February 19, 2026

MRAM Q&A February 2026

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 are available in the MRAM announcements.

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.

UW Medicine Honest Broker Policy Clinical Data for Research Purposes

Q1: Is there a list of individuals/programs or contact information for research teams if they need an honest broker to access data?
A1: Yes, at UW Medicine Honest Broker Program – Home, there’s a list of certified Honest Brokers available on that site. If a Department doesn’t have a certified Honest Broker and is interested in having a team member become an Honest Broker, there’s information on the site to sign up for training. The other option is to use Research IT Data Services to pull data sets an Honest Broker them, there’s an hourly fee for their services, they will do a brief consult for no charge and can be contacted at Research Data Services ritdatahelp@uw.edu.

Q2: How does a dept outside SOM use this wrt clinical data sharing?
A2: This policy applies to all of UW Medicine, here are the policies that cover the rules of engagement for using clinical data for research purposes:
Honest Broker Policy
Release of UW Medicine Clinical Data for Research Purposes Policy
Q3: Could you please explain the Honest Broker’s role a little bit more when research teams pull their own data?
A3: When a research team pulls their own data set, they must have the data checked by a certified Honest Broker before releasing the data. The Honest Broker’s responsibility is to check the data set against the approved IRB, confirm de-identification was accurately applied when applicable, and log the data pull in RedCap.

Q4: Is this intended as training across all departments or more “reference guidance”?
A4: This is intended to be reference guidance, UW Medicine has implemented new policies that outline the rules of engagement for using clinical data for research purposes, the expectation is the policy will be followed.

Q5: Points of contact- Will there be School of Medicine (SOM) experts departments can reach out to when questions come up? Is there a school level person/team that serves as the primary contact?
A5: No, SoM does not currently have a resource, we mentioned the goal of hiring an honest broker ‘rover’, but that will depend on funding to hire an FTE. Questions can be directed to Research Data Services ritdatahelp@uw.edu.

Q6: Service model – What does your team offer (consults, review, setup, support, etc.) and are there rates/cost recovery charges associated with support?
A6: UW Medicine Research IT has a Data Services team that work under a fee for service model. The fee is $150 per hour for data pulls and/or consultations. They are willing to do a short free consultation to help guide researchers.

Q7: What’s the envisioned department setup (process + roles)? What type of person typically serves as the honest broker – scientist, faculty, IT/data person, research admin.?
A7: This is up to the individual department, some departments have data analysts that have taken the training, others have Physicians who have taken the training, we would expect the department to identify the best candidate from their team. The Research Access to Patient Data (RAPiD) Tier III Information Technology Committee also recognizes some of the smaller departments don’t have a resource, that’s what they are hoping the honest broker rover could assist with.

Q8: Do any departments have a coordinated approach already (vs. labs doing their own thing)?
A8: Yes, Emergency Medicine, Dept of Lab Medicine & Pathology, Anesthesiology, and Radiology already have a robust honest broker structure, this is why we went with the hub and spoke model and set up our program to support those departments that already have honest brokering covered. Those departments have certified honest brokers that all data requests go thru to pull the data set, de-identify the data set if applicable, and log the data set in RedCap.

NIH Update

UW Authorized Official?

Q: Are we officially listing Amanda Snyder as OSP contact on proposals and RPPRs instead of Carol Rhodes?
A: Until you hear otherwise, please continue to list Carol Rhodes as the Authorized Official (AO). Sponsor systems will continue to list Carol Rhodes as the AO until OSP changes it in sponsor systems. We will update all of these systems once the OSP Director role has been permanently filled. Please stay tuned.

NIH Common Forms

Q1: I’m seeing the warning for SciENcv Common Form certified CPOS. Is this normal? What needs to be done?
A1: During this period of leniency, we can expect to receive a warning when the Common Forms are not used. The warning does not prevent the application from moving forward, so no action is required. However, we recommend that you remind individuals that this leniency ends in May 2026.

Q2: Does that mean the END of May for common forms enforcement? Because the NIH common forms FAQ were just updated – and verification of research security training will be required for applications May 25th or later. This makes it sound like common forms will be needed for this verification – and therefore common forms biosketches will be required on May 25 and later. Am I interpreting this correctly?
A2: NIH will issue a future Guide Notice (anticipated Spring of 2026) announcing the date when the validation will be changed to an error and the requirement to use the Common Forms will be system-enforced.

