Federal Register comments

3145-0058 Supporting Statement, Exhibit 2
Public Notice of the National Science Foundation's intent to revise the NSF Proposal & Award Policies and Procedures Guide was published in the Federal Register, May 9, 2014, at 79 FR 26778.

The following details the public comments received in response to the request for public comment as well as the NSF Response

Comments Received in Response to the Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) (27 Comments)
NSF Resolution
GPG Section and Topic
Source
Comment
GPG, Chapter I.F.2.
Council on Governmental
We encourage NSF to add additional clarification and modification to this section The section has been revised to delete "prior" from the approval
that reflect more accurately the challenges faced in natural and/or anthropogenic requirement, given the unanticipated nature of natural or anthropogenic
Inclement Weather Policy
Relations
events. The ability of a potential applicant to request prior approval for natural or events.
anthropogenic events can be severely affected by the very event that prevents
timely submission.
GPG, Chapter I.F.2.
Inclement Weather Policy

Council on Governmental
Relations

We request that NSF modify this section to include a provision for: 1) notification
by the potential applicant as soon as possible but no later than five (5) days after
the event and, based on that notification; 2) a determination and authorization,
as appropriate, by the program officer for a late submission. NSF could alleviate
the anxiety associated with unanticipated institutional closings by providing a
standard exception for situations of short duration. Campuses can be closed for a
variety of reasons including natural or anthropogenic events, which can require
several days to return to normal operations. The recommendation above can help
address that situation. Recently, however, campuses have been closed for a day
for “man-made” events including sightings of armed assailants and other health
and safety issues. We ask NSF to consider a standard exception of one day (next
business day) for applicants whose campus is closed for an unanticipated event.
The application could be submitted with documentation from the authorized
institutional official or the official’s designee.

The section has been updated to specifically address the closure of NSF.
Additionally, the revised language developed by NSF provides greater
flexibility than the language proposed by the commenter. NSF believes
that such flexibility is important given the nature of the deviation
request.

Similarly, we suggest that NSF consider a standard provision for late submission in
those cases where NSF is unable to operate because of natural, anthropogenic,
and weather related or other events. Such a provision could set a specific number
of days after the event for a new submission deadline. For example, in the case of
closures because of inclement weather, the deadline could be set as the day
following reopening of federal offices. Any deviations from this standard could be
announced on the NSF website.

GPG, Chapter I.F.2.
Inclement Weather Policy

Cold Spring Harbor
Laboratory

Recommend that this policy provide additional flexibility for “after the fact
approval”, for circumstances such as unforeseen natural disasters that may not
have allowed an investigator or institution to seek and obtain NSF approval prior
to the deadline.

Comment has been addressed by the inclusion of a new change which
authorizes an after the fact approval.

GPG, Chapter II.C.2.d.(ii)
Massachusetts Institute of
Use of URLs outside the Project Technology
Description

Can the NSF policy on URLs in other documents be clarified? In the Project
description, we understand that these are discouraged per GPG II.C.2.d.ii.

NSF believes the existing language on inclusion of URLs is clearly
articulated and further action is neither necessary nor appropriate.

At MIT, we have had a couple of funding divisions ask for proposal file updates to
remove links from the references biographical sketches whereas other divisions
do not require this. The GPG states that appropriate citations for references cited
(II.C.2.e) or Biosketch “products” (II.C.2.f) may include URLs, so it’s unclear how
to treat this as many PDF generating programs automatically treat URLs as links.
GPG, Chapter II.C.2.f.(i)(e)
Biographical Sketches:
Collaborators & Other
Affiliations

Massachusetts Institute of
Technology

Biosketch section (e) adds “the total number of collaborators and co-editors also This change will be highighted in the Summary of Significant Changes.
must be identified”. Should this change versus 14-1 be highlighted?

GPG, Chapter II.C.2.f.(ii)
Biographical Sketches: Other
Personnel

Massachusetts Institue of
Technology

This section suggests that information on the qualifications other personnel may
be included, but it is unclear where this should be included. FastLane does not
include a place to upload biosketches for non-senior personnel. Can the correct
place to include non-senior bio information be specified?

New language has been added to the Biographical Sketch(es) instructions
which states: "Such information should be clearly identified as 'Other
Personnel' biographical information and uploaded along with the
Biosketches for Senior Personnel in the Biosketches section of the
proposal."

GPG, Chapter II.C.2.g.(ii);
AAG, Chapter V.B.1.b.
Fringe Benefits

University of Wisconsin

Both of these sections describe the ability of the grantee to charge fringe benefits
as direct costs, given that charges are made in accordance with usual accounting
practices and/or with approval of the cognizant federal agency. Reference also is
made to 2 CFR § 200.431, within which part (b)(3)(i) states that, "Payments for
unused leave when an employee retires or terminates employment are allowable
as indirect costs in the year of payment." We want to confirm our understanding
that NSF policy does not preclude costs of unused leave at retirement and
termination from being directly charged to NSF awards. We recognize that NSF
policy indicates that such payments may be subject to reasonableness
determination. Additionally, we seek affirmation that 2 CFR § 200.431 is
incorporated into NSF policy to acknowledge that such unused leave also may be
allowable as indrect costs and is not a directive to institutions to charge such costs
as indirect costs.

