1. Update on the Uniform Guidance
The Future is NOW!
Update on the Uniform Guidance
2 CFR 200
ERSO Roundtable
November 17, 2015

2. Uniform Guidance Pretest: True or False?
To charge a computing device to a sponsored project fund, the computing device must be used exclusively for the project.
Berkeley’s current MTDC F&A base does not specifically exclude participant support costs.
Subrecipients without a federally negotiated F&A rate must charge a De Minimis Rate of 10% TDC.
Fixed amount subawards of any amount now require prior agency approval.
Federal sponsors can now issue fixed amount awards under programs requiring cost sharing.

3. Uniform Guidance Pretest
Participant support costs now are allowed by all federal sponsors.
Unless the sponsor states otherwise, program income must be reported to the sponsor, and the sponsor will automatically reduce the amount of the award by the amount of the program income.
The new RTCs now posted for comment will apply to all federal agencies.
Berkeley recently adopted the new procurement policies and procedures described in the UG.
If a modification to an existing award is received with UG terms, administrative/clerical salaries may be charged as long as a Major Project Justification is provided to SPO.

5. UG Resources 2 CFR 200: COFAR FAQ’s: SPO’s Website:
COFAR FAQ’s:
SPO’s Website:

6. UG Structure Subpart A, 200.XX – Acronyms & Definitions
Subpart B, 200.1XX – General
Subpart C, 200.2XX – Pre Award – Federal
Subpart D, 200.3XX – Post Award – Recipients
Subpart E, 200.4XX – Cost Principles
Subpart F, 200.5XX – Audit
11 Appendices - I through XI

7. What has changed?
Administrative/clerical salaries now can be charged as direct costs under certain circumstances.
Computing devices costing less that $5K can be budgeted as a direct cost under certain circumstances.
Participant support costs may be allowed by a variety of federal agencies.
Subrecipients are subject to new policies and procedures.
Fixed price awards above a certain amount will require prior approval.
All federal agencies now must address financial conflict of interest issues.

8. Charging Administrative/Clerical Salaries
“Major Project” criteria no longer apply to new awards under the UG.
The administrative/clerical must be identified with and “integral” to the proposed project.
Salaries for administrative/clerical staff must appear in the proposal budget and be substantiated in the budget justification.
Administrative/clerical salaries charged to a federal project cannot also be recovered as indirect costs.
Erin

9. Implementation
Existing awards designated as “Major Projects” maintain this status until modified with new UG terms.
“Integral”= indispensable to the success of the proposed project and above and beyond what is provided by the PI’s department/unit. Effort of 10% or more is expected.
Such salaries must be in the budget and budget justification or prior approval from the federal agency must be obtained.
The effort of administrative/clerical staff charged to a federal project must be certified in the campus ERS.
Erin

10. Charging for Computing Devices
The computing device must cost $5K or less.
The computing device must be both “essential” and “allocable” to the proposed project but need not be solely dedicated to the project.
Need should not be justified based on “convenience” or “personal preference.”
No other devices or equipment should be already available from the University for the same purpose
Angela

11. Implementation
The PI must provide a budget justification explaining why the computing device is “necessary. ”
The following purposes are acceptable:
To acquire, store, analyze, process, and publish data and other electronic information
To acquire accessories for printing, transmitting, and receiving or storing electronic information.
If at the time of proposal, the PI knows that the device will be allocated between more than one project, the cost may be pro-rated.*
Angela

12. Implementation: Prorating*
UCOP Guidance (Pending)
At the proposal stage, the programmatic need for the computing device should be clearly justified. The proposed cost of a computing device to be charged to a federally funded project shall be in accordance with criteria established in the Uniform Guidance (§200.4.)* All actual costs for computing devices shall be allocated to appropriate fund sources (internal and external) through a standard process that ensures a high degree of accuracy and accountability.
Pam

13. Implementation: Allocation*
Uniform Guidance (§200.4.)
Allocation means the process of assigning a cost, or a group of costs, to one or more cost objective(s), in reasonable proportion to the benefit provided or other equitable relationship. The process may entail assigning a cost(s) directly to a final cost objective or through one or more intermediate cost objectives.
Pam

14. Charging Participant Support Costs
Participant Support Costs include: stipends or subsistence allowances, travel allowances, and registration fees paid to or on behalf of participants or trainees (but not employees) in connection with conferences or training projects. Participant support costs are not routinely allowed on research projects but can be charged if the project includes an education or outreach component and the federal agency approves such costs. Please note: Human subject payments are not considered participant support costs.
Ruchika

15. Implementation
Under the Uniform Guidance ( ) all federal sponsors may now allow PIs to budget and charge for participant support costs. This means that prior agency approval is required.
Participant Support costs must be explicitly listed in the proposal budget or approved by the funding agency (through SPO) after the award has been made.
Participant support costs must be excluded from the Modified Total Direct Cost (MDTC) when calculating F&A costs when the University’s federally negotiated F&A rate is applied.
Ruchika

16. Implementation (cont.)
The sponsor’s terms and conditions will govern the “allowability” and treatment of participant support costs. For example:
For NSF any additional categories of participant support costs other than those described in 2 CFR § (such as incentives, gifts, souvenirs, t-shirts and memorabilia), must be justified in the budget justification, and such costs will be closely scrutinized by NSF. Prior approval required!
For NIH awards these cost are only allowable when specifically identified in the funding opportunity announcement (FOA). For the purposes of Kirschstein-NRSA programs, this term does not apply.
Ruchika

