Research administrator s forum
Sponsored Links
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
1 / 18

Research Administrator’s Forum PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Research Administrator’s Forum. School of Medicine March 2006 Presented by: Sponsored Projects Accounting. Topics. NIH Carryovers Salary Cap and Debit Accounts PCT Documentation Yale OIG Report. NIH Carryovers.

Download Presentation

Research Administrator’s Forum

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript

Research Administrator’s Forum

School of Medicine

March 2006

Presented by: Sponsored Projects Accounting


  • NIH Carryovers

  • Salary Cap and Debit Accounts

  • PCT Documentation

  • Yale OIG Report

NIH Carryovers

  • Award does not contain SNAP or Expanded Authorities provisions (requires new fund number for each grant period).

  • SPA submits FSR. Copy of FSR sent to department and G&C (via email).

  • PI must submit a detailed carryover request to the NIH (Grants Mgmt Specialist), must be co-signed by G&C.

NIH Carryovers, cont.

  • Request must contain the unobligated balance figure on the accepted FSR (line p.).

  • NIH must approve carryover request. May take three months for them to release funds.

  • SPA will reduce the budget on the old fund by the unobligated balance amount reported on the FSR .

NIH Carryover, cont.

NIH Carryovers, cont.

  • Effective February 2006, SPA will establish a “U” allocation in the next year’s fund number.

  • SPA will budget a figure that’s equal to the unobligated balance in Budget 86 on the “U” allocation.

  • Budget in the “U” allocation is restricted until the NIH issues a revised NGA.

    • “Less Unobligated Balance” (Section I)

NIH Carryovers, cont.

  • Subsequent to the NIH’s carryover approval, the PI must provide G&C with budget detail.

  • G&C will rebudget dollars out of Budget 86 on the “U” allocation to the appropriate allocations, per the info provided by the PI.

NIH Carryover - Benefits

  • Reduces confusion regarding available free-balance in current fund.

    • Segregates carryover dollars that are awaiting approval.

    • Reduce errors in approval processing.

    • Better reporting.

Salary Cap Management

  • Multiple faculty in same department working on an NIH project.

  • Each faculty member has their own funding source for NIH salary cap cost sharing.

  • HRMS forces user to source to one “X” account, and one corresponding debit account.

Salary Cap Management, cont.

  • HRMS and FIS are not able to maintain multiple “X” allocations for one department.

  • Department should journal appropriate cost sharing amounts to each faculty member’s funding source via journals utilizing Budget 50.

PCT Documentation

  • Detailed explanation mandatory for LC22 if in fund series 4xxxx, 5xxxx, or 6xxxx.

  • If any PCT's in that fund series do not have a detailed explanation, they will be returned.

  • Type the name of the approval person on the 'Authorized By' line

PCT Form

Yale - OIG Audit

  • DHHS Office of the Inspector General

  • Review of subaward costs (UMass)

  • $572,344 awarded for budget period

  • Final invoice totaled $508,304

  • OIG determined that $193,779 of costs did not comply with A-21.

    • Salaries & Fringe = 151,252

    • Non-personnel = 42,527

Yale & OIG, cont.

  • Documentation regarding salary transfers provided to auditors was altered.

  • Unaltered version stated that transfers were needed to spend down subgrant funds.

  • OIG - “This alteration calls into question the accuracy of the information that the University supplied to us.”

Yale & OIG, cont.

Comments by the OIG:

  • Transfers from General Funds: “Transfers were neither properly authorized nor adequately supported by a specific, clear and detailed explanation with related documentation as required.”

  • Equipment maintenance: “The University did not provide sufficient information to show that the charges to this subgrant were equitable.

Yale & OIG, cont.

OIG comments continued:

  • “Although the University had established procedures for charging nonlabor goods and services and confirming effort reports, we found that these procedures were inadequate or were not always followed.”

Research Administrator’s Forum

School of Medicine

March 2006

Presented by: Sponsored Projects Accounting

Joe Gindhart


  • Login