This issue will be addressed in the latest version of the Frequently Asked
Questions that are being developed by the Office of Management and
Budget. As such, it would not be appropriate for the issue to be resolved
by NSF.

GPG, Chapter II.C.2.g.(vi)
Other Direct Costs

Trish Lowney

“Examples include…. And construction of equipment or systems not available off- Language has now been modified to help eliminate confusion regarding
the shelf.”
where equipment should be addressed in the budget.
Confusing: doesn’t fabricated equipment (construction of equipment or systems
not available off-the-shelf) that meets the institution’s capitalization threshold
(e.g., $5,000) ought to be included in the equipment budget line (e.g., MRI
development options awards)?

GPG, Chapter II.C.2.g.(vi)(a)
University of Alabama
Materials & Supplies, including
Costs of Computing Devices

The University appreciates the clarification that a computing device is a supply as Language has been incorporated as requested.
long as it does not meet the lesser of institution’s capitalization level or $5,000. It
would be helpful if the PAPPG also included in this section the following
statement found at 200.453(c) in the Uniform Guidance:
“In the specific case of computing devices, charging as direct costs is allowable for
devices that are essential and allocable, but not solely dedicated, to the
performance of a Federal Award.”

GPG, Chapter II.C.2.g.(vi)(c)
Consultant Services

Trish Lowney

“… services rendered by persons who are members of a particular profession….
And who are not officers or employees of the proposing institution….”
Clarify whether or not “persons” include organizations / entities that meet
definition of contractor and should be managed by a contract for provision of
consultant services.
Clarify whether that the contracting vehicle to be used must comply with
Appendix II of the UG.

NSF has implemented consultant services consistent with 2 CFR 200.459
which states: "Costs of professional and consultant services rendered by
persons who are members of a particular profession or possess a special
skill, and who are not officers or employees of the non-Federal entity, are
allowable, subject to paragraphs (b) and (c) when reasonable in relation
to the services rendered and when not contingent upon recovery of the
costs from the Federal government. In addition, legal and related services
are limited under § 200.435 Defense and prosecution of criminal and civil
proceedings, claims, appeals and patent infringements." As such, it
would not be appropriate to deviate from this language.
Additional language has been added to the consultant services section to
address compliance with Appendix II of the Uniform Guidance.

GPG, Chapter II.C.2.g.(vi)(d)
Computer Services

Council on Governmental
Relations

We appreciate that NSF has acknowledged that computing devices below an
Additional language has been added to point users to the appropriate
institution’s equipment threshold are allowable. However, per Chapter
section of the budget preparation instructions for guidance on the
II.2C.g.(vi)(d), the reference to “computer equipment” may create confusion in
acquisition of computing devices.
the community by suggesting that computing devices are unallowable. Per this
section: “As noted in Chapter II.C.2.g.(iii) above, general purpose (such as word
processing, spreadsheets, communication) computer equipment should not be
requested.” We request that you consider deleting this reference, since most such
devices do not rise to the level of equipment. Or, alternatively, reinforcement
that computing devices below an institution’s equipment threshold are allowable
would be a helpful footnote to include and would be an important reminder to
auditors of the differentiation between supplies and equipment.

GPG, Chapter II.C.2.g.(vi)(e)
Subawards, Foreign
Subrecipients

Massachusetts Institue of
Technology

In GPG II.C.2.g.vi.e, the old policy that foreign subawardees are not eligible for
Language in both the subaward and indirect cost sections of the Grant
indirect costs is mentioned. However, GPG II.C.2.g.viii references 2 CFR 200.414, Proposal Guide have been revised to clarify application of a de minimus
which indicates a 10% de minimus rate is allowable for foreign grantees. Should rate.
this also apply to foreign subawardees?

GPG, Chapter II.C.2.g.(vi)(e)
Subawards, Foreign
Subrecipients

University of Minnesota

The phrase is inconsistent with the Uniform Guidance's section 200.331, which
allows for a 10% MTDC de minimus rate. The ability to apply the 10% MTDC de
minimus rate is correctly spelled out on the following page (II-18) in the indirect
cost section. It would be helpful to have the first reference corrected to avoid
confusion.

Language in both the subaward and indirect cost sections of the Grant
Proposal Guide have been revised to clarify application of a de minimus
rate.

GPG, Chapter II.C.2.g.(vi)(e)
Subawards, Budgets

University of Wisconsin

NSF recently clarified that each proposal's budget justification is limited to three
pages, including a collaborative proposal from a single organization that contains
a subaward(s). However, if a subaward is requested post-award, a proposer may
submit up to a three-page budget justification for each subaward. This creates an
inconsistency regarding what is submitted to obtain a subaward approval. A
subaward budget justification may contain critical information regarding
proposed costs, and we recommend that all subawards be allowed to include a
budget justification of up to three pages, regardless of whether they are
submitted with a new proposal or as a post-award action.

