*National Institutes of Health*

***Institutional Funding Agreements***

*Position Paper*

*Draft 9/20/00*

> **[Executive Summary]{.underline}**
>
> This Institutional Funding Agreement (IFA) concept paper outlines a
> pilot NIH streamlining initiative for non-competing "SNAP" awards. It
> reflects a more institutional approach to oversight, rather than
> grant-by-grant. The NIH and the participating grantee would enter into
> an agreement, the purpose of which is to further streamline the award
> process. The agreement describes the initiative, constitutes required
> certifications, and includes terms and conditions that would be
> applicable to all awards. A major change is that human and animal
> assurance information and IRB/IACUC approval dates will not routinely
> be included in annual progress reports.
>
> Focusing NIH monitoring efforts more at the institutional level,
> rather than grant-by-grant, will result in a better understanding of
> the grantees' institutional processes and performance abilities, and
> allow for more effective management and monitoring of grant
> requirements.
>
> Other highlights: Because the NIH views the SNAP as a review of
> progress, rather than a yearly application, only a progress report and
> answers to the traditional SNAP questions would be provided. The
> grantee would choose whether the principal investigators or the
> authorized business official(s) would transmit these reports.
> "Non-routine" situations would be reported throughout the year.
> Business would be conducted electronically.
>
> It is important to emphasize that the stewardship role of NIH staff
> will not change because of IFAs. Program staff will continue to review
> progress reports and awards will be issued only when progress has been
> deemed satisfactory. In addition, grants management staff will
> continue to monitor financial/policy aspects through review of answers
> to the four SNAP questions. Additional tools for monitoring financial
> aspects continue to be available, e.g., requesting additional
> information, reviewing when appropriate.
>
> Since this is a concept paper, NIH recognizes that there are many
> details that need to be dealt with and intends to deal with them when
> a working group is established with the grantees that will be
> participating in the pilot. NIH will monitor the pilot and make
> appropriate changes as it proceeds.

**[Glossary]{.underline}**

> **Check sheets -** checklists or documentation control sheets used by
> some ICs to assist in application review and award processing
>
> **e-SNAP** -- the current electronic SNAP application system
>
> **Exceptional** -- non-routine situations, as defined in the IFA,
> requiring reporting in the progress/exceptions report or during the
> project period
>
> **FAN** - Funding Availability Notice; the annual notice of grant
> award for a grant included under the IFA
>
> **FDP** -- Federal Demonstration Partnership III
>
> **IACUC** -- Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee

**IC** - NIH funding institute or center

> **IFA** - NIH Institutional Funding Agreement
>
> **IMPAC II** -- an NIH administrative database with the ability to
> generate awards
>
> **IRB** -- Institutional Review Board
>
> **NIH Commons** -- a website for receipt and transmission of
> information between ICs, grantees and the public, with both
> unrestricted and restricted portions for public and confidential
> information
>
> **Non-routine** -- see Exceptional
>
> **PHS 2590** -- Application for Continuation of a Public Health
> Service Grant, the traditional noncompeting application form (type 5)
>
> **PI** - principal investigator
>
> **Progress/exceptions report** - the annual report (instead of a
> noncompeting application) for a grant included under the IFA
>
> **Routine** -- situations defined in the IFA as not requiring
> reporting in the progress/exceptions report or during the project
> period
>
> **SNAP** -- Simplified Non-Competing Award Process
>
> **Timely** -- except as otherwise specified in this IFA or the FAN,
> applicable policies and procedures should be followed.
>
> **Type 5** -- noncompeting continuation application/award (see PHS
> 2590)
>
> **Type 5 face page** -- the first page of a noncompeting continuation
> application

**WIP** -- Work in Progress; a working award record in IMPAC II

**D-R-A-F-T Position Paper**

##### NIH Institutional Funding Agreements

9/20/00

## 1. [Background]{.underline} 

The NIH awards almost \$12 billion in grants and cooperative agreements
to over 2,200 grantees. In fact, 80 institutions receive 67% of the
grants and 70% of the dollars. Last year, NIH IC (institutes and
centers) grants administration staffs processed nearly 60,000 grant
actions (awards, supplements, revisions, and transfers). We expect the
number of actions to continue to increase. Therefore, it is incumbent
upon us to develop more efficient ways of doing business so that we can
issue timely, accurate awards to the grantee community while at the same
time maintaining our responsibility for stewardship of Federal funds.

