UNIFORM GUIDANCE AT
K-STATE
2 CFR PART 200 – UNIFORM
ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS, COST
PRINCIPLES, AND AUDIT REQUIREMENTS
FOR FEDERAL AWARDS
OLD
 U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circulars –
 OMB Circular A-21, Cost Principles for Educational Institutions,
Relocated to 2 CFR, Part 220 .
 OMB Circular A-110, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants
and Other Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals
and Other Non-Profit Organizations. Relocated to 2 CFR, Part 215 .
 OMB Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments and Non-
Profit Organizations (and the annual Compliance Supplement).
 Note:
•
•
These Circulars will be remain applicable to existing awards (in all but a few very rare
situations).
If existing awards are continued, modified, or receive additional funding, new
guidance could be applied, or some combination of new and old may apply.
NEW!
 2 CFR Part 200 – Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost
Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards
•
Federal agencies were required to have implementing policies and
procedures in place by December 26, 2014.
•
This guidance supersedes and streamlines requirements from eight OMB
Circulars, including the three listed above for higher education institutions.
Written by the Council on Financial Assistance Reform (COFAR). COFAR
includes representatives from OMB and ten federal agencies.
Full text of the guidance can be found in the Electronic Code of Federal
Regulations (e-CFR). eCFR — Code of Federal Regulations
• Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ’s) and other resources can be found on
the COFAR website. COFAR | The Chief Financial Officers Council
•
What’s in a name?
 The official name for the new requirements is
pretty long. Some of the shortened versions include
Omni-Circular, Super-Circular, Omni-Guidance…
 We’ll keep it simple and go with the one that is
being used by the Federal agencies and most of the
non-Federal entities (universities):
Uniform Guidance (UG)
Format of the Uniform Guidance
Sections are cited as 2 CFR 200.xxx.
We will shorten to .xxx in most situations.
.0- .99
 .100 -.113
 .200 -.211

 .300 -.345
 .400 -.475
 .500 -.521
Subpart A: Acronyms and Definitions
Subpart B: General Provisions
Subpart C: Pre-Federal Requirements and Contents of
Federal Awards (previously found in A-110)
Subpart D: Standards for Financial and
Program Management (previously found in A-110)
Subpart E: Cost Principles (previously found A-21)
Subpart F: Audit Requirements (previously A-133)
 Appendices I – XI: Appendix III applies directly to Institutions of Higher
Education (IHE’s) and contains rules and procedures for F&A rate
determination previously found in A-21
Effective Dates of Uniform Guidance


For new awards issued on or after December 26, 2014.
May be applied to funding increments or continuations of
existing awards at the Federal agency’s discretion.
 How will you know which one applies to your department’s
awards? We will include the information in award # e-mails from our
office. We are also adding a field in FIS in the Awards module under the
“Terms & Conditions” tab.

Procurement Standards:


Optional grace period for implementation. K-State is using this option
and will delay implementation until FY2017. The Purchasing office is
working on plans to have everyone ready by then.
Audit Requirements effective for K-State for FY2016 (first FY
beginning on or after 12/26/2014).
Trivia & Jargon
 Should vs. Must
 “Must” means it is mandatory – you gotta do it!
 “Should” means it is recommended – if you don’t do it, fine,
but you better have a good reason or a better idea.
 IHE : Institution of Higher Education
 Non-federal entity: generic term used to refer to all
of the different groups subject to the UG, such as
IHE’s, States, Non-Profits, Indian Tribes, etc.
 Top contender for most-used phrase: Internal
Control(s)
Significant Changes?
 Yes and No. Lots of details changed, overall things are much the same.
As OMB expert analyst Gil Tran says “same, same but different”.
 Prior approvals required for certain costs– long list!
 Re-budgeting rules (and related status of Research Terms &
Conditions) .
 Sub-recipients: F&A rates, risk assessment, monitoring .
Remember, K-State not only issues sub-awards to others, but
ALSO is a sub-recipient of Federal funds.
 Close out deadlines .
 Equipment purchases and title to equipment.
 Procurement rules. Some fairly painful changes for universities
once the grace period for implementation has passed.
 Other misc. items of interest: Effort reporting, program income,
participant support costs, voluntary committed cost sharing.
Prior Written Approvals (.407)
 This section provides a reference list of all other sections
of the UG where prior approvals are required.