GPG, Chapter II.C.2.g.(viii)
Indirect Cost

Council on Governmental
Relations

The first two sections referenced above state: “Foreign grantees that have never Language in both the subaward and indirect cost sections of the Grant
had a negotiated indirect cost rate, are limited to an indirect cost rate recovery of Proposal Guide have been revised to clarify application of a de minimus
rate.
10% of modified total direct costs. Foreign grantees that have a negotiated rate
agreement with a U.S. federal agency may recover indirect costs at the current
negotiated rate.” This seems to suggest that this rule would not be applicable to
domestic grantees; we request that this section be clarified to state these rules
apply to all grantees. The third reference above states: “Foreign subrecipients are
not eligible for indirect cost recovery unless the subrecipient has a previously
negotiated rate agreement with a U.S. Federal agency that has a practice of
negotiating rates with foreign entities.” This seems to be inconsistent with the
previously referenced sections and the Uniform Guidance; we request that this
section be updated, accordingly.

GPG, Chapter II.C.2.g.(viii)
Indirect Cost

Trish Lowney

Foreign Grantees that have never had negotiated IDC are limited to 10% MTDC.
Seems to conflicts with II-17 / (e ) Subawards: foreign subrecipients not eligible
for IDC.

This request has been incorporated and language has now been revised
to read as follows: "Each proposal must contain a budget for each year of
support requested, unless a particular program solicitation stipulates
otherwise. The budget justification must be no more than three pages
per proposal.... For proposals that contain a subaward(s), each subaward
must include a separate budget justification of no more than three
pages."

Language in both the subaward and indirect cost sections of the Grant
Proposal Guide have been revised to clarify application of a de minimus
rate.

Consistency needed or otherwise explain why handled differently D14.
GPG, Chapter II.C.2.g.(viii).
Indirect Cost

University of Minnesota

We would like to take this opportunity to thank NSF for its clear and unambiguous Thank-you. No NSF response required.
statement in its proposed implementation plan about the need for pass-through
entities to honor their subrecipient's negotiated F&A rate. NSF's well-articulated
position on this supports full cost recovery.

GPG, Chapter II.D.3..
Ideas Lab

Council on Governmental
Relations

It is not clear what the nature and extent of support from NSF will be for
participants in Stage 3 of the Ideas Lab. If a participant is expected to travel
and/or contribute substantial portions of their time – substantial enough to reallocate their institutional responsibilities – we believe the institution should be a
party to any agreement to participate. If, as indicated, the Stage 2 selection
process uses the preliminary proposal format in Fastlane with the required
submission through the Sponsored Program Office, our concerns about
notification are alleviated. If there are costs associated with participation that will
be provided by NSF, we assume that participant support would be allocated as a
grant through the institution with the usual budgetary considerations related to
participant support.

Language has now been added to specify the anticipated length of the
Ideas Lab.
The funding opportunity will clearly instruct the selected teams on how
the full proposal should be prepared, and will address whether it should
be submitted either as a single proposal or as simultaneous proposals
from all participating organizations.
Unless otherwise specified in the funding opportunity, renewal proposals
will be submitted as standard research proposals following the guidance
provided in the Grant Proposal Guide.

Because of the collaborative nature of the Ideas Lab, we assume any Stage 4
invited full proposals will be submitted according to the Special Guidelines
described at GPG Ch. II d. 5. This approach raises some questions concerning the
submission process and we encourage NSF to clarify the submission process
either in the Funding Opportunity Announcement or in the PAPPG.
Will the participating institutions have the option to submit either a single
proposal or simultaneous proposals from all participating organizations?
Will renewal proposals require a preliminary proposal or submission of a full
proposal within a regular funding cycle?

GPG, Chapter II.D.6.
Proposals for Equipment

Trish Lowney

Notes that equipment to be purchased, modified or constructed must be
described…
Seems to conflict with II-16 other direct costs presented above? That is,
constructed equipment – equipment if > capitalization threshold and in
equipment budget line (with associated alteration and modification costs) and
*not*in other direct costs?

Language has been revised in the Equipment Proposal preparation
instructions in GPG, Chapter II.C.2.g.(iii) to address the issue.

GPG, Chapter II.D.8.
Dual Use Research of Concern

Council on Governmental
Relations

We appreciate that the provisions for meeting the US Government Policy for
Oversight of Life Sciences Dual Use Research of Concern and the proposed US
Government Policy for Institutional Oversight of Life Sciences Dual Use Research
of Concern have been described as contingent on the publication of the final US
Government Policy for Institutional Oversight of Life Sciences Dual Use Research
of Concern.

Dual Use Research of Concern will now not be implemented in this
version of the PAPPG and all DURC-related language has been removed.

