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 Topic: NIH Child Care
Q1: Will GCA set up NIH childcare costs into a separate Workday line for closer tracking?
A1: Yes. GCA sets up a separate grant worktag for NIH childcare funding. The worktag will include “CC” in the grant name and a 0% F&A rate. Please see GCA’s website for more information on the process for setting up and spending NIH Childcare funding.
NIH Childcare Allowance | Grant & Contract Accounting
Q2: Childcare costs are given for pre-doc and post-doc trainees?
A2: Yes, NIH will award childcare costs for both pre-doc and post-doc trainees. Please see the linked NIH notices for more information on applicability of the childcare allowance.
-
NOT-OD-24-116: Childcare Costs for Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award (NRSA) Individual Fellows and Institutional Research Training Awards
- NOT-OD-25-100: Updated Procedures for Childcare Costs for Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award (NRSA) Institutional Research Training Awards
Diversity in Clinical Trials Initiative
Q1: How does the new policy apply to industry-sponsored clinical trials? Also, how is this information being shared with PIs?
A1: The same Diversity in Clinical Trials (DCT) policy requirements as outlined in our guidance apply to all applicable clinical trials, regardless of funding source. This includes industry-sponsored research. We encourage study teams to review this information and submit any questions to hsdinfo@uw.edu. Multiple communications about the Diversity in Clinical Trials Initiative have been provided in our monthly newsletter which goes out to all PIs in our Zipline system. We have also been conducting presentations in several research forums. Additionally, HSD has worked with OSP and ORIS to receive a report from SAGE that provides information about new funding applications being submitted. Since February 2025, HSD has reviewed this report on a monthly basis and directly emailed PIs who appear to be applying for funding in support of a clinical trial that will start on/after January 1, 2026 to alert them to the DCT requirements. We have also set up an automated notice in the REDCap Study Intake Form managed by the CTMS Program Office.
Q2: What's the process to setup interpreter services that are billed to research?
A2: Information about accessing interpreter services for research may be found on UW Medicine Language Access and Cultural Advocacy website. Note that interpreter services provided in association with a UW Medicine clinical visit do not come with any additional research cost.
Q3: If we use the translation service, do we still need to submit the translation attestation form to IRB?
A3: Yes. If the study is greater than minimal risk, or if the IRB requests it, a translation attestation form must be submitted with a modification requesting approval for any translated consent materials. If the translation service provides a certification document that is equivalent to the information provided in our attestation, it may be submitted in lieu of our form.
Q1: Please clarify that we do not need a MOD for the first NCE request?
A1: A MOD is still required for first NCEs. What we wanted to clarify is that if the MOD for an NCE was already submitted for prior approval, OSP will proceed with the grantee-approved NCE if available, and another MOD is not necessary.
Q2: Does the first-time extension requests no longer require the extension form and other materials? Is there a new procedure webpage?
A2: The internal extension form is still required and should be attached to the MOD. However, the additional documentation that was required for prior approval NCEs is no longer needed for 1st NIH NCEs.
Q3: I submitted the extra documentation during the period of time that the NCE button was disabled. Now the project is past it’s end date and the button is not available. How will this be handled by OSP?
A3: OSP has been following up with NIH regarding the prior approval NCE requests where the project period has already expired and therefore the grantee-approved option is not available. So far, NIH has usually indicated that they are still reviewing the prior approval request for the NCE that was originally submitted.
After-the-Fact eGC1 web updates since August MRAM:
-
NEW: What’s the difference between a proposal and an After-the-Fact eGC1?
-
UPDATED: After-the-Fact eGC1 glossary entry
Q1: Is there a job aid for an ATF eGC1?
A1: please review: What’s the difference between a proposal and an After-the-Fact eGC1?
Q2: How do we communicate developing plans for a proposal to OSP? I have PIs who submit renewal proposals to sponsor's portal. But when I've tried to alert OSP via MODs, the MODs have been returned to me for lack of a proposal.
A2: A proposal to renew funding, if it was not part of the original application and the sponsor has not already indicated their intent to award the funds, normally requires an eGC1 rather than a MOD.
Q3: What efforts is OSP making to ensure that PIs understand their obligations regarding eGC1 vs. ATF eGC1? Many faculty engage in discussions with potential funders that should trigger the creation of an eGC1. In some cases, awards are even funded without any prior input or review from the department or OSP leading to ATF eGC1’s. When PIs don’t communicate these discussions, we have no way of knowing they’re happening and therefore can't provide guidance on initiating an eGC1. It's a challenging situation, but it seems there needs to be greater awareness among PIs and faculty about their responsibility to keep us informed of these conversations/their plans. This really needs to be an official policy rather than case-by-case grant managers asking PIs to do this.
A3: We realize it is challenging for grant managers to guide the process if the PI does not have them fully in the loop. The official policy is Executive Order 34. In terms of communicating to PIs, we will also keep that in mind as part of the Grants Management for Investigators class and discuss with the Dean's level advisory group that works with the Office of Research.
