UCOP Contract & Grant Administration Handbook

Guide for UC Office of the President Departments in Administration of Extramural and Internal Proposals/Awards and Subawards

Due to the UCOP Financial System Replacement and implementation of Oracle PPM and Kuali Research, the information on this page may be out of date. This page will be updated to reflect new business processes once PPM and Kuali Research are fully implemented. In the interim, please continue to contact Brian Russ and Ruchika Dhussa with questions about extramural proposals, awards, and subawards.




1 . Who is Eligible to Submit a Proposal
2 . What Kind of Projects are Appropriate
3 . Contents of a Proposal


1 . University Information
2 . Budget Details


1 . Responsibilities for Processing a Proposal
2 . Extramural Proposal Cover Sheet
3 . Meeting the Submission Deadline
4 . Formal Submission of a Proposal
5 . Proposal Withdrawal or Denial


1 . Advance Expenditure Authorization
2 . Processing a Contract or Grant Award
3 . Processing Gift Awards


1 . Principal Investigator's Responsibilities
2 . How Award Account/Funds are Established The Role of the UCLA Extramural Funds Management Office





1 . Developing an Application or Proposal Package
2 . Evaluating Proposals


1 . Preparing the Award Document
2 . Transferring the Award/Subaward Funds






1 . Departmental Responsibilities
2 . RPAC Responsibilities
3 . Extramural Funds Accounting Office
4 . Risk Management, General Counsel, and Human Resources Offices





Units within Office of the President (UCOP) may apply for external (officially called “extramural”) support for their programs and projects, or may act as a sponsor of a grant program, primarily when the State of California legislature assigns responsibility to the University for the implementation of a program supported by State funds. As the University has specific procedures and administrative systems for handling such activities, RPAC has written this Contract and Grant Administration Handbook as a guide for UCOP staff for the submission of extramural proposals and administration of extramural awards as well as University-sponsored grant programs.

This Handbook is divided into three major Parts.

  • Part I covers the solicitation (i.e., submission of proposals) and receipt of extramural contracts, grants, or other similar agreements for UCOP research, training or public service projects.
  • Part II discusses administration of awards where the University is the sponsor/administrator of a program (i.e., The University is sending awards and funds to other institutions or campuses.)
  • Part II describes the process for administering subawards under an extramural award. For example, when UCOP receives a grant, it sometimes forwards part of the funds to other UC campuses or to non UC organizations to carry out parts of the scope of work. Part III covers agreements involving the temporary transfer of personnel either to or from UCOP.

Extramural awards to the University and University-sponsored programs involve processing proposals, budgets, solicitations, terms and conditions, financial accounting, transferring funds, and program performance. RPAC can provide, coordinate, or arrange for many of the services needed to administer such proposals and awards.


A. These procedures apply to all divisions of the Office of the President, except the Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources which has its own Contracts and Grants Office.

B. These procedures apply to:

1. Extramural Proposals and Awards, defined as: the solicitation, acceptance or execution, and administration of awards from extramural sponsors to OP for the conduct of research, scholarly and professional training, or public service programs relating either to research or to scholarly or professional training. Such awards include contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements, as well as interagency agreements from the California State universities and State agencies.

2. Intramural University sponsored award programs, defined as:

a. UCOP-implemented programs funded by the State legislature involving awards from UCOP (acting as a sponsor) to UC campuses or external institutions; and

b. Sub agreements issued by UCOP to UC campuses and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL);

c. Awards to UCOP from UC campuses and LBNL.

3. Agreements covering the temporary transfer of personnel either to or from UCOP. Such agreements include the federal Intergovernmental Personnel Agreements (IPAs).

C. These procedures do not apply to gifts; federal construction grants; student scholarships or loans; work study programs; education abroad agreements; affiliation agreements; consultant contracts, purchase orders, agreements between UCOP management and external organizations regarding the use of University facilities or participation in University programs. Other UCOP units such as Development Policy, Facilities Design, Construction, and Management, Student Financial Support, Health Affairs, and Materiel Management administer such agreements.



For the purpose of this Handbook, the term "proposal" is used to refer to any type of application or proposal submitted for an extramurally-sponsored grant, contract, or other legally-binding agreement.

1. Who is Eligible to Submit a Proposal

A proposal must have a Principal Investigator assigned to lead the project and assume responsibility for performance, administration and expenditure of awards. (See “Principal Investigator’s Responsibilities,” section 3.A.1)

The University's policy on eligibility to submit proposals for research, training, or public service related to research and training is the systemwide Contract and Grant Manual, section 1-530. This policy states that academic appointees in the following title groups are eligible to submit proposals:

  • Members of the Academic Senate, including emeriti
  • Appointees in the Agronomist series, including emeriti.
  • Appointees at 50 percent or more of full time in the Adjunct Professor series.
  • Appointees at 50 percent or more of full time in the Clinical Professor series.
  • Appointees at 50 percent or more of full time in the Professional Research series.
  • Appointees at 50 percent or more of full time in the Cooperative Extension Specialist series.

Standing Order 105.1(a) further defines the membership of the Academic Senate:

The Academic Senate shall consist of the President, Vice Presidents, Chancellors, Vice Chancellors, Deans, Provosts, Directors of academic programs, the chief admissions officer on each campus and in the Office of the President, registrars, the University Librarian on each campus of the University, each lecturer who has full-time teaching responsibilities in any curriculum under the control of the Academic Senate and whose academic title is Senior Lecturer with Security of Employment or Lecturer with Security of Employment, and each person giving instruction in any curriculum under the control of the Academic Senate whose academic title is Instructor, Instructor in Residence; Assistant Professor, Assistant Professor in Residence, Assistant Professor of Clinical (e.g., Medicine); Associate Professor, Associate Professor in Residence, Associate Professor of Clinical (e.g., Medicine), Acting Associate Professor; Professor, Professor in Residence, Professor of Clinical (e.g., Medicine), or Acting Professor; however, Instructors and Instructors in Residence of less than two years' service shall not be entitled to vote. Members of the faculties of professional schools offering courses at the graduate level only shall be members also of the Academic Senate, but, in the discretion of the Academic Senate, may be excluded from participation in activities of the Senate that relate to curricula of other schools and colleges of the University. Membership in the Senate shall not lapse because of leave of absence or by virtue of transference to emeritus status.

By exception, the Provost and Senior Vice President – Academic Affairs may approve the submission of a contract or grant proposal by other UCOP appointees who are not members of the above listed title groups, in special circumstances when such action is in the best interest of the University, and provided that space and facilities can be assigned without detriment to regular responsibilities of the University.

A sample letter requesting Principal Investigator status by exception and a sample approval letter are included under Exhibit A. A copy of the written approval must be submitted to RPAC with the proposal. In all cases, the person eligible to submit the proposal must personally participate in the proposed project in a significant manner.

2. What Kind of Projects are Appropriate

Proposals may be submitted for the conduct of research, scholarly and professional training, or public service programs related to either research or to scholarly or professional training. In accordance with University Regulation 4, the proposed project is appropriate if it:

  • contributes to the knowledge or value of teaching or research;
  • is suitable research for making such a contribution; or
  • provides an appropriate public service.

In addition to considering the appropriateness of a proposed project as outlined in University Regulation 4, the Principal Investigator needs to consider the availability of physical space, staff for program administration, and any other adjunct support services needed to carry out the proposed work. (See “Department Responsibilities,” Part III.4.A.)

3. Contents of a Proposal

When a UCOP unit decides to seek extramural support for a project, the unit staff looks for a potential source of funds for the particular project and develops a proposal in accordance with this sponsor's funding guidelines. Some sponsors issue specific instructions and forms while others may have general agency guidelines and specific requests for information. The proposal writer must be sure to supply all information requested as well as to keep within the page limitation, if one is given. Some sponsors may automatically reject a proposal not written according to their guidelines.

Generally, the following items are requested in a proposal:

  • A face page requesting basic information such as:
    • Title of project.
    • Type: new, renewal, or continuation.
    • Principal Investigator name, title, telephone, and signature.
    • Total budget requested.
    • Official administrative contact and authorized institution signature for the applicant (name, title, address, telephone and signature (See “University Information,” 2.A, below.)
    • Effective beginning and end dates of the project as supported by the funding requested.
  • Table of Contents (if warranted by the size of the proposal).
  • General description of the applicant organization (and/or UCOP department submitting the proposal), sometimes requested in private foundation applications.
  • Abstract of project summarizing purpose, procedures, and expected results.
  • Technical description a longer, more detailed narrative of the proposed project including facilities and personnel.
  • Current and pending support of the Principal Investigator and key personnel.
  • Detailed budget (See “Budget Details,” Section 2.B.)
  • Procedures to evaluate proposed project's success.
  • Project personnel and resumes.


1. University Information

Any proposal submitted by a unit of the University must identify “the organization” or “the applicant” as “The Regents of the University of California”. (“Office of the President” may be added for clarification purposes.) All awards are made to The Regents of the University of California. RPAC is delegated the authority to sign proposals and awards from extramural sponsors. While the signature of the Principal Investigator may sometimes be desirable or required on the sponsor’s form or in the proposal cover letter, the proposal must always bear the official University signature from RPAC. The information must be shown, with address and telephone number, as follows:

Name, Title
Research Policy Analysis and Coordination
University of California
Office of the President
1111 Franklin Street, 11th Floor
Oakland, CA 94607-5200
(510) 987 98XX

The Office of the President Internal Revenue Service Employer's Identification Number (EIN) is 94-3067788. A copy of the Internal Revenue Service letter of confirmation of the University's tax exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 can be found on Institutional Advancement's tax status page.

