April 10, 2025
MRAM Q&A April 2025
Meeting materials are available for your review along with a list of links shared during the session. Q&A from our session are included here for reference and will be available with the other meeting materials shortly.
Within a week or so following every MRAM, an email like this one typically goes out with Q&A from the session and a link to the meeting materials.
- PAFC Hot Topics: Food, Travel and Late Expenditures
- GIM 1: Proposal Review and Submission
- New SAGE Resources & Classes
- FY26 Preliminary Fringe Benefit Rates
- Other Questions: AIDE, GCA, Research Security Training, etc.
PAFC Hot Topics: Food, Travel and Late Expenditures
Q1: I think there used to be a grant expenditure risk report, perhaps in BI Portal. I’m not seeing it now. Does a report like that exist?
A1: We are working on developing new reports for high-risk expenditures to replace the old, pre-Workday reports. We will announce those reports when they are ready to publish.
Q2: When you say we *may* rebudget for earlier pay periods, is is required that we do?
A2: No, NIH does not require rebudgeting due to the implementation of the higher salary cap level for 2025. NIH allows recipients to pay salary up to the new cap level but NIH will not provide additional funds to cover increased salary costs. But NIH does allow recipients to rebudget, if desired, to pay salaries at the higher level. Rebudgeting would not require prior written NIH approval.
Q3: Will there be an informational on how PAAs should be processed for Salary Cap specifically?
A3: At this time, there is not a specific training/resource on preparing Payroll Accounting Adjustments specifically for salary over the cap costs. Please reach out to ISC via their Payroll Accounting Adjustment Request Form if you have specific issues for which you need assistance.
Q4: What is the ECC Office Hours link?
A4: Review information on ECC Office Hours.
Q5: Costs over meal per diem, what type of non-sponsored budgets can be used?
A5: Food costs over per diem must be charged to a discretionary funding source. Please see the Food Approval guidance from Procurement for more information.
Q6: This is a question related to monthly reporting. Can we find a monthly budget summary report in BI Portal?
A6: There are several reports that may be of help in BI Portal and Workday: Standard Budget vs Actuals – Month over Month R1306.4, and the Workday Variable Reporting Period Transaction Summary.
GIM 1: Proposal Review and Submission
GIM 1 is being revised! Review the draft revisions and provide feedback before May 6, 2025.
Q1: Sometimes we need advice on technical instructions that are unclear or may conflict with UW policy. How do we get OSP input?
A1: With the update to GIM 1, we are also providing additional guidance, web content, on-demand video, and updating the CORE class titled “Blueprint of a Proposal.” A peer network concept is also in the works. Finally, a PI can route their draft proposal to OSP 7+ days ahead of the sponsor deadline which allows more time for review and full context of the proposal details to help answer.
Q2: If technical instructions are the PI/campus unit responsibility, if OSP happens to see something amiss during their review, will they return? And if so, if a return happens after the 3-day sponsor deadline, would this warrant a GIM-19 waiver?
A2: Incidental to its institutional review, if OSP sees an area needing attention, this will be part of our review comments. If the proposal is not in fact “ready to submit” by the three day deadline, this warrants a GIM 19 waiver request.
Q3: We need to test changes in our workflow now in advance of implementation. When can you provide the checklists that OSP uses now so we can begin this process?
A3: Please see the draft revisions to GIM 1 to think about roles/responsibilities and resulting workflow.
Q4: Can you speak to how you’re thinking about the GIM1 changes will increase OSP review times for applications? There’s concern that the burden on OSP will result in additional backlogs/slowdowns. Whenever there’s a change in review requirements it would be useful to include a metric as to how it impacts review times, both positive and negative.
A4: GIM 1 changes may increase OSP review. Variables impacting review include how far along the proposal is, when it arrives, sponsor type, sponsor requirements, number of parties (e.g. subrecipients), etc. We are assessing and may factor into GIM 19 updates.
Q5: Occasionally a sponsor has asked us to agree to a proforma research agreement at time of proposal. Historically, OSP has not agreed to negotiate award agreements at time of proposal. Are you saying that OSP is now willing to agree to proforma research agreements at time of proposal?
A5: If the agreement will be binding upon the applicant, yes, we must review at proposal stage. If there is room to negotiate up to point of award, we will reserve our right to negotiate terms and include such language in the Letter of Intent (LOI).
New SAGE Resources & Classes
ORIS shared a variety of valuable resources in their April SAGE presentation.
Among them:
- Managing Your SAGE Award Requests List Video
- All SAGE Budget Resources
- All SAGE Awards & Modifications Resources
- Schedule a SAGE Support Consultation
FY26 Preliminary Fringe Benefit Rates
Q: Suggestion/idea re: Fringe benefits–some institutions charge a flat rate across all position types to fund the pool, and cover expenses from that pool. If a more simplified approach like this might help or you see this in your peer benchmarking, it would help for future planning on budgets in units.
A: Management Accounting & Analysis says they will be exploring all options to streamline the process and mitigate wide variances year-over-year. Thank you for this suggestion.
