Secrets of
Budgeting for
Successful
Grants & Contracts
John C. Bricout
RDO Brown Bag
1
Overview
Key Questions
• Why budget?
• What is a budget?
• What goes into a budget?
• What role does the budget play in the proposal?
• When to develop the budget?
• How should you review the budget?
2
Why Budget?
• To ensure resources (financial, in-kind) sufficient to
complete the proposed project
• To ensure PI accountability for resource allocation
• To demonstrate PI proficiency in appropriately
anticipating costs
• To competitively ‘situate’ the proposed project
against competitors, stated criteria and priorities
3
What is a Budget?
Project item costing
• “Connecting numbers to words…your costs are
reasonable, and worth the results you seek.”
(Browning, 2009, p.39)
Externally focused
• “The audience, not the author drives the
design”(Pugh & Bacon, 2005, p.412)
4
What Goes Into a Budget?
Direct Costs
• Personnel (fringe: faculty .30, student .10)
• Travel
• Equipment
• Materials & Supplies (i.e., software, additional toner)
• Contractual
• Other Direct Costs
o Stipends
o Rent
o Utilities
5
What Goes Into a Budget?
Indirect Costs
• Federal IDC rate = 49.5%
• Standard off-campus rate = 26%
• Mean non-federal rate (2010-2011)
o Using non-zero rates 12% (N=22); all rates 8% (N=34)
• If proposed IDC rate is less than the standard
(Federal or Off-campus) ‘published’ proof is
required of the contracting agency stating that
they will only provide the given rate and a full or
partial waiver form must be completed
6
What Goes Into a Budget?
Facilities & Administrative (indirect costs, or F&A rate)
• Items in the F&A rate that are "ordinary and customary"
for the department to provide…. Usually consisting of a
phone, administrative support, copying etc. These are
items that are part of the F&A rate negotiated with the
feds. (Forsberg)
• There are items that are IDC by definition - not easily
identifiable to a specific project with a high degree of
accuracy - e.g. paper for the copies, monthly phone
charge etc. A P.I. could go to the trouble of identifying
long distance calls to a project. For example, a phone
number is identifiable to a specific project with a high
degree of accuracy (Forsberg).
7
What Goes Into a Budget?
NSF: National Science Foundation
Dr. John Bricout
Title- CPS: Medium: Social Learning in Mixed Human-Robot Networks for People with Disabilities
Project Period: 09/01/10 - 08/31/13
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Total
Salary
Dr. John Bricout
$
11,250.00
$
11,588.00
$
11,935.00
$ 34,773.00
Subtotal Faculty Salary
$
11,250.00
$
11,588.00
$
11,935.00
$ 34,773.00
1 GRA - PhD Student: Fall, Spring & Summer
$
18,000.00
$
18,540.00
$
19,096.00
$ 55,636.00
$
18,000.00
$
18,540.00
$
19,096.00
$ 55,636.00
$
29,250.00
$
30,128.00
$
31,031.00
$ 90,409.00
Faculty @30%
$
Student @10%
$6,000 p/semester for 20hrs/wk, 52wks
Subtotal Student Salary
Subtotal Salary
Fringe Benefits
3,375.00
$
3,476.40
$
3,581.00
$ 10,431.90
$
1,800.00
$
1,854.00
$
1,909.60
$
Subtotal Fringe
$
5,175.00
$
5,330.40
$
5,490.60
$ 15,995.50
Total Personnel Cost
$
34,425.00
$
35,458.40
$
36,521.60
$ 106,404.50
Registration Fee @$600 - est.
$
1,200.00
$
1,200.00
Airfare: $700 - est.
$
1,400.00
$
1,400.00
Local mileage-to DFW -round trip @ .51 cents/mile
$
40.00
$
Baggage fees - $50 round trip
$
100.00
$
100.00
Hotel/Lodging @ $240 p/night for 4 days - Est.
