You are here


This will take place in phases over a 13-month period. We have some hires and teams to establish. The Pre Award team will be the first fully formed team by mid-summer, though a “soft launch” is taking place as early as this week. The remaining teams will take effect in the Fall. 

Each staff member in ORSP is responsible for managing actions for each business line concurrently and there are numerous hand-offs within ORSP to complete actions for a single transaction. Impact: Inability to effectively prioritize work; failed hand-offs; delayed responsiveness and communication;  delays experienced by faculty and sponsors.  Staff experience burnout. 

No. A university’s F&A cost rate is not a percent of the total grant, but rather a percentage only of the research project’s direct costs. Currently, the average amount paid to universities for F&A costs is approximately 25-33 percent of the total amount of a grant. (Campuses with medical centers tend to be closer to 33 percent because of the increased costs and expenses involved in providing for medical research facilities.)

Federal agency officials and university administrators predetermine an overall percentage of allowed F&A costs to be paid, based on documented historical costs and cost analysis studies. The final rates allowed for F&A expenses are established based on a rigorous review and audit of the actual funds previously spent for such costs. F&A cost rates vary from institution to institution because construction, maintenance, utilities, and administration costs vary by institution and by region. Additionally, F&A rates depend upon other factors such as the age and condition of facilities and buildings and the amount of renovation and construction needed to house certain types of research projects. For example, the F&A costs for a biomedical research facility built in an urban area that experiences earthquakes is different than an engineering research facility built in a rural area. 

Here’s how it works: To determine the level of F&A expenses the federal government will cover, every 3-4 years, the agency responsible for setting a university’s F&A rate (either the Department of Defense Office of Naval Research or the Department of Health and Human Services) will comprehensively audit and assess these shared costs to determine the appropriate federal share based upon specific costs that have been deemed allowable expenses by the OMB. The overall figure is ultimately calculated as a percentage of the amount the federal government awards for direct research costs (not a percentage of the overall funds, the figure most people see). For example, after reviewing all the expected costs and considering past research projects, a university and the federal government may determine that an amount equal to 50 percent of direct research costs is appropriate for the federal government to contribute toward F&A costs. In that case, if the federal government awards a university $300,000 for the direct research portion of a grant, then it also awards $150,000 for F&A costs, for a total of $450,000. These overall institutional F&A cost rates are then applied uniformly to each grant at the university to avoid the very tedious, expensive and inefficient process of computing the F&A expenses for individual awards – which would add additional costs for both the government and the university. 

No. OMB rules (2 CFR Part 200 - Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards) require that F&A cost reimbursements can only be based on federally funded research space and related research activities, not education or other university facilities or activities.

Comparing what can and cannot be charged to a federal grant versus a foundation grant is an “apples to oranges” comparison since foundations categorize and pay grant-related expenses very differently than the federal government does. For example, foundations often categorize some items as direct expenses that federal rules require to be counted as F&A expenses. This further underscores that direct and F&A costs are all part of total research costs and are inseparable when it comes to the actual conduct of research. 3 To the extent that a foundation does not pay for certain F&A expenses, these costs must be covered by the institution. OMB rules (2 CFR Part 200 - Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards) specifically require universities to ensure the federal government does not subsidize non-federally sponsored research activity – including research and associated infrastructure costs performed by universities for private foundations – in their support for F&A expenses. Additionally, as previously noted, after World War II the federal government consciously chose to encourage universities to conduct research on its behalf to help achieve national goals. A core tenant of the partnership between the federal government and universities is that the government shares in the costs of research by providing universities with competitively awarded grants to support the people, tools, and infrastructure necessary to conduct high-quality research for the nation. Historically, most foundations view their grants as supplementing research that scientists are already conducting. To this day, most foundation research funding is viewed as supplementing existing federal and non-federal research. Finally, foundation funding for university-based research remains a small proportion of total academic R&D funding (only 6 percent) compared to federal funding (55 percent) and the funding provided to support academic R&D by the colleges and universities themselves (24 percent).

