Following the peer review process, applications that an IC may fund are reviewed for a number of other considerations. These include, as applicable, alignment with NIH’s funding principles, review of the project budget, assessment of the applicant’s management systems, determination of applicant eligibility, and compliance with public policy requirements. The applicant may be asked to submit additional information (such as other support or verification of IACUC review) or to undertake certain activities (such as negotiation of an F&A cost rate) in anticipation of an award. However, such requests by NIH do not guarantee that an award will be made. Following review of all applicable information, the IC will determine whether an award can be made, if special conditions are required, and what level of funding is appropriate.
Although these reviews and determinations occur before NIH makes a new award, grantees must continue to comply with eligibility and public policy requirements and maintain adequate
management systems throughout the period of support. The pre-award process for non-
competing continuation awards is a streamlined version of this process, including an assessment of progress (see “Administrative Requirements—Monitoring—Reporting—Non-Competing Grant Progress Reports”).
Just-in-Time Procedures
NIH uses just-in-time procedures for certain programs and award mechanisms. These procedures call for limited information (e.g., a budget justification and a biographical sketch) to be
submitted with investigator-initiated applications and allow for a possible NIH request for additional information, including information concerning other support, when the application is under consideration for funding. Just-in-time procedures also allow an applicant to defer
certification of IRB approval of the project’s proposed use of human subjects, verification of IACUC approval of the project’s proposed use of live vertebrate animals, and evidence of
compliance with the education in the protection of human research participants requirement until after completion of the peer review and just prior to funding. (Applications in response to RFAs also may be subject to these procedures. The RFA will specify the timing and nature of required submissions.)
Information on other support will be requested as part of the just-in-time procedures. IC scientific program and grants management staff will review this information before award to ensure the following:
There is no scientific, budgetary, or commitment overlap.
Scientific overlap occurs when (1) substantially the same research is proposed in more than one application or is submitted to two or more funding sources for review and funding consideration or (2) a specific research objective and the research design for accomplishing the objective are the same or closely related in two or more
applications or awards, regardless of the funding source.
Budgetary overlap occurs when duplicate or equivalent budgetary items (e.g., equipment, salaries) are requested in an application but already are provided by another source.
Commitment overlap occurs when an individual’s time commitment exceeds 100 percent, whether or not salary support is requested in the application.
Overlap, whether scientific, budgetary, or commitment of an individual’s effort greater than 100 percent, is not permitted. Any overlap will be resolved by the IC with the applicant and the PI at the time of award.
Only funds necessary to the approved project are included in the award.
For modular applications, the applicant is not required to submit detailed budget information in the application. In lieu of the standard budget forms, the applicant requests total direct costs for each year of support requested. The request must be accompanied by budget narrative for all personnel (by position, title, and level of effort), including consultants and “to be appointed” positions, and, when applicable, for consortium/contractual costs. NIH will request additional budget information in exceptional circumstances only. Other support information will be requested only for modular applications likely to result in an award. (See Subpart B of this part for more detailed coverage of modular applications and awards.)
Funding Principles
The amount of NIH funding is based on reasonable and allowable costs consistent with the principles of sound cost management, considering IC priorities (e.g., program relevance), constraints on the growth of average grant costs, and available funds. NIH also has adopted the following core funding principles specifically for research project grants:
NIH generally will award non-competing continuation research project grants at committed levels.
When determining commitments for future years, NIH will consider stability of support for investigators, optimum portfolio balance, and opportunities to address emerging problems.
Eligibility
NIH awards may be made only to eligible applicants. Continued funding is dependent on the grantee’s maintaining eligibility. In general, domestic or foreign, public or private, non-profit or
for-profit organizations are eligible to receive NIH grants. However, on the basis of statutory, regulatory, or published policy limitations, under certain programs or types of awards, NIH may limit eligibility to, or exclude from eligibility, classes or types of entities. Examples are
limitations on the participation of foreign entities, and programs under which only small businesses are eligible applicants. The determination of eligibility includes verification of the applicant’s status. The applicant may be required to provide proof of its status by submitting documentation; otherwise the AOO’s signature on the application certifies that the applicant is eligible to apply for and receive an award (e.g., a small business applying under the SBIR or STTR programs).
In addition to reviewing organizational eligibility, NIH may consider other factors relating to the applicant’s ability to responsibly handle and account for Federal funds and to carry out the project. These factors include the applicant’s intended role in the project, the location where the project will be performed, the role of the PI in the project, and the PI’s employment and
citizenship status. Although some of these same considerations are reviewed as part of the peer review, NIH’s concern at this stage in the process is making an award to a legal entity that will be accountable for both the performance of the approved project or activity and the appropriate expenditure of funds. NIH will not make an award to an applicant that does not have a
substantive role in the project and would simply serve as a conduit for another entity. The GMO also will verify whether the applicant, proposed PI, or other key personnel are debarred or suspended from participation in Federal assistance programs (see “Public Policy Requirements and Objectives—Ethical and Safe Conduct in Science and Organizational Operations” for certification requirements).
Generally, PIs and other personnel supported by NIH research grants are not required to be U.S. citizens. However, some NIH programs/mechanisms have a citizenship requirement. Any citizenship requirement will be stated in the PA or RFA. In these cases, individuals are required to have the appropriate citizenship status when the award is made rather than when the
application is submitted. For example, under K awards or Kirschstein-NRSA individual
fellowships, the individual to be trained must be a citizen or a non-citizen national of the United States or have been lawfully admitted for permanent residence at the time of award.
NIH requires the applicant to determine that individuals’ visas will allow them to remain in this country long enough for them to be productive on the research project, but NIH does not provide guidance on or assess the different types of visas. NIH expects grantee organizations to have policies, consistently applied regardless of the source of funds, to address this area. If a grant is awarded and an individual’s visa will not allow a long enough stay to be productive on the project, NIH may terminate the grant (see “Administrative Requirements—Changes in Project and Budget” and “Administrative Requirements—Enforcement Actions—Suspension,
Termination, and Withholding of Support”).
The eligibility requirements for trainees and additional eligibility requirements for fellows are addressed in “Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Awards” in Subpart B of this part of the NIHGPS.
In the post-award phase, NIH monitors changes in grantee and project status to ensure they meet legal and programmatic requirements and takes actions necessary to protect the Federal
government’s interests.
Cost Analysis and Assessment of Management Systems
The GMO will ensure that a cost analysis is performed on any application that requires a detailed budget. Cost analysis involves obtaining cost breakdowns, validating cost data, evaluating specific elements of cost, and examining data to determine the necessity for, and the
reasonableness and allowability of, the costs included in the application budget. The extent of cost analysis will depend on the type of funding instrument and award mechanism, the
complexity of the project, prior experience with the applicant, and other factors. Information on the applicable cost principles and on allowable and unallowable costs under NIH grants is provided in “Cost Considerations.”
In addition to considering the specific information provided in the application, the GMO
determines the adequacy of the applicant’s financial and business management systems that will support the expenditure of and accountability for NIH funds. When an applicant has had no prior Federal grants or cost-reimbursement contracts, the GMO may review the applicant’s financial management and other management systems before award, or within a reasonable time after award, to determine their adequacy and acceptability. For an applicant with prior NIH or other Federal cost-reimbursement awards, the GMO may review recent audit reports and other available information to determine whether the applicant’s management systems meet the
standards established in 45 CFR Part 74 or 45 CFR Part 92, as appropriate. The GMO will advise the applicant if additional information is required. On the basis of the review results, the GMO will determine the need for any corrective action and may impose special conditions on the award.