Award Set Up
The Research Foundation is committed to supporting efficient and compliant award set up. It is a shared responsibility of the PI, department, college and corporate supporting offices to ensure that the award is set up in a manner to best support understanding of award conditions and University policies, meet sponsor expectations for deliverables and prior approvals, and meet financial controls and reporting requirements of the Sponsor.
Upon receipt of a sponsor award notice, or after an agreement is executed, the Research Foundation initiatives the set up process. It is the goal of the Research Foundation Post-Award Teams to set up awards in as little time as possible, in the most compliant manner.
If you receive anaward document directly froma sponsor, pleaseforward it to the Research Foundation Post-Award team at rfawards@odu.edu or if at the Medical Campus, send to RFHSCAwards@odu.edu. A Grants & Contracts Administrator (GCA) will reach out to begin the award and backfilling process.
- If an electronic proposal transmittal form (ePTF) has not been routed for theaward,the GCAwill the Pre-Award Team and the PI(s) to complete it and route it for approval with all relevant documents totherecord.
- Once the ePTF has been routed for signatures, the GCA will begin the award setup process and route the remaining documents and contracts/agreements for official execution and account setup.
Awards that include the use ofhuman subjectsand/oranimal subjectsrequire review and approval of the research protocol by 's Institutional Review Board(IRB)or 's Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee(IACUC)before the Award can be released for spending. To expedite the release of funds, investigators should begin the protocol application or modification process as soon as they learn a project is likely to be funded.
Grant Congruency
During protocol review, IRB and IACUC verify congruence between the sponsored project’s proposed scope of work and the research protocol. The sponsored project source of funds is linked to the protocol via the Proposal or Award number or sponsor award ID. At Award setup, the Research Foundation ensures the specific sponsored project is reviewed by the IRB and/or IACUC. After the protocol review is completed, the account can be setup and the funding can be released. If at any time during the life of the sponsored project the protocol lapses or expires, the IRB/IACUC will notify the Research Foundation GCA and the project spending will be stopped until the necessary protocol approval is obtained.
- For questions or help with an IACUC protocol application or modification, contact the IACUC office atIACUC@odu.edu.
- For questions on the IRB process or help with an IRB protocol application or modification, contact the IRB office at: irb@odu.edu.
In addition to these internal review requirements, some sponsors may require their own review and approval of 's human/animal research protocols. Common sponsors imposing this requirements are: the Department of Defense and the National Institute of Justice. If the sponsor imposes additional approval requirements, the Research Foundation cannot release funding until the appropriate agency has approved the protocol or has authorized non-human and/or non-animal work to begin. The terms and conditions of each award must be reviewed to determine if additional approval is required.
An approved protocol will need to be provided for fellowship awards and training grants where the trainee’s work includes the use of human and/or animal subjects. In cases where the trainee is working under their mentor’s protocol and only stipend will be charged to the training grant, the training grant does not need to be added to the protocol as a funding source. The faculty mentor may provide attestation as to which protocol covers the work. Some training grants include more than one study with human and/or animal work. IRB/IACUC do not generally approve “umbrella” protocols, therefore each study must be approved by IRB/IACUC prior to initiating work.
If use of human and/or animal subjects not originally included in the scope of work needs to occur during the life of the award, this may be an indicator of a change in scope. Most sponsors must provide prior approval for a change in scope. To request sponsor prior approval, contact your GCA who will coordinate with you and the Division of Research and Economic Development's Compliance Team and include the relevant protocol information. Prior approval must be received before engaging in the human/animal work.
An outgoing subaward is funding provided by the Research Foundation to a Subrecipient for the purpose of carrying out a programmatic segment of a sponsored project. Outgoing subawards are prepared by the Research Foundation Post-Award Teams.
Other relationships do not meet the definition of an Outgoing Subaward:
- Contractors and Consultants are not classified as Subrecipients and are processed through the Research Foundation Procurement Team. .
- A collaboration with another Unit/Department at is not an outgoing subaward.
- When / Research Foundationis a subrecipient, funds arrive via an Incoming Subaward and are processed through a proposal.
In accordance with the requirements contained within Title 2, Part 200 of the Code of Federal Regulations (2 CFR 200), referred to as Uniform Guidance (UG), the Research Foundation is required to perform a series of monitoring efforts on behalf of to ensure proper stewardship of federal funds. Those efforts include Subrecipient vs. Contractor determination, performing Subrecipient risk analysis and compliance review, and monitoring the programmatic activities of Subrecipients throughout the life of each federally-funded Subaward. Subawards may also be subject to additional federal agency-specific regulations established by the federal sponsor. Although not required by state or federal law, to the extent practicable, the Research Foundation will follow these guidelines as a best practice approach to programmatic and financial monitoring and of its non-federally-funded subrecipients.
The Principal Investigator (PI) for / Research Foundation is typically in the best position to determine if a Subaward is needed and to select the Subrecipient that will work on the project. Selection is based on the potential Subrecipient’s technical experience and the ability to perform the portion of the scope of work being proposed.
Determining the proper relationship between / Research Foundation and any collaborator is an important part of sponsored project management. The collaborator’s scope of work will drive the classification, regardless of budget impact.Improper classification may cause issues related to availability of funds, prior approval requirements, and contractual requirements.
Characteristics of Subrecipient and Contractor/Consultant relationships:
| Subrecipient | Contractor/Consultant |
|---|---|
| Scope of Work: • Involves Analysis and Interpretation • Has a question to be answered |
Scope of Work: • Provides services explicitly requested by / Research Foundation • Provides professional advice or services for a fee • Manufactures goods • Creates a prototype based on / Research Foundation design • Hosts a website • Performs testing and provides unanalyzed data |
| Participates substantially in the design and direction of the overall scope of work | Does not participate significantly in the design of the work |
| Has the freedom/ability to make decisions regarding the work to be completed within the terms of the agreement | Has little or no independent decision making in the design or conduct of the work being completed |
| Makes operational decisions on how to carry out the work | Paid for deliverables only; not on a reimbursement basis for actual costs incurred |
| Generates data and retains it for future research use | Normally operates in a competitive environment with other like vendors; competes with other entities that provide the same goods or services; provides similar goods or services to a number of entities |
| Likely to be a co-author on overall reports and publications | Unlikely to be a coauthor on publications |