Generally, past studies suggest that total F&A costs for university research are slightly less than those costs for other research performers. A study in 2000 by the RAND Corporation found universities had the lowest percentage classified as F&A (31 percent). Federal laboratories were somewhat higher at 33 percent and industrial laboratories were higher still at 36 percent. This demonstrates that universities are efficient performers of research. (Goldman, Charles A., Traci Williams, David M. Adamson and Kathy Rosenblatt. Paying for University Research Facilities and Administration. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2000.

Unfortunately, a comparable study to the RAND study has not been undertaken in recent years. Such a study would be welcomed by the university community. Additionally, as indicated under the previous question, the federal payment to universities for their F&A costs does not cover the full costs to their institution. This is unlike other sectors that receive full compensation for all their costs. The federal government has smartly invested in university-based research: F&A costs at universities are lower than other sectors, the government does not pay a profit to universities like it must for industry research performers, there is a university-specific cap on the amount the government will cover for administrative expenses, and the system of agency oversight ensures universities continue to be excellent stewards of federal taxpayers’ dollars.

No. F&A costs recovered by research institutions have remained flat for over 15 years. For example, the National Institutes of Health’s percent of total funding going towards F&A costs has remained unchanged, at approximately 27-28 percent of total funding, for more than a decade (see figure 4). 

Increasing. Over the past several years, the share of institutional support that colleges and universities provide to support research conducted by their faculty has grown faster than any other sector. This growth in institutional spending on R&D has come at the same time that federal support has been declining (See figure 3).

The increase in institutions’ support for the R&D they conduct is due in part to the rising compliance costs associated with increased federal research regulations and reporting requirements. Despite the increasing administrative costs required for compliance, the amount universities can receive from the government for these costs has been capped at a flat rate by OMB since 1991. This cap only applies to higher education institutions. Unlike other sectors that conduct government research, universities must therefore subsidize compliance costs from their own financial resources. 

No, universities absolutely do not make gains from their F&A recoveries. Universities are not even fully paid for the expenses they incur to provide the necessary infrastructure and support to conduct federal research. As stated above, in FY15 universities contributed approximately $4.9 billion in facilities and administrative expenditures not reimbursed by the 2 government, many of which were not covered because of existing Office of Management and Budget (OMB) limitations on the amount the government can support universities for administrative and compliance related expenses, including federal mandates. (National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, Higher Education Research and Development Survey. Higher education R&D expenditures, by highest degree granted, institutional control, and type of cost: FYs 2011–15.)

Yes. Universities are the second leading sponsor of academic research and development (R&D). Federal data show that colleges and universities pay for more than 24 percent of total academic R&D funding from their own funds. This university contribution amounted to $16.7 billion in FY15, including $4.9 billion in unreimbursed F&A costs. These institutional commitments to academic R&D significantly exceed the combined total of all other non-federal sources of support for academic R&D: state and local government, industry, and foundation, support was at 6 percent each in FY15 and other nonfederal sources provided 3 percent in FY15. Federal spending on higher education R&D has continued to decline and was just under $37.9 billion in FY15, or 55 percent of all funding for academic R&D (See figures 1-2).1 While universities contribute significantly to the costs of research, these institutions continue to be stretched thin. State support for public universities has declined greatly over the past 20 years and, in many cases, universities are educating more students. The notion that universities should cover even more of the costs of conducting research for the federal government is not realistic.

F&A costs are research costs. Universities and the federal government have a long-standing and successful partnership that grew out of World War II. The federal government relies on universities to conduct research in the national interest. This includes research aimed at meeting specific national goals such as health and welfare, economic growth, and national defense. Performing research on behalf of federal agencies incurs a variety of costs that would not otherwise exist for universities. Universities – not the federal government – assume the risk of building the necessary infrastructure to support this research in anticipation that their research faculty will successfully compete for federal research grants and thus the university will be reimbursed for a part of the associated infrastructure costs.

F&A costs – also referred to as “indirect costs” – are essential costs of conducting research. The federal government’s longstanding recognition and payment of these costs has helped U.S colleges and universities build and support the required research infrastructure that has made the American research enterprise the best in the world. When the government provides a grant to a university for a research project, a portion (typically 67-75 percent) of the funds are distributed directly to the research team. This “direct costs” portion supports researcher salaries, graduate students, equipment, and supplies. Another portion (typically 25-33 percent) covers necessary research infrastructure and operating expenses that the university provides to support the research. These research expenses – officially called facilities and administrative (F&A) costs – include: state-of-the art research laboratories; high-speed data processing; national security protections (e.g., export controls); patient safety (e.g., human subjects protections); radiation safety and hazardous waste disposal; personnel required to support essential administrative and regulatory compliance work, maintenance staff, and other activities necessary for supporting research.