Over the past several years, the NIH has implemented a number of
significant changes in the administration of grants, such as the
Simplified Noncompeting Award Process (SNAP), Modular Applications,
Just-in-Time, and Total Cost Commitment initiatives. The goals of these
initiatives include eliminating the burden of unnecessary paperwork for
grantee and government staff, monitoring grantees on the basis of
administrative and financial systems, increased focus on scientific
progress, and delegating increasing responsibility to grantees for
monitoring their grants.

We propose **NIH Institutional Funding Agreements** (IFAs) as a logical
extension of these streamlining initiatives. IFAs would benefit both
grantee and NIH IC staff. The NIH views the SNAP as a review of progress
rather than an application since the competing application is reviewed
and approved with out-years. The out-years have established total cost
dollar levels and constitute a conditional commitment for NIH funding.
Therefore, all we need is a progress report to determine if the project
should continue.

**[Concept Paper]{.underline}**: This paper outlines the concept of an
Institutional Funding Agreement. The details will be developed as we
move forward.

**2. [Current Award Process]{.underline}**

For a large institution, the NIH may issue over 700 individual
noncompeting awards per year, not including supplements and revisions.
This process involves:

> **For Grantee:**

-   **[Applications]{.underline}**: A grantee may prepare and submit as
    many as 700 complete application packages in a year. Each
    application package consists of a face page, multiple assurances, a
    progress report, other support, detailed budgets and justifications,
    biographical sketch, current personnel, checklist, etc. SNAPs are
    somewhat abbreviated applications (see Attachment #3). The principal
    investigator (PI) and then the authorized business official sign the
    application package.

> **For NIH:**

-   **[Application Review and Processing]{.underline}**: On a monthly
    basis, grants management and program staff review hundreds of
    applications, collect missing information (approximately 30% of
    applications are incomplete), obtain additional needed information,
    complete documentation control sheets (check sheets that some ICs
    require grants management and program staff to complete), and
    resolve issues.

-   **[Award Preparation]{.underline}**: Grants management specialists
    create separate terms of award, which are imported into the
    individual IMPAC II records (NIH's computerized award system).
    Specialists also fill in and/or proof dozens of IMPAC II data
    fields.

-   **[Issuance of Awards]{.underline}**: Once all outstanding issues
    have been resolved, an award is issued. Unresolved issues result
    either in delayed awards or in provisional awards that are later
    revised/finalized once the issues are resolved.

######## 3. Proposed Pilot

-   **[Institutional Funding Agreement (IFA)]{.underline}**: The NIH and
    the participating Federal Demonstration Partnership III (FDP)
    grantees would enter into a renewable IFA covering all noncompeting
    SNAP awards. During the pilot, an IFA's duration would be one year.
    Beyond the pilot stage, an IFA would be a five-year agreement. The
    IFA could be amended as deemed appropriate by the NIH through direct
    notice to participants, acceptance of which would be acknowledged by
    the grantee by continued submission of progress/exceptions reports
    and when funds were drawn down or otherwise obtained from the grant
    payment system.

    -   The grantee would certify up-front for the duration of the
        agreement that:

        -   the IFA constitutes its certification and assurance that all
            human, animal and other required reviews and approvals will
            be in place when required;

        -   it will adhere to all applicable fiscal and administrative
            policies;

        -   it will strictly comply with deadlines; and

        -   it will abide by both the terms and conditions of the IFA
            and by any special terms and conditions of the awards.

            -   Assurances, certifications and the institutional
                official's signature in the IFA would be incorporated by
                reference in the progress/exceptions reports or when
                funds were drawn down or otherwise obtained from the
                grant payment system.

            -   Terms and conditions of award included in the IFA would
                be incorporated by reference in the individual awards.

            -   Instead of completing and submitting applications,
                Principal Investigators would report scientific progress
                (including minority/gender/child inclusion data) and
                answer the SNAP questions.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **[IFA Progress/Exceptions Report]{.underline}**:

    -   The grantee would have the choice whether to authorize either
        the principal investigator(s) or the institutional business
        official(s) to electronically transmit the progress/exceptions
        reports to the NIH Commons (a website for communications between
        grantees and ICs). It would be agreed that when PIs send
        reports, the grantee would be held accountable to the same
        extent as if they had been transmitted and signed by the
        authorized business official(s).