However, we understand that these are two separate but linked policies and that
the agencies are expected to meet the requirements of the US Government Policy
for Oversight of Life Sciences Dual Use Research of Concern. We agree with the
observation at AAG Ch. VI B 5 b. that it is unlikely that NSF sponsored research will
fall under these policy requirements. Nonetheless, it may be helpful to offer more
direction at GPG Ch. II D. 9 to the grantee concerning the implementation of the
policy for agencies. An indication of how NSF will engage in the development of
plans with grantee organizations to mitigate the risks associated with DURC may
be helpful. Such a statement or provision could outline the path for
communications with NSF as in the AAG and the process for reporting by the
PI/PD described in the agency policy.
GPG, Chapter II.D.8.
Dual Use Research of Concern

Massachusetts Institute of
Technology

Dual Use Research of concern is at II.D.9, not II.D.8.

Dual Use Research of Concern will now not be implemented in this
version of the PAPPG and all DURC-related language has been removed.

GPG, Chapter II.D.10.
Proposals for Conferences

Boise State

Requiring an estimated total budget is inconsistent with NSF’s prohibition of
voluntary committed cost share.

Language has been revised to read as follows: "Proposal Budget: A
budget for the conference that is prepared in accordance with GPG
Chapter II.C.2g. The budget may include participant support for
transportation (when appropriate), per diem costs, stipends, publication
and other conference-related costs. Note: Participant support costs
must be excluded from the indirect cost base; see GPG Chapter II.C.2g(v).
For additional information on Program Income associated with
conferences, see AAG Chapter III.D.4."

The prohibition of voluntary committed cost share is also referenced in the AAG,
page II-5, NSF 15_1 draft.

GPG, Chapter II.D.10.
Proposals for Conferences

Stanford University

Chapter II.D.10 of NSF’s PAPPG be clarified to indicate that it only applies to direct
costs, if indeed that is the intent. It currently says “NSF funds are not to be spent
for meals and coffee breaks for intramural meetings of an organization or any of
its components, but not limited to laboratories, departments and centers either
as direct or indirect costs.”

Language has been revised to read: "NSF funds are not to be spent for
meals and coffee breaks for intramural meetings of an organization or
any of its components, including, but not limited to, laboratories,
departments and centers, as a direct cost."

GPG, Chapter III.F.
Use of the Term Proposer

Council on Governmental
Relations

We encourage NSF to standardize the language throughout this section with the
terms used throughout the PAPPG. The use of the term “proposer” has created
some confusion in the community particularly at grantee institutions with
multiple investigators. We request that “proposer” be replaced with “grantee”
because we understand that all new grantee institutions may be evaluated under
the Risk Management Framework.

NSF does not concur with this recommendation. There are significant
differences in terms of process, including with respect to requirements
imposed on proposers versus awardees. The terms "proposer" and
"grantee" are not interchangeable.

GPG, Chapter III.F.
NSF Risk Management
Framework

Cold Spring Harbor
Laboratory

It is unclear what defines “all new proposers” that will be subjected to additional The language regarding the conduct of pre-award financial and
administrative review has been modified to only include: "…all proposers
pre-award financial and administrative review.
recommended for award that have not received NSF funding in the last
five years, with particular focus on on proposers whose cumulative NSF
Recommend that NSF provide additional clarification whether this additional
scrutiny will be limited to institutions that have never received NSF funding. If this funding would amount to $200,000 or more."
is the intent, then the text should be modified to reflect this.

GPG, Exhibit III-1
University of Wisconsin
NSF Proposal & Award Process
Timeline

The NSF Proposal and Award Process & Timeline does not capture the new
The Proposal and Award lifecycle graphic will be modified to incorporate
process in which DGA or DACS may decide to decline an award after financial or declinations made by DGA or DACS.
administrative review. The graphic seems to indicate that declines occur only at
the Division Director level, which is no longer accurate. Updating the graphic may
prevent confusion regarding the declination process.

GPG, Chapter IV.D.1.b.
Reconsideration

If a proposal has been declined by the NSB, only an explanation will be available. NSF does not believe that further information on NSB declinations,
beyond that provided, is necessary.
Unclear; the Board’s role or involvement in the declination process seems not
well defined.

Trish Lowney

Award & Administration Guide (18 comments, including one duplication)
AAG Section and Topic
Source
Comment
Resolution
AAG, Chapter I.C.2.a.
Cal Tech
The note on page I-2 of the GPG indicates that the Research Terms and Conditions The future of the Research Terms and Conditions is currently being
Research Terms & Conditions
"will be added to this list, if available, at the time of issuance." From the point of considered by the NSTC/RBM.
view of the research community, having the Research Terms and Conditions
reintroduced is extremely important and very beneficial. We urge NSF to use its
influence to strengthen the case for the return of the Research Terms and
Conditions and appreciate your efforts along those lines.
AAG, Chapter II.C.3.b.
Cost Sharing

University of Wisconsin

We appreciate the confirmation that all awards subject to statutory cost sharing
have been closed out. We also note that NSF has changed cost sharing
requirements. Where NSF previously required reports only when a cost sharing
commitment of $500,000 or more existed, grantees must now report on
mandatory cost sharing on an annual and final basis. Although we assume that
this change is being made in conformance with the Uniform Guidance, we
acknowledge that this new level of reporting will create an increased
administrative burden on grantees.