$
1,920.00
$
1,920.00
Airport Parking - 5/days - $20/day
$
200.00
$
200.00
Meals - $36 p/day for 5 days
$
360.00
$
Transportation - Taxi (2 miles from airport)
$
60.00
$
60.00
$
5,280.00
$
5,280.00
5,563.60
Conference
Dr. John Bricout & PhD Student
2012 CSUN Conference - San Diego, CA
Total
40.00
360.00
Trips to UCF - Two Trips
two trips
3-trips to UCF - Orlando, FL - 3/days each
One trip
Local mileage-to DFW -round trip @ .51 cents/mile
$
40.00
$
20.00
$
60.00
Airline Ticket @ $350 round trip
$
700.00
$
350.00
$
1,050.00
Baggage fees - $50 round trip
$
100.00
$
50.00
$
150.00
Hotel - 3/nights @ $150 p/night
$
900.00
$
450.00
$
1,350.00
Airport Parking - 4/days - $20/day
$
160.00
$
80.00
$
240.00
Mode of Transportation while on trip - Car Rental
$
540.00
$
270.00
$
Meals - 4/days - @ $36 p/day
$
288.00
$
144.00
$
432.00
$
2,728.00
$
1,364.00
$
4,092.00
$
800.00
$
400.00
$
400.00
$
400.00
$
400.00
Total
810.00
Other Direct Cost
Conference Calls to UCF
Year 1: 20 Calls @ $40/each, Bi-weekly
$
800.00
Year 2: 10 Calls @ $40/each, Bi-weekly
Year 3: 10 Calls @ $40/each, Bi-weekly
NVivo 8 qualitative software - 3 Computers
$
540.00
$
540.00
NVivo 8 qualitative software - Training - Student
$
300.00
$
300.00
NVivo 8 qualitative software - Training
$
330.00
$
330.00
Expert Consultation on Institution Development - 5 @ $250
$
1,250.00
$
1,250.00
Subject instrumental Piloting - 5 @ $35
$
175.00
$
175.00
Development of Behavioral Log/Data Management Systems
$
2,500.00
$
2,500.00
$
600.00
350.00
$
1,350.00
$
8,924.00
Materials & Supplies
Copy Paper, Toner, 3 Flash Drives
$
400.00
$
Equipment
1 Dell Laptop
$800
Software Fee - Statistical Package
$79
Total
$
7,374.00
$
800.00
$
750.00
Total Direct Cost
$
47,079.00
$
38,986.40
$
38,635.60
$ 124,701.00
$
22,908.00
$
19,298.00
$
19,125.00
$ 61,331.00
$
69,987.00
$
58,284.40
$
57,760.60
$ 186,032.00
Indirect Cost @ 49.5%
Cost to NSF
8
What Goes Into a Budget?
BUDGET JUSTIFICATION
TOTAL REQUEST FROM NSF: over a three-year budget period $186,426
Salaries and Wages:
Over the three year project period, total salary for UTA Principal Investigator (John Bricout) is proposed
at $ 34,773 plus $ 10,431 fringe benefits. Funds are requested for X support in each year for the UTA PI.
Salary has been escalated @ 2% per year, based on historical data. Dr. Bricout will spend his time
developing and testing several new measures over the course of the project: formative and summative
evaluation measures and an index of self-efficacy in adopting new AT, plus an online behavioral log. The
self-efficacy index will involve a small pilot study and expert consultation for item generation, refinement
and instrument development. Dr. Bricout is also responsible for the development and implementation of a
Web-based data management system (online behavioral log) to record and analyze key experience pack
and learning system engagement behaviors of study participants. An expert in the development of Webbased data management systems will be used to design the system.
Graduate Student: Salary for one (1) part-time graduate student is proposed at $ 55,636 for the three year
project period, plus $5,563 in fringe benefits. The graduate student will work under the guidance of Dr.
Bricout to assist in the development of instruments, data collection, and data analysis.
Equipment and Software: see Materials and Supplies.
Domestic Travel: Funds are requested for travel @ $5,280 in year 1, $2,728 in year 2, and $1,364 in
year 3. These funds encompass domestic travel to one conferences per year for the UTA PI and one
graduate student, as well as three round trips to Orlando for the UTA PI to work intensively with the PI
and other Co-PI during the phase one, two and field validation data collection phases in years 1-3.
Materials and Supplies: Funds are requested for materials and supplies @ $8,924 over the project
period (years 1-3). These funds will be utilized to buy a laptop, several flash drives, IBM:SPSS software,
NVivo qualitative software for dedicated machines, NVivo training, copies, paper supplies, toner, etc. An
additional $2,500 is allocated to computer services to pay for the development of the Web-based online
AT behavioral record management system.
Publication Costs: No funds requested.
Consultants: ($1,250) Funds are requested for psychometricians expert in the assistive technology
measurement domain in order to refine the user technology adoption readiness measure prior to field
validation. Specifically, $1,250 is being requested for 5 consultations @ $250 each.
Other Direct Costs: No funds requested
F & A (Indirect Costs): F &A costs are charged at a rate of 49.5% of Modified Total Direct Cost –
excluding equipment and software over $1,000/item. These charges are consistent with UTA’s current
federally negotiated indirect cost rate agreement with DHHS.
9
What Goes Into a Budget?
Federal Grant Budgets - Modular
• “The Modular Grant concept establishes specific
modules or increments in which direct costs must be
requested, as well as a maximum level for
requested budgets of $250,000 direct costs
(excluding any consortium F&A costs). The Modular
Grant application does not require a categorical
breakdown of direct costs requested in the
application; however, other requirements still apply.
Application directions should be reviewed for
specific modular instructions.” (NIH, 2011)
10
What Goes Into a Budget?
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT ARLINGTON
Office of Grant and Contract Services
INDIRECT COST WAIVER REQUEST FORM
Principal Investigator:
Hans Solo
Department: School of Social Work
Sponsor: Obi Wan Kenobi
Project Title: Nothing is impossible: Yoda’s prescription for ending homelessness
In accordance with University policy (GCS Costing Policy), Federal Policy (OMB-A21) and the University’s
Facilities and Administrative Cost Rate Agreement negotiated with the Department of Health and Human
Services, recovery of all costs (direct and indirect costs) associated with any test, research, or investigation
conducted by university personnel or requiring use of University resources must be proposed to external
sponsors at actual cost including the full indirect cost rate of the University. Exceptions to these policies must
be requested and approved by the Vice President for Research or the Director of Research Administration.