17. Subrecipients under the UG
Pass-through entities must make determinations between contractors (vendors) and subrecipients.
Subawards without a federally negotiated F&A rate may charge a De Minimis Rate of 10% MTDC unless funded by NSF. NSF requires subrecipeints without a federally negotiated F&A rate to the use the De Minimis rate.
Once a subrecipient negotiates an F&A rate, the rate must be honored.
Sabina

18. Implementation
At award stage a final determination will be made about another entity’s subaward status prior to SPO issuing the subaward. The SOW must meet “subrecipient” criteria.
Subawards without a federally negotiated F&A rate at the time of award will not be paid this rate until an approved rate is obtained.
UC Berkeley will not negotiate an F&A rate with subrecipients that do not have a federally negotiated F&A rate. The De Minimis may be applied until an approved rate is obtained.
Sabina

19. Implementation (cont.)
The 10% MTDC De Minimus rate can only be used for those entities that never had Federally negotiated rates established in the past. If they had one at any time in the past which had expired, they need to use that rate and may work on obtaining a renewed approval.
Should a subrecipient obtain a federally approved rate after previous increments of the subaward have been issued using the De Minimis:
The new F&A rate will not be applied retroactively
The new F&A rate will be applied when the next funding increment is requested.
Sabina

20. Fixed Amount Awards/Subawards
Fixed amounts can be used when there is a “specific” project scope and “adequate cost, historical or unit price data is available.”
Fixed amounts cannot be used in programs that require a mandatory cost-share or match.
Fixed amount awards/subawards above the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($150K) will require prior agency approval.
Recipients/subrecipients of fixed amounts must certify in writing at the end of award/subaward that the project or activity was completed or the level of effort was expended. If not, the amount of the award/subaward must be adjusted.”
Anna

21. Implementation
To establish an appropriate price we can use our past experience with similar types of work or price estimates (e.g., bids, quotes, catalog pricing).
Federal programs with salary caps are not considered a mandatory cost-share situation, so a fixed amount award or subaward can be used.
A certification indicating a reduction of more than 25% of the level of effort must be reported to the Federal awarding agency and would require a funding adjustment.
Anna

22. Financial Conflict of Interest
All Federal awarding agencies must now establish conflict of interest policies for Federal awards.
We (and our subs) must now disclose in writing any potential conflicts of interest in accordance with applicable Federal awarding agency policy.
This does not apply to “scientific” conflicts of interest. It pertains to conflicts related to expenditure of funds under a Federal award, e.g., selection of a subrecipient or procurements.
Pam

23. Implementation
NSF and NIH already meet the new standard – no changes anticipated.
Agencies that did not have a COI policy now feel that they are required to have one.
Stay tuned.
Pam

24. Other Notable Changes
Agencies must generally post opportunities at last 60 calendar days prior to due date, but …. no opportunities should be available for less than 30 calendar days. ( )
Merit review of proposals must be transparent ( )
For performance reports recipients will need to relate financial data to performance accomplishments of the Federal award. ( )
Cost sharing requirements must be explicitly described in the notice of funding opportunity. ( )

25. Other Notable Changes
Unless the federal agency says otherwise, program income may be added to the Federal award and used for the purposes and under the conditions of the Federal award. ( )
Our negotiated F&A rates must be accepted by all Federal awarding agencies unless a lower rate is required by Federal statute or regulation, or when approved by a Federal awarding agency head ( )
Research Terms and Conditions (RTC) expired 12/26/2014 but new RTC are available for review/comment.

26. New RTC will apply to: U.S. Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
U.S. Department of Energy
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Science Foundation
(continued next slide)

27. New RTC will apply to: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
National Institutes of Health
U.S. Department of Agriculture
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration
U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

28. What will remain the same?
Procurement standards ( through ) established new requirements which, if implemented, would create a new set of requirements that are significantly different from those under OMB Circular A110. Specifically, the introduction of new and different procurement types, including the Micro Purchase category for purchases below $3,000.
Non-federal entities could elect to delay implementation. UCB elected to delay.

29. Procurement “Claw” (Section 200.320)3.
Sealed
Bids 4.
Competitive
Proposals 2.
Small
Purchases 5.
Sole
Source
• > $150K
• Construction projects
• Price is a major ---factor
• > $150K
• Fixed price or cost ---reimbursement
• RFP with
evaluation methods 1.
Micro
Purchases
• Up to $150K
• Rate quotations
• No cost or price analysis
• Unique
• Public emergency
• Authorized by agency
(or PTE)
• No competition
• $3K
• No quotations
• Equitable distributions
Not Yet Implemented at UCB

30. FDP to the Rescue!
FDP has successfully argued to the OMB that this will significantly increase the administrative burden and reduce the expenditure burn rate.
Specifically, based on surveyed data, FDP showed that procurement transactions below $5k make up more than 97% of the number of transactions, but only about 26% of the total procurement dollars spent.
As a result, OMB has delayed the implementation of the procurement section until July 1, 2017 and appears to be supportive of a demonstration project that would show that institutions maintain proper oversight and internal controls over procurement where the risk of fraud, waste, and abuse is higher, while utilizing efficient procurement methods.

31. FDP Demonstration Project
Alternatives Proposed by FDP
Set the micro purchase threshold at the larger of $10,000 or a threshold established by the non-federal entity based on evidence that that least XX% (??) of its procurement transactions and YY%( ??) of procurement dollars spent is for transactions below the institutional threshold.
Allow each non federal entity to create its own procurement system and procedures and require a regular system review of the procurement system and procedures. This review could be satisfied either as part of the institution’s annual Single audit or by a special procurement system review.

32. Questions?