NIH RPPRs and the Malign Foreign Talent Recruitment Certification Statement

Q1: Please provide guidance to campus about the new RPPR requirement to attach an MFTRP for each key personnel in the G section.
A1: For NIH RPPRs submitted on or after January 25, 2026, individuals serving as senior/key personnel must certify annually to their participation or non-participation in a MFTRP by uploading a certification statement in Section G.1 as a flattened PDF.
The certification statement language must align with the statement within the Common Forms for Biosketch and Current and Pending (Other) Support, and state: I [insert name] certify that, at the time of submission, I am not a party to a malign foreign talent recruitment program.
The file for each senior/key person must be named ‘MFTRPcert_[Name].pdf’ without quotations, where ‘[Name]’ is the name of the senior/key person. See NOT-OD-26-018 for more information.

Q2: Can using the Common Form for OS, which includes an MFTRP certification substitute for the separately-attached form? For a key person who doesn’t have an OS to attach.
A2: This question was raised with NIH at the January Federal Demonstration Partnership meeting. The NIH Policy Office agreed to look into this requirement and consider a change. Until we hear differently, OSP believes the statement files are required for each key person on the project.

NIH International Component Structure

Q1: Does this only apply to NIH award?
A1: Yes this is specific to the NIH.

Q2: How will deficits be monitored for the subproject? If the awards are separate, does that mean their deficits don’t roll up to the domestic award?
A2: While we know that NIH will be providing funding directly to the international entity for the subproject, details like this have not been communicated by NIH, yet. We will share once we know more.

Q3: What is the UW/PI responsibility for costing principles on international subprojects under NIH’s new structure?
A3: Another good question that we will need additional guidance from NIH about. Stay tuned.

Q4: Will the UW PI still be responsible for ‘subrecipient monitoring’ for disaggregated foreign awards? or will it be done by NIH?
A4: Another good question that we will need additional guidance from NIH about. Stay tuned.

Q5: It would also be good to know if we can still collect F&A on the subproject award. I’m assuming “no”, and if that’s the case we should be aware of that for ICR expectations.
A5: Since the funding for the international subproject does not flow through the primary grant recipient, we do not expect that the UW will recover F&A related to the subproject. As with other details surrounding the new international subproject structure, we will provide additional clarification as we receive it from NIH.

Q6: Could OSP provide specific language foreign components should include in their letters?
A6: We will provide resources like this once we have more information from the NIH regarding specific requirements.

SAGE Update

Q1: Suggestion: consider adding ability to print SAGE budgets with formulas in the exported spreadsheet – I think that campus users would find this easier to use for budget projections than the Workday Grant Planning & Forecasting tool.
A1: Thank you for the request and the way you would use this in your work! We will log the request for future consideration.

Q2: If the eGC1 budget matches the awarded budget, what is the purpose of not allowing it to be connected to the ASR? it’s clear if there are differences, but not obvious if they are identical. in fact, it would seem to streamline if we could say the eGC1 budget was awarded.
A2: A budget connected to an eGC1 becomes editable again after the eGC1 is approved, and can be connected to multiple eGC1s for subsequent periods, which makes re-using a proposal budget for an award more complicated. This was discussed during FT and determined that it would be in campuses best interest to have a single straight forward rule to follow, and since copying a budget is very quick to do.

Q3: For management of workload in SAGE for OSP and GCA, is it possible for campus users to have those same enhancements if not already in the works?
A3: For initial release we will restrict to OSP and GCA, to reduce complexities of managing multiple users coding the same item in different ways. We have an additional backlog item for expanding the feature to campus in the future, but at this time have higher priorities from AIDE to deliver on first.

Advance Spend Policy Update

Q1: Can you confirm this 120 day new policy also applies to Temp Internal Extensions?
A1: Yes, that is correct. The 120 policy applies to Advances, Advance Extensions, and Temporary Internal Extensions.

Q2: Can you please reiterate, if an advance or temp extension is already in place (say for 60 days) how should we request it to be extended to 120 days?
A2: For existing advances or temporary internal extensions originally routed for fewer than 120 days, please create a ticket in Award Portal using the “Advance Spend” topic.

Q3: Will extensions on projects that have automatic carryover but are waiting on MODs to process current year awards also be effective for 120 days?
A3: Yes, that is correct. A temporary internal extension can be requested in these cases. Please see the Office of Research’s Award Changes webpage, section “Temporary Internal Extension” for more details.

Award Lines / Grant Reopen Requests

Q1: Could the increased reopen request be related to a reduced time period from budget period end date and final action date?
A1: Yes, that is a possibility. A grant/award line’s final action date is calculated and assigned based on the award’s deliverable schedule. For example, if an award has a final invoice that is due 30 days after the award period end date, the final action date will be set much closer to the award line end date than for an award with a 90-day final invoice requirement. For this reason, it is critical for departments to know their assigned final action date and actively monitor expenditures and open items as the final action date approaches. Please refer to GCA’s Final Action Date webpage for more details.