Private sponsors sometimes request a copy of the University’s most recent audited financial statements.

2. Budget Details

The proposal budget must be set forth in accordance with the University’s standard budget line items. (See categories listed below.) If a sponsor requires that the budget must be expressed in categories other those described below, the sponsor must be informed that the official University invoice will only include these categories. The OP program must take responsibility for converting any such non-conforming proposal budget to one that conforms with the University's account/fund sub-categories below as the University's official invoice will only list these categories. Generally, RPAC discourages offering non-standard budgets and will ask the OP department to change its budget or will discuss the requirement with the sponsor.

Some sponsors provide their own definitions and budget restrictions in their proposal guidelines. For federal agencies, more specific guidelines and definitions of their budget categories are described in 2 CFR 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards. Most grants policy manuals for federal agencies are available online. RPAC will assist with interpreting any funder’s policies, when needed.

Whether or not a sponsor provides budget guidelines, the Contract and Grant Manual, Chapter 2-520, “Budget Preparation” describes in more detail a basis upon which to determine any proposed budget.

While the budget details requested by different sponsors vary, every sponsor needs enough information to evaluate the reasonableness and need for the proposed budget. This can be provided in the text of the proposal or in a budget description or justification. Any of the general categories listed in 1 – 10 below may be included:

a. Personnel or Salaries.

For each person to be paid by the award, list:

  • Name and title
  • Employee Effort - Percent of time to be spent on the proposed project
  • Total annual salary exclusive of benefits
  • Percent of salary and amount in dollars to be paid by the award (exclusive of benefits).

University salaried employees’ time is never expressed in hourly rates; only employees paid at hourly rates can have their wages and hours of effort on a project budgeted at an hourly rate. All University salaried employees must have their effort spent on a project expressed as a percent of full-time equivalent and their pay from the project expressed as that percent of their salary. Salaries must be in accordance with the employee’s actual University salary and include projected merit increases and range adjustments. Proposed positions not currently filled must use the applicable University salary scale for that position.

Note that salaries of non-OP personnel (including personnel at other institutions, UC campuses, and consultants) should not appear in the salary line item. These should be placed in the subcontract or consultant category, as appropriate.

b. Employee Benefits.

If the employee’s actual benefit rate is not available, average projected rates developed by RPAC should be used. The current projected average employee benefit rates are contained in C & G Memos 99-1 and 99-1 Supplement and can be viewed at http://www.ucop.edu/raohome/cgmemos/99-01.html and http://www.ucop.edu/raohome/cgmemos/sup99-01.htm

c. Supplies.

This category generally includes supplies and expenses that are specifically allocable to the project and generally not captured as indirect costs. (On federal awards, such charges as telephone, postage, and copying are considered indirect costs per 2 CFR 200. Exceptions may be provided for large program projects.)

d. Equipment.

Equipment is defined as individual items that cost $5,000 or more and have a useful life of one or more years. (Please note: If a sponsor thinks a piece of equipment less than $5,000.00 should be reported as equipment on our financial reports this needs to be noted on your NOA. See Equipment Management website.

e. Travel.

Transportation and per diem must be at University rates. Sponsor may ask for destination and purpose of travel. This category includes student travel as well, if applicable, but not subaward or consultant travel. Per 2 CFR 200, domestic airlines and coach fairs must be used unless such a situation is not feasible. See UCLA Travel website.

f. Consultants/Subcontractors.

Describe purpose of using consultants or subcontractors in the text of the proposal. If already selected on a sole source basis, the proposing unit must be prepared to provide the appropriate UC office, either OP RPAC, UCLA Purchasing, or OP consultant contract approver, with a sole source justification. Include total subcontractor or consultant costs. Provide an estimated amount if they are yet to be bid and selected. Whenever possible, the proposed subcontractor/consultant budgets and scope of work should be placed behind OP’s budget in the proposal.

g. Student Training Expenses, i.e., stipends, fees, or tuition.

Since the Office of the President does not have enrolled students, an OP project considering employing students would use campus rates for stipends, tuition or fee remission. This portion of an award budget would then be transferred to the student(s)’ campus(es).

h. Space rental costs.

i. Indirect Costs (Overhead or Facilities & Administrative Costs “F&A”).

The indirect cost is figured as a percentage of specific direct costs. It is used to reimburse the University for all the services it provides to the project, which cannot be directly charged to any one individual project, but without which an individual project could not be undertaken.

Current indirect cost rates for both the Office of the President and campuses are available online. Indirect costs are calculated by applying the negotiated rate to the modified total direct cost base (or “MTDC”). The definition of the base and its components is found in the indirect cost rate agreement available at the provided links. On-campus rates apply to space that is University-owned or leased for which the program is not paying its own rent. If the OP program is paying rent out of its own budget, then the off-campus rate is used and rent is charged to the proposal budget. For a more detailed description of applicable rates and definitions, see Chapter 8-300 of the Contract and Grant Manual. RPAC must be contacted for help in determining the applicable rate for each specific proposal.

When including the participation of UC campuses in a UCOP proposal, the appropriate indirect cost rate of each individual campus must be included. UCOP’s indirect cost rate is not applicable to any other campus. Campuses would generally provide their own rate in the proposed budget to UCOP.

Some funding agencies may, in their guidelines, restrict the indirect cost rate they will pay. In such cases, the University may be required to accept the rate provided by the sponsor. However, whenever the sponsor will not pay the University’s indirect costs, the OP program unit must request an exception to the University indirect cost rates (i.e., request for partial or full indirect costs exception). An exception to the applicable indirect cost rate may be granted if the request falls under one of the criteria in C&G Manual section 8-540.

If an exception to the indirect cost rate is needed, the OP unit must note such information on the proposal cover sheet submitted to RPAC. The OP unit must also provide a copy of the sponsor's policy establishing the indirect cost rate limitation. Any exception to UC's indirect cost policy must be granted before a proposal can be submitted. Because the applicable University indirect rate is an essential component of the proposal budget, the Principal Investigator needs to discuss it with RPAC while the proposal is being written.

j. Other.

If there is an unusually large budget request for a specific item which the sponsor would like identified separately such as printing costs for multiple copies of a manual produced by the award or conference costs, it is possible to accommodate one separately identified set of costs within the accounting system, if necessary. However, this is not encouraged unless the costs associated with this line-item can be clearly identified and the sponsor will reimburse the expenditures as identified on the University invoice. (Further guidance can be found in Administering an Extramural Award, Section 5 below.)


1. Responsibilities for Processing a Proposal

The Principal Investigator, Associate or Assistant Vice President, and RPAC all have various responsibilities in the processing of a proposal.

a. Principal Investigator's Responsibilities

The Principal Investigator must be eligible to submit proposals for extramural funds or obtain an exception from the Provost and Senior Vice President–Academic Affairs, as described above in 1.A., Who is Eligible to Submit a Proposal. The Principal Investigator is responsible for the content of the proposal, as well as for adhering to all internal University policies and sponsor guidelines.

When the Principal Investigator signs the Extramural Proposal Cover Sheet, they are confirming that the information on the form and in the proposal itself is accurate and that they are prepared to assume responsibility for the proposed project. Responsibilities at the award stage are described in Section 5.A., Principal Investigator Responsibilities, below.

b. Responsibilities of the Vice Presidents and/or the Associate/Assistant Vice Presidents

While Vice Presidents, and/or Associate and Assistant Vice Presidents (AVP), in general, are ultimately accountable for any work done by their staff, they have specific responsibilities with regard to proposals submitted by their departments. These responsibilities include:

  • Confirming the individual's eligibility to be the Principal Investigator;
  • Determining the consistency and compatibility of the proposed project with the educational, research, and/or public service objectives of the unit;
  • Determining the appropriateness and availability of staff time, space, equipment, and University financial resources committed in the proposal; and
  • Identifying appropriate funding sources to cover project costs which are not covered by the sponsor's funding or by other funds available to the Principal Investigator. In particular, availability of any funds committed as matching or for cost sharing purposes must be certified by the AVP.

After the Principal Investigator signs, the Associate or Assistant Vice President signs the Extramural Proposal Cover Sheet, indicating approval of the proposal.

c. Research Policy Analysis and Coordination (RPAC) Responsibilities

RPAC is responsible for reviewing and approving extramural proposals and executing extramural awards on behalf of The Regents of the University of California for the Office of the President. RPAC is responsible for ensuring that the sponsor's policies and funding requirements as well as the proposal itself are in accordance with the University's policies. In addition, RPAC can provide advice and assistance throughout the entire proposal/award cycle.

2. Extramural Proposal Cover Sheet

The Extramural Proposal Cover Sheet has two purposes. The first is to assure that the Principal Investigator and the Associate/Assistant Vice President are alerted to and take into consideration the basic University support needed to carry out the proposed project. The second is to assure that the proposal contents have been reviewed and approved by the appropriate departmental administrators. A completed and signed Cover Sheet must be submitted with the proposal to RPAC.

Special committee reviews, such as for use of human subjects or a positive disclosure of financial interest, are rarely required for OP proposals. RPAC will assist in obtaining any such approval when it is needed.

Other areas requiring consideration are space, purchase of equipment, subcontracts, cost sharing or matching, and conflicts of interest. The State of California Form 700-U must be signed by the Principal Investigator if the project is funded by a non-governmental entity and not exempted from the reporting requirements. A different financial disclosure form, Disclosure of Financial Interests Related to Sponsored Projects, is required for all research proposals submitted to the National Science Foundation or an agency funded by the Department of Health and Human Services (e.g., National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, etc.).

