# Presentation: 439255

## Proposed Agenda for CWG Meeting, May 16, 2001Morning Session

**Consensus on existing interfaces**
- Analysis of feedback from CWG members
**Commons V 2.0 Architecture**
- J2EE Concept and Benefits
- Timeline for design and development
**Anticipation of V 2.0 Functional Requirements**
- Institutional Registration : DUNS
- Profiles: Single point of ownership
- Status: Improved Reporting to include “institutional view”

## Why is there a Noncompeting Award Process?
Grants Policy Considerations
Historical Perspective
What we’ve tried before
Proposed changes in current SNAP process
Administrative information
Scientific Progress Report and Related information
Assurances and Certifications

- Grants Policy Considerations
- Historical Perspective
- What we’ve tried before
- Proposed changes in current SNAP process
- Administrative information
- Scientific Progress Report and Related information
- Assurances and Certifications

- Proposed Agenda for CWG Meeting, May 16, 2001Afternoon Session

## Progress Reporting—Policy & Historical Perspective

## Scientific Reporting Requirements45 CFR Pt 74.51 (A-110)

- At least annually, not more frequently than quarterly
- Final report within 90 days after expiration
- Should include: 1) comparison of actual accomplishments w/goals & objectives; 2) reasons why established goals were not met; 3) other pertinent info e.g., cost overruns
- Should immediately report developments that have significant impact on the award-supported activities, including problems, delays or adverse conditions

## Scientific Reporting Requirements(HHS GAM)

- HHS GPD 2.04: B.2 Optional Policy for Noncompeting Continuation Applications:
- OPDIVs can accept progress reports in lieu of complete application packages when evaluating noncompeting continuation award.

## Fiscal Monitoring (45 CFR Pt 74.52)

- Financial Status Report (SF269 or SF269A)
- Due 90 days after the end of each specified reporting period
- Annual requirement can be waived when PMS272 will provide adequate information to meet its needs.  However, final FSR still required at completion of the project period
- Report of Federal Cash Transactions (PMS-272)--Quarterly submission

## Efforts to Streamline Progress Report

**FDP T-5 Simplification Pilot**
- Began 10/1/89
- Eliminated Budget Page (unless change of scope)
- Eliminated Other Support (unless changed)
- NIH Withdrew from pilot 9/30/92

**Notes:**
NIH Withdrew from pilot 9/30/92

## Efforts to Streamline Progress Report (cont.)

**SNAP Phase 1 (FY 95)**
- Eliminated budget page
- Eliminated estimated report of expenditures
- Added SNAP Qs on key personnel changes, significant rebudgeting, other support, unobligated balances > 25%

## Efforts to Streamline Progress Report (cont.)

**SNAP Phase II (FY96)**
- For T-5s, eliminated categorical awards (lump sum DC & F&A costs only)
- Simultaneously implemented total cost commitments for future years for **all** awards
- Also implemented most recent definition of significant rebudgeting

**Notes:**
Total Cost Commitments were implemented to provide greater stability & predictability
Significant Rebudgeting as defined in PHS GPS 4/1/94 revision = cummulative amount of transfers among DC categories for the current budget period exceeds 25% of total amount awarded or $250K, whichever is less

## Efforts to Streamline Progress Report (cont.)

**SNAP Phase III (July 1996)**
- Eliminated annual FSR--required only at end of competitive segment
- NIH staff uses PMS 272 as fiscal monitoring tool
- Still have 1 SNAP question that addresses large balances

## Efforts to Streamline Progress Report (cont.)

**Revised 2590 (4/98)**
- SNAP Process incorporated in instructions
- Eliminated Checklist unless change in performance site that affects F&A
- 7/99 Amended instructions to include requirement of checklist if program income anticipated

## Efforts to Streamline Progress Report (cont.)

**E-SNAP**
- Development began FY97
- Pilot began 7/99
- Pilot concluded 3/01
**Revised NIH GPS (3/01)**
- Redefined Significant Rebudgeting (now only a change in scope indicator)

## Efforts to Streamline Progress Report (cont.)

**Revised 2590—Proposed Changes FY01**
- Changed name to “Progress Report”
- Eliminates concept of “Application”
- SNAP Q on significant rebudgeting eliminated

## SNAP:  Progress Reporting

| SCIENCE
REPORTING | CURRENT SNAP | MASTER
AGREEMENT | IFA | NIH
REINVENTION
CONCEPT |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Abstract | Part of Competing Application Only
(Public) | Same as Current SNAP
 | Updated with Progress Report
(Public) | Updated Annually in the Fall
(Public) |

## SNAP:  Progress Reporting

| SCIENCE
REPORTING | CURRENT SNAP | MASTER
AGREEMENT | IFA | NIH
REINVENTION
CONCEPT |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Progress
Report | Annual Submission 2 Months Prior to Start Date | Same as Current SNAP | Same as Current SNAP | Anytime But Must Be Submitted in the Fall
(Confidential) |
| Research
Accomplishments | Part of Progress Report | Same as Current SNAP | Same as Current SNAP | Submit in the Fall as a Brief Narrative (Public) |

## SNAP:  Progress Reporting

| SCIENCE
REPORTING | CURRENT SNAP | MASTER
AGREEMENT | IFA | NIH
REINVENTION
CONCEPT |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| SNAP Questions | Part of Progress Report | Same as Current SNAP | Same as Current SNAP | Not Addressed |
| Citations | Listed in Annual Submission & 1 Copy | Same as Current SNAP | Same as Current SNAP | Anytime with Web Link to Publication |