Other Questions: AIDE, GCA, Research Security Training, etc…
AIDE & GCA Follow Ups
AIDE – Q: Could we get an update on the progress and timeline with the new AIDE initiative that is aimed to find a solution to the currently extremely slow MODs and awards process?
AIDE – A: There are two tracks for the AIDE Project:
- A Main Track (which is a 20 week effort from Feb 11th to June 30th, 2025) which focuses on optimizing Workday processes, increasing automation and capabilities, improving alignment across units, and improving SAGE and Workday integrations. The enhancements related to automation and integrations will help to reduce processing times and backlogs going forward.
- The Fast Track (which began Feb 21st and has a targeted end date of June 30) is focused on reducing GCA Award Setup, Reporting, and Closing backlogs by accelerating the processing of work with a temporary increase in staff resources.
More information can be found at the Awards Improvement and Development Effort (AIDE) website.
GCA – Q1: Could GCA talk about staffing additions/process changes and goals for the reduction?
GCA – A1: GCA has rotated existing staff to the more complex processes to help tackle ASRs and complex MODs. New FTE are being trained in the Closeout process to help tackle that backlog.
GCA – Q2: Is there a plan to close all the closeout requests by end of the fiscal year?
GCA – A2: Yes, this is also part of the AIDE initiative. Many of the new FTE are starting in the Closing team so we expect to start increasing our closeouts as new staff are trained.
GCA – Q3: Could you please clarify when you stated that the expansion of FTE in GCA to help with ASRs is only through June? We’re seeing significant backlogs now and thought this would be a permanent expansion. Are there other processes happening that will help?
GCA – A3: Yes, the AIDE initiative is also looking at technology enhancements that will help increase efficiencies and allow GCA to process requests faster. We expect that the higher staffing levels will not be necessary once these enhancements are in place.
Research Security Training Questions
Q1: Can we please have OSP update their research security training page to list all federal sponsors requiring the training at proposal stage, because currently PIs/faculty are pushing back and saying that OSP page is listing only DOE AND NSF , not NIH and other federal sponsors?
A1: OSP, together with the Research Security Office, will update this content to show which agencies require and when. DOE requires as of May 1, 2025 and we expect NSF will require soon. We do anticipate most federal sponsors will impose this requirement by end of 2026, according to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) directive to agencies.
Q2: Can you please clarify how PIs and unit (i.e. who within the “unit”) will know what the requirements are and how these requirements are expected to be met?
A2: Check the Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO). The NOFO sets out specific requirements for the funding opportunity but also will embed/include content and links from broader agency policies, such as their federal financial assistance policies. An example is the DOE requirement. This requirement is embedded in DOE NOFOs with due dates past May 1st such as this NOFO Number: DE-FOA-0003545 (page 93).
Q3: Do we know how often PIs will need to renew their research training for federal sponsors?
A3: We know refresher research security training will be required, but we have not yet seen the frequency from the federal sponsors.
Q4: For grants with international subcontracts, would key personnel at foreign institutions be required to complete the CITI research security training?
A4: Anyone who meets the sponsor’s definition of covered individual will need to take the training. We rely on the letter of intent from the subrecipient as confirmation they are following requirements.
Q5: Does OSP require Research Security Training to be complete for proposal submission?
A5: If a sponsor requires that the University, as a covered institution, to certify at proposal stage that all covered individuals (as defined by the sponsor) have completed research security training, OSP will confirm that all covered individuals have completed the training before we submit. We will use the MRTT information found on the PI & Personnel page of an eGC1 to check on training completion records. DOE requires as of May 1, 2025 and we expect NSF will require soon. We do anticipate most federal sponsors will impose this requirement by end of 2026, according to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) directive to agencies. We highly recommend that researchers who would fall under a “covered individual” definition (see OSTP definition) take the training now, instead of waiting.
Other Questions
Q – Modifications: Can you find a better way to “differentiate” MODs from each other. For complex awards, where there are many MODs, when we filter by AWD #, it yields all the MODs for that award, but there is no way for us to, at a glance, figure out which MOD was for the current year NOA?
A – Modifications: Thank you for the feedback. We do have exposing subcategories and MOD numbers in the backlog and we will take action it as soon as capacity is available to do so.
Q – Non-Award Agreement Status: Is there a way for us to see the status of our {other} contracts {non-award agreements} in process yet? I’m wondering about things like non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) and confidentiality agreements (CDAs) that are processed via an eGC1.
A – Non-Award Agreement Status: To view the status of Non-Award Agreements, access the NAA tab in the Applications, Awards, and Related Requests.xlsx report. Filters are available by Cost Center, PI name, and status.
Q – NSF PAPPG Update: I’ve seen this slated for October 2025, but UW has noted the Spring?
A – NSF PAPPG Update: The updated version of the NSF PAPPG (26-1) due to be published in the late spring/early summer, with effective date TBD. This update should have the new Research Security Training requirements.