    -   The first screen a PI would see in the NIH Commons would explain
        the purpose of the progress report and the SNAP questions. The
        second screen would require Yes/No answers to the SNAP questions
        (for Modular grants, the rebudgeting question would be marked
        N/A). If any questions are answered "Yes," an explanation would
        be required in a comment screen. Next, the most recent abstract
        would be displayed for optional editing. Headings for major
        sections such as specific aims, studies and results,
        significance and plans would appear on the progress report
        screen for the PI to complete. The PI would fill
        gender/minority/child inclusion data in the tables provided. The
        next screen would provide an opportunity to verify address/phone
        information. Lastly, a message would remind the PI that
        transmission of the report is his/her certification that the
        statements are true, complete and accurate.

    -   Progress report due dates would remain two months prior to the
        start date of the next budget period.

    -   NIH would electronically notify the ICs via a dedicated e-mail
        address when the reports arrived, and a designated IC official
        (the GMO's designee) would make them available electronically to
        the appropriate program and grants management officials. This
        address would also be used for receipt of required IFA exception
        notifications from grantees throughout the year.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The data submitted would be used to update IMPAC II and would be
    loaded into an IMPAC II "work in progress" (WIP).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **[IFA Progress/Exceptions Report - NIH Review and
    Processing]{.underline}**: NIH IC staff would review the reports and
    resolve issues. It is anticipated that there would be very few
    issues to be resolved. Documentation control sheets (check sheets)
    would be streamlined or eliminated, but the grant file must still be
    documented with program approval of progress and grants management
    or program comments regarding non-routine situations (including
    "yes" SNAP answers). Internal approvals/comments and routing would
    be handled electronically.

-   **[IFA Funding Availability Notice (FAN) Preparation]{.underline}**:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The new IMPAC II annual award notice, called "Funding Availability
    Notice" (FAN), will look different from the current award letter
    format (see Attachment #1). Thus, PIs and others who see it will
    recognize immediately that it is not a traditional notice of grant
    award. The FAN will be sent to the institutional official. The IFA's
    terms and conditions would apply to individual FANs and would not be
    restated in full text in those FANs. ICs could still place special
    terms and conditions on a FAN as needed, without removing it from
    the IFA population. Individual problems and non-routine situations
    would be dealt with on a case-by-case basis (such as administrative
    supplements or inadequate progress). Individual IMPAC II records
    would be obligated as normal, and each award issued individually, as
    before.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **[Issuance of FANs]{.underline}**: Unresolved issues would result
    either in a provisional FAN with a special terms (e.g., for missing
    other support information) or in removal of the individual award
    from the IFA population that year for traditional processing as an
    exception (e.g., patient accrual concern). Post-award revisions
    would be handled as a revised FAN.

-   **[Proposed Pilot]{.underline}**:

Initially, the pilot would include:

-   **[Population]{.underline}**: Type 5 SNAPs, which are approximately
    50% of grant actions. SNAPs generally include R01, R03, R13, R18,
    R21, R24, R25, R29, R33, R37, R42, R44, S03, and Ks. Co-funds
    (grants with two or more sources of funding) would be excluded.

-   **[Grantees]{.underline}**: Several interested FDP grantees,
    including one or two currently using e-SNAP (the current electronic
    SNAP application system) would pilot the initiative. Initial
    suggestions: Massachusetts General Hospital; University of
    California San Diego; University of Michigan; Fred Hutchinson Cancer
    Research Center; Dartmouth College; Northwestern University;
    Massachusetts Institute of Technology

-   [ICs]{.underline}: All

> As we gain experience, we would include more grant mechanisms in the
> population as well as more grantees.

-   **[e-SNAPs]{.underline}**:

> It is currently expected that e-SNAPS will be replaced by the more
> streamlined approach of IFAs.

######## 4. Potential Benefits

-   This pilot would result in cost and time savings for both the
    grantee and NIH/IC staff.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **[Sending Type 5 face pages]{.underline}** to grantees would be
    **[eliminated]{.underline}**. Instead, grantees could access an NIH
    database on the web that would list their institution's SNAPs,
    sortable by IC, month, etc. The PIs and grantees would be
    responsible for transmitting the progress/exceptions reports on
    time. Electronically transmitted reports would generate automatic
    receipt notification. It would be agreed that ICs could prorate
    funding if a late progress report results in the issuance of a late
    FAN; however proration would not be implemented during the pilot. If
    a progress report is not submitted, funding will not be continued.