Yes, project teams should use the function Project Team Cancel ACR if they would like to cancel the ACR prior to routing the ACR to ORSP.  Once the ACR is with ORSP, project teams should post a comment to their PR if they'd like the ACR to be canceled.

ORSP will decline an ACR request if the wrong change type was selected. Choosing the correct change type is necessary to update the AWD record properly. There are other reasons as well. Decline / Take No Action can also mean that the ACR was not needed or no post-award change was necessary.

Unfortunately, no. Once you've submitted the ACR, the system does not allow you to revise or edit the change types selected. A new ACR will have to be created. A best practice is to select all the types of change actions you need the first time through. You may also cancel the ACR and start a new one with the correct change type(s) needed.

The purpose of this audit is to provide assurance to the U.S. Federal Government that, as a non-federal entity, we have adequate internal controls in place and are generally in compliance with program requirements. See: Single Audit |

No. Be sure to use only the domain portion of your email address. The med prefix will not work. 

We are happy to hear you want to take part on the Slack space! If you are not a member and would like to be, write

All instructor-led courses are taught by highly-experienced U-M research administrators and central office staff who have volunteered to teach on topics with which they have extensive knowledge and experience.

Participants who complete all requirements for an instructor-led course or eLearning module receive a “Certificate of Achievement.” This certificate is available in My LINC under the Quick Links > Training Transcript section.

When a new course offering is announced, there will be a link to the registration form or application on the course page. Sign up to receive the RAP/RAPid newsletters to receive course announcements.

Descriptions for each of the offerings are available on the respective web pages above.

Instructor-led courses and webinars are typically offered in the Fall and Spring. Navigate eLearning modules are available year-round.

Unfortunately, if you’ve already submitted the ACR, you’ll have to create a new one. A best practice is to select all the types of change actions you need the first time through.

Proposal Management: Request Action on Award | ITS Documentation

Find links to subscribe, view archives, submit content, and more on our News & Communications page.

The slides for RAN can be found on the RAN web page:  (If you are on this page, just scroll down, past the gold line that reads References & Resources.)
We also send out a links after in our RAP/RAPid newsletters. We'll include links to the  link as well as the recorded webcast/video.

Yes! If you have multiple changes, this is the most efficient way to make the request. When you route the Action request, select the check box for every change you are requesting. More than one type can be selected (except for "Other Action").

Check the Status Map on the main Award Change Request (ACR) Workspace page. This will tell you who may need to take action. Below are a few reasons why the ACR has not been completed:

  1. ORSP might not have your ACR because it has not been approved by the PI or Department. All approvals must be complete before it comes to your ORSP Rep.
  2. Perhaps you communicated outside of the ACR process (using email or a posted comment). ORSP cannot act on those.
  3. Perhaps it hasn't been routed to ORSP. Be sure to hit "Submit Changes."

For more information visit:

We need you to have a U-M email address first. Ask your school or college to get you a sponsored affiliate email address or to proceed with obtaining your U-M email address first.

We register your ID in eRPM, and we can't proceed if you have not signed in. Doing so creates your "person account." See Instructions to Login to eRPM:

If there is no overlap, you can simply state: “None of the active/pending projects listed above represents an overlap of science, budget, or committed effort.”

Yes, when you are the career-development recipient. If you are serving as a mentor without specified effort, it does not need to be included in your Other Support.

Yes, if the trainee is supported by a non-U-M entity (e.g., their home institution), and the trainee is contributing to any of the U-M faculty member's research endeavors, then the U-M faculty member would need to include the trainee as a type of "in-kind" resource on their Other Support document.

Do not include the trainee as an in-kind resource on the U-M faculty member's Other Support document if the trainee is supported solely through funds that are routed through U-M (including federal grants/awards).

Yes.  Each of the Certification Reports in Tableau has a Download button at the top of the page. 

You may choose to download either a PDF or a screenshot image of the report results.