3. Meeting the Submission Deadline

The unit staff preparing a proposal needs to allow time for reviews by RPAC and by other UCOP offices, described below, if necessary.

a. RPAC Review Time

Staff responsible for developing a proposal should contact RPAC as soon as the decision to submit a proposal is made. RPAC needs to receive a copy of the sponsor’s proposal guidelines, Request for Proposals, and any other pertinent information available at that time. RPAC reviews the funding agency's requirements in order to determine that they are in accordance with University policies. The full proposal, complete with departmental approvals and partner commitments, should be submitted to RPAC at least five business days before the due date. Proposals not submitted to RPAC within the five business days are at risk of receiving no review or a limited review. Complex projects will require a longer review period. The proposal submission process can be facilitated if a draft of the proposal (scope of work and budget) is forwarded to RPAC for review and comment before it is finalized.

b. Other Reviews

Occasionally, a proposal may need to be approved by other UCOP offices before submission. RPAC determines what other reviews might be required from the information on the Extramural Proposal Cover Sheet and the proposal contents. The number of approvals required also affects the length of the review time. Proposals involving any of the areas listed below must be reviewed by other offices:

  • Joint or Consortium Projects or proposals with specific subcontractors Official letters of participation from other institutions involved with a budget.
  • Indirect Cost Exception Request See Section 2.B.9. above.
  • Human subject or conflict of interest committee review.
  • Equipment installation and maintenance.

4. Formal Submission of a Proposal

Proposals for extramural funding may not be transmitted to a sponsor without RPAC's approval. RPAC approval may come in the form of an email authorization, a formal cover letter from RPAC, or with a proposal signed or submitted by a RPAC Contract and Grant Officer (the University official authorized by The Regents to submit proposals and accept awards).

5. Proposal Withdrawal or Denial

The unit must inform RPAC if it decides to withdraw a proposal, or receives notice that a sponsor declined to fund the proposal.


All contract or grant awards from extramural sponsors, from UC campuses, or from UC-managed DOE laboratories, for research, training, or public service projects to any Office of the President unit must be approved and accepted by RPAC. When it is unclear as to whether an award is a gift or a grant, it must be forwarded to RPAC for determination of the award's classification. This determination is made in consultation with the OP Development Policy and Administration Office. As the accounting and reporting requirements for gifts differ from those for grants, this determination impacts the procedures used for administering the award. The criteria used for classifying an award as a gift or a grant found in the systemwide Contract and Grant Manual 9-510 and the Review of Gifts and Grants for Research policy.

Departments within the Office of the President may also receive extramural funds to pay for services which are not considered sponsored projects for research, training, or public service, such as for the temporary loan of personnel. Temporary personnel loan agreements are discussed in Part III of this Handbook. UCOP departments may receive requests from external organizations to use University facilities or to participate in University programs. An example would be an agreement to provide use of University computer time to an external organization. As it can often be difficult to determine what category an agreement falls under (i.e., gift, sponsored research, business services, etc.), RPAC is available to assist in making this determination. The type of agreement determines which formal University delegation of authority is needed to accept an agreement on behalf of The Regents, where the agreement would be most appropriately handled, and what accounting and reporting requirements are needed.

1. Request for Advance Spending (RAS)

Occasionally, a sponsor notifies the recipient of a pending award before the actual award document is received. The UCOP administering unit may then want to start the project and begin incurring costs before the award document has been reviewed and signed. Except for some federal agencies, most sponsors do not allow funds to be expended before the start date on the award. Under such restrictions, it is not possible to have an advance expenditure approval which pre dates the start date on the award. However, it is possible to receive an approval for advance expenditures, when the sponsor provides an award start date on the agreement which is before the agreement document itself will be fully executed. If it is confirmed that an acceptable agreement will come after the start date, then a department could request an advance fund number to avoid transfers of expenses by the time the award is received.

A request for advance spending will only be approved after the Principal Investigator and the Associate or Assistant Vice President acknowledge and accept the liability, respectively, that their unit will be subject to should the award ultimately not come to fruition.

In order to determine whether it is possible to receive approval for advance expenditures, the administering unit should discuss the particular circumstances of a pending award with RPAC. If it is determined that an advance expenditure authorization is reasonable and that there is no reason not to expect an acceptable, fully executed award from the sponsor, the administering unit can complete a Request for Advance Spending and forward it to RPAC for approval by the Director-RPAC. RPAC forwards the approved form to the Los Angeles campus (UCLA) Extramural Fund Management Office (EFM). UCLA handles all accounting functions for the Office of the President. EFM assigns a fund number to the pending award which the OP unit can use to begin charging expenses for the funded project. (See Section 5. B. below.)

2. Processing a Contract or Grant Award

Upon receiving an award document, RPAC reviews the terms and conditions in the award in order to ascertain that they are not in conflict with any University policies. The Principal Investigator also reviews the award to make sure that the statement of work and budget are appropriate. If, in the process of reviewing these terms and conditions, RPAC finds clauses which are not in conformance with University policy, business practices, or would disadvantage the university, RPAC negotiates whatever changes are necessary. If there are any changes in the statement of work and the budget from the original proposal, the Project Administration reviews them to make sure they are also acceptable. If the award amount differs from what was proposed or the budgeted items in the award are changed from those in the proposal, the Principal Investigator's unit must provide RPAC with a new award budget.

When all the conditions of an award are acceptable to the University and the Principal Investigator, the RPAC Contract and Grant Operations Officer signs the award document, accepting it on behalf of The Regents. When RPAC receives the fully-executed agreement, it makes copies available to the Principal Investigator and the UCOP unit’s administrator or Management Services Officer and the UCLA Extramural Fund Management Office.

If the award is a grant from a non-governmental sponsor, the administering unit must initiate a Gift/Private Grant Acceptance Report, UDEV 100 (G.), and forward it to RPAC. RPAC approves and forwards the UDEV 100 to the OP Development Policy and Administration Office for proper recording of a private award. A contract from a non-governmental sponsor does not require a UDEV 100 form.

If the award is for research from a non-governmental sponsor, a Statement of Economic Interests, Form 700 U must also be completed at the time of the award, if one was not submitted with the proposal. Awards from several non-governmental sponsors of research are exempted from the University’s financial disclosure requirement. RPAC can offer general advice when completing the form.

a. Coordination with Other UCOP Offices

RPAC may decide to have the award document reviewed by other UCOP offices, particularly if it contains special conditions or new or unusual terms. Some OP offices which may be asked to review clauses in an award document are:

  • General Counsel – Legal requirements and exceptions in indemnification or other standard clauses;
  • Risk Management – Insurance requirements; and
  • Knowledge Transfer Office – Patent, copyright, data or other intellectual property clauses.

3. Processing Gift Awards

When there is a question as to whether a private award is a gift or a grant, the award document must first be forwarded to RPAC. RPAC, in consultation with UCOP Institutional Advancement as necessary, then makes the determination as to whether the award is a gift or a grant.

If it is determined that the award is a gift, RPAC will forward all the materials to UCOP Institutional Advancement for processing. The account for a gift is handled by UCLA Corporate Financial Services. UCOP Institutional Advancement is responsible for acceptance and reporting of gifts.


1. Principal Investigator's Responsibilities - Department Administers

The Principal Investigator (PI) is responsible for:

  • Performing the activities for which the award is granted;
  • Complying with the terms and conditions of the award;
  • Establishing a budget (See Section 5. B.1.below);
  • Expenditures under the award; and
  • Any technical, progress, or narrative reports required by the award.

While departmental support staff may carry out many of the administrative responsibilities required by an award, the Principal Investigator is ultimately responsible for fulfilling these requirements. Both staff and the Principal Investigator must be well aware of all the reporting requirements and budget restrictions in any agreement in their unit as different sponsors have different requirements.

f. Types of Reporting Requirements

f1. Final Financial, Final Technical or Narrative, and Progress Reports
Generally, sponsors require annual and final financial and technical (narrative) reports. The dates when these reports are due should be stated in the award. Final reports may be due between 30 and 90 days after the end-date of the award, depending on the sponsor’s requirement. The award may also require other periodic progress reports. The Principal Investigator initiates and submits these progress and final technical or narrative reports directly to the sponsor.

Financial reports and invoices are submitted to the sponsor by UCLA Extramural Funds Management (EFM). The University requires 90 days after the end-date of an award to submit the final financial report. RPAC would have to negotiate any sponsor-proposed shorter time period for submitting the final financial report. An exception can be made to as short as 60 days when the University is a subcontractor under an award to another institution (the prime) and the prime is required to submit its reports within 90 days.

EFM usually relies on the information shown on the monthly ledgers to submit invoices and financial reports. However, before closeout and submission of the final invoice, the UCOP department runs a “Funds Ending Report” or appropriate internal department equivalent. The “Funds Ending Report” is available online on the Financial Systems webpage under “Web Reports – CG Reports.” The OP department is ultimately responsible for ensuring that all costs have hit their ledgers. The UCOP department sends EFM a close-out packet. The packet should include an Excel spreadsheet showing what should be reported to the sponsor, including expenses that have not yet hit the ledger, and all back-up documentation for those expenses, such as copies of non-PEARS (Non-Payroll Expense Adjustment Report), payroll transfers, encumbrance releases, final sub-award invoices, etc.) The UCOP department is responsible for submitting the required information for close out to EFM on a timely basis.