-   **[Individual applications]{.underline}** and the burden of
    providing/reviewing
    **[non]{.underline}**-essential**/[routine]{.underline}**
    information required by the Application for Continuation of a Public
    Health Service Grant (Form: PHS 2590) would be
    **[eliminated]{.underline}**.

-   We would receive **[progress reports and]{.underline}**, throughout
    the year, **[reports on specific exceptional/non-routine
    situations]{.underline}** (as clearly defined in the IFA), such as
    large unobligated balances, significant changes in scope of a
    project, overlap of support, supplement and prior approval requests,
    inventions, etc. NIH IC staff would not have to review routine
    situations and entire applications (e.g., grantees would not have to
    report that there were no inventions).

-   **[Incomplete applications would be less of a
    problem]{.underline}**. As long as the SNAP answers and progress
    report are submitted, we will rely on the grantee's assurance in the
    IFA that all other necessary information is complete.

-   **[Terms]{.underline}** and conditions included in the IFA **[would
    not be restated in full text]{.underline}** in the individual FANs.
    In most cases, this would eliminate preparation of individual terms
    documents and importing those documents into the IMPAC II records.
    IFA terms and conditions may be viewed on a website.

-   **[Human and animal certifications]{.underline}** and assurances
    would be **[in the IFA]{.underline}**. IRB/IACUC approval dates
    would not routinely be included in annual progress reports.

-   **[Other certifications]{.underline}** and assurances included in
    the IFA **[would not be restated in full text]{.underline}** in the
    monthly funding requests; they would simply be incorporated by
    reference to the IFA.

-   [**Grant documentation** **control forms**]{.underline} (check
    sheets) for program directors and specialists **[would be
    eliminated]{.underline}** or greatly streamlined, which would result
    in a substantial savings of time and effort for IC staff.

-   **[Business]{.underline}** would be conducted
    **[electronically]{.underline}**, thereby reducing an enormous paper
    burden. This would also save time and postage.

-   **[Security]{.underline}** would be assured for the
    progress/exceptions reports through use of the NIH Commons.

-   **[IMPAC II processing would be reduced]{.underline}** to signing
    and releasing awards. The issue date may be completed automatically,
    and it would be unnecessary to edit any other fields.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The **[focus of ICs' monitoring efforts would be on scientific
    progress]{.underline}**, which is consistent with the direction of
    NIH streamlining initiatives.

-   NIH/ICs would **[increase oversight]{.underline}** (see #6 below,
    "Stewardship & Oversight").

-   All eligible FANs would be issued on time or early.

-   This initiative should assist in implementing the Federal Financial
    Assistance Management Improvement Act of 1999 and Electronic
    Research Administration.

**5. [Roles]{.underline}**

-   **[Grants Management]{.underline}**: The workload of our grants
    management specialists has increased significantly over the past
    five years and will continue to increase over the next five to ten
    years, as will the complexity of many mechanisms. Yet the number of
    specialists has not kept pace with the growth in grants.
    Consequently, specialists are faced with increasingly heavy
    workloads. They are under a great deal of pressure to issue accurate
    and timely awards, but have little time to perform other important
    duties. When IFAs become fully functional, specialists will not be
    spending time obtaining documentation for items that are not
    essential to making the award; and they will spend less time
    processing routine awards and supporting grantees in areas where the
    grantees should be self-sufficient (such as reminding them of due
    dates, following up with letters or calls requesting delinquent
    reports, etc.). The time saved can be used by specialists to better
    review competing applications and large, complex grants, to conduct
    compliance visits, to participate on IC and/or NIH committees, to
    attend or conduct training sessions, to review and comment on
    Requests for Applications, to participate in developing/updating new
    policies and procedures, to serve as mentors to new staff, and to
    have more time available to work with program and grantee staff.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   IFAs do not change the underlying role of grants management staff.
    Grants management officers will continue to service as the Federal
    obligating officials.

    -   **[Program]{.underline}**: Responsibilities remain unchanged.
        Approvals and comments would be transmitted electronically and
        check sheets would be streamlined or eliminated.

    -   **[Grantee and Principal Investigator]{.underline}**: PHS 2590
        applications would not be required. It would be the grantee's
        choice whether the PI or the business official transmits the
        progress/exceptions report. These two factors would considerably
        reduce paperwork, preparation time and internal
        processing/routing time. Grantees and PIs would be responsible
        for knowing when reports are due and for submitting timely
        reports without a reminder from the NIH. In many cases, this
        will require grantee institutions to improve tracking systems.

