Research ADministrator Monitoring Checklist

Terms and Conditions

• • Focus on when prior approval is needed for specific actions and what those actions are?

  • Focus on the budget, the budget justification, and on any specified cost restrictions (unallowable costs)

  • What are the reporting and billing requirement requirements and deadlines?

  • Review cost-sharing requirements and who committed $ support in the corresponding cost share attachment in Cayuse? Have matters relating to cost share projects been set up correctly?

Budget

• • Once an award and its projects have been established in iO, the PI will be sent an e-mail notification with the corresponding Award and Project numbers identified. It is at this stage that an Research Administrator will be able to carry out a budget check

  • How does the proposed budget compare to the awarded budget? Has the system (iO) budget been set up accurately? In particular, pay close attention to the following budget categories:

    • Personnel effort (Salaries & Wages)

    • Subcontracts (Subcontracts)

    • Participant Support Costs (link to budgets/budgeting once written)

    • Equipment (Equipment)

In each of the above cases, making significant changes to the budget amounts by category is liable to require prior funder approval.

Schedule an initial 'kick-off' meeting with the faculty 

At the meeting, ask questions that will help direct the next steps. Foremost among these will be...

"Can we review the awarded budget together to make sure everything is set up in the way you're expecting it to be?"

With the starting point of reviewing what was included in the awarded budget, review each item with the faculty for the first budget period and discuss (or develop) associated plans.

• • • Salaries & Wages

Who will be charged to the Award? To which project within the award? To what %age FTE (effort)? In instances where the %age FTE is less than 100%, what will the residual %age for that individual be charged from?

• • • • • Decisions made during this meeting should be communicated to corresponding HCM Initiators, HCM Student Initiators, or to whomever is responsible for Labor Distribution submission, with respect to each individual who will be receiving pay from the award.

    • Subcontracts

If the awarded budget varied in size or composition from the proposal, will this have an impact on the subawards? If any changes are proposed, these need to be communicated by the faculty to the subawardee institution and the development of the contract between Rice and the subawardee institution should factor in this change.

• • • Equipment

The cost of equipment is often located in the first budget period of a project. This makes sense as often the equipment is needed in order to perform experiments and generate research data which can then be analyzed and interpreted. Purchasing procedures for equipment are often slightly more complex than average items.

Communication

Establish an understanding regarding how you will keep each other updated in relation to the management of the award. Indicate that you will be carrying out periodic monitoring of their awards/portfolio and that you would like to meet with them on a regular (monthly/quarterly) basis to bring matters to their attention, collaboratively decide upon any correctives that might need to be applied, and to make sure time is set aside to address any award management questions that arise across the course of the award. Make a standing meeting in your calendar.

How frequently should you meet?

• The most comprehensive approach to achieve this is to make a standing meeting (in person or zoom) in your calendar.

• With complex awards (or award portfolios), this meeting could take place as frequently as weekly.

• Given the time window for cost correction stands at 90 days (Chair approval required for anything over this amount of time), the minimum advisable frequency for this kind of a meeting would be quarterly. 

Is spending in-schedule?

For the purposes of determining whether an award or project is spending in-schedule, the correct way to consider this question is to evaluate the elapsed proportion of the period of performance (%) to date vs the proportion of the budget spent (%) to date.

When the absolute difference between these percentages becomes significant, the spending on a particular award or project can be said to be 'out of schedule'.

When the budget spent %age is significantly greater than the period of performance passed %age then the award or project can be said to be "spending ahead of schedule". When it is significantly less then the award or project can be said to be "spending behind schedule".

The SPFF Monitoring Tool automatically calculates whether spending is in or out of schedule and leaves an advisory on the nature of the schedule deviation for each award. These advisories are shown in the 'Executive Summary' tab. 

When the absolute difference between Budget Spent %age and Period of Performance passed %age is:

• > +25% = "spending is significantly ahead of schedule"

• between +15 and +25%) = "Spending is slightly ahead of schedule"

• between +15% and -15%) = "No issue detected"

• between -15% and -25%) = "Spending is slightly behind schedule"

• < -25% = "spending is significantly behind schedule"

The slicer to the right of the pivot table can be used to show only those awards that fall within any of the above categories that are selected.

The category boundaries are indicative only and intended as a 'first pass' check to highlight awards where there may be cause to spend more time examining the specifics of the award in order to determine concern level and priority for action. 

