1. ICR Sharing Patricia Homyak and Pamela Webb 02.17.2009

2.  Understand University ICR sharing policy  Understand expanded ICR sharing options available in EFS  Know tools that can help you determine which basis and method to use  Understand procedure for obtaining shared ICR  Understand how your ICR is distributed ICR = Indirect Cost Recovery

3.  When may I share ICR with another unit?  Whenever the involved parties decide it makes sense  When must I share ICR with another unit?  Two or more colleges are involved  Total project costs (including direct and F&A) are more than $100,000 per year  Each college is entitled to $1000 in F&A or more  Who decides how the ICR will be shared?  College deans or their designated representatives  Intercollegiate Center directors (if applicable)  University-wide Center directors and central admin (if applicable)  PIs may assist (but not decide)  Disputes are mediated by central admin (SPA or OVPR)

4.  When will such decisions be reached? ◦ At time of proposal or, if agreement is not complete at that time, at time of account setup  Can the arrangements be changed later? ◦ Yes, if the sponsor substantially changes the proposal  Change in key personnel effort  Change in cost-sharing  Change in overall budget of 25% or more ..or..  When all parties agree to a change (not specifically stated in policy)  Administratively, if there is a change mid-budget period, SPA will adjust the setup as soon as practicable after receipt of the PS-friendly budget form (estimated to be within 10 business days) ◦ Changes are expected to be infrequent

5. Pre-EFS: 1.Separate budgets (child accounts in CUFS) 2.Journal transfers of earned F&A between units (behind the scenes) Post-EFS 1.Separate budgets (projects in EFS) 2.Percentage split on a single project (based on Dept ID*) * ICR is distributed to that dept ID’s RRC and may be further distributed as determined by that RRC

6. Determine Basis for Allocating ICR Between Two or More Units Determine Method for Distributing ICR Obtain Approvals and Signatures Submit PS Friendly Budget Information to SPA

7.  Project Specific  Reflects key roles on the project (direct and indirect)  Reflects resources consumed on the project (direct and indirect)  Reflects administrative support needed See U Procedure “Sharing ICR Among Collaborating Collegiate Units” for guidance

8.  Objectives may include: ◦ Financial equity (most commonly used) ◦ Supporting scientific equivalence between faculty; encouraging junior investigators and/or supporting ongoing collaboration ◦ Supporting administrative infrastructure needs (eg. to provide hiring and supervision of staff and students; monitoring of subawards; provision of computer or lab resources not directly covered in the award) But should it be?

9.  Journal Transfers  Separate Accounts  One account with Percentage Split method to one or more DeptIDs

10.  Pros ◦ Can be done at the end of the project based upon actual activity and expenditures – no mid project adjustments required ◦ Low administrative cost to complete transfer  Cons ◦ Easy to forget – all tracking outside of EFS system ◦ Administrative burden to reconcile and calculate ◦ Dollars come directly from unit after any allocation discounting ◦ Dollars earned are not credited to unit as part of Central budget model ◦ Budget Office formula and ICR reports will never be correct

11.  Pros ◦ Best for complicated awards, large dollars, or large numbers of units involved ◦ Easy to understand ◦ Best when each unit is responsible for their portion of the project (ex. Program Project Grant)  Cons ◦ Makes reconciliation and monitoring, effort, reporting and close out more complicated ◦ More difficult to adjust as project/ scope of work, level of effort or role on project changes ◦ High administrative burden for Depts, SPA and SFR

12.  Pros ◦ Efficient ◦ Very cost effective – minimal administrative burden ◦ Modest administrative burden to adjust as project/ scope of work, level of effort or role on project changes  Cons ◦ New, less well understood ◦ Changes must be proactive and not retroactive ◦ Needs to be tracked at RRC level ◦ Extra care needs to be given in interpreting total ICR earned

14.  Financial Equity – traditional based on salary Dept 1 - $43,844 or 69% of F&A generated Dept 2 - $20,135 or 31% of F&A generated  Financial Equity with Multiple or High $ Subawards Dept 1 - $51,148 or 80% of F&A generated Dept 2 - $12,831 or 20% of F&A generated  Effort Dept 1 - $15,995 or 25% of F&A generated Dept 2 - $47,984 or 75% of F&A generated  Administrative Burden Dept 1 - $28,468 or 44% of F&A generated Dept 2 - $35,511 or 56% of F&A generated

15.  Shown on NOGA  Navigation: Grants>Awards>Project>Project Department Tab The section called Department Info indicates what % of the F&A revenue generated from the Project is attributed to each DeptId  Navigation: General Ledger> Review Financial Information> Ledger OR UMReports Use RRC-Level F&A revenue chart string (ex. 1026-DeptId-UM003; account 46101)

16.  F&A costing process runs nightly (GM_GMFACS) ◦ F&A expense line generated for each eligible direct expense transactions ◦ One or more corresponding F&A revenue lines generated for each F&A expense line ◦ ICR is allocated to RRCs using F&A Distribution information set up on project record plus information contained in the F&A Offset table (also maintained by SPA based on rollup tree in GL)  F&A Offset table associates DeptIDs with RRC DeptIDs  Full revenue chart string includes:  Fund 1026 -RRC DeptID – Program UM003 – Revenue Account 460101 –CF1 Dept ID earning the F&A – Project # earning the F&A  RRC distributes F&A as it determines appropriate ◦ RRCs typically retain at least enough F&A to pay their share of central cost pools