1. Guidelines for Successful Post-Award Management: An Institution/Academic Perspective
Presented by
Dr. McArthur Floyd
School of Agricultural & Environmental Sciences
Alabama A&M University
At the
CSREES/SERD Project Director’s Conference
March 30-April1, 2005
New Orleans, LA

2. Vision Statement
To provide strategies and mechanisms for effective post award management based upon observations and policy developed during tenure as Research Director at Alabama A&M University (AAMU).
March 2005
Guidelines for Successful Post-Award Management: An Institution/Academic Perspective

3. Objectives
To provide research scientists with strategies for managing grants after funding.
To discuss mechanisms to assist scientists in obtaining post management expectations of their University and the federal government.
March 2005
Guidelines for Successful Post-Award Management: An Institution/Academic Perspective

4. Summary of Presentation
Submission of Grant Proposal – University Level
Notice of Grant Award
Implementation of Actual Experiment
Closure of Research Grant
March 2005
Guidelines for Successful Post-Award Management: An Institution/Academic Perspective

5. Submission of Grant Proposal – University Level
No faculty member should submit any proposals directly to a funding agency without appropriate prior University approvals.
Proposals should be submitted and endorsed through normal supervisory channels
Thus; proposals should be submitted in a timely manner (i.e., a minimum of five (5) working days)
March 2005
Guidelines for Successful Post-Award Management: An Institution/Academic Perspective

6. Submission of Grant Proposal – University Level… continued
School level review is important in terms of the impact the research program/project will have on the School.
For example:
Does the proposed research agree with the long-term goals of the school; department of origin, and University?
What effects will the project have on class schedules, teaching assignments, and learning experiences, as well as laboratory, classroom and office space within the school?
What will be the support staff requirements, including secretarial, technical or student?
Also of a major concern is related financial considerations to include both indirect costs and matching funds.
March 2005
Guidelines for Successful Post-Award Management: An Institution/Academic Perspective

7. Submission of Grant Proposal – University Level… continued
Special Conditions:
Proposals requesting the hiring of new faculty or staff members or extended release time for existing personnel require administrative approval.
Proposals requiring the use of human subjects, biohazardous materials, or greater than ordinary space utilization, construction/renovations, equipment additions will not only require the Dean’s signature but also specific appointed University Committees and/or task forces. This usually requires extra lead time beyond the five day minimum (i.e., one day minimum for each special requirement)
March 2005
Guidelines for Successful Post-Award Management: An Institution/Academic Perspective

8. Steps in AAMU Proposal Flow
Proposal is developed by Principal Investigator (PI).
Preliminary draft reviewed by Department Head and returned to PI with any comments, corrections, etc.
Corrected proposal submitted with Proposal Review and Certification Form to Department Head for signature.
Upon approval, proposal is then submitted by PI to the School Dean for review (impact on school policies, programs, and long-term goals) and signature of approval.
March 2005
Guidelines for Successful Post-Award Management: An Institution/Academic Perspective

9. Steps in AAMU Proposal Flow
Proposal submitted to Office of Grants and Contracts in Research and Development for final review (completeness, adherence to policies, agency and AAMU regulations) and processing, allowing a minimum of five (5) working days for University administrative approvals.
Special Circumstances. Proposal review by Financial Services and/or by select appointed University committees and task forces, as needed.
Final processing by Office of Grants & Contracts in Research and Development (copying, packaging, letter of transmittal).
Proposal is mailed to agency.
Wait for Good News.
March 2005
Guidelines for Successful Post-Award Management: An Institution/Academic Perspective

10. Notice of Grant Award Consultation and Decision Making
Review Agreement Face Sheet (Form CSREES-2009) -with special attention to the Provisions Section (example below)
PROVISIONS
This Agreement includes the following:
The referenced proposal and any revision thereto – incorporated by reference
CSREES General Terms and Conditions – A dates 4/01
7 CFR Part 315, 7 CFT Part 3017, 7 CFT Part3018, 7 CFT Part 3019 – incorporated by reference
The Approved Award Budget
March 2005
Guidelines for Successful Post-Award Management: An Institution/Academic Perspective

11. Notice of Grant Award…continued
CRIS Forms AD-416 and AD417 – incorporated by reference
Method of Payment: DHHS Payment Management System
Other: The enclosed Form AD-1048 must be completed by the approved subcontractor(s) and returned to the recipient for retention in the official award file. It is not necessary to send a copy to CSREES. Please be advised that when this grant expires on August 14, 2004, it will have run for a full three-year period, the maximum length of time currently permitted under Federal statue. Thus, no further extension of time will be possible.
March 2005
Guidelines for Successful Post-Award Management: An Institution/Academic Perspective

12. Notice of Grant Award … continued
Identification of and review of Specific Needs
Personnel (Post-Docs, Research Assistants, Grad Students, and Undergraduates)
Matching Requirements – Meet with Middle Managers to discuss: Specific research space, laboratories, greenhouse, field plots and other special needs
March 2005
Guidelines for Successful Post-Award Management: An Institution/Academic Perspective

13. Notice of Grant Award… continued
Collaborators –
Review necessary research tools and methods
Review outcomes – oriented evaluations
Impacts and accomplishment reporting
Discuss potential benefits of effective coordinated efforts of systematic distribution of knowledge in relevant and accessible formats
Discuss utility of findings to consumers
New technologies – discussions regarding ownership of knowledge and intellectual property rights
(Re)allocation of resources (No significant change to budget or scope of work without agency approval)
March 2005
Guidelines for Successful Post-Award Management: An Institution/Academic Perspective

14. Implementation of Actual Experiments
PIs’ responsibilities move into high gear
Viability and quality of data
Fulfilling the research reporting, and publications standards
Formally orienting junior faculty, staff and students to expected standards
Overseeing the work done
Submit annual progress and impact reports
“Keep in mind the high standards of performance and accountability for outcomes”
March 2005
Guidelines for Successful Post-Award Management: An Institution/Academic Perspective

15. Implementation of Actual Experiments … continued
During the last calendar year
Implement plans for continuing the project beyond funding period
Consider request for extension period for use of funds beyond grant limitation
Work closely with collaborators/sub-contractors regarding timely submission of invoices for payment
Consider final reallocation of resources
March 2005
Guidelines for Successful Post-Award Management: An Institution/Academic Perspective

16. Closure of Research Grant
Preparing final project report due days
Significant findings
Unique contributions of project to body of scientific knowledge
Publications and other products
Participants in project, including students
A final budget report, identifying any funds remaining unspent
March 2005
Guidelines for Successful Post-Award Management: An Institution/Academic Perspective

17. Thank you For Your Attention. March 2005
Guidelines for Successful Post-Award Management: An Institution/Academic Perspective