NSF takes the imposition of new administrative requirements very
seriously. Given the limited number of awards that have cost sharing
requirements, and the importance of meeting the financial commitments
made by the recipient, we believe it is important that organizations
provide this information to NSF, irrespective of the dollar value of the
cost sharing.

NSF implemented award financial closeout requirements as established by the
Uniform Guidance paragraph 2 CFR §200.343 (b) which states that “a non-Federal
entity must liquidate all obligations incurred under the Federal award not later
than 90 calendar days after the end date of the period of performance as
specified in the terms and conditions of the Federal award.”  Additionally, NSF
complies with the requirements established by the Uniform Guidance paragraph
Specifically, we request that the submission date for all financial, performance,
200.343 (e) which states “the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity
and other reports and the liquidation date be set to a new standard of 120-days must make a settlement for any upward or downward adjustments to the Federal
after the end date of the period of performance. Per 2 CFR §200.343 Closeouts,
share of costs after closeout reports are received.”  Adjustments to the Federal
(g), Federal awarding agencies should complete all closeout actions no later than share of costs can be completed by awardee institutions through the Award Cash
one year after the acceptance of all required final reports. This effectively sets the Management Service (ACM$) and submitted on line to NSF for 18 months after
final closeout clock at 15 months (i.e., 90 days plus one year) after the end date of the award expiration date. Downward adjustments can be submitted until the
the award. Within that time period, COGR believes that all parties can work in a bi- appropriations funding the award cancel.  ACM$ enables awardee institutions to
submit adjustments with essentially no increased workload over that of a
lateral fashion to ensure an award is closed in the most timely, efficient, and
standard payment request.  NSF believes the capabilities offered by ACM$ for
accurate manner possible. Under this bi-lateral closeout model, both the federal adjustments to financially closed awards mitigate the effects of the
agency and the grantee recognize each other’s system and resource constraints implementation of the 90-day financial closeout.  However, NSF is committed to
and will work together to provide sufficient flexibility toward achieving the final the long standing partnership with its awardee institution population.  As such,
closeout objective.
NSF will consider the feasibility of requesting a deviation from the Uniform
Guidance requirements.  However, such a deviation would be dependent upon
the concurrence of other research oriented Federal agencies in order to establish
a consistent requirement for the timing of award financial closeout actions.  NSF
believes a 120-day standard award closeout would be feasible, if agreement can
be reached within the Federal agency research community.  NSF believes a
unilateral deviation from the Uniform Guidance for award financial closeout
would not be consistent with the intent of the Uniform Guidance and could
introduce the type of uncertainty within the grant administration community that
the Uniform Guidance was intended to improve.

AAG, Chapter II.D.5.;
AAG, Chapter III.E.
Grant Closeout

Council on Governmental
Relations

COGR respectfully asks NSF to request a deviation from OMB that the submission
date for all financial, performance, and other reports and the liquidation date be
set to a new standard of 120-days after the end date of the period of
performance.

AAG, Chapter II.D.5.;
AAG, Chapter III.E..
Grant Closeout

University of California

We echo COGR’s request that NSF request a deviation from OMB to establish a
See answer to the Council on Governmental Relations on the same issue
new 120-day standard to close out awards. We are committed to submitting
above.
timely and accurate final reports. However, additional administrative and
compliance requirements, as well as increasing numbers of multidisciplinary/multi-site projects make meeting the 90-day deadline in an accurate
and complete fashion difficult. A new 120-day standard would, as COGR points
out, allow both parties to finalize the closeout process with fewer corrections and
revisions, including coordinating with lower tier partners.

AAG, Chapter II.D.5.;
AAG, Chapter III.E.
Grant Closeout

Massachusetts Institue of
Technology

MIT requests that the NSF apply for a deviation from OMB allowing the closeout
submission deadline to be changed from the current 90-standard to a new 120day standard, as also requested by the Council on Governmental Relations
(COGR). MIT has identified subawards as a major factor contributing to delays in
award closeout, and the additional 30 days would significantly improve our
compliance.

See answer to the Council on Governmental Relations on the same issue
above.

We recognize that closeouts require more work and attention to detail than ever
before, on the part of both the federal awarding agency and the non-federal
awardee organization. This additional work impacts all of us, and our primary goal
with this request is to complete the closeout in the most timely, efficient, and
accurate way possible. Per 2 CFR §200.343 Closeouts (g), the Federal awarding
agency should complete closeout within 15 months after the expiration date of an
award (90 days + 1 year), and we believe that allowing awardee organizations an
extra 30 days out of this window should not negatively impact NSF’s workflow.
AAG, Chapter III.E.
Financial Requirements and
Payments

University of Minnesota

We applaud NSF for the great partnership created with Universities through the
implementation of the ACMS system and the replacement of the FFR and Cash
Request Function. The single system point of entry and acknowledgement and
new understanding that the amount drawn equated to amount spent is a great
step in moving to a streamlined and more efficient financial process. We
encourage NSF to critically consider the closeout process as described in the
COGR letter.