-   **[Accountability]{.underline}**: IFAs do not reduce the
    accountability of the grantee and PI. Certifications, assurances and
    the grantee's obligation to abide by the terms and conditions of
    award are demonstrated in ways other than simply traditional,
    hand-written signatures on applications:

> \- Acceptance of the award (i.e., drawing down or otherwise obtaining
> funds from the grant payment system). Award acceptance places the
> grantee under an obligation to comply with the terms and conditions.

-   Institutional official's signature on the IFA (an agreement
    including specific requirements dealing with, among other things,
    assurances, certifications, terms and conditions);

-   Electronic signatures on and/or transmission of progress/exceptions
    reports (equivalent in legal status with traditional hand-written
    signatures);

-   Assurances, certifications and signatures incorporated by reference
    in the progress/exceptions report;

-   Representations made in the progress/exceptions report;

-   Signatures and representations in the competing application
    regarding the purpose for which future-year funds were requested.
    The out-year commitments reflect recognition in advance that the
    approved project will require more than one year of funding for
    completion.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **[PI]{.underline}**: The PI is responsible for understanding and
    complying with the terms and conditions of the IFA. This includes
    responsibility for submitting complete and timely progress reports.

-   **[Grantees]{.underline}**: They must report exceptional situations
    (such as change in PI, change in scope, change in personnel
    identified as key on the award notice, etc.) throughout the year and
    not wait until transmission of the progress/exceptions report. This
    does not mean additional reporting requirements, only a greater
    emphasis on timeliness. Grantees would be fully responsible and
    accountable for oversight and monitoring of award-supported
    activities, regardless of who transmits the report. They remain
    responsible for the timely transmission of progress reports and for
    promptly distributing FANs to PIs. They must ensure that the PIs
    have understood, agreed to and complied with the IFA. Time saved
    could be redirected to improving compliance and stewardship.

    -   **[Computer programming]{.underline}**: IMPAC II and the NIH
        Commons would be made as simple and efficient as possible to
        use. For example, completion of the progress/exceptions report
        would require as few screens as possible. The system will be
        flexible enough to accommodate changes in reporting requirements
        as they occur. The system would include listings by institution
        of due dates for IFA grants. NIH would acknowledge receipt of
        progress reports.

**6. [Stewardship & Oversight]{.underline}**

-   IC staff would have more time for attention to oversight, to
    non-routine situations, and to monitor institutions on the basis of
    administrative and financial systems.

-   Site visits to the participating grantees may be conducted.

-   Participating institutions that are not 100% compliant regarding
    human subject and animal requirements would be removed from the IFA
    process. For other issues, such as timely and complete reporting and
    other compliance standards, a workgroup may be established as we
    develop this further. Standards developed may be used as a guide for
    removal.

-   The grantee must have a system in place to monitor and document
    Institutional Review Board (IRB) and Institutional Animal Care and
    Use Committee (IACUC) review and approval dates for each grant. To
    qualify for the second year of the IFA, grantees would provide NIH
    with a list of IRB and IACUC approval dates for SNAP grants with
    human or animal involvement for the past year sorted by IC and grant
    number. This would help ensure that the grantees had centralized
    systems for scheduling and tracking these reviews and approvals. The
    ICs or an NIH official would review the dates for compliance. Once
    it has been established that a grantee is in compliance, this
    reporting requirement would be dropped. Instead, NIH/ICs would
    perform random audits of these institutions and/or periodically
    request submission of selected information to ensure compliance,
    which may include statistical sampling.

-   Each grantee would have a designated point of contact or liaison at
    NIH, who would be better able to detect institutional concerns.
    Systems would be developed to better flag problems, and liaisons
    would coordinate NIH notification to institutions. Examples include
    poor closeout history, late or incomplete reporting, or excessive
    FSR revisions.

-   IC staff would periodically and on a random basis look at the
    payment management system to monitor expenditures, recognizing and
    taking into consideration that there are delays in reporting.

######### 7. Evaluation

Measurements of success of this pilot would include:

-   **[Stewardship and Oversight]{.underline}**: Do NIH/IC staff have
    more time for oversight and resolving non-routine situations? Do
    post award audits demonstrate that grantees are in compliance with
    the terms and conditions of the IFA? Do expenditures in the payment
    management system indicate problems?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **[Early or timely awards]{.underline}:** Are FANs being issued
    early or on time?