Items listed must meet all other direct cost standards (reasonable
and allocable), but also need specific prior (written) approval.
20+ UG sections are listed, but for details you have to go to the
referenced section (and hunt!).
 We have attempted to put together a table with more details all in
one place. This will be incorporated into the SPA PPM and
website.
 Additional guidance for certain costs has also been developed to
assist K-State departments when developing budgets and charging
costs to sponsored accounts. We will continue to develop and
make additions to this guidance.
Re-budgeting and Prior Written Approvals –
Any Waivers?
 Individual agencies may waive specific prior approvals listed in the
Uniform Guidance. We are working on a list of these as we identify them.
 Example: NIH promises that, via their Grants Policy Stmt., they will continue to
allow purchases of special purpose equipment over $5,000 and unrecovered
indirect costs as cost sharing without prior approvals.
 Institutional prior approvals (“OPAS” or “Expanded Authorities”) that
apply to research awards
 are still available per .308 (d)(4). Included is approval of 90 day pre-award costs,
a one-time no-cost time extension, carryforward of unobligated balances, and rebudgeting of many costs.
 were previously incorporated into federal research awards through the Research
Terms and Conditions (RTC). New RTC’s must be developed and approved
under UG.
 Until the new RTC is available these items must be incorporated in the individual
awards and/or the agency’s implementation of the UG. Watch new awards
carefully! (There is some discussion of making new RTC apply retroactively…)
Prior Approvals –
Selected items of interest at K-State
 Administrative & Clerical Salaries
 Four conditions are imposed for direct charging these costs.



Only three of the four are actually of concern to departments.
One of the three conditions is the requirement for prior written approval.
The remaining two conditions require institutional definitions for “integral” and “specifically
identifiable”.
 Additional K-State guidance includes




examples of administrative and clerical duties.
a list of common job titles at K-State of employees that perform such duties.
a threshold of 25% time (FTE) devoted to the project in order to be considered specifically
identifiable.
a requirement to include in the budget narrative a description of why the duties are integral
to the project – significant, unique, unusual in nature and volume, etc.
Prior Approvals –
Selected items of interest at K-State
 Computing Devices
 UG provides definitions along with criteria for direct charging
of computing supplies vs. computing equipment.
Computing supplies allowable when “essential and allocable”.
 Computing equipment (both scientific and general purpose) is
allowable only with prior written approval.


Additional K-State guidance includes
Definitions from the UG for computing device, supply vs.
equipment, general purpose vs. scientific.
 a list of criteria for direct charging of computing supplies.
 Includes a 75% usage threshold for charging the 100% of the
cost to one project.

Prior Approvals –
Selected items of interest at K-State
 Sub-Awards
 Must be described and included in the approved Federal award and any rebudgeting to accommodate sub-awards requires prior written approval
(.308(c)(6)).

Additional considerations for Fixed Amount sub-awards:



Limited to the federal Simplified Acquisition Threshold - currently $150,000, and
must have prior written approval (.332).
 COFAR FAQ’s indicate it is allowable to have multiple sub-awards to the same
recipient that total more than $150,000, if each have a distinct statement of
work.
Fixed amount sub-awards are also included in the prior approval re-budgeting
requirements in .308(c)(6).
Other conditions for Fixed Amount awards are found in .201(b). Special items to
note include:
 Cannot be used in programs that require mandatory cost sharing or match.
 Certification is required at the end of the program to ensure that the activity was
completed or appropriate level of effort was expended. If not, the Federal award
must be adjusted.
Other Sub-award items of interest
 Sub-recipient vs. contractor determinations (.201(a) and .330)
o Case-by-case determination and use of the appropriate type of agreement is the
responsibility of the pass-through entity (K-State).
o UG emphasizes that substance is more important than form.
o Sub-recipients criteria includes:
•
Performance measured against objectives of Federal program.
•
Programmatic decision making.
•
Need for adherence to Federal program requirements.
o Contractor criteria includes:
•
•
•
•
Provides goods/services within normal business operations.
Provides similar goods and services to many different purchasers.
Operates in a competitive environment.
Not subject to compliance requirements of the Federal program
(agreement/contract should not include such).
Other Sub-award items of interest
• Indirect Cost Rate for Sub-recipients (.331(a)(4))
o
All pass-through entities must include in each sub-award
agreement…
•
•
The sub-recipient’s federally recognized, negotiated rate, if they
have one
If not:
• Negotiate a rate with the sub-recipient or
• Use the de minimus rate of 10% MTDC (.414(f))
Other Sub-award items of interest
 Risk assessment of sub-recipients (.331(b))
Evaluate each sub-recipient's risk of noncompliance with Federal
statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward . . .
 Office of Pre-Award Services (PAS)
•

Check suspension and debarment
Sponsored Programs Accounting (SPA)
•
Is sub-recipient subject to Single Audit (Subpart F—Audit
Requirements formerly A-133 Audit)?
Other Sub-award items of interest
 Monitoring of sub-recipients must include reviewing
financial and performance reports required by the
pass-through entity (.331(d)(1)).
 SPA & department/college business offices review
financial reports.
 PIs receive and review performance indicators, reports.
BEST PRACTICE: You should have the PI approve
invoices before payments are issued to subrecipients so
that PI can alert us if we need to hold payments for lack of
performance. PI certification forms required before final
payment will be approved by SPA.
Prior Approvals –
Selected items of interest at K-State
 Participant Costs

Definition


Direct costs for items such as stipends or travel allowances and
registration fees paid to or on behalf of participants or trainees (but
not employees) in connection with conferences or training projects
(.75).
Prior approvals
Required in order to be an allowable cost (.456).
 Once approved, prior approval is also required to re-budget/use these
funds for other project purposes (.308 (c)(5)).


