of a single searchable website, accessible by the public at no cost to access, that includes for each Federal award-- (A) the name of the entity receiving the award; (B) the amount of the award; (C) information on the award including transaction type, funding agency, the North American Industry Classification System code or Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number (where applicable), program source, and an award title descriptive of the purpose of each funding action; (D) the location of the entity receiving the award and the primary location of performance under the award, including the city, State, congressional district, and country; (E) a unique identifier of the entity receiving the award and of the parent entity of the recipient, should the entity be owned by another entity; and (F) any other relevant information specified by the Office of Management and Budget. HIGHLIGHTS

Agencies now must organize and categorize this information for access by the public and ensure it is in a searchable and downloadable format consistent with the technological solution the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act Taskforce recommends. Agencies that do not now collect these data elements in single or multiple systems, or that do not update this information at least monthly, must gather this data and have a reliable process in place to produce this data on at least a monthly basis no later than June 1, This includes all transactions executed on or after October 1, 2006 greater than $25,000 with organizations (not individuals), including grants, loans, awards, cooperative agreements, other forms of financial assistance, contracts, purchase orders, task orders, and delivery orders. In limited cases for which meeting this deadline is not practical, your Taskforce member should provide your Agency plan for consideration to the Chair of the Taskforce, Robert Shea, Associate Director for Management, so long as your plan meets the requirements of Public Law No

This rule applies to contracts with values equal to or greater than $500 million awarded and performed in the United States, and requires the awardees to report all first tier subcontract awards exceeding $1 million. RULES FOR REPORTING SUBCONTRACTS

Transparency Act, Grant Sub-Award Pilot Update Sub-Award Pilot Update Andrea Brandon, USDA

Transparency Act Grant Sub-Award Pilot Pilot currently set for June 23, 2008 through August 23, 2008Pilot currently set for June 23, 2008 through August 23, 2008 Open to States, Local Governments, Universities, Tribes, Non-Profits, etc.Open to States, Local Governments, Universities, Tribes, Non-Profits, etc. Currently have 53 pilot participants (not counting duplicate representatives from the same organization)Currently have 53 pilot participants (not counting duplicate representatives from the same organization) 10 Government; 18 Non-profits; 25 Colleges & Universities.; 0 Tribal Entities10 Government; 18 Non-profits; 25 Colleges & Universities.; 0 Tribal Entities

Transparency Act Grant Sub-Award Pilot FFATA Sub-Award Work Group will be working on DRAFT Regulations (will publish for 30 day comment period by the end of May 2008):FFATA Sub-Award Work Group will be working on DRAFT Regulations (will publish for 30 day comment period by the end of May 2008): a.30 day reporting requirement b.Additional data elements c.How to report to the Sub-Award database d.Liability for data (First Tier vs. Sub-Awardee) e.How many tiers down to report f.Format for data elements g.Whether to include deobligation data or not h.Thresholds

Transparency Act Grant Sub-Award Pilot GPC Pre-Award Work Group is finalizing the DRAFT regulations on the use of the DUNS number and CCR.gov for grant Sub-Awards; and the Term and Condition to be used on all awards.GPC Pre-Award Work Group is finalizing the DRAFT regulations on the use of the DUNS number and CCR.gov for grant Sub-Awards; and the Term and Condition to be used on all awards. DRAFT regulations will be sent to GPC and OMB simultaneously; to be published for 30 day comment period by the end of March 2008.DRAFT regulations will be sent to GPC and OMB simultaneously; to be published for 30 day comment period by the end of March 2008.

Transparency Act Grant Sub-Award Pilot The OMB E-Government office will soon look at possible IT Solutions for the grant Sub-Award pilot.The OMB E-Government office will soon look at possible IT Solutions for the grant Sub-Award pilot. Possible identification of IT solution before mid April 2008.Possible identification of IT solution before mid April Once IT solution is identified; will work with pilot participants to finalize the instructions for how the pilot will take place.Once IT solution is identified; will work with pilot participants to finalize the instructions for how the pilot will take place.

Transparency Act Grant Sub-Award Pilot Would like more pilot participants – especially from the Tribal CommunityWould like more pilot participants – especially from the Tribal Community Would like to make sure that we can test multiple levels of Sub-Award reporting from the same grant in several instances during the pilotWould like to make sure that we can test multiple levels of Sub-Award reporting from the same grant in several instances during the pilot

Next Grants Policy Committee webcast: June 19, 1pm-3pm

Another important issue that must be addressed is how of the cost of compliance can be recovered by universities and others. What the law means by "reasonable costs" that can be included as indirect in a grant or contract is uncertain. A policy will have to be developed to address this, but no timetable has been discussed. It is also worth nothing that the law addresses only allow for a recovery of costs associated with anything other than subaward data collection--collection on prime awards and contracts is not mentioned, and, presumably, not permitted. Even if some cost recovery is allowed, it is doubtful that it will serve many universities the way the law is written. Many have already hit its indirect cost cap and would not be able to charge above that for any costs associated with FFATA compliance. WHO PAYS FOR THE SUBAWARD SYSTEM?

NIH

NIH

NSF January 2008 Grants Policy Guide