For sponsors that require any financial reporting or documentation of expenditures beyond standard invoices and financial reports as prepared by the EFM Office, the UCOP administering department is responsible for providing such additional documentation. This might include copies of travel vouchers for questioned travel costs, copies of equipment purchases, or more detailed financial reports than EFM is able to prepare. The UCOP administrating department prepares complex invoices and reports which cannot be met with EFM standard reports. Such reports must not be sent directly to the sponsor, but go through EFM through email as an Excel template for review and certification.

f2. Personnel Activity Reports (PAR)

When staff or faculty are paid from federal funds, whether directly via a federal contract or grant or from federal flow-through funds from a non-federal sponsor, they must complete Personnel Activity Reports (PAR). These reports are required quarterly from all academic and nonacademic employees with any portion of their salaries paid by federal funds, including federal flow-through funds, or providing reportable cost-sharing or matching to federal awards from any other fund source. The UCLA Effort Reporting System generates these forms quarterly based on Personal Activity Forms (PAFS) which departments complete to indicate effort distribution. Each UCOP department which has staff paid with federal funds or cost-sharing under a federally funded agreement provides UCLA with names of two contact people, the ERS Coordinators, to administer the department’s effort reporting. A departmental ERS Coordinator must review and correct PARs on a quarterly basis. Current guidelines on PAR forms are available at the UCLA EFM website. Additional information can be found in the Effort Reporting section in Chapter 6 of the UCLA Costing Policy http://www.efm.ucla.edu/costpol.htm#implement.

f3. Invoices

The UCLA EFM Office, which administers extramural funds for UCOP, requires monthly review of the closed monthly general ledgers, showing expenditures to date. If the sponsor requires quarterly invoices, then the review of the closed ledger is at the end of that quarter. The website for ledgers is: http://fsw.ais.ucla.edu/FSReports/selection.asp. The UCOP departmental staff responsible for the award budget must be sure that costs incurred under an award are charged directly to the appropriate award account, fund number, and sub account and object codes as they are incurred. The EFM Office invoices for and receives the funds requested from sponsors based on the invoicing instructions in the award document and the expenditure information it receives from the UCOP administering department. The UCOP administering department must inform EFM of any agency approved changes in the budget. Should the sponsor send the funds directly to UCOP, follow these deposit instructions so that the appropriate extramural account/fund can be credited.

Because of the importance of administering award funds appropriately, UCOP department staff in this position must be well acquainted with the accounting requirements described in the University Accounting Manual. The Principal Investigator, however, remains ultimately responsible for any disallowed costs resulting from an audit of award funds.

f4. Other Reports

Other types of reports which may be required when the award is over include a final report on patents or inventions, a final equipment inventory report, a contractor's release (for contracts only), and a cost sharing report. The requirements to submit such reports are in the content of the award itself. In most cases, RPAC or EFM can provide the official submission of these reports, if required by the sponsor, but only after the required information is forwarded by the department. If cost-sharing is required in an award, the UCOP department must prepare the cost-share report. UCLA EFM does have template form such a report, if needed. The UCOP department must identify the FAU and the actual expenses that were cost-shared and send this along with any back-up documentation to UCLA EFM. The cost-sharing report must be signed by the UCOP Principal Investigator. EFM keeps the original signed copy in files for audit purposes. EFM will then take this information and incorporate it into the financial report.

It is very important that all required reports be submitted to the sponsor on time as a sponsor may withhold final payment on the award until the required reports have been submitted or may not make final payment at all if reports are late. In addition, future funding to the University by the sponsor can be affected by their experience with other University projects.

g. Types of Award Restrictions

The major restriction of any award is that the funds must be used to accomplish the project described in the Statement of Work. The funds can be spent only within the term of the agreement and in accordance with UC policy and the sponsor’s award rules. The sponsor may have various other restrictions on how and for what the funds can be used. For example, domestic or foreign travel and equipment purchases often have some restrictions placed on them. Transfers of money between line items on the budget may have certain restrictions placed on them. Sponsors usually have specific procedures for requesting exceptions to their restrictions.

h. File Retention

The UCOP department administering the award must maintain all of its records relating to that award. Generally, records for extramural awards are retained for five years after the award end date. This allows for resolution of any claim, audit or litigation. More detailed information about the disposition of records is available in Contract and Grant Manual Chapter 17, "Records/Paperwork Access and Management", Records Management/Privacy (RMP) Series of Business and Finance Bulletins, RMP 2, and the Records Retention Schedule.

2 . How Award Account/Funds are Established The Role of the UCLA Extramural Funds Management Office

The UCLA Extramural Funds Management Office (EFM) provides accounting services to the Office of the President for all extramural awards. Account/funds for contract and grant awards are administered by EFM. Gift accounts are administered by the UCLA Corporate Financial Services Office.

a. Contracts and Grants Accounting

RPAC notifies EFM of an accepted award with a copy of the fully executed award document and a completed Award Notification which provides EFM with the information it needs to establish an account/fund for that award. EFM sets up the fund number and invoices the sponsor according to the terms in the award and RPAC instructions provided in the Award Notification.

a1. Award Budget

RPAC includes with the Award Notification to UCLA EFM a line item budget totaling the amount of the award. This line-item budget must the total budgeted amount for each of the direct cost line-items provided below as well as the indirect costs. If cost-sharing is required by the sponsor, a budget for the committed cost-sharing, including the source of the cost-sharing, is needed as well. When the names of specific subrecipients are known, they should be provided with the budget along with the proposed amount for each subaward. Any budget must conform with the standard University line-item budget categories in order for EFM to set up an account/fund for the award. The budget should not include line items which are not consistent with the University's accounting ledger system. As noted in Proposal Budget Details, above, if the sponsor expects an invoice which does not conform to the University's accounts, the UCOP department itself will have to complete the invoice/reporting form, identifying the other required reporting line-items and send it to EFM for review and certification.

The line items in the budget may include:

  • Salaries
  • Fringe Benefits
  • Supplies and Expenses
  • Equipment
  • Travel
  • Consultants
  • Subcontracts
  • Other such as rent
  • Indirect Costs

After UCLA EFM has received award documentation from RPAC (See next section below), EFM sets-up the award budget in two sub-accounts: Sub 8 (direct costs) which is unallocated and Sub 9H for indirect costs. It is then up to the OP department to prepare the TOF (Transfer of Funds) into the appropriate categories: i.e., Sub 5; Sub 7, etc. Without allocation of the award budget into the appropriate line-items, it is difficult for EFM to prepare invoices accordingly.

a2. Award Account and Fund Numbers

The recipient department or unit provides RPAC with a location "M" (designates Office of the President accounts) account number when it completes the Extramural Proposal Cover Sheet. (See section 3. B. above.) RPAC transmits this account number on the Award Notification to EFM. EFM then assigns a fund number for that award which is linked to the account number provided by the UCOP recipient unit. EFM notifies RPAC and the UCOP recipient unit of the new fund number established for the specific award. EFM notifies the UCOP administering department of new fund/account number via an on-line TOF (“Transfer of Funds”) and also through a PDF copy of EFM internal award synopsis. This award synopsis will be emailed to RPAC, the UCOP administering department, the Principal Investigator, and UCLA Equipment Management and Purchasing Departments. On the Award Notification to EFM, RPAC states the purpose of the award (i.e., research, training or public service). An award for research will be linked to a 44 expense account; for training to a 78 expense account; and for public service to a 62 expense account.

a3. Rebudgeting

Where sponsor prior approval is required to rebudget, the PI must seek formal sponsor approval by submitting a written request to RPAC for institutional countersignature. Where sponsor prior approval is not required to rebudget, the PI must prepare a written justification to be placed in the award files maintained by the administering unit and forward a copy to Extramural Funds Accounting. Authority to rebudget alone does not qualify an expense for direct charging. The cost must still meet all other tests of allowability.

a4. Financial Reporting

EFM, along with the aid of the UCOP administering department, completes standard and complex financial reports required under the terms of the award. However, it cannot complete these reports without receiving the appropriate information required from the UCOP department. For example, as described above in Section 5.A.1 above, before EFM can closeout and submit the final invoice, the UCOP department runs a “Funds Ending Report” or equivalent report. The UCOP department is ultimately responsible for ensuring that all costs have hit their ledgers and that correct object codes for expenses are used: i.e., 7300 for subcontract expenses greater than $25,000; 7310 for subcontract expenses less than $25,000; 5800 for space rental, etc. Expense object codes are available on the UCLA Corporate Accounting website. Without doing these transfer of funds into the appropriate categories and charging expenses accordingly it is very difficult for EFM to prepare categorized invoices. The OP department sends EFM the close-out packet. There is also a “Funds Ending Report” that the UCOP department can review to know when their funds are going to end.

EFM can also assist the recipient unit with any budget and fiscal reporting requirements and questions. Also as noted above, EFM can provide unusual or non-standard financial reports to a sponsor, with the assistance of the UCOP administering department. Generally, RPAC discourages accepting non-standard financial reporting terms, but if they cannot be negotiated out of the award, then the OP department will be responsible for providing any non-standard financial report to the sponsor through UCLA EFM. EFM and the UCOP department work together to ensure costs are being reported accurately according to the ledgers and for close-out to be reporting to the total expenses incurred under the funded project, whether the report/invoice is standard or non-standard.

b. Private Gifts Accounting

Accounts for gifts are handled by the Los Angeles campus Corporate Financial Services. When an award is determined to be a gift, that office is notified about it by Institutional Advancement. Corporate Financial Services then assigns a fund number to the gift, notifying Institutional Advancement of the number. Further information on handling an account for a gift can be obtained from Institutional Advancement. Although RPAC does not handle gifts, departments are encouraged to seek RPAC advice if there is a question about whether a particular award is a gift or a grant. (See section 4.c., above.)

