Research Administration
For Scientists
COMP 290-083
Tim Quigg
Associate Chair for Administration and Finance
Department of Computer Science
UNC-Chapel Hill
TNT’s From Last Week
TNT 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.
“A good plan executed right now is far better
than a perfect plan executed next week.”
George S. Patton
TNT 7: When the time comes to “push the button”,
don’t be afraid even if the proposal isn’t
perfect.
• 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!
COMP 290-083
TNT 7: When the time comes to “push the button”,
don’t be afraid even if the proposal isn’t perfect.
• “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
COMP 290-083
TNT 7: When the time comes to “push the button”,
don’t be afraid even if the proposal isn’t perfect.
• 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
COMP 290-083
“Failure is the opportunity to begin again,
more intelligently.”
Henry Ford
TNT 8: Treat every rejected proposal as an
opportunity to learn.
• Many good, fundable proposals are not funded
because the agency ran out of money
• Request a copy of the reviewers comments (and
numeric score where applicable)
COMP 290-083
TNT 8: Treat every rejected proposal as an
opportunity to learn.
• 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?
COMP 290-083
TNT 8: Treat every rejected proposal as an
opportunity to learn.
Remember
Proposal writing is an iterative process.
Many successful proposals were not
funded on their first submission!
COMP 290-083
“Life is like riding a bicycle. You don’t fall
off unless you stop pedaling.”
Claude Pepper
TNT 9: Don’t give up! Proposal writing is a
learned skill.
COMP 290-083
When did the
federal government
become involved
in funding
university research?
History: External Support for
University Research in U.S.
•
Before WWII
• 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 thensegregated 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
COMP 290-083
History: External Support for
University Research in U.S.
•
During WWII
• 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
COMP 290-083
• NSF $ = approximately 3% of all federal R&D
expenditures
Federal Assistance
Types of Support
• 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
•
Cost-Reimbursement (CRC)
• 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)
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
COMP 290-083
Contracting Process
Purchase Request
(Requisition)
• Requirements
• Authorization
• Administrative Detail
Contract
Office
Request for Quotation (RFQ) Information Only (Standard Form 18)
Invitation to Bids (IFB)
Solicitation
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
•
•
•
•
Sealed Bids (offers)
Uniform contract format
Public opening
Price and price-related
factors considered
Contract Issued
DISTINGUISHING CONTRACT, GRANTS
AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS
Procurement
Research
Requirement
Contract
Co-op Agreement (Substantial
Relationship)
Grant
Principally for
Public support
Or stimulation
• 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
3 P’s – Patron (Grant): Partner (Co-op Agreement): Purchaser (Contract)