In certain cases, there are good reasons why spending out of schedule is not necessarily a cause for concern. For instance, an award with equipment is likely to see significant costs incurred at the outset of the award in particular. Other awards might see an increase in salary costs incurred toward the end of the project as analysts become involved in analyzing data generated in earlier years. As is always the case with monitoring, understanding what you expect to see will guide whether or not what you see is an issue or not?

Check Balances by Category

During the award set up phase, the award is assigned budget for expenditure categories correspondent to the budget justification used in the proposal. The budget categories are a reflection of the expected scope and program of research activity that will be taking place within a budgeted period. Checking the balances by category can provide a quick but revealing assessment of the overall award health and should therefore form a part of award monitoring.

• Spending taking place in unbudgeted categories. When this is occurring, the project should either be rebudgeted (with funder approval), or the cost moved to an alternate appropriate charge location where budget of the correct category type exists. The SPFF monitoring tool highlights such instances automatically in the 'Category Balances' tab. 

• Overspending or Underspending in specific categories. Special note should be taken here in relation to category spending that corresponds with a scheduled activity within a particular budget period. 

  • Equipment spending usually takes place early on in the project. Unless otherwise specified in the budget justification, equipment should be purchased within the first year and this should be visible in the category balance.

  • Summer salary charging takes place between May 16th and Aug 15th. Not all Graduate Students receive salary throughout the same period. Consider these factors when evaluating the Salaries and Wages category balance.

Should you calculate and include burn rates?

Burn rates are way of measuring the average per-period (usually monthly) rate of all-type spending by calculating the total spend during several multiples of that period and then dividing the total spend by the number of periods to get the rate.

For example, if total spending over the prior six-month period is $60,000, then the monthly burn rate for that period would be $10,000 ($60,000 divided by six) 

The burn rate can be applied to generate an evaluation of when an award balance is due to reach zero (i.e. when the budget is estimated to be fully spent).

In the example above, if there is a residual balance of $30k on the award, then it can be inferred that a burn rate of $10,000 would cause the balance to reach a zero in an  estimated three months' time ($10,000 x 3 = $30,000).

While burn rate is a useful tool it is not a perfect indicator, and if used as a management instrument, should ideally also be supplemented by a working understanding of likely developments on an award. While past is a good indicator of future, it isn't a perfect indicator.

However, if you are evaluating an award that contains high degrees of uncertainty regarding future encumbered costs, but has has significant body of past data from which to extrapolate future spending overall, burn rates might be the best way to identify if spending is on track or not?

Past and Future Labor Allocation

Labor costs make up the majority of costs on most research projects. Keeping those costs within (or in-schedule with) the allocated budget is a  common monitoring consideration. 

However, there are other significant concerns regarding the management of labor costs. To address these concerns, a variety of checks should take place regularly.

Are individuals correctly allocated to the project?

• Correct allocation in this case means several criteria have been met

  • The individual receiving a salary is performing effort in support of the project or the activity that is integral to the project, is identifiable specifically in relation to the project, is explicitly included in the budget justification for the project, and is not also recovered as indirect costs.

  • It follows therefore that individuals who are not performing effort in support of a project must not be charged to a project. In such cases where individuals are charged incorrectly to projects, those individuals will need to have their salary recharged to an appropriate alternate project or charge location.

  • The %age of effort being performed by the individual receiving the salary is correctly allocated and the period of that allocation is correctly defined (i.e. the end date corresponds to the expected date when effort should cease on the project).

    • Example considerations

      • If an individual is contributing effort to two or more projects, it would be a misrepresentation to certify their effort 100% (FTE) to a single project. The labor allocation should be split in a way that reflects the true distribution of effort. A labor distribution may need to be prepared and submitted that reflects this true distribution.

      • If an individual is allocated to be working on a project through the end of a specific budget period of that project, their labor distribution instruction should include an end date that corresponds to this anticipated end point for their involvement. Not specifying an end date to a labor distribution will lead to an over-calculation of encumbered labor costs to the award, distorting the perceived available balance. A labor distribution may need to be prepared and submitted that represents this true end date.

Cost Types

Federal grants and contract awards must adhere to administrative guidelines presented in the 'Uniform Guidance'. In this context, the guidelines for spending award money are called 'Cost Principles'.

Direct Costs are the costs that get charged to the project in service of the project. 