-   **[For Grantee]{.underline}**: Does the IFA save the grantee time by
    eliminating preparation of detailed applications which are then
    routed, along with the NIH-prepared face pages, for two signatures
    on each application? Does it allow more time for attention to
    compliance, systems management, and resolving non-routine
    situations?

-   **[For NIH]{.underline}**: Does the IFA save staff time by reducing
    review and award preparation time? Does it allow more time for
    attention to compliance, systems management, and resolving
    non-routine situations?

**8. [Closeout]{.underline}**

When a competitive segment ends, the grantee is responsible for
submitting within 90 days a final financial status report, progress
report, and invention statement.

######## 

######## 9. Next Step

-   Work out the details with appropriate IC and grantee staff. Modify
    the NIH Commons and IMPAC II accordingly.

-   Meet with participating grantees on a frequent basis before, during
    and after the pilot.

-   **Begin the pilot with SNAPs in early fiscal year 2001.**

Attachment #1

\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* **FUNDING AVAILABILITY NOTICE**
\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* Issue Date: 06/15/2000

NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE

\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*

Grant Number: 5 R01 CA83723-02

Principal Investigator: MARTIN, ANDREW

Project Title: COMMUNITY INTERVENTION TO REDUCE ADOLESCENT TOBACCO USE

Grantee Institution: MASSACHUSETTS RESEARCH INSTITUTE

Budget Period: 07/01/2000 -- 6/30/2001

Project Period: 07/01/1999 -- 6/30/2004

**AWARD CALCULATION** (U.S. Dollars):

Direct Costs \$163,156

F&A Costs \$49,540

APPROVED BUDGET \$212,696

TOTAL \$212,696

# RECOMMENDED FUTURE SUPPORT

YEAR 03 219,076

YEAR 04 225,648

YEAR 05 232,418

The National Institutes of Health hereby awards a grant to MASSACHUSETTS
RESEARCH INSTITUTE in support of the above referenced project under the
terms and conditions of the Institutional Funding Agreement (IFA) and
the Federal Demonstration Partnership III.

EIN: 1234567890A1

Document No.: R1CA83723A

CAN No.: 8421234

PCC: 003Z1234

Electronically transmitted

# CONTACT INFORMATION

Bill Bandy, Grants Specialist (301)222-0000 bbb3z@nih.gov

Chris Martin, Program Director (301)222-1133 <cmm00@nih.gov>

**ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS**

Your requested rebudgeting to Aim 3, which was not recommended by the
peer reviewers for funding, has not been approved.

Bill Bandy (signature)

> ![](media/image1.wmf)