Yes. Submit complete Other Support including active and pending sources of support and any required supporting documentation.

Yes, but only if any of the investigator's active support has changed. In that case, submit complete Other Support, including both active and pending sources of support and any supporting documents.

Investigators do not need to submit Other Support at RPPR if the only thing that has changed is their pending support.

In General

Investigators should not list “0.0” Person Months (calendar or academic/summer) for projects/proposals listed in Other Support. If an investigator is an active member of a project team, then some value greater than 0 should be indicated for the project, even if no salary support is directed to the investigator’s participation on the project.

  • For a project with a No Cost Time Extension (NCTX), if the Principal Investigator (PI) is the person reporting Other Support, then they should have some measurable effort on the project. For other types of senior/key personnel on the project, if their work is complete, they should not list the project on Other Support.

  • For K (Career Development) awards where all the effort is reported on the K award, but the concurrent projects are benefitting from the work, the concurrent projects may be listed on Other Support with 0.0 effort, including a note referencing the K award in the project description.


  • Per the NIH, list any external consulting that involves the design, conduct, or reporting of research (i.e., consulting agreements that are not routed through U-M and are between a non-U-M entity and an individual faculty member) on the invesigator's Other Support with 0.0 person months.

  • If a clinical trial is “dormant” (i.e., not enrolling), senior/key personnel may list “0.0” person months if they are not actively working on the trial.

A “non-US entity” is considered any corporation, society, or other entity/group that is not incorporated or legally organized to do business in the U.S.  This includes any foreign government.  This does not include U.S. incorporated subsidiaries of non-US-based foreign entities.

A “non-US person” is an individual who is not a U.S. citizen, permanent U.S. resident, or protected person. 

  • U.S. permanent residents are also commonly referred to as green card holders. 
  • Protected persons include individuals who have been granted formal asylum status or other protected immigration status. 

An individual’s visa status (e.g., student F1 visa, visiting scholar J1 visa, H1B visa) does not override their citizenship.

Yes. Contact the PEERRS group at to request an offline version of a PEERRS course that can best be reviewed using a screen reader.

Note:  learners using the offline version must submit the compliance test/attestation to the PEERRS group to receive course credit.

Provide the sponsor/institution with copy of the PEERRS HSP course outline comparing U-M course content to CITI's content to see if that satisfies their requirement. 

No.  If within the past 3 years you've completed a CITI human subjects protections basic course (biomedical or social-behavioral) or a CITI human subjects refresher course, you should submit a training waiver request to obtain credit for the U-M course.  As part of the waiver request, upload a copy of the CITI completion report that lists the course modules and the completion date for each. 

If the visitor is made available at no cost to U-M to support any of the U-M investigator’s research endeavors, they are considered an in-kind resource and must be included in the Other Support document.

If the visitor will be working on the proposed project, and are not a budgeted resource, then they should be included in the Facilities and Other Resources section of the proposal application.

See Common Other Support Examples.

Yes. Please see the Other Support Template and Common Other Support Examples document for guidance on how to report this Other Support.

Remember brain thinking iconTime spent in academic or research endeavors at another university should be reported as an outside activity in M- Inform. Start-up funding, salary (if applicable), etc. from the other university should be included in the value reported. Visit the Outside Interest Disclosure Process webpage for additional information.

Any active appointment, regardless of location, whether paid or unpaid, voluntary, honorary, adjunct, etc., must be included in an investigator’s Biosketch.

No, regardless of the value, if the in-kind resource meets these criteria, it should be reported in Other Support.

To be included in Other Support, an in-kind (i.e., non-monetary) resource must meet all the following criteria:

  • The resource is uniquely available to the researcher, and
  • The resource has been provided by a non-UM entity (either domestic or foreign) within the past three years, and
  • The resource will not be used on the proposed project.
  • The resource is being used actively in support of any of an investigator's other research endeavors (aside from the proposed project).

Types of in-kind resources include, but are not limited to:

  • Personnel (e.g., visiting scholars, visiting students, supported by a non-UM entity)
  • Space
  • Equipment
  • Materials
  • Supplies

Warning IconIn-kind resources intended for use on the proposed project should be included in the 'Facilities and Other Resources' or 'Equipment' section of the application and not as part of Other Support.