Electronic Submission of Administrative Supplement and Change of Institution Requests

1
Electronic Submission of Administrative
Supplement and Change of Institution Requests

• David Curren and Emily Linde
• Office of Policy for Extramural Research
  Administration

2
Background

• All new grant applications eligible for
  electronic submission are received through
  Grants.gov using the SF424 (RR).
• Some post-award applications cannot be submitted
  electronically and utilize paper-based PHS 398
  forms.
• Type 7 Changes of Institution
• Type 3 Administrative Supplement Requests
• NIH is looking for ways to accept these requests
  electronically.

3
Todays Goal

• Collect Initial Feedback Before Performing
  Detailed Analysis or Development Work
• Identify Pros and Cons to various approaches from
  the grantee perspective.
• Discuss which approach best meets the applicable
  business needs.
• Identify issues for future implementation
  discussions after we finalize which approach will
  work best.

4
Electronic Submission of Administrative
Supplements

• Type 3s

5
Proposed Solutions for Type 3 Administrative
Supplements

• Potential Solution 1 Create a generic
  Administrative Supplement FOA in Grants.gov
  grantees can use to request funds using the SF424
  (RR) package
• Potential Solution 2 Create an eRA Commons
  module that can accept these requests and take
  advantage of existing grant data already in NIH
  systems.

6
Potential Grants.gov Solution Proposed Design

• Generic FOA for administrative supplements will
  be posted to Grants.gov.
• Will include all SF424 (RR) forms grantees
  potentially need
• Utilize minimal validations since it would apply
  to so many activity codes.
• Applicants will need to provide title and grant
  number of parent grant on application.
• Budget will be based on new request, not based on
  original budget.

7
Potential Grants.gov Solution Proposed Design

• Application will be submitted through Grants.gov
  and will be viewable in the eRA Commons, per the
  usual process.
• NIH will route the application directly to the
  awarding IC (and notify the proper NIH staff) who
  will consider the request.

8
Potential Grants.gov Solution Pros and Cons

• Pros
• Uses the same process for all application types.
• Does not require applicants to learn new system.
• Infrastructure already in place development only
  needed to adapt system to new use.
• Easier for S2S users to accommodate.
• Cons
• Increased burden of requiring full SF424
  applications from users
• NIH flexibility greatly reduced
• Continues reliance on Grants.gov system.

9
Potential eRA Commons Solution Proposed Design

• PD/PIs or AOs will access an existing grant on
  the Commons and see a link/button to the
  Supplement Request module
• Module will include downloadable copy of the 424
  forms or web-based form system for data entry.
• PD/PI can fill out but only AO can submit
• NIH will route the application directly to the
  awarding IC (and notify the proper NIH staff) who
  will consider the request.

10
Potential eRA Commons Solution Pros and Cons

• Pros
• NIH will have flexibility of owning system.
• Access to existing NIH grant data could be used
  to simplify application process.
• Potentially more user-friendly than G.g system.
• Cons
• Requires different system than other applications
• Duplicates existing Grants.gov functions and
  requires creation of new infrastructure to create
  and accept applications.
• S2S users may have difficulty accommodating.

11
Potential Grants.gov Solution Additional
Questions

• Overall, would one or both of these be an
  improvement over the current paper-based system?
• Are there any show-stoppers to these approaches?
• What are your biggest concerns to these
  approaches?
• What are the largest benefits to these approaches?

12
Electronic Submission of Change of Institution
Requests

• Type 7s

13
Potential Grants.Gov Solution for Type 7
Change of Institution

• Potential Solution 1 Create a generic Change of
  Institution FOA in Grants.gov grantees can use
  to request funds using the SF424 (RR) package.
• Same as for type 3s except
• Old institution would have to submit the PHS 3734
  Relinquishing Statement separately, probably
  through the eRA Commons.

14
Potential Grants.gov Solution Pros and Cons

• Pros
• Same as type 3
• Cons
• Same as type 3 except
• Due to form constraints cant submit budgets in
  non-modular increments and most T7s are no longer
  in modular increments.
• System would not handle the PHS 3734, which would
  be submitted separately through the eRA Commons.

15
Potential eRA Commons Solution for Type 7
Change of Institution

• Potential Solution 2 Create an eRA Commons
  module that can accept Type 7 applications and
  PHS 3734 and potentially take advantage of
  existing grant data already in NIH systems.
• Same as for type 3s except
• Old institution would have to submit the PHS 3734
  separately but this would be integrated into the
  same eRA Commons Module.

16
Potential eRA Commons Solution Pros and Cons

• Pros
• Same as type 3 except
• System can handle submission of both the T7
  application and PHS 3734 Relinquishing Statement
  in the same module.
• Could potentially be programmed to handle budgets
  initially submitted as modular but no longer in
  modular increments.
• Cons
• Same as type 3

17
Potential Grants.gov Solution Additional
Questions

• Overall, would one or both of these be an
  improvement over the current paper-based system?
• Are there any show-stoppers to these approaches?
• What are your biggest concerns to these
  approaches?
• What are the largest benefits to these approaches?

18
Questions?