Attachment #3

+----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| **Mechanism**  | **a.            | ## b. SNAPs     | ## c. IFAs      |
|                | Traditional**   |                 |                 |
| ###            |                 |                 |                 |
|                |                 |                 |                 |
| ### Topic      |                 |                 |                 |
+----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| **1.           | a\) progress    | a\) progress    | a\) progress    |
| Monitoring     |                 |                 |                 |
| focus:**       | b\)             | b\)             | b\)             |
|                | grant-by-grant  | grant-by-grant  | **              |
| **a) Primary** |                 |                 | institutional** |
|                |                 |                 | level, to       |
| **b)           |                 |                 | ensure they can |
| Secondary**    |                 |                 | monitor         |
|                |                 |                 | themselves      |
|                |                 |                 | grant-by-grant. |
+----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| **2.           | Grant-by-grant: | Grant-by grant: | Grantee         |
| Certifications | **all**         | only **humans,  | certifies **in  |
| & Assurances** |                 | animals and     | IFA** that all  |
|                |                 | inventions**.   | (e.g. humans,   |
|                |                 | (Checklist only | animals, civil  |
|                |                 | required on     | rights,         |
|                |                 | exception       | lobbying, etc.) |
|                |                 | basis.)         | will be in      |
|                |                 |                 | place **when    |
|                |                 |                 | required**.     |
+----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| **3. Terms &   | Grant-by-grant  | Grant-by-grant  | **Most in       |
| Conditions**   |                 |                 | IFA**,          |
|                |                 |                 | incorporated by |
|                |                 |                 | reference in    |
|                |                 |                 | award notices   |
+----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| **4. Who       | Institutional   | Institutional   | **PI or**       |
| submits annual | business        | business        | institutional   |
| applic         | official        | official        | business        |
| ation/report** |                 |                 | official        |
+----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| **5. Who signs | PI and          | PI and          | ### a) Instit   |
| annual         | Institutional   | Institutional   | utional busines |
| applica        | business        | business        | s official; or  |
| tion/report?** | official        | official        |                 |
|                |                 |                 | **b) PI, if     |
|                |                 |                 | submitted by    |
|                |                 |                 | PI.             |
|                |                 |                 | Institutional   |
|                |                 |                 | business        |
|                |                 |                 | official held   |
|                |                 |                 | accountable     |
|                |                 |                 | through IFA.**  |
+----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| **6.           | Application     | Application     | ###             |
| Documentation  |                 |                 | Progress report |
| submitted for  |                 |                 |                 |
| non-competing  |                 |                 |                 |
| funding**      |                 |                 |                 |
+----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| **7. Contents  | -Complete PHS   | \-**Portions**  | \-              |
| of             | 2590            | of PH 2590      | \-\-\-\-\-\-\-- |
| non-competing  |                 |                 |                 |
| applic         | -Progress       | -Progress       | -Progress       |
| ation/report** | report          | report          | report          |
|                |                 |                 |                 |
| a)  **Face     | \-\-\-          | \-**SNAP        | -SNAP           |
|     page**     | \-\-\-\-\-\-\-- | questions**     | questions.      |
|                |                 |                 |                 |
| b)  **Budget   | a\)             | a\) yes, except | \               |
|     page and   |                 | for 9a & 9b     | -**Exceptions** |
|     j          | b\)             | (direct and     | (non-routine    |
| ustification** |                 | total costs     | items as        |
|                | **yes**         | requested)      | defined in the  |
| c)  **Current  |                 |                 | IFA)            |
|     budget     | c\)             | b\)             |                 |
|     period     |                 |                 | a\)             |
|     section**  | d\)             | c\) **no**      |                 |
|                |                 |                 | b\)             |
| d)             | e\)             | d\)             |                 |
|  **Checklist** |                 |                 | **no**          |
|                |                 | e\) yes         |                 |
| e              |                 |                 | c\)             |
| )  **Personnel |                 |                 |                 |
|     report**   |                 |                 | d\)             |
|                |                 |                 |                 |
|                |                 |                 | e\)             |
+----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| **8. NIH       | Numerous paper  | Numerous        | **Electronic**  |
| Internal       | checksheets     | **streamlined** | documentation   |
| document       |                 | paper           | of program      |
| preparation    |                 | checksheets     | approval of     |
| and            |                 |                 | progress and    |
| checksheets**  |                 |                 | **exceptional** |
|                |                 |                 | situations      |
+----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| **9. IMPAC II  | Check or        | Same as         | ### Si          |
| processing**   | complete every  | traditional     | gn and release  |
|                | field, even     |                 |                 |
| **(in routine  | data that is    |                 |                 |
| cases)**       | not reported or |                 |                 |
|                | is merged       |                 |                 |
+----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| **10. Award    | \-\-\-\-\-\-\-- | \-\-\-\-\-\--   | **Same          |
| notice**       |                 |                 | fun             |
|                | Usually at      | Often **shorter | ction/purpose** |
|                | least three     | than            |                 |
|                | pages.          | traditional     | **Shorter,      |
|                | **Individual    | NGA**.          | streamlined.    |
|                | terms           |                 | Most terms in   |
|                | documents**     | Lump sum        | IFA.**          |
|                | prepared.       | **amounts not   |                 |
|                | Categorical     | adjusted**.     |                 |
|                | **amounts** may |                 |                 |
|                | be routinely    |                 |                 |
|                | **adjusted**.   |                 |                 |
+----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| **11.          | No change       | No change       | No change       |
| Implications   |                 |                 |                 |
| for OFM, PMS,  |                 |                 |                 |
| obligation**   |                 |                 |                 |
+----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| **12. FSRs**   | ### Annual      | **End** of      | End of project  |
|                |                 | project only    | only            |
+----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| **13. Policy   | ### NIH Guide   | NIH Guide       | NIH Guide.      |
| changes**      |                 |                 | Also, **direct  |
|                |                 |                 | notice for IFA  |
|                |                 |                 | changes**       |
+----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| **14.          | ### No change   | No change       | No change       |
| Post-award     |                 |                 |                 |
| activities**   |                 |                 |                 |
+----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| **15.          | ### No change   | No change       | No change       |
| Close-out**    |                 |                 |                 |
+----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+