1.  Procedures for the Assessment of Research Misconduct, Inquiries, and Investigations

I. Purpose and Scope

A. These Procedures are to be used to assess allegations of research misconduct, conducting inquiries and investigations related to possible research misconduct, and reporting the results to cognizant federal sponsors. These Procedures are intended to comply with federal law regarding research misconduct involving federally funded research (42 CFR Part 93) and encompass University policies and principles.

B. These procedures apply to all research conducted at UCOP, regardless of funding source. With regard to research conducted with federal funds, the procedures for handling allegations of fabrication, falsification or plagiarism, as defined herein, are mandated by federal regulations. The process for handling allegations involving non-federally funded research or allegations involving areas of misconduct other than fabrication, falsification or plagiarism may or may not follow these procedures. In these cases, the Locally Designated Official (LDO) in consultation with the Research Integrity Officer (RIO) will determine what procedure applies in accordance with other UCOP policies and procedures.

C. These Procedures apply to all individuals engaged in research, including any person paid by, under the control of, or affiliated with UCOP, such as scientists, trainees, technicians and other staff members, students, fellows, guest researchers or collaborators. These Procedures also apply to those individuals who were engaged in the research that is the subject of an allegation of research misconduct, but who are no longer affiliated with UCOP at the time an allegation is reported.

D. In dealing with an Allegation under these procedures, UCOP shall be guided by the following general objectives:
  • Institutional responsibility for self-regulation shall be preserved.
  • Appropriate and timely action shall be taken to investigate and address all Allegations. 
  • Funding agency requirements for timely notification shall be followed.
  • These Procedures shall be administered in a manner that fairly protects: (i) the due process rights of Respondents; (ii) the interests of Complainants and those serving as witnesses in the investigation of Research Misconduct; and (iii) the public interest in preserving the integrity of research. 

E. Efforts will be made to prevent misjudgments caused by bias or Conflict of Interest.

F. UCOP officials shall administer these Procedures in coordination with other applicable policies and procedures, including the University of California Policy on Reporting and Investigating Allegations of Suspected Improper Governmental Activities and Policy for Protection of Whistleblowers from Retaliation and Guidelines for Reviewing Retaliation Complaints.

II. Definitions

Singular words will be interpreted or written as plural and plural words interpreted as singular where applicable and where the full context of the provision so indicates.

  • An Allegation is any oral or written statement or other evidence of one or more apparent instances of Research Misconduct. 
  • A Complainant is a person who makes an Allegation. 
  • Conflict of Interest exists when a relationship between a decision-maker and the Complainant, the Respondent, or the Research that is the subject of an Allegation creates the potential for compromised judgment or decision-making. 
  • Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them. 
  • Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the Research is not accurately represented in the Research Record. 
  • Inquirer is the faculty member or administrator assigned by the RIO to conduct an Inquiry. 
  • An Inquiry is an informal process for gathering information and initial fact-finding to determine, based upon Probable Cause, whether an Allegation warrants an Investigation. 
  • An Investigation is the formal examination and evaluation of all relevant facts to determine, based upon a Preponderance of the Evidence, whether Research Misconduct has occurred, and, if so, its extent and consequences and the responsible person or persons. 
  • Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person's words, ideas or research results without acknowledgement, and passing them off as one's own.
  • Procedures refers to the UC Office of the President (UCOP) Integrity of Research -- Procedures for the Assessment of Research Misconduct, Inquiries, and Investigations.
  • Preponderance of the Evidence means there is a preponderance of the evidence when the greater weight of credible evidence shows that it is more likely than not that a Respondent committed the alleged act or omission. 
  • Probable Cause is a reasonable belief based on a standard of proof such that a person of ordinary caution or prudence would be led to believe and conscientiously entertain a strong suspicion of such violation. 
  • Research means a systematic investigation, including development, testing, evaluation, or publication, to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge. 
  • A Researcher is any person who is engaged in the design, conduct, or reporting of Research. 
  • The Research Integrity Officer (RIO) is the person who is responsible for assessing an Allegation, determining when such Allegation warrants an Inquiry and/or an Investigation, overseeing Inquiries and Investigations, and reporting on Research Misconduct proceedings to appropriate funding agencies or others. 
  • Research Misconduct is Fabrication, Falsification, or Plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing Research, or in reporting Research results. Research Misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion
  • Research Records are the records of data or results that embody the facts resulting from the scientific inquiry, and include, but are not limited to, Research proposals, laboratory records, both physical and electronic, progress reports, abstracts, theses, oral presentations, internal reports, and journal articles. 
  • A Respondent is a person against whom an Allegation is made. 
  • Retaliation is any action taken by UCOP or its employees that adversely affects the institutional status of a person who is employed by or affiliated with UCOP, including Researchers, clinicians, technicians, fellows, students, and independent contractors, which action is taken as a direct or indirect result of such person's making of an Allegation or cooperating in an Inquiry or Investigation, provided such person's conduct was not in Bad Faith. An action is in Bad Faith if it is made with reckless disregard for or willful ignorance of facts that would disprove the Allegation or if it is made falsely with malicious intent to harm the Respondent.

III. Confidentiality

Throughout the process of responding to an Allegation, all persons involved, including the Research Integrity Officer (RIO), committee members, the Complainant, the Respondent, and witnesses, shall exercise great care to preserve the confidentiality of the proceedings to the extent consistent with state and federal laws and regulations, University policy, any contractual obligations, an effective response to the Allegation, and public health and safety. Those who conduct both Inquiries and Investigations are expected to be extremely circumspect. Only the Inquirer or the office of the RIO may contact potential witnesses. Further, interviews of witnesses outside of the University should occur only after consultation with the RIO to assure the necessity of such interviews and the development of an appropriate approach to maximize the confidentiality of the Inquiry or Investigation.

IV. Sequestration of Records

The RIO shall take all reasonable and practical steps to obtain and/or secure Research Records necessary for an Assessment, Inquiry, or Investigation. Research Records belong to the University; all Research Records involved in a Research Misconduct proceeding must be surrendered to the RIO upon request. The RIO may engage Internal Audit Services or others to secure or take possession of potentially relevant evidence.

V. Risk of Loss or Abuse of Funds, Equipment, or Materials

If, in the judgment of the RIO, there appears to be a risk of loss or misuse of funds from circumstances relating to an Allegation, or a risk of destruction or abuse of equipment or materials purchased with those funds, the RIO shall instruct the Respondent's supervisor to take immediate interim administrative actions to protect those funds, equipment, or materials or, as necessary, shall take immediate administrative actions as the RIO. When, in the judgment of the RIO, misuse of funds, equipment or resources is likely to have occurred, such information shall be reported to the UCOP Locally Designated Official or Whistleblower Coordinator for investigation.

VI. Rights and Roles of Complainant
Confidentiality of Complainant’s Identity. The Complainant may request that his or her identity be kept confidential, and, if so, efforts shall be made to protect the identity of the Complainant, but confidentiality cannot be assured. For example, it may be necessary for the Complainant to testify before an Inquirer or an Investigation committee in the course of an Inquiry or Investigation, and his or her identity may be subject to disclosure under various state and federal laws.

Disclosure of Allegations. Complainants are encouraged to raise Allegations through these Procedures rather than through public disclosure and are cautioned that public disclosure of an Allegation may render such Complainants vulnerable to legal action, such as violation of the Respondent's right of privacy under California law and University policy.

Complainant as Witness. After making an Allegation, the Complainant’s role is to serve as a witness if needed.

Retaliation Against Complainants or Other Persons. UCOP employees who have made Allegations that are covered by the "University of California Policy on Reporting and Investigating Allegations of Suspected Improper Governmental Activities (Whistleblower Policy)," and who believe that they have been retaliated against for so doing, should report such Retaliation in accordance with the UC "Policy for Protection of Whistleblowers from Retaliation and Guidelines for Reviewing Retaliation Complaints." Persons not covered by the Protection of Whistleblowers Policy shall report claims of actual or threatened Retaliation to the RIO, who shall undertake diligent efforts to protect them from Retaliation. In addition, the RIO shall direct all participants in any aspect of an Inquiry or Investigation, including an Inquirer and members of an Investigation committee, the Respondent, and witnesses not to retaliate against the Complainant or other witnesses at any time after an Allegation has been made.

Duty to Respond. The University is required to respond to an Allegation and to take them seriously. After receiving an Allegation, the University is legally obliged to undertake an Inquiry if the RIO determines that an Inquiry is warranted.

Respondent’s Separation from University. The resignation or termination of employment, enrollment, or appointment of a Respondent shall not, in itself, result in the dismissal of a proceeding hereunder, although it may affect the imposition of discipline or other appropriate action.

Delays. Delay in initiating or completing an Inquiry, Investigation, other process, or action within the time frames prescribed in these Procedures shall not be grounds for the dismissal of an Allegation.

Retention of Records. At the closure of a case under these Procedures, a complete file of the case, including the Allegation, the reports from the Inquiry and/or Investigation, correspondence, and other records related to the case shall be maintained by the RIO in a secure manner. Essential evidence shall be kept for at least seven (7) years after the later of a final Inquiry report or a final Investigation report. Records shall be retained as required by federal policy if applicable. Otherwise, the RIO may use his or her discretion in determining what constitutes essential evidence. Examples of factors to be considered are whether Research Misconduct was found, the importance of the evidence to the finding of Research Misconduct, the uniqueness of the materials, and the extent to which the evidence is needed in connection with ongoing Research.