Excluded from MTDC base (.68)

Not new at K-State! Participant costs are recorded in the E56xx object
code range. We have always excluded those from the MTDC base.
Many of our sub-recipients haven’t done this, however.
Prior Approvals –
Selected items of interest at K-State
 Equipment: Purchasing and Title

Prior approval is required for purchases of scientific and general
purpose equipment to be allowable
Special purpose is defined in .89. Examples include microscopes,
spectrometers, x-ray machines.
 General purpose is defined in .48. Examples include office
equipment, information technology equipment, motor vehicles.


Title is conditional per .313. Property-trust relationship explained in
.316.
Not new, just more apparent! Title continues to vest upon acquisition
in most cases and is conditional on meeting the requirements for use.
 Generally need to request disposition instructions (including ability to
retain title) at the end of the project.
 K-State procedures need to be better defined – we are working on it!

Prior Approvals –
Selected items of interest at K-State
 Additional Faculty Salary (Excess Service Pay) (.430)
 Definition: any amount that exceeds the proportionate share of
the Institutional Base Salary (IBS). IBS is the annual
compensation paid for an individual’s appointment.
 Prior approval is needed for Excess Service Pay (overload) in
order to be allowable, including
Excess pay for the period during which the faculty member worked
on the award.
 Excess pay for intra-institutional consulting. Approval is
dependent on meeting the criteria for “unusual” circumstances
described in this section.


A number of other standards for allowability are outlined in
this section. Enough for a separate training session!
Other Items of Interest
 Program Income


Not really any changes here, but initially drew some attention due to
some changes in wording. FAQ’s clarified that there were no new
requirements for reporting, etc.
BUT - Do you know what Program Income is?


Gross income earned by the non-Federal entity that is directly
generated by a supported activity or earned as a result of the Federal
award during the period of performance. (.80)
Do you understand how program income can/must be used?

Need to identify early - at the proposal stage if possible. Need to
account for it separately and understand allowable usage.
 The “addition” method of usage is the default treatment for IHE’s
and non-profit research institutions.
 Other methods include using it for cost sharing or matching (with
prior approval) or deducting it from total project costs.
Other Items of Interest
 Effort Reporting
 Some language in these sections was removed and modified
but the overall requirement for effort reporting remains. The
intent was to allow IHE’s more flexibility in implementation of
individual systems. The audit community, however, is a
driving force in what is ultimately deemed as acceptable.
 The Federal Demonstration Partnership (FDP) is working on a
simplified approach that could serve as a model for all, but it
is still in the testing phase.
 No changes at K-State at this point in time.
Other Items of Interest
 Voluntary committed cost sharing is defined in


OMB’s M-01-06 as cost sharing specifically pledged in the proposal’s budget or award that
must be properly documented for cost accounting purposes.
.99 as cost sharing specifically pledged on a voluntary basis in the proposal’s budget or the
Federal award on the part of the non-Federal entity and that becomes a binding requirement
of the Federal award.
 .306 states that for Federal research proposals, voluntary committed cost
sharing



is not expected.
cannot be used as a factor in merit review process.
may be considered if it is both in accordance with Federal agency regulations and specified
in notice of funding opportunity.
 Problems with Voluntary Committed Cost Sharing



Creates additional administrative burden.
Eliminates flexibility in the use of limited institutional funds.
Can create a negative effect on K-State’s next proposed F&A Cost Rate.
Other Items of Interest
 Closeout Deadlines

There has been a longstanding requirement for closeout (financial, performance, property,
other reports, cash draws or invoices, etc.) 90 days after the end date. Language has been
strengthened and pressure has been put on the Federal agencies to make sure this happens.

Many agencies have or are implementing related technology changes.


For example, many agencies are closing the Letter of Credit for individual awards immediately
after the 90-day limit.
One federal agency has removed awards from our Letter of Credit whenever there has been no
activity for 90 days. We can get it back, but SPA staff must provide justification...ugh!
 Food for thought:

How often do you have all costs for an award submitted for payment within 90 days? If not
submitted in that timeframe, have you provided us with an accurate outstanding obligations list
in that timeframe?

And if you take the full 90 days (to submit expenditures for posting OR prepare the outstanding
obligations list), no time is left for Sponsored Programs Accounting office to request final
payments, review and submit reports, etc. before the agency closes the account.

And what about our sub-recipients? Or when we are the sub-recipient and our sponsor has to
meet the 90-day limit?
That’s all folks! (Well, for now anyway…)
 There should be many opportunities for learning as
the agencies, auditors and our flow-through sponsors
each interpret and apply the rules.
 Sponsored Programs Accounting staff are available
by phone, e-mail or open door, as always!
 Updates and lessons learned will be provided
through the SPA list-serve (KSUSPA), monthly
newsletters, and training events.