About FDP

1
The University of Texas at Arlington Office of
Research and Office of Accounting and Business
Services Brown Bag Training Session V The
Federal Demonstration Partnership (FDP)
2
UTA Involvement

• FDP includes three representatives from each
  research institution
• Policy and Procedure Issues Dr. Marianne Woods
  mwoods_at_uta.edu
• Faculty concerns Dr. Kaushik De
  kaushik_at_uta.edu
• Electronic Research Administration Jeremy
  Forsberg j.forsberg_at_uta.edu

3
About FDP

• FDP has developed into a vital forum where
  institutional representatives and Federal
  agencies can air common concerns and issues
  regarding developing processes and policies

4
About FDP

• FDP
• Is a formal collaboration between federal
  agencies and research institutions
• Streamlines the administrative process and
  minimizes administrative burden while maintaining
  effective stewardship of federal funds
• Is a place where federal agencies and
  institutions can evaluate new ideas relative to
  research administration

5
About FDP

• The FDP
• Is a forum to discuss and evaluate options
• Is a test bed for demonstrations
• Increased research productivity

6
About FDP

• Issues and Policies are evaluated and reported by
  committees and task forces
• Demonstrations or Pilot Projects may be created
  to test ideas
• Cost Analysis performed for the reduced or
  increased burden
• Federal Agencies participate and want to know
  results

7
About FDP

• How does a group of government bureaucracies
  create or enforce change in policy for the
  better?
• Representatives from the Office of Management and
  Budget (OMB) attend FDP meetings and receive cost
  analysis reports
• Federal Government Agencies are graded with
  scorecards
• Example Various Federal Electronic Systems
  Increased time Faculty spent on administrative
  tasks and decreased their research time

8
FDP History

• Phase I (Florida Demonstration Project) 1986 -
  1988
• Phase II (Federal Demonstration Project) 1988
  1996
• 21 institutions/consortia 11 federal agencies
• Phase III (FDP) 1996 2002
• 65 institutions 11 federal agencies 6
  affiliate members
• Phase IV (FDP) 2002 2008
• 90 institutions 10 federal agencies

9
FDP Phase I and IIAccomplishments

• Implemented (mostly) common, streamlined terms
  and conditions for research grants
• Increased budget flexibility
• No cost time extensions
• Pre-award costs
• Carry-forward across continuation years
• Technical progress reports / minimal continuation
  proposals
• Revised OMB A-110

10
Phase II Survey

• A survey on the impact of these expanded
  authorities on principal investigators produced
  striking results-73 of the time saved by PIs
  was redirected to research.

11
Highlights of Phase III

• Electronic Research Administration (ERA)
• Cost Sharing and Effort Reporting
• Award Terms and Conditions
• Subawards

12
FDP Phase I - III

• Accomplishments
• Expanded Authorities
• Clarification of OMB circulars
• Federal government and institutions realized cost
  savings
• Simplified terms conditions

13
FDP Phase IV

• Participating Federal Agencies
• National Science Foundation (NSF)
• National Institutes of Health (NIH)
• Office of Naval Research (ONR)
• Department of Energy (DOE)
• Department of Agriculture (DOA)
• Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR)
• Army Research Office (ARO)
• Army Medical Research Materials Command (AMRMC)
• National Aeronautics Space Administration
  (NASA)
• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

14
FDP Phase IV

• Specific Terms and conditions for FDP member
  institutions
• Only pertain to Federal grants
• Apply only to Federal Agencies participating in
  FDP
• Typically apply only to new or competing renewals
  awarded after September 2002

15
Phase IV Electronic Research Administration (ERA)

• Issue
• Each Federal Agency wanted to create their own
  system based on their individual forms
• Universities created their own ERA systems
• Universities and Federal Agencies kept recreating
  the wheel

16
Phase IV Electronic Research Administration (ERA)

• Solution
• E-grants (www.grants.gov)
• Standard Data Elements
• Web based
• One stop portal for Federal grant proposal
  submission and award administration
• Expected to be completed by October 2003

17
Phase IV Top Policy Issues

• Common electronic standards for proposal/award
  and payment processes
• Compliance issues including costs, development of
  education training modules, and Institutional
  Conflict of Interest policies.
• Cost Sharing and Effort Reporting
• Sub-Awards and Contracts

18
Phase IV Top Policy Issues

• Post 9-11
• Security and compliance
• Student Visas
• Additional policies and burden

19
FDP Faculty Involvement

• It gives academic researchers an opportunity to
  inject the faculty perspective into research
  administration issues, as well as a forum to take
  on broad issues of interest to the research
  community, such as research outcome measures, the
  interrelationship of teaching and research, and
  voluntary, uncompensated effort contributed to
  federally funded research projects

20
FDP Research Administration Involvement

• For administrators it offers a chance to help
  change federal policies and practices that may
  appear redundant or burdensome through open
  dialogue with their federal partners and through
  use of a standard set of grant provisions for all
  participating federal agencies

21
FDP Federal Government Involvement

• For federal agencies the FDP is a realworld
  laboratory for developing and testing innovations

22
FDP Benefits

• For the nation, the FDP saves taxpayers dollars
  and lets researchers concentrate on research
• Find out more at www.thefdp.org

23
Brown Bag Training Session

• March To be Announced
• Cost Sharing Basics
• Pros and Cons