## SNAP:  Progress Reporting

| Administrative Assurance. & Certifications | CURRENT SNAP | MASTER
AGREEMENT | IFA | NIH
REINVENTION
CONCEPT |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Human Subjects | Information Required with Annual Progress Report | Same as Current SNAP | Once A Year Reporting on All Grants  | Not Addressed |
| Animal Subject | Information Required with Annual Progress Report | Same as Current SNAP | Once A Year Reporting on All Grants  | Not Addressed |
| Other | Signature on Face Page | Same as Current SNAP | Part of Agreement No Institutional Signature | Not Addressed
 |

## SNAP:  Progress Reporting

| Other SNAP issues | CURRENT SNAP | MASTER
AGREEMENT | IFA | NIH
REINVENTION
CONCEPT |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Financial Reporting | Quarterly PMS 272 and FSR at End Competitive Segment | Same as Current SNAP | Same as Current SNAP | Not Addressed |
| Notice of Grant Award | Total Direct and Indirect Costs for  Each Grant | 1 Award for All SNAPs at 1 Time | Same as Current SNAP | Same as Current SNAP |

## IPF Number

- Basic Identifier for Grantee Institution
-  IPF# is absolutely fixed for grant award
-  No IPF# = No Award
- 7 digits (8 available)
- Fixed relationship between IPF# and EIN#
- One to many  (There may be several EIN’s for a single IPF)

## IPF Limitations

- Not Universal – unique only to NIH
- Limited number of combinations
- Will need to retool for 8 digits within the coming year
- Not easy to adjust to new institutional hierarchies
- e.g. institutional relationships with foundations, sub-campus hierarchies

## DUNS Numbers

- Dunn & Bradstreet –
- Leading provider of business information for credit, marketing, purchasing, and receivables management decisions worldwide.
- 9 digit number (+ 4 optional)
- 9 digits verified, 4 digits at institutional discretion
- e.g. university campus = first 9, additional 4 = school/dept etc.
- Obtained free
- Via Web
- Confirmed by D&B staff
- Verifiable on-line...anytime

## DUNS Benefits

- Universal number adopted by 62 million businesses worldwide
- DUNS provides links to describe organizational hierarchies
- Used as identifier by U.S. Govt. Contracting
- Required for Central Contractor Registry
- Promoted by Federal Commons for grantee unique identifier

## Current NIH Procedure for IPF Validation

-   Entry of EIN number appearing on hard copy grant application via I2 R&R interface
-   Software business rule compares EIN with acceptable values for given institution
-   If acceptable, application proceeds by assignment of corresponding IPF
-   If no match, application purposely receives negative IPF (e.g. –1)
- Further processing requires manual confirmation of EIN, e.g. via telephone

## Current IPF Implementation

**IMPAC II**

- Paper Application       Electronic Application

**Grantee Organization**

- Assignment of IPF by DEIS staff to correspond with one or more EIN#’s

- CSR R & R Interface compare EIN on form with IMPAC II

- Include EIN#
- on Form 398

- Entry of EIN to IPF specification in IMPAC II

## Proposed Implementation of DUNS

**IMPAC II**

**NIH Commons**

- Paper Application       Electronic Application

**Grantee Organization**

- Assignment of DUNS
- number(s) by D & B

- Creation/
- modification of Commons IPF to include DUNS numbers

-      Log onto Commons with
-       DUNS

- Commons Registration

- CSR R & R Interface compare DUNS on form with IMPAC II

- .   Verification of DUNS by IMPAC II Staff
- .   Inclusion of DUNS in IMPAC II institutional profile

- Access to Restricted Commons Interfaces – eventual submission of electronic applications

-   Include DUNS
-    on Form 398

## DUNS Implementation Questions

- Necessary modifications to IMPAC II database and related interfaces?
- Necessary modifications to Commons database and related user interfaces?
- Outreach: institutional awareness and receipt of DUNS numbers?
- Deployment of Commons to support extended use of DUNS?
- Must allow for transitional use of IPF and DUNS
- Must allow for tansitional use of DUNS on 398 and DUNS via electronic applications

## Single Point of Ownership for PPF-Related Information

- Premise
-    PPF-related information; name, address, expertise, employment record, educational experience, publications, funding record, can be likened to similar information found in a curriculum vitae. In this respect it must be treated as personal property.  Without the expressed permission of the owner of the information, others should not modify such elements of a personal electronic record any more than they would modify a paper-based c.v. record.

## Benefits of Single Point of PPF Ownership

- _Data Accuracy_ – Owner has most accurate assessment of information.  Allowing any second party to change the information potentially affects accuracy
- _Data Timeliness_ – The owner is the first to know of any bone fide changes in the information, e.g. change in name or address. They can have the most timely effect to maintain an accurate record

## Single Point of Ownership Benefits...cont.

- _Removal of Multiple Profiles_ – Multiple profile records can be resolved (once and for all) with singly-owned profiles. This will save ~$2,000,000/year currently being spent to resolve and remove duplicate profiles.
- _Streamlining of Commons/IMPAC II Replication_ –  Replication design for “Race” conditions can be streamlined with singly-owned profiles.  This also translates into lower operations and maintenance costs

## Single Point of Ownership Benefits...cont.

- _Simplified Interagency Information Exchange_ – Federal Commons-related information exchange will be more reliable with uniform singly-owned profiles.

## Single Point of Ownership Drawback

- _Inconvenience to IC Staff_ – IC staff rely on preferred version of personal information.

## Suggested Design to Accommodate Single Point of Ownership

- Observe single point of ownership
- Profile creation yields unique IMPAC II person profile I.D.
- I.D. is immutable
- I.D. always points to same profile
- Can only be modified by profile owner
- Allow for NIH staff to create surrogate profiles
- Variants of any profile created by NIH staff
- Variant always bounded by singly-owned profile through IMPAC II person profile I.D.
- i.e., NIH view can change, but profile is constant