Research AdministrationFor Scientists

COMP 290-083

Tim Quigg

Associate Chair for Administration and Finance

Department of Computer Science

UNC-Chapel Hill

TNT’s From Last WeekTNT 1: Learn as much as you can about the agency, the

program and the program officer.

TNT 2: Prepare a written proposal development timeline and follow it.

TNT 3: Agencies fund people, not just ideas.

TNT 4: Quality Trumps Quantity Every Time.

TNT 5: Budget should be the “right size”, neither too large nor too small.

TNT 6: Criticism from the right sources can be helpful.

TNT 7: When the time comes to “push the button”, don’t be afraid even if the proposal isn’t

perfect.

COMP 290-083

“A good plan executed right now is far better than a perfect plan executed next week.”

George S. Patton

• If you wait to have children till you can afford them, you never will have them

• Likewise, if you wait till a proposal is perfect, you’ll never submit one

• And, if you never submit one – you dramatically reduce your chances of getting one funded!

TNT 7: When the time comes to “push the button”, don’t be afraid even if the proposal isn’t perfect.

COMP 290-083

• “Don’t push the river. It will flow by itself.”

• Be patient, many funding agencies take about six months to complete process

• It is considered inappropriate to contact the program officer while a proposal is under review

• Successful proposals usually get a call from the program officer

TNT 7: When the time comes to “push the button”, don’t be afraid even if the proposal isn’t perfect.

COMP 290-083

• Rejections usually come by snail mail or email

• If the time frame listed in the program announcement has passed, it is acceptable to inquire of the program officer to see if the timeline for the review process has been revised

TNT 8: Treat every rejected proposal as an opportunity to learn.

COMP 290-083

“Failure is the opportunity to begin again, more intelligently.”

Henry Ford

• Many good, fundable proposals are not funded because the agency ran out of money

• Request a copy of the reviewers comments (andnumeric score where applicable)

TNT 8: Treat every rejected proposal as an opportunity to learn.

COMP 290-083

• Accept the comments as valuable input

• The reviewer may not have understood your point.

• But whose job is it to make them understand?

• Obviously it’s yours!

• How can you more clearly communicate your message?

• They may have found “holes” in your presentation.

• How can you improve the description of the science?

TNT 8: Treat every rejected proposal as an opportunity to learn.

COMP 290-083

Remember

Proposal writing is an iterative process.

Many successful proposals were not

funded on their first submission!

TNT 9: Don’t give up! Proposal writing is a learned skill.

COMP 290-083

“Life is like riding a bicycle. You don’t fall off unless you stop pedaling.”

Claude Pepper

When did the

federal government

become involved

in funding

university research?

• Before WWII

COMP 290-083

History: External Support for University Research in U.S.

• Mainly internal sources

• Notable exception – Agriculture

• Morrill Act of 1862: Land-Grant Colleges

• 30,000 acres of federal land/congressional representative to each State

COMP 290-083

History: External Support for University Research in U.S.

• Sold to provide an endowment for:• “at least one college where the leading object shall be,

without excluding other scientific and classical studies and including military tactics, to teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and the mechanic arts…”

• Kentucky (50¢/acre) – Cornell ($5.50/acre)

COMP 290-083

History: External Support for University Research in U.S.• Second Morrill Act of 1890

• In order to get $, State had to show that race was not a criterion for admission to land-grant

institution or

• Designate a separate land-grant college for blacks

• “1890 land-grants” created all over the then-segregated South

COMP 290-083

History: External Support for University Research in U.S.• Hatch Act of 1887: Agriculture Experiment

Station• Annual appropriation – State match required

• Smith-Lever Act of 1914: Cooperative Extension Service

• Annual appropriation – State match required

• Current federal $ from various acts > $550 million annually

• During WWII

COMP 290-083

History: External Support for University Research in U.S.

• University scientists mobilized to apply expertise to war effort

• National Defense Research Council

• Formed by FDR in June, 1940

• Forum for bringing university/industry/ government scientists together

• 18 month “head-start” on Pearl Harbor

COMP 290-083

History: External Support for University Research in U.S.