See answer to the Council on Governmental Relations on the same issue
above.

AAG, Chapter II.E.
Record Retention & Audit

University of Alabama

While this is not a change in NSF policy, it is more burdensome that the
requirements of the Uniform Guidance found in 200.333:
“Financial records…and all other non-Federal entity records pertinent to a Federal
award must be retained for a period of three years from the date of submission of
the final expenditure report or, for Federal awards that are renewed quarterly or
annually, from the date of the submission of the quarterly or annual financial
report, respectively, as reported to the Federal awarding agency or pass-through
entity… Federal awarding agencies and pass-through entities must not impose
any other record retention requirements upon non-Federal entities.”

The record retention language specified in Award & Administration Guide
Chapter II has been revised to read as follows: "1. Financial records,
supporting documents, statistical records and all other records pertinent
to the NSF grant must be retained by the grantee for a period of three
years from award financial closeout described in AAG Chapter III.E.3,
except as noted in 2 CFR 200.333."

Although it is becoming easier to track submission of project reports to NSF, and
the University appreciated NSF’s progress in this area, it is still more complicated
for recipients to identify and record the project report submission date and to
ensure it is used for record retention purposes when it occurs after the date of
the award financial closeout and is, in practice, an additional record retention
requirement.

AAG, Chapter II.E.
Record Retention & Audit

University of Alabama

2 CFR 200.87 – “Research and Development (R&D) R&D means all research activities, both
basic and applied, and all development activities that are performed by non-Federal
entities. The term research also includes activities involving the training of individuals in
research techniques where such activities utilize the same facilities as other research and
development activities and where such activities are not included in the instruction
function. ‘‘Research’’ is defined as a systematic study directed toward fuller scientific
knowledge or understanding of the subject studied. ‘‘Development’’ is the systematic use
of knowledge and understanding gained from research directed toward the production of
useful materials, devices, systems, or methods, including design and development of
prototypes and processes. While NSF’s mission, “to promote the progress of science; to
advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense; and
for other purposes” is advanced primarily through the support of science and engineering
research, not all of the activities NSF funds meet the definition of Research and
Development, as other types of activities, such as education, also promote the progress of
science. The fact that NSF funds education programs and other activities that do not
involve a systematic study of a subject or the use of research results in the production of
materials, etc. is included throughout the PAPPG. For example, the definition of Assistance
Award states that for NSF, they “involve the support or stimulation of scientific and
engineering research, science and engineering education or other related activities.” While
“NSF recognizes that some awards may have another classification for purposes of indirect
costs,” the inconsistency in classification for various purposes creates problems in
determining the appropriate indirect cost rate to charge (which can be particularly
burdensome to faculty), in appropriately categorizing expenditures and space in indirect
cost rate proposals and in other areas of administration and management of funds. The
OMB Circular A-133 Compliance Supplement contains in Part 5, Clusters of Programs,
specific instructions for auditing Research and Development Programs. The Compliance
Requirements and Suggested Audit Procedures are not always the most appropriate for
educational, service or other non-research programs/activities.

This issue was raised during the last comment period for the NSF
Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide and is considered
resolved. NSF does not intend to make further changes to the language
provided.

AAG, Chapter II.E.
Record Retention & Audit

University of Minnesota

The CFDA number of NSF awards is provided to the Grantee at the time of award
on the Award Notice. The CFDA number provided by NSF is a CFDA that falls into
a cluster category as outlined in the compliance supplement. If a CFDA number
isn't defined in a category the guidance is to report the CFDA by function. At a
macro level, institutions plan and review their portfolio's by mission (function);
teaching, training, research, public service, etc. Institutionally, function is defined
by how the activity (transaction) accomplishes the mission of the university. For
example, awards with the primary function of training would not fall under the
mission of research at our institution. Our financial statements summarize all our
mission activity by function. Our SEFA is reconciled to the Financial Statements as
required. Requiring the institution to arbitrairly report activity as part of the R&D
Cluster when instiutionally we have defined the activity as another function will
cause additional reconciliation steps and ongoing "reporting discrepancies."

This issue was raised during the last comment period for the NSF
Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide and is considered
resolved. NSF does not intend to make further changes to the language
provided.

AAG, Chapter III.D.4.b.
Program Income

Stanford University

We respectfully ask that NSF request a deviation from OMB that income from
license fees and royalties be excluded from the definition of program income
(Part II, Chapter III.D.4.b). Statutory requirements under the Bayh-Dole Act (35
USC 202(c)(7)) supersede any described treatments of license fees and royalties
per sections 200.80 and 200.307(f) in the Uniform Guidance. We believe OMB has
confirmed the precedence of U.S. law or statute over the OMB Uniform Guidance.
Therefore reporting to Federal agencies on Program Income should not include
such license fees and royalties.