"Direct costs are those costs that can be identified specifically with a particular final cost objective, such as a Federal award, or other internally or externally funded activity, or that can be directly assigned to such activities relatively easily with a high degree of accuracy"  

Indirect costs are chargeable on federal projects at an institutionally agreed rate. Indirect cost is charged at a percentage upon every eligible direct cost charged. 

Modified Total Direct Costs

Some types of direct cost are not eligible, these are not included as a part of the MTDC.

Modified Total Direct Cost (MTDC) means all direct salaries and wages, applicable fringe benefits, materials and supplies, services, travel, and up to the first $25,000 of each subaward (regardless of the period of performance of the subawards under the award). 

MTDC excludes 

• Equipment. Capital Expenditure greater than $5k

• Patient Care Charges

• Rental Costs

• Tuition Remission. Calculated at 38.5% of the Direct cost of Graduate Student Research Assistant salary

• Scholarships & Fellowships are considered to be a form of financial aid. They are a contribution from an entity that is external to the university that offsets or fully meets the bill for a student's cost of tuition.

• Participant Support Costs are direct costs for items such as stipends or subsistence allowances, travel allowances, and registration fees paid to or on behalf of participants or trainees (but not employees) in connection with conferences, or training projects.

• Portion of Each subaward in excess of $25,000

Of particular note is that when any of these items occur in a standard project, they should not incur Indirect Costs.

In the case of Participant Support Projects, MTDC - excluded direct costs comprise the entirety of a particular budget. In projects such as these, no F&A will charge by default on all associated costs. Participant Support projects should  not include any direct costs that are a part of MTDC (administrators often make the error of charging labor costs to Participant Support projects. )

Checking Costs and Expenditure Types

When checking costs the following basic considerations should be applied in your review

• Are the direct costs that have been incurred in service of the project? If costs have been charged to the project that are nothing to do with the project, those costs must be corrected via NLCT/FBDI (add link to NLCT/FBDI page when written), or via Labor Distribution.

• Have Participant Support costs been charged to a Standard Project? If not then, they must be corrected via NLCT/FBDI. Correspondingly if standard project costs have been charged to a Participant Support project, then this too must be corrected via NLCT/FBDI.

Are costs allowable under federal guidelines, corresponding Rice policy, the specific call guidance relating to the proposal (link can be found within the cayuse record), the overall funder guidelines (usually these can be found via a web search), and (perhaps most definitively) are the costs categorically consistent with the funder-approved budget justification from the proposal (this is attached to the cayuse record)?

There is no 'one size fits all' set of allowable costs given the potential for an approved budget justification to extend beyond the boundaries of what is generally allowed or generally not allowed. 

There is an extensive list of cost categories that are considered 'not allowed' (link), the most frequently encountered among these being as follows

• advertising

• alcoholic beverages

• bad debt expenses

• donations

• entertainment

• fines and penalties

• fund-raising

• lobbying

Certain costs are obviously inappropriate to a particular project, even when they might be obviously appropriate on another project. This is why factors such as reasonableness and allocability must be factored into considerations of allowability of a cost.

The SPFF monitoring tool categorizes all Non-Labor costs using a non-definitive set of criteria that indicate the likelihood of something being allowable or not allowable. The categorizations of the tool are generally not absolute, and do not take into account  the nuances of specific funders and the terms and conditions of individual awards. It does not take into account reasonableness nor do they take into account allocability. The categories ('Generally Allowable', 'Generally Not Allowable', 'Not Allowed', 'Faculty Fund Only', and 'See Budget Justification') are indicative and may be considered as a notification that might cause the research administrator to investigate specific allowability further by referencing funder guidelines, call guidelines, or the budget justification. The monitoring tool's advisories are not exhaustive and should be considered a 'first pass' check only and not a full check.

When unallowable or inappropriate non labor costs are found, they should be moved to a correct charge location via NLCT/FBDI. Moving any such costs more than 90 days after the costs are charged to the award will require chair approval (see NLCT/FBDI pages for process - add link when written).