Legal Advice. Throughout the process of handling an Allegation, the RIO, the Inquirer, and Investigation committee shall consult with the University General Counsel, as needed, for advice and to ensure compliance with these Procedures. Complainants, Respondents, and witnesses may be accompanied by an advisor during any interview, but only for the purposes of observation and advice.

RIO Discretion. In the interest of fairness and consistent with the requirements of external funding agencies and other University policies, the RIO has the discretion to extend time frames based on a written showing of good cause, expand the scope of the Inquiry or Investigation, or take other action he or she deems appropriate in applying these Procedures

VII. Allegations of Misconduct

Reporting Suspected Misconduct. Allegations of Research Misconduct must be reported to the RIO. Under no circumstances should the Complainant pursue his/her own investigation into the Allegation.

Initial Assessment of Allegation. The RIO shall determine if the Allegation (a) involves Research Misconduct and is within the purview of these Procedures, (b) is covered by another University policy, (c) involves a research practice that does not constitute Research Misconduct, or (d) is groundless.

Groundless Allegations. If the RIO believes that the Allegation is groundless or otherwise provides insufficient information or evidence to merit further review, he or she shall prepare and maintain a memorandum separate from the Respondent's personnel or academic file and shall inform the Complainant of the decision not to proceed. In such a case, the Respondent does not need to be informed of the Allegation.

Dispute about Research Practices, including Authorship. If the Allegation is about a practice that does not fall within the definition of Research Misconduct, including authorship issues, then the Allegation shall be resolved under applicable policies, through mediation, or informally, at the discretion of the RIO.

Allegations of Research Misconduct. If the RIO believes an Allegation involves Research Misconduct and provides sufficient information and/or evidence to merit further review, then he or she shall initiate an Inquiry. If the Complainant has not reported the Allegation in writing, then the RIO shall do so.

Multiple Policies Involved. If an Allegation gives rise to investigative responsibilities under more than one University policy, the RIO shall consult with other appropriate administrative offices as necessary.

VIII. Inquiry
Initiating an Inquiry. Upon determining that an Inquiry is warranted, the RIO shall take the following actions:
Appointment of Inquirer. Within fourteen (14) calendar days, the RIO shall appoint an Inquirer who shall be a faculty member or an administrator with appropriate practice and experience. The Inquirer shall disclose any possible conflicts. The RIO shall not appoint as Inquirer a faculty member or an administrator with a conflict of interest. The RIO shall provide the Inquirer with guidelines for carrying out the Inquiry.
Identification of Funding Sources. The RIO shall identify all relevant research grants and funding agencies involved in the Research that is the subject of the Allegation.

Notification of Interested Parties.  Immediately after appointing an Inquirer, the RIO shall provide written notification of the nature of the Allegation and the appointment of the Inquirer to the Respondent. The RIO shall provide the Respondent with access to these Procedures.

Notification of other institutions, agencies and entities.  Another institution shall be notified if the RIO has reason to believe that the alleged Research Misconduct involved that institution or if the Respondent has a joint appointment at the institution and notification is required by an inter-institutional agreement. The RIO shall inform the appropriate funding agencies, consistent with law, agency requirements, and contractual agreements, that an Inquiry is being undertaken. The RIO may also notify others with a need to know, at the RIO’s discretion.

Time Limit. The entire Inquiry process, including the Inquirer’s preparation and submittal of the report, the Respondent’s submission of comments, the RIO’s acceptance or rejection of the findings of the Inquirer, and the RIO’s notification of the decision, shall normally be completed within sixty (60) calendar days following the appointment of the Inquirer. Any extension of this time limit requires approval of the RIO, must be documented in the final report, and should comply with the applicable requirements of external funding agencies.

Responsibilities of the Inquirer. The Inquirer shall take the following actions: 

Preliminary Fact-Finding. Examine relevant Research Records and materials, and conduct sufficient interviews and preliminary fact-finding to determine whether there is Probable Cause to believe that an Allegation warrants an Investigation. 

 Interviews. Interview the Complainant, Respondent, and other key witnesses with respect to the Allegation. 

 Prepare Report. Prepare a report of the Inquirer’s findings within 30 calendar days of the date of his or her appointment. 

 Report of the Inquirer. The written Inquiry report shall include: 

  • the name and title of the Inquirer and experts, if any, consulted by the Inquirer 
  • the Allegation and individual(s) named 
  • the funding sources for the Research 
  • the procedures followed by the Inquirer to arrive at his or her findings 
  • how and from whom relevant information was obtained 
  • a list of the Research Records reviewed 
  • summaries of any interviews 
  • for each Allegation, a finding (a) that there is Probable Cause as to all or part of the Allegation that Research Misconduct may have occurred, or (b) that the Allegation involves questionable research practices that do not meet the definition of Research Misconduct, or (c) that the Allegation is without substance. 

Finalizing the Report of the Inquirer.  RIO Review. The RIO shall review the Inquiry report within seven (7) calendar days of its receipt to ensure that: (i) the Inquirer has completed its charge; (ii) the report provides sufficient information to justify the Inquirer’s findings; (iii) the report does not include information that is inappropriate; and (iv) the report is in proper form. If the report is inadequate in any of these respects, the RIO shall ordinarily request the necessary modifications. If the Inquirer fails to make the necessary changes, then at his or her discretion, the RIO may accept the report as is or appoint a new Inquirer. 

 Revisions by Inquirer. If the report has been referred back to the Inquirer for modification or revision, the Inquirer shall submit a final, signed report, satisfactory to the RIO, within seven (7) calendar days of such request. If additional time is needed to revise the report or conduct further Inquiry, then the Inquirer shall request an extension of time from the RIO. 

Determination by the RIO. Within seven (7) calendar days of receipt of the final report, the RIO shall determine whether Research Misconduct may have occurred and that an Investigation is warranted.

Notifications and Actions. Upon acceptance of the final Inquiry report, the RIO shall promptly notify all interested parties and take appropriate actions as follows:

Notification of Respondent. The RIO shall provide the Respondent with the Inquiry report and the determination as to whether Research Misconduct may have occurred. The Respondent may comment in writing within fifteen (15) calendar days and such response shall become part of the record of the Inquiry. 

Notification of Interested Parties. At his or her discretion, the RIO may provide individuals notified of the Inquiry with a written summary of the Inquirer’s findings and the RIO's determination in the case. Upon request and at the RIO’s sole discretion, the Complainant and other witnesses may be provided with those portions of the report that address their role(s) and opinion(s) in the Inquiry.


Finding that an Allegation Lacks Substance. If the RIO accepts an Inquirer’s finding that the Allegation was without substance, he or she shall, in consultation with the Respondent and University Counsel as needed, make reasonable efforts to notify appropriate individuals and organizations of the outcome of the Inquiry for the purpose of restoring the Respondent's reputation, if it appears to have been damaged by the making of the Allegation. Any written responses to these efforts shall be placed in the record of the Inquiry.

Finding of Violations other than Research Misconduct. If the RIO accepts an Inquirer’s finding that Research Misconduct probably did not occur, but that the Respondent may have violated commonly accepted Research standards or other University policies, the RIO may refer such possible violations in a separate summary memorandum to the appropriate administrative officer (who may be the RIO) and/or the Researcher's supervisor for discipline or other appropriate action. If appropriate, such information may be considered in the applicable performance review process.

Finding that Research Misconduct May Have Occurred. If the RIO accepts an Inquirer’s finding that there is Probable Cause to believe that Research Misconduct may have occurred, the RIO shall decide whether the Inquiry can serve in place of an Investigation or whether to proceed with an Investigation.

When the Inquiry Report Can Serve in Place of an Investigation. The RIO may decide that the Inquiry shall serve in place of a formal Investigation if all of the following conditions are satisfied:
Finding of Research Misconduct. The Inquiry has resulted in a finding, by a Preponderance of the Evidence, that Research Misconduct occurred.

Thorough Inquiry. The Inquiry has been sufficiently broad and thorough that it is unlikely that an Investigation would uncover significant new information. For this to be the case, the Inquirer must have examined all relevant documentation, interviewed the Complainant, the Respondent, and other individuals with key information, and secured appropriate expertise to thoroughly evaluate the evidence.

Concurrence of Counsel and External Agency. University Counsel and any appropriate external agency concur that the Inquiry may serve in place of a formal Investigation.

Agency Notifications. If the RIO decides that the Inquiry may serve in place of the formal Investigation, then he or she shall comply with agency notification requirements and refer the matter for appropriate action.

IX. Investigation

Initiating an Investigation. Upon determining that an Investigation is required, the RIO shall take the following actions: 
Appointment of Committee. Unless it is a proceeding where the Inquiry Report Can Serve in Place of an Investigation, (see above), within thirty (30) calendar days of receiving the final Inquiry report and making his or her determination for action, the RIO shall appoint an Investigation committee consisting of three (3) or more faculty members with appropriate expertise.

Membership. If feasible, at least one member of the committee should have expertise relevant to the area of the Research in question. Preferably, no member of the committee should be from the same immediate department or departmental division, as the Respondent. Faculty from other research institutions may be asked to serve on the committee.
Conflicts of Interest. Before appointing members to the committee, the RIO shall request that proposed members of the committee disclose any Conflicts of Interest and shall notify the Respondent of the proposed committee membership. If the Respondent submits a written objection within two (2) business days to any proposed member of the Investigation committee, and if the RIO agrees with the objection, that proposed member will not be selected. If the Respondent does not object within the two-day period, he or she will be deemed to have accepted the proposed committee membership.

Guidelines. The RIO shall provide the Investigation committee with written instructions for carrying out the Investigation.