• Office of Scientific Research and Defense (OSRD)

• May 1941

• Dr. Vannevar Bush, Director

• Mission “to explore a possible government role to

encourage future scientific progress.”

• Civilian, not military, control

COMP 290-083

History: External Support for University Research in U.S.

• OSRD contracted work to other institutions

• Large rocket lab at Carnegie Institute of Technology

• Radiation lab at MIT

• Bush’s final report The Endless Frontier

• Two principles for expanding R & D in U.S. universities

• Federal government as patron of science

• Government support should ensure a free rein of investigation by scientists into topics and methods of their choice

COMP 290-083

History: External Support for University Research in U.S.

• This report lead to the establishment of National Science Foundation (NSF) in 1950

• Independent government agency

• National Science Board

• 24 members plus director

• Appointed by President

• Responsible for promoting science and engineering

• $3.3 billion/year

• 20,000 active research and education projects

• NSF $ = approximately 3% of all federal R&D expenditures

Types of Support

COMP 290-083

Federal Assistance

• Mandatory – block grants, formula-driven• Discretionary – competitively awarded

Modes of Support• Grants – assistance• Contracts – procurement/acquisition• Cooperative Agreements – assistance but with

strings attached

COMP 290-083

Grants

• Broad Agency Announcements (BAA), Program Solicitation• Financial Assistance Award• Made for stated purpose (proposal/award)• Made for stated period of time (project period)• Made to an organization in the name of a Principal

Investigator (PI)• No substantial programmatic involvement by awarding

agency• Funding may be annual, multi-year or for entire budget

period• Minimum of limiting conditions

COMP 290-083

Contracts

• RFP and IFB• Mutually binding legal relationship that binds the seller to

deliver certain specified goods or services (deliverables) in exchange for certain specified consideration (e.g., money)

• Terms are usually detailed and specific

• Activities frequently dictated by sponsor (buyer)

• Less latitude to modify scope of work and line-item expenditures

• Funding may be incremental, tied to work components, final payment (e.g. 10%) may be held till “acceptance” of

deliverables

• Process governed by the FAR (Federal Acquisition Regulation)

COMP 290-083

Contract Types

• Pays allowable costs to extent provided• Contractor must have adequate accounting system

to track applicable costs• Contains limitation of costs clause (LOC) – government will only pay estimated costs

• Variations include:• Cost-sharing (CSC)• Cost-plus-incentive fee (CPIF)• Cost-plus-fixed fee (CPFF)

• Cost-Reimbursement (CRC)

COMP 290-083

Contract Types

• Fixed Price (FPC)

• Price-based, not cost-based• Price defined in contract (by unit or deliverable)• May be firm or adjustable (Economic circumstances, profit, etc.)

COMP 290-083

Cooperative Agreements

• Financial Assistance Award• Similar to grant except

• There is substantial programmatic involvement by awarding agency.

• Principal purpose is to transfer money or something of value to recipient in order to accomplish a public purpose.

COMP 290-083

Cooperative Agreements

• Agencies have substantial freedom to structure the terms and conditions (T&Cs)

• Agencies must issue CA regulations

• Often differ from standard assistance regulations and may even resemble acquisition regulations

Contracting ProcessPurchase Request (Requisition)• Requirements• Authorization• Administrative Detail

Contract Office

Solicitation

Request for Quotation (RFQ) -Information Only (Standard Form 18)

Request for Proposal (RFP)

• Other-than-sealed-bids (offers)• Uniform contract format• Negotiated procurement

• Bargaining• Offerors may revise offer

• Awards made on quality and cost factors• Technical excellence• Management capabilities• Personnel Qualifications• Prior experience

Contract Issued

Invitation to Bids (IFB)

• Sealed Bids (offers)• Uniform contract format• Public opening• Price and price-related factors considered

3 P’s – Patron (Grant): Partner (Co-op Agreement): Purchaser (Contract)

• Idea for the project is initiated by the investigator.

• No substantial involvement between the grantor and grantee.

• Grantor has no expectation of a specified service or end product

Grant

DISTINGUISHING CONTRACT, GRANTS AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS

Research Requirement

Procurement Contract

YESNO

Principally forPublic supportOr stimulation

Co-op Agreement (SubstantialRelationship)