The purpose of this form is to request approval for deviation from the policies noted above, particularly regarding
the waiver of indirect costs on proposal budgets when it is in the best interest of the University. This form is only
necessary when the University requests a lower indirect cost rate than what is allowed by the sponsoring
agency.
Total Amount of Indirect Allowed by Sponsor:
10%
LESS Total Amount of Indirect Requested:
$1,000.00
EQUALS Total Waiver of Indirect costs:
$4,000.00
Partial Waiver or
Full Waiver
IDC recovery forgone due to waiver: $1,556 Dean (38.9%) $1,556 Provost (38.9%) $580 VP for Research
(14.5%)
Does the Sponsor limit the total funding for this Project:
No | Yes Funding is limited to:
If yes, and assuming the scope of work cannot be reduced to accommodate the limitation, is there a
need to reduce indirect costs in order to have enough direct costs to meet the work requirements of the
scope of work:
No |
Yes
Is this waiver necessary to meet a cost share requirement:
No |
Yes
PI description of why this waiver is in the best interest of the University:
Signature Approvals:
PI: _____________________________
PI - Chair: ______________________________
PI - Dean: ______________________
Approved
Not Approved
VP for Research or Director of Research Administration: _________________________
IDC W aiver Form – W eb: ___________ Updated October 2007 | GCS Procedure Reference __________
11
Budget Role in the Proposal?
• A plan for allocating scarce resources to achieve
stated proposal aims
• The skeleton of an ideal proposal
• A demonstration of careful planning and good
stewardship
Ideal Proposal
Presents a sensible, readily executable plan with
utterly reliable personnel that yields transformative
results
12
Budget Role in the Proposal?
Key Terms
• Program Officer
• RFP, RFA, RFB, Solicitation
• In-Kind (soft match)
o Existing personnel (time)
o “cost sharing”
• In-Kind (hard match)
o Hiring an FTE for special project
13
Budget Role in the Proposal?
Key Terms
• Bidders' Conference may be held, during which vendors will
be afforded the opportunity to meet with State personnel and
discuss the content of the RFP and the procurement process.
Notification of the time and place of such conference, if held,
will be made to all vendors receiving an RFP for bidding
purposes. Written questions received prior to the cutoff date
for submission of such questions, as noted in Section I of the
RFP, will be answered at the conference without divulging the
source of the query. The State may also accept oral questions
during the conference and will make a reasonable attempt to
provide answers prior to the conclusion of the conference.
Oral answers shall not be binding on the State. (California, Best
Practices)
http://www.bestpractices.osi.ca.gov/sysacq/.%5Cdownloads%5
CTopic%20-%20bidders%20conference.pdf
14
When to Develop the Budget?
• When the proposal content has been determined
• When you have squared your priorities with the
funder’s criterion and priorities
• When the inputs of all key personnel have been
collected
• When current costs are known and projected costs
can reasonably be estimated
15
How to Review the Budget?
• Recheck your cost figures
• Recalculate all the sums
• Review funder’s budget criteria
• Reconcile the budget to the budget narrative
• Find a third party to administer the ‘granny test’
16
Conclusion
• Grant writing takes place in an increasingly
competitive environment - every part counts
• A winning budget is like a winning summary: brief, to
the point and targeted
• Budgets should be characterized by proportionality,
feasibility and clarity
• Give the budget adequate time and attention
• Remember the no-free-lunch rule
17
Bibliography
Browning, B.A. (2009). Grant writing for dummies. New York: Wiley.
Berg, K.M., Gill, T.M., Brown, A.F., Zerzan, J., Elmore, J.G., & Wilson, I.B. (2007). Demystifying the NIH grant
application process. JGIM, 1587-1595.
Brown, M. (1999). Managing Your Research Budget-What You Don’t Know Could Cost You. Postdoc
Academic Chat, 1-22.
Gyong, J.E. (2010). Writing a Competitive Grant Research Proposal in the Social Sciences. Current Research
Journal of Social Sciences, 2(4),249-254.
Higdon, J. & Topp, R. (2004). How to develop a budget for a research proposal. Western Journal of Nursing
Research, 2004, 26(8), 922-929.
Hills, F.S. & Mahoney, T.A. (1978). University Budgets and Organizational Decision Making. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 23(3), 454-465.
Mansfield, E. (1995). Academic research underlying industrial innovations: Sources, characteristics, and
financing. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 77(1), 55-65.
McDonagh, K. T. (2008). Identifying grant funding: Mentored career development and transition awards.
American Society of Hematology, 12-15.
NIMH Director. (2006). Fulfilling the mission during the lean years. Special NIMH Update, 1- 8.
Pugh, D., & Bacon, T.R. (2005). Powerful proposals. New York: Amacom.
Wolff, M & Maurana, C. A. (2001). Building effective community-academic partnerships to improve health: A
qualitative study of perspectives from communities. Academic Medicine, 76(2), 166-172.
18