Notification of Interested Parties. Immediately after appointing an Investigation committee, the RIO shall notify the Respondent in writing of the nature of the Allegation and the appointment of the Investigation committee. The RIO shall inform the appropriate funding agencies, consistent with law, agency requirements, and contractual agreements, that an Investigation is being undertaken. Affiliated institutions in which the Respondent has a joint appointment shall be notified if required by inter-institutional agreements. The RIO may also notify others with a need to know, at the RIO’s discretion.

Time Limit. The entire Investigation process shall normally be completed within one- hundred twenty (120) calendar days following the appointment of the Investigation committee. Any extension of this time limit requires approval of the RIO, must be documented in the final Investigation report, and should comply with the applicable requirements of external funding agencies. If UCOP is unable to complete the Investigation within the time period required by any applicable external agency, the RIO shall submit a written request to the agency requesting an extension in order to comply with its regulations; such a request must include an explanation for the delay that includes an interim report on the progress to date and estimated dates of completion of the report and other necessary steps.

Responsibilities of the Investigation Committee. The Investigation committee shall take the following actions as appropriate: 
Evidence. Examine relevant information and Research Records as needed to determine if Research Misconduct has occurred and who is responsible.

Interviews. Interview the Complainant, the Respondent, and other witnesses with respect to the Allegation. The Investigation committee may, in its discretion, record, transcribe, and/or prepare summaries of these interviews.

Respondent. Provide an opportunity for the Respondent to present additional information about the Allegation and the evidence developed by the committee. 

Expertise. Secure any necessary and appropriate expertise in consultation with the RIO.

Prepare Report. The Investigation committee shall prepare a report of its findings within 75 calendar days of the date of its appointment.

Report of the Investigation Committee. The Investigation report shall contain:
•    a description of the nature of the Allegation of Research Misconduct a description and documentation of the PHS support, including, for example, any grant numbers, grant applications, contracts, and publications listing PHS support
•    a description of the specific Allegation of Research Misconduct for consideration in the Investigation
•    if not already provided to ORI with the Inquiry report, the UCOP policies and procedures under which the Investigation was conducted
•    the identification and summary of the Research Records and evidence reviewed
•    for each Allegation of Research Misconduct identified during the Investigation, a finding as to whether Research Misconduct did or did not occur, and if so—
o    whether the Research Misconduct was Falsification, Fabrication, or Plagiarism, and if it was intentional, knowing, or in reckless disregard
o    a summary of the facts and the analysis which support the conclusion and consideration of the merits of any reasonable explanation by the Respondent
o    identification of the specific PHS support
•    for each Allegation as to which the committee finds that Research Misconduct did not occur, the committee shall support its finding as described above.
•    for each Allegation as to which the committee finds that Research Misconduct did not occur, but also believes that the Allegation may involve a violation of commonly accepted Research standards or other University policies, the committee should provide a summary of the facts and the analysis which support the finding and consideration of the merits of any reasonable explanation by the Respondent.

Finalizing the Report of the Investigation Committee

RIO Review. RIO review shall follow the same process as that set forth above.

Revisions by Committee. If the report has been referred back to the Investigation committee for modification or revision, the committee shall submit a signed report, satisfactory to the RIO, within seven (7) calendar days of such request. If additional time is needed for revisions or further investigation, the committee may request an extension of time from the RIO prior to the expiration of the 7-day period. After revisions satisfactory to the RIO have been made, a signed report shall be submitted to the RIO.

Review and Response by Respondent. The RIO shall provide the Respondent with a copy of the Investigation report. The Respondent shall submit his or her written comments or requested corrections of any factual errors to the RIO within fourteen (14) calendar days of receipt of the report. Upon receipt, the RIO shall promptly forward the response to the Investigation committee, which may revise the report. The response shall become part of the record of the Investigation.

Revisions by Committee. If the committee revises the report after reviewing the comments of the Respondent, the committee shall submit to the RIO a final, signed report, satisfactory to the RIO, within seven (7) calendar days after the RIO has provided the committee a response from the Respondent. If the committee determines that no revisions are necessary, it shall notify the RIO in writing within the 7-day period. If additional time is needed to review the Respondent's response, conduct additional investigation, or correct any factual errors, the committee shall request an extension of time from the RIO prior to the expiration of the 7-day period including a written showing of good cause.

Determination by RIO. Within seven (7) calendar days of his or her receipt of the final report, the RIO shall determine whether a Preponderance of the Evidence in the Investigation committee report supports a finding of Research Misconduct.

Notifications and Actions. Upon acceptance of the final Investigation report, the RIO shall promptly notify all interested parties and take appropriate actions.

Notification of Respondent. The RIO shall provide the Respondent with a final copy of the Investigation report and the RIO’s determination as to whether Research Misconduct has occurred.

Notification of Interested Parties. At his or her discretion, the RIO may notify those persons described above, as to the RIO's determination in the case.

Actions. Depending on the findings, the RIO shall take appropriate actions.

Finding that an Allegation is not Supported. If the RIO finds that an Allegation is not supported by a Preponderance of the Evidence, the RIO shall make diligent efforts to make known the outcome of the Investigation to appropriate individuals and organizations identified by the RIO, in consultation with the Respondent, with the intention of restoring the Respondent's reputation if affected by the Allegation. Written responses to the decision shall be placed in the record of the Investigation.

Finding of Violations other than Research Misconduct. If the RIO accepts the finding that Research Misconduct did not occur, but that the Respondent may have violated commonly accepted Research standards or other University policies, the RIO may refer such possible violations in a separate summary memorandum to the appropriate administrative officer (who may be the RIO) and/or the Researcher's supervisor for discipline or other appropriate action. If appropriate, such information may be considered in the applicable performance review process.

Finding of Research Misconduct. If the RIO finds that Research Misconduct has occurred, then he or she shall refer this matter for appropriate action and, in consultation with University Counsel, shall take any necessary corrective steps, including correction of the published record.
Submission of Final Report. Within seven (7) calendar days after the RIO's determination as to whether Research Misconduct has occurred, the RIO shall provide a copy of the final report to the appropriate funding agency and to affiliated institutions, in compliance with funding agency regulations or contractual agreements. The final report shall include the actual text or an accurate summary of the views of any Respondent found to have engaged in Research Misconduct, as well as:
•    a copy of the report with all attachments
•    a statement as to whether UCOP found Research Misconduct, and if so, who committed the misconduct
•    a statement as to whether UCOP accepts the Investigation’s findings
•    a description of any pending or completed administrative actions against the Respondent

No Right of Appeal. Neither the findings of an Investigation Committee, nor the RIO's determination regarding Research Misconduct, shall be subject to further appeal.

X. Discipline 
If Research Misconduct has been found, the RIO shall refer the matter to the appropriate University official for discipline or other appropriate action.



The Office of the President also receives funding for the administration of grant programs. The funds may be received through the University’s general budget under special State appropriations or through contracts, grants or gifts from extramural sponsors. Funds from these programs may be granted to UC and non-UC institutions, depending on the terms of the funding source. Since such programs are headquartered in the Office of the President, the awards are written and administered by OP. In such cases, OP assumes the role of "funding agency" or sponsor.

In addition, when an OP unit receives an award from an extramural sponsor under a contract or grant, which includes providing funds to other UC campuses or external organizations, OP is considered the “prime recipient” and must send subawards to transfer part of the Scope of Work and budget to other UC campuses or external organizations as described in the Scope of Work. RPAC must prepare any such subawards under an extramural prime award to OP.


1. Developing an Application or Proposal Package

When an OP unit is responsible for administration of a grant program which makes awards to other campuses and institutions, the OP unit carries out the entire proposal/award cycle, from issuing and selecting applications to transferring the award funds. Any OP developed Requests for Proposals needs to be reviewed by RPAC for compliance with University and sponsor requirements, prior to publication.

The contents of a proposal, listed in Part I. 1. C, can be used as a guide for a unit developing a Requests for Proposals or Applications for a University sponsored program. The information requested is tailored to the purpose and requirements of the specific program. In addition to the application, the packet containing the proposal should include:

a. A description of the program and purpose of the funds for which the application is being issued;

b. Instructions on how to complete the proposal with a contact person for questions;

c. Restrictions on budget items such as equipment purchases or travel, if any;

d. Cost-sharing requirements (ONLY if required by the prime award.)

e. How the proposal will be evaluated;

f. How and when awards will be issued; and,

g. Deadline for submission.

When the University is the sponsor of an award program, its implementation of that program must be in accordance with University policies. As such, it should not impose any restrictions which are inconsistent with University policy in areas such as:

  • Salary and Benefits Provide salaries and full benefits for salaries at approved rates
  • Intellectual Property Freedom to publish; copyrights and rights in data; patent policy
  • Travel Pay institution's official travel rates
  • Approved student fees
  • Indirect Costs Indirect costs are not provided to University of California campuses which receive awards from University-funded programs (i.e., using UC general or State appropriation funds). However, indirect costs should be provided to external institutions. In addition, when indirect costs are provided in an extramural award to OP, they must be passed on in all subawards, whether to a UC campus or an external institution.
  • Signatures The proposal must be signed by the applicant Principal Investigator, and official organizational designee to commit the applicant to the proposed work, usually the RPAC Contract and Grant Officer.

While requests for proposals and guidelines may be sent directly to eligible Principal Investigators, a copy should also be sent to UC (and non-UC if external institutions are eligible to apply) Contract and Grant Offices. Contracts and Grants Offices not only disseminate information about available funding to their respective faculties, but also coordinate proposals through established review procedures and sign them for their campus or institution before they are forwarded to the OP sponsoring office.