Subaward Monitoring

(With reference to Rice policy 307, and the RADAR subawards page where the different subaward types are explained)

When Rice is the pass-through entity they contract to a subrecipient who is carrying out a portion of the work covered under a sponsored project agreement with a funder. In these circumstances,  Rice maintains a level of responsibility for the financial and programmatic conduct engaged in by the subrecipient. The contract between Rice and the subrecipient provides a framework for the payment of the subrecipients costs by Rice, and also for Rice to hold the subrecipient accountable relative to 

• The subrecipient achieves programmatic goals

• That the costs incurred by the subrecipient are reasonable, allowable, and allocable

• That the work conducted by the subrecipient is conducted in compliance with with laws, regulation, and terms of the award

There are review points at which the monitoring of subaward activity take place. Perhaps the most common review point should be when a faculty receives a subrecipient invoice and is one of two parties asked to sign it thus enabling payment to be progressed. Prior to signing the PI should consider the category and amounts of costs being billed for, and evaluate these in relation to the agreed scope of work of the subrecipient. Do the category types and amounts match what the PI is expecting to see? 

Secondly, both the PI, and the other signee (the Project Manager) should review the subrecipient invoice to ensure that it is compliant with terms and conditions and that the amounts billed are not excessively divergent with those that would be reasonably expected at a particular point in time in the award. 

As is the case with the award overall, a subrecipient can be ahead or behind schedule in terms of how much they've invoiced relative to budgeted funds vs what proportion of total project time has passed. The SPFF Subaward Monitoring Tool provides an automated assessment of this. Subrecipients that are either significantly ahead of or significantly behind schedule should be prompted to slow or speed up their invoicing activity correspondingly. 

As a minimum, a check should also take place to make sure the incoming invoice type from a subrecipient is eligible relative to the terms of the award? Is the invoice one that bills for costs incurred, or an advance invoice? If one type is expected and the other is received from the subrecipient then don't sign it off and work with the subrecipient to ensure the correct invoice type is sent instead.

If there are concerns that relate to billing amount, composition, or invoice type then don't sign the invoice. If the PI has concerns about the subrecipient not carrying out work relative to programmatic goals then they should not sign the invoice. If the issues cannot be worked out with a conversation with the subrecipient PI, in relation to the contract clauses that both parties have signed off on, then Rice's RCA subcontracts team should potentially be involved.  

An alternate review point for a subcontractor is when a Purchase Order corresponding to the subcontractor's agreed budget for a specific budget period within an award expires and must be extended for a subsequent budget period. In this scenario RCA Subcontracts will ask the PI via a series of questions in an e-mail if they are satisfied with the performance and actions of the subrecipient. The extension of the purchase order for a new budget period and amount will only proceed if the Rice PI provides authorization by way of answering all the questions posed to them by RCA subcontracts about the subrecipient with an affirmative response.

Prepare and share a report

When meeting with faculty to discuss the management of their award/s, having a common frame of reference for the discussion is a hugely valuable focal point and time-saver. Preparing and sharing (in advance) a report that speaks to the management concerns of both Research Administrator and Faculty should be one of two goals of the Research Administrator going into a monitoring meeting.

A well-designed report will be organized in such a way that it facilitates interpretation and analysis. A report may contain some degree of automated analysis within it, but as each award has unique goals & scope (which will determine the allocability and reasonableness of costs charged to it) the main purpose of a report is to present the current picture, the expected future picture, and to highlight notable recent activity for discussion.

The SPFF Monitoring Tool and SPFF Subaward Monitoring Tool can be used for this purpose. They can be shared with appropriate faculty in the spreadsheet format. If you'd prefer to share a printout or a PDF, the properties of these reports are pre-customized to print all content except the slicers.  Make sure you remember to do the following things when printing or printing to PDF.

1) Right-click hide the yellow (data) and red (power query table) tabs. If left unhidden, they will be a part of the print document and will likely make the printout excessively large.

2) At the 'Print' menu before clicking 'Print', be sure the 'settings' are as follows

• 'Print Entire Workbook'

• 'Landscape orientation'

• 'Fit All Columns on One Page'

When sharing data with faculty, be it as an excel spreadsheet or a PDF, save it to a secure box folder and control access to it appropriately. Share the access link with faculty and do not attach the file to an e-mail.

Maintain a persistent 'to do' list or some other form of operational log

The second goal of the Research Administrator prior to going into a monitoring meeting with faculty, should be to have reviewed the report they have produced, including reviewing any extra levels of detailed data in iO (as needed), and to have reviewed and updated an existing 'to-do' action list that was updated (or created) during or after the previous monitoring meeting (or 'kick-off' meeting). 