Language has been modified in AAG, Chapter III.D.4.c.(1) to address the
issue as follows: "The grantee also shall have no obligation to NSF with
respect to program income earned from license fees and royalties for
copyrighted material, patents, patent applications, trademarks, and
inventions produced under an award. However, Patent and Trademark
Amendments (35 USC 18) shall apply to inventions made under an
award."

AAG, Chapter IV.D.
Property Management
Standards

University of Wisconsin

Thank you for providing verification that NSF has the authority under the Federal Thank-you. No NSF response required.
Technology Transfer Act to vest title in an institution of higher education. This
should allow institutions of higher education to continue handling title in a
manner to which they are accustomed.

AAG, Chapter IV.E.
Procurement

Council on Governmental
Relations

COGR respectfully asks NSF to request a deviation from OMB that Institutions of
Higher Education (IHEs), Nonprofit Research Organizations (NROs), and all
research performers be exempted from Procurement Standards Sections 200.317
through 200.326. Procurement Standards under Circular A-110 should be
reinstated for research performers.

The issue of procurement standards contained in the new Uniform
Guidance has been brought to the attention of the Office of Management
and Budget. Any decisions regarding implementation rest with OMB,
and, cannot be addressed independently by NSF.

The PAPPG states that NSF grantees shall adhere to the requirements of 2 CFR
§200.317-326, which prescribes standards for use by recipients in establishing
procedures for procurement. COGR has documented that implementation of 2
CFR §200.317-326 will: 1) create increased cost and administrative burden via
expensive process-workflow and IT system changes, 2) require a long lead time to
implement, which cannot effectively be accomplished by December 26th, and 3)
result in risk to program performance – for example, critical research tools and
supplies that normally would be acquired in one-day could take at least one-week
to acquire. By securing the deviation requested above, NSF can help ensure the
continuity of current and effective procurement practices in place at IHEs and
NROs, without any sacrifice to institutional accountability and stewardship of
federal funds.
AAG, Chapter IV.E.
Procurement

University of California

We strongly request that NSF request a deviation from OMB exempting
Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs) from the procurement requirements
outlined in the Uniform Guidance (2 CFR §200.317-326) These new procurement
documentation and sourcing standards will require UC to restructure
longstanding procurement practices, redesign internal controls for procurement
processes, reconfigure supporting E-procurement systems, and execute a
wholesale change management strategy to re-educate faculty, staff, and students
across 10 campuses and five medical centers. It will be costly and difficult, if not
impossible, to implement such changes by the required date of December 26,
2014.

The issue of procurement standards contained in the new Uniform
Guidance has been brought to the attention of the Office of Management
and Budget. Any decisions regarding implementation rest with OMB,
and, cannot be addressed independently by NSF.

AAG, Chapter IV.E.
Procurement

Massachusetts Institue of
Technology

MIT also supports COGR’s request that NSF apply for a deviation allowing
Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs), Nonprofit Research Organizations (NROs),
and all research performers to be subject to the prior procurement standards of
Circular A-110. We absolutely recognize and agree with the need to make the best
use of our scarce resources, but for IHEs, NROs, and research performers of all
types, this change would be too sudden to implement by the end of the year.

The issue of procurement standards contained in the new Uniform
Guidance has been brought to the attention of the Office of Management
and Budget. Any decisions regarding implementation rest with OMB,
and, cannot be addressed independently by NSF.

The requirements of the Procurement standards in 200.317 through 200.326 call
for system solutions. Without a system for capturing the required documentation,
the additional administrative effort on each transaction would significantly
outweigh any cost savings. It is simply not feasible for IHEs and NROs to put new
procurement documentation systems in place by the December 26th deadline.
Additionally, the additional time this would require for each transaction would
seriously impact the flexibility needed to effectively respond to the
unpredictability of fundamental research.

AAG, Chapter V.A.2.c.
Publication and Printing Costs

University of Florida

Regarding the third paragraph "However, in accordance with 2 CFR § 200.461,
NSF believes that the coverage in the Uniform Guidance on this topic is
Publication and Printing costs, awardees may charge the NSF award before
clear and no further clarification on the part of NSF is necessary.
closeout for the costs of publication or sharing of research results, if the costs are
not incurred during the period of performance of the award.”
Would the cost of travel (of course the purpose of which is to disseminate and
share the results of the research) where the airfare, registration and other costs
are paid for prior to the end of the project period but the travel does not occur
until after the end of the project period be an allowable cost?

AAG, Chapter V.A.3.a.
Prior Written Approvals

University of Wisconsin

We appreciate that NSF has clarified that "items identified in the approved
budget constitutes NSF's authorization… to incur these costs" provided they are
consistent with applicable terms, conditions, and regulations. This language will
help eliminate confusion when items are included in the approved budget, and
costs are later presumed as needing prior approval.