Q4: If the nature of the activity is still being discussed and the budget isn't finalized, how do we fill in the eGC1? It sounds like OSP wants to be looped in early, but early means no plans are solidified. What if the eGC1 content changes? Will OSP reach out to the potential funder to discuss the proposal? A few examples and pinpointing when to route the eGC1 would be useful.
A4: We understand it's not always easy to determine when preliminary discussions have ripened into a proposal that should receive OSP review. A budget being submitted to the sponsor is effectively a proposal. If the sponsor has not asked for a budget, but the plans are detailed enough that the PI/department can generate a budget, then that can be the basis of the eGC1. When proposals result from informal discussions, it may not be clear when the proposal can be "locked down", but if information changes from the eGC1, that can also be dealt with in pre-award communication if necessary; we regularly see awards of all kinds that differ from what the PI initially proposed. As far as discussing the proposal with the sponsor, OSP generally leaves that to the PI. We would be more likely to reach out when it is time to negotiate an award (or non-award) agreement.
Q5: "Incomplete and inaccurate information on the eGC1 causes re-work" can be in conflict with early discussion between the PI and the potential sponsor. Can you clarify.
A5: The content of the eGC1 should align with the proposal to the sponsor, and in the case of ATF eGC1s, the agreement as well. OSP will request clarification if there appears to be a discrepancy, for example in the compliance questions (e.g., confidentiality agreement marked as "No" for Proprietary Information). For evolving discussions, OSP understands that the eGC1 necessarily reflects what is known at the time it is routed, and a sponsor may seek to revise a proposal when making an award. Arguably we see inaccurate information as often on ATF eGC1s that were prepared in haste, even though project plans have been finalized, as we do proposals for which some pre-award adjustment later supersedes the eGC1, even though it was accurate at the time.
Q6: Who signs MOUs with Tribal Nations?
A6: Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) are generally not routed to OSP since an MOU should be an expression of intent or expression of goals but should not include legally binding terms. If the agreement is legally binding, it is likely not an MOU. Please review Agreements that do NOT route to OSP for more information.
Q1: RE: "We need to see the actual budget. Don't link to SAGE Budget". what budget do you want?
A1: OSP needs a detailed budget, either on the prime sponsor budget form or on a spreadsheet. It's important that we have detailed breakdown of costs by categories, matching the amount in the subaward action, that we can use to create the budget attachment for the subaward or subaward amendment.
Q2: Do escalations still have to go through our dean's office?
A2: No, you should request them directly through the online form. Please note that Dean's Office representatives will have access to view the list of escalation requests.
Q3: Is there a way for campus to track requests that we have submitted via the new escalation form?
A3: There will not be a public list of submitted items. Escalated items will be assigned once a week. You will receive an email notification if the request is returned for corrections or updates. Otherwise, the request will either be assigned to a subaward administrator and you can see the status in the SAGE record. If needed, email OSP Subs at ospsubs@uw.edu with any questions about the status of the request.
Q4: Is there any published guidance on subaward deobligations (*subaward reductions), specifically what OSP subs needs in a budget? My guess is it depends. (These tend to necessitate returns.)
A4: There is no published guidance. It will depend on the specifics of the reduction. You can contact ospsubs@uw.edu for help with your specific situation.
Q5: Do we need to add a budget justification for the second year of a subaward if OSP subs already has it from the first year?
A5: A budget justification is not needed unless there is a significant change to the budget.
Q6: If the subaward recipient is a UW supplier but not currently registered as a recipient within the UW system, what is the appropriate process for requesting their addition? The website indicates that an Award Portal ticket should be submitted; does this mean that GCA will coordinate with the sub-recipient directly to facilitate their recipient registration? The instructions on the website is a bit unclear.
A6: GCA does not coordinate with the subrecipient about the supplier registration process. Once an entity is registered as a supplier in Workday, the Award Portal Ticket triggers GCA to designate the Supplier as a Subrecipient in Workday. Subrecipients are a subset of Suppliers in Workday.
The details for adding the subrecipient to UW systems are included in the First Steps section of the Subawards Setup page.
Q7: I'm not familiar with the term RNR Budget. Is this completely separate from SAGE Budget? Can someone please explain this a little more fully?
A7: R&R is the Research and Related Budget that is typically attached to NIH proposals.
SAGE Update
Q: Is there a list of requested improvements and there status? An example would be the problems folks were having with the calcs in the SAGE budget form.
A: ORIS plans to publish the list of performance related areas we are working on when the new SAGE Health page comes out. For feature priorities, they will communicate on the big bucket items targeted for the year as AIDE prioritization decisions are made. SAGE is prioritizing production support and performance reports ahead of feature work at this time, in order to stabilize SAGE. Budget calcs and alternate approaches for refreshing totals are being actively worked on as an issue tied to performance reports.
Q: Is GCA actively recruiting/hiring?
A: GCA has received approval to recruit for several critical vacant positions. Recruitment will resume when the Workday Recruiting implementation is completed.
We look forward to seeing you at the next meeting on September 11.
Thank you,
MRAM