Maintaining an ongoing list of this kind will form an invaluable log of decisions and actions over time and enable management continuity, especially if support for the faculty moves from one research administrator to another at some stage during the award. 

Prepare actionable advisories

While the PI is responsible for the awards in their portfolio, it is the responsibility of the research administrator to anticipate management issues, and consider potential resolutions (should there be more than one way to solve an issue).

Items from the list or log that the faculty member should be aware of, and especially those that require a decision input from the faculty member, should be raised with faculty at a monitoring meeting. After an issue has been explained, remedies should be suggested (including any caveats that each remedy option might bring). 

These actionable advisories will expand a PI's perspective and empower them to take more effective management decisions. Record and date such PI decisions in the log. 

If there are specific recurring areas of management that the faculty member wishes to delegate decision making to their Post Doc, Executive Director, Project Coordinator, or even to the Research Administrator, make sure to note down when this was agreed, and what it specifically covers within the list or log. There are some matters that are role-specific and cannot be delegated (for example the PI role in effort certification and in subcontractor invoice sign-off cannot be delegated).

1. Begin by taking account of prior to-do actions that were identified at the previous meeting. Were previously identified action items completed correctly?

2. Review the report with the faculty, check the awards one by one and make sure to hit the following questions

3. Salaries & Wages. Are they properly allocated? 

   • • Missing personnel? Remove Personnel? Adjust end date? Adjust %?

     • Asking this question regularly is necessary for good award management, and it will especially help you as the research administrator when it comes to the twice-yearly obligation to review and pre-certify effort on each project. By ensuring salary allocation remains accurate, the effort certification process should proceed smoothly.

3. Allowability of Non-Labor costs. Are the costs that have posted since the previous monitoring meeting, allowable, allocable, reasonable, and consistent? 

• Are there any dubious or uncertain non-labor charges that have posted to bring to the attention of faculty for their verification? 

4. Subcontracts. Funding used for purposes authorized? Scope of work on target?

• Is the subcontractor submitting timely invoices?

• If there is an issue with subaward spending being outside of schedule, should either the faculty or the administrator reach out (internally or externally) to ensure the issue is addressed?

• Is project performance aligned with spending? If needed, remind the faculty that their signature on subcontract invoices is the primary means by which oversight on this question is achieved. If there's an issue of this nature, they must make the RA aware, and if the issue goes unresolved, RCA subcontracts team must also be made aware.

5. Budgets and Rebudgets. Any changes to budget, period of performance, or scope of work?

• Are there awards approaching end date (within 90 days of award end) that are on track to conclude with unspent budget? Do these awards need a formal Non Cost Extension (NCE) request to be made to the funder (via OSP)?

• Are there any significant changes to the composition of the award budget that the faculty has in mind for any of their awards? Are there any significant changes in scope proposed? 

  • If there's a change in scope, this will often require prior approval from the funder

  • If there's a significant (>25%) change in budget composition (rebudget), this will generally require approval from the funder 

    • In such an instance the proposed updated budget composition should be calculated by the Research Administrator

    • The PI should contact their award representative or program officer to indicate their strategic intention for the rebudget and the financial breakdown by category of how the rebudget would look like. 

    • Once the funder has given approval, the Research Administrator will need to submit a rebudget request to RCA via iO ticket. This will enable RCA to update the budget categories in iO to correspond.

6. Purchase Orders. Review existing and future purchasing actions 

• Open purchase orders. Have all items/services been received? Should the POs be closed?

• Are any new purchases expected? Will the research administrator need to be involved?

7. Review action items from the meeting to ensure they are recorded correctly and any actions that need to be assigned to the Research Administrator or the PI are clearly assigned.

This closeout checklist template lists the actions that should be addressed and checked off as an award moves into closeout phase. 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zKvbSSa90Pcq6V3tto0kXnEcfydDen1yHtFOVO-pIGE/edit?usp=sharing 

Go to the 'File' menu and select 'make a copy'. Use the copy and not the template as your checklist.

The closeout phase begins approximately 90 days before the end date of the award. The SPFF monitoring tool flags awards that are moving into, or are already in, this phase. 

Note that awards that will end in the next 30 days are also flagged within iO/dashboards/Administrator SPFF Dashboard/Summary/Award and Project Metrics/Awards Closing in the next 30 days.