Thank-you. No action needed.

AAG, Chapter V.B.1.b.;
GPG, Chapter II.C.2.g.(ii)
Fringe Benefits

University of Wisconsin

Both of these sections describe the ability of the grantee to charge fringe benefits
as direct costs, given that charges are made in accordance with usual accounting
practices and/or with approval of the cognizant federal agency. Reference also is
made to 2 CFR § 200.431, within which part (b)(3)(i) states that, "Payments for
unused leave when an employee retires or terminates employment are allowable
as indirect costs in the year of payment." We want to confirm our understanding
that NSF policy does not preclude costs of unused leave at retirement and
termination from being directly charged to NSF awards. We recognize that NSF
policy indicates that such payments may be subject to reasonableness
determination. Additionally, we seek affirmation that 2 CFR § 200.431 is
incorporated into NSF policy to acknowledge that such unused leave also may be
allowable as indrect costs and is not a directive to institutions to charge such costs
as indirect costs.

AAG, Chapter V.D.1.(ii)(a)
Fixed Rates for Life of the
Award

Council on Governmental
Relations

This section states: “Federal Awards may not be adjusted in future years as a
NSF will forward this comment to the Office of Management and Budget
result of changes in negotiated rates.” We understand that this text is included in for further discussion with the Council on Financial Assistance Reform.
the Uniform Guidance, but urge the NSF to work with OMB and other federal
agencies to provide clarification that would allow non-profit research
organizations the opportunity to continue to have their total-cost for existing
award commitments reconsidered where circumstances warrant. This option has
been in place with agencies, such as the NIH, since 1997. It is important that this
remain a viable option for non-profit organizations that would be affected by the
language in this section of the PAPPG.

AAG, Chapter V.D.1.(ii)(a)
Fixed Rates for Life of the
Award

Cold Spring Harbor
Laboratory

We understand that this text is included in the OMB Omnibus Guidance, but
strongly urge the NSF and all other Federal research funding organizations to
work with OMB to provide clarification, such as in the NSF Policy document, that
would continue to allow non-profit research organizations the opportunity to
have their total-cost for existing award commitments reconsidered where
circumstances warrant. This option has been in place with organizations such as
the NIH since 1997 (see attached correspondence with AIRI), and must continue
to be a viable option for non-profit organizations that may be harmed by this
newly mandated restriction.

NSF will forward this comment to the Office of Management and Budget
for further discussion with the Council on Financial Assistance Reform.

Source
University of Minnesota

Comment
Not addressed in the Guide. The process around expiring funds is not addressed
in the guide. While we are now notified that certain funds are expiring there isn't
guidance provided on options that a university can employ to manage the funds.
Federal agencies differ in the amount of individual guidance provided and at
times we are unsure if a methodology described for one agency should be used
for another agency.

Resolution
NSF guidance for expiring/canceling award funds will not differ from the
standard guidance applicable to all award funds as outlined in the NSF
AAG Chapter V: Allowability of Costs. NSF will work toward further
improving the awareness of awards with canceling funds held by our
awardees. This will include additional communications with awardee
institutions as well as other efforts to further highlight awards with
canceling funds.

Other Comments (2)
Topic & PAPPG Section
Expiring Funds

This issue will be addressed in the latest version of the Frequently Asked
Questions that are being developed by the Office of Management and
Budget. As such, it would not be appropriate for the issue to be resolved
by NSF.

Grants.gov Application Guide

Massachusetts Institue of
Technology

There are items added by GPG 14-1 and 15-1 which are not addressed in the
A new NSF E58 Grants.gov Application Guide will be issued concurrently
with the PAPPG.
Grants.gov guide, and we’re not sure whether this means they are not required
when submitting via Grants.gov. For example, the Collaboration type and
Proposal type checkboxes on the FastLane cover page don’t appear to correspond
to any information on the Grants.gov SF424.

Concurs with 07/01/2014 response from the Council on Governmental Relations (COGR) (7)
• Duke University
• Emory University
• Stanford University
• University of Chicago
• Vanderbilt University
• Harvard University
• University of Rochester

Institutions/Individuals Responding (18)
• Boise State
• Cal Tech
• Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
• Council on Governmental Relations
• Duke University
• Emory University
• Harvard University
• Trish Lowney
• Massachusetts Institue of Technology
• Stanford University
• University of Alabama
• University of California
• University of Chicago
• University of Florida
• University of Minnesota
• University of Rochester
• University of Wisconsin
• Vanderbilt University

Overall Summary of Responses Received:
• 54 responses received from 18 different institutions/individuals
• One response duplicated in both GPG and AAG section (and is counted twice in the 54 total)
• Seven responses were "supports COGR's 7/1/14 response to NSF"
• 27 responses were regarding the GPG
• 18 responses were regarding the AAG
• Two responses are in an "other" section