Q2: Several times lately I have had to ask GCA to reopen lines because things posted after the final action date when it should not have been possible. What is GCA doing to ensure that these issues on your side are not happening, so that campus doesn’t have to make these requests?
A2: GCA has implemented a number of custom validations in Workday within the Grants space that prevent expenditures from posting to a grant/award line when the Workday award line lifecycle status is not open to expenditures. The award line lifecycle statuses that prevent expenditures from posting include Closeout in Progress, Closed, Canceled, Restricted From Use, and Pending Subaward. Additionally, GCA has an automated award line lifecycle status update integration that updates an award line from “Expired” to “Closeout in Progress” status the Monday following the award line’s final action date. While GCA’s automated award line lifecycle status updates may occasionally fail (which results in an award line lifecycle status remaining in “expired” status), the vast majority of award line lifecycle status updates take place in line with these update rules. Finally, for awards invoiced on a cost reimbursable basis, review of the Workday Cost Reimbursable Line Status Report can highlight issues with specific transactions. One of the most common issues GCA sees are expenses outside the award line dates, which come as a result of incorrect budget dates being assigned to one or more transactions. Timely review and reconciliations of award lines by campus fiscal staff ensure expenditures are allowable and allocable to a grant, can be included in invoices and financial reports, and ensure that issues are resolved prior to closeout.

Q3: Many late expenses are due to vendor delay in invoicing. Also pay issues on our side when for technical reasons a PO didn’t pay and then another PO has to be set up to pay and that is after closeout dates. How to handle?
A3: GCA recognizes that late expenses can result from factors outside a department’s direct control, including vendor invoicing delays and a variety of technical issues. These situations can be challenging, particularly when they arise close to or after award line end dates. That said, campus fiscal staff and faculty are responsible for actively monitoring award timelines and taking proactive steps to minimize late posting risk. This includes following up with vendors on outstanding invoices, regularly reviewing open POs, addressing payment errors promptly, and escalating technical issues as early as possible. Timely monitoring and resolution help ensure that invoicing, federal letter of credit draws, financial reporting, and closeout activities can be completed accurately and on schedule.

Q4: Does GCA have an idea of the reasons behind the increased trend of reopening award lines?
A4: While not an exhaustive list, some noteworthy reasons include late subaward/supplier invoices, late payroll accounting adjustments and accounting adjustments, and expenditures outside the award line dates, which require an accounting adjustment to update the incorrect budget date associated with a transaction.

Q5: GCA requests/questions on awards often come long after the final action date. If GCA reviews well after the final action date and something needs to be adjusted, it results in requests to reopen lines. A more timely review would reduce line reopen requests. Not a question as I know GCA has major backlogs but this can be also be an issue on reopening.
A5: You are correct that delayed reviews can result in requests to re-open grants/award lines, and we recognize the impact that has on campus units. GCA is actively working through backlogs and prioritizing reviews based on risk, compliance exposure, and financial impact. As reviews are completed, some inquiries may relate to older transactions, which can unfortunately require corrective action. We are continuing efforts to improve timeliness and reduce the need to re-open award lines wherever possible. We appreciate campus partnership and responsiveness to our inquiries, as timely collaboration is essential to resolving outstanding items and preventing future delays.

Q6: Our re-open requests are mostly due to Workday counting appropriate expenses that post before the FAD but after the award period has ended as not within the appropriate period. This is often not caught until after the FAD when GCA pulls reports to close things out because it looks correct to the department grant managers. It would be helpful if this could be addressed in Workday.
A6: We know expenditures outside the award line dates are very impactful and in the coming months GCA has planned report and exception report enhancements that will identify and expose these sorts of errors. We are evaluating additional custom Workday validations and system controls to reduce the occurrence of these postings occurring in the first place. In the interim, GCA recommends proactive reviews of grants/award lines prior to the final action date using the Workday Cost Reimbursable Line Status Report and kindly requests prompt responses to GCA inquiries when exceptions are identified.

CORE Update

Q1: Is there a link to get to the CORE On-Demand classes for easier registration?
A1: CORE Course Registration (Requires a UW NetID).

Q2: I can’t find the intro to effort reporting class in the catalog. Could you send a direct link to it?
A2: You can search “effort” on your learning dashboard or use this link to the Effort Course Requires a UW NetID).