2. Evaluating Proposals

A proposal is generally evaluated by a selected committee of experts in the field for which it is issued. This evaluation is generally known as "peer review." The committee members must all use the same evaluation criteria with a range of points assigned to each area under the criteria. If possible, this committee should meet to discuss their results and come to a consensus on their priorities for funding.

Examples of some of the criteria used to evaluate a proposal are:

  • Impact - How well it addresses the purpose of the funds.
  • Plan of operation or research design.
  • Adequacy of resources at the applicant institution.
  • Expertise Qualifications of key personnel.
  • Organizational structure.
  • Experience in this area.
  • Evaluation plan.
  • Budget and cost effectiveness.
  • Ability to continue project (if this is a consideration).

While signed individual evaluations are not made public, a summary of all the evaluation comments, without evaluators’ names, for each proposal should be on file in case an applicant requests information about why he/she was not selected. The original signed evaluations need to be retained for all applications through the period of time provided in the application guidelines for appeals or if more funds become available to be awarded to additional applicants.


1. Preparing the Award Document

Once the award or subaward recipients have been selected and notified, the award or subaward is written and sent to the recipient. This document contains the terms and conditions of the award, the Statement of Work and budget, and explains how the funds will be transferred. While an award (or subaward) document to another UC campus differs from an award (or subaward) to an external recipient in a number of areas, as described below, both need to convey clearly the expectations and requirements of the sponsored program.

a. University-Funded Awards and Extramural Subawards to Other UC Campuses or Divisions

An award within the University system funded by a University budget source (including special State appropriations to the general University budget) can be made by two different methods. One way is to have the UCOP sponsoring unit transmit the award documents; the other is to have RPAC provide them. Multiple Campus Awards within the University system from extramural awards to UCOP can only be administered via written inter-campus agreements prepared by RPAC.

Both the award document and the accounting procedures for awards and sub-awards within the University are set forth in RPAC Memo 14-08.

b. University Awards and Subawards to External Institutions

University funded awards or extramural-funded subawards made to an institution outside the University of California system, resulting from awards or funding to OP for the conduct of research, scholarly and professional training, or public service programs relating either to research or to scholarly or professional training must prepared by RPAC and signed by the authorized person in the OP Strategic Sourcing Office. RPAC is also responsible for reviewing the recipient's legal and tax exempt status, financial stability, indirect cost rate, and other organizational documents as necessary to assess the recipient's administrative capabilities. (See sample Financial Status Questionnaire.) (Refer above to Introduction, Applicability, subparagraph 4, for other types of agreements not covered here. For example, for consultant contracts, see BUS 34 -- Securing the Services of Independent Consultants. For purchases, see BFB-BUS-43 Materiel Management.

The UCOP department asking RPAC to write an award or subaward document to an external organization completes a Request for an Agreement form and forwards it to RPAC with all required documents such as a Scope of Work and a budget. OP programs which make many awards at one time to external institutions should consult with RPAC about providing the required information for multiple awards on a spread sheet rather than completing the Request for an Agreement form for each award. RPAC will prepare a boilerplate agreement or subagreement in these cases and the OP requesting department may create the individual awards/subawards using the pre-approved RPAC boilerplate agreement.

The award or subaward document to an external organization contains the following information and clauses, as appropriate:

b1. Effective dates – period of performance.
b2. Statement of Work to be performed.
b3. Amount of the award and a line-item budget.
b4. Invoicing and payment procedures.
b5. Required financial and progress reports with due dates.
b6. Termination procedures.
b7. Names of Principal Investigator and institution official (Contract and Grant Officer) contact information.
b8. Restrictions, if any, on expenditures or activities.
b9. Terms and conditions of the UC program or the prime extramural award to UC.
b10. Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action
b11. Evaluation of the project's performance
b12. Fiscal and Administrative Standards
b13. Insurance and indemnification
b14. Patents, copyrights, data and publications.
b15. Title to Property

The award document is written by RPAC in consultation with the OP awarding unit. In cases where unusual language may need to be negotiated in any of the above areas, other UCOP offices such as Office of the General Counsel and Risk Management may be consulted. RPAC coordinates any required reviews of the award/subaward document through to completion.

Either RPAC or the UCOP requesting department sends the signed award document to the recipient or subrecipient external institution. Only RPAC can negotiate any changes to the terms and conditions if requested by the recipient institution. The recipient institution signs the award document, thereby indicating its acceptance of the terms and conditions, and returns an original to RPAC. RPAC sends one copy of the fully executed award or subaward to the UCOP administering unit which is responsible for initiating payments and reviewing progress reports and required prior approvals requests.

It is possible for either RPAC or the UCOP department to determine that it will distribute awards/subawards electronically. Documents may be transmitted, signed, as a PDF. Whether the recipient needs to return a signed document can be discussed with RPAC. An electronic mail receipt could be used to provide acceptance by the recipient.

c. Subrecipient Risk Assessment under Federal Awards per 2 CFR 200 (Uniform Guidance)

2 CFR 200.331(b) requires that all pass-through entities:
(b) Evaluate each subrecipient's risk of noncompliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring described in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, which may include consideration of such factors as:
(1) The subrecipient's prior experience with the same or similar subawards;
(2) The results of previous audits including whether or not the subrecipient receives a Single Audit in accordance with Subpart F—Audit Requirements of this part, and the extent to which the same or similar subaward has been audited as a major program;
(3) Whether the subrecipient has new personnel or new or substantially changed systems; and
(4) The extent and results of Federal awarding agency monitoring (e.g., if the subrecipient also receives Federal awards directly from a Federal awarding agency).
(c) Consider imposing specific subaward conditions upon a subrecipient if appropriate as described in §200.207 Specific conditions.
(d) Monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward; and that subaward performance goals are achieved. Pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include:
(1) Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity.
(2) Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and other means.
(3) Issuing a management decision for audit findings pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by §200.521 Management decision.
(e) Depending upon the pass-through entity's assessment of risk posed by the subrecipient (as described in paragraph (b) of this section), the following monitoring tools may be useful for the pass-through entity to ensure proper accountability and compliance with program requirements and achievement of performance goals:
(1) Providing subrecipients with training and technical assistance on program-related matters; and
(2) Performing on-site reviews of the subrecipient's program operations;
(3) Arranging for agreed-upon-procedures engagements as described in §200.425 Audit services.
(f) Verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by Subpart F—Audit Requirements of this part when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in §200.501 Audit requirements.
(g) Consider whether the results of the subrecipient's audits, on-site reviews, or other monitoring indicate conditions that necessitate adjustments to the pass-through entity's own records.
(h) Consider taking enforcement action against noncompliant subrecipients as described in §200.338 Remedies for noncompliance of this part and in program regulations.

Accordingly, the Research Policy Analysis & Coordination (RPAC) unit at UCOP, in coordination with the PI, will evaluate all subrecipients under federal awards, taking into consideration the following factors:

UCOP’s prior experience with the subrecipient.

Obviously, the more experience UCOP has with the subrecipient, the better we can evaluate their dependency, ability to perform, and stewardship of funds. However, this does not mean that subrecipients automatically fall into a low risk category, but rather, that we can better predict future issues based on past performance.

The amount of the subaward.

Small subawards with limited budgets are likely of lower risk, barring any reason to think otherwise. Subawards under $20,000 will generally be considered lower risk. However, this is just one criteria. The subawardee should also be evaluated against other criteria set forth herein.

Whether the subrecipient has prior experience managing federal funds.

UCOP should request information regarding a subrecipient’s System for Award Management (SAM) registration and the results of prior federal audits. This could be a tool to help with the risk assessment. Accordingly, UCOP should require all subrecipient’s to self-certify that:

They have registered in the federal System for Award Management (SAM). [Note: If they have not registered, UCOP may need to provide some basis assistance.]

They maintain administrative and financial systems to assist in the management of federal award.

There were no significant deficiencies or material weaknesses reported for any federal subawards received from The Regents of the University of California on their annual single audit for its last fiscal year (in accordance with 2CFR 200 Subpart F).

Subawardees with no experience managing federal funds might raise an alert. UCOP should evaluate their readiness to comply with the terms of the award. In some cases, UCOP might have to guide the subrecipient.

UCOP can request other independent audit information and/or financial reports or information from Subawardees who have not had a federal audit. Additionally, UCOP should assess whether additional steps are needed to monitor a subrecipient as necessary, depending on the results of the information received.

Whether the subrecipient is a non-profit, for-profit, governmental, or foreign entity.

For-profits and foreign entities will require further review to make sure all funds will be appropriately spent and that the proper terms are contained in the subaward. UCOP generally does not provide subawards to these types of entities.

Expected Independence of the Subawardee

Some projects require significant collaboration with a subawardee. These provide the University a greater opportunity to gauge the subawardee’s performance. Projects with less interaction do not necessarily mean the subawardee should be categorized as high risk, but rather that the amount of expected interaction can be used as a monitoring tool that can mitigate risk.

UCOP can also use the tools provided by the Federal Demonstration Project

Ongoing Monitoring

In addition to the above, the department responsible for the performance of work under the federal award to UCOP should review and approve all technical and financial reports.

2. Transferring the Award/Subaward Funds

a. Transferring Award/Subaward Expenses/Funds Within the University

The procedures for transferring award and subaward expenditures within the University are described in RPAC Memo 14-08.

For an inter-campus award funded from the University budget, invoicing and inter-location transfer of the expense credit is administered by the UCOP department.

For a subaward, the source of the funding is an UCOP extramural award. Campuses must submit an Intercampus Request for Reimbursement (IRR), not more frequently than monthly, based on actual expenses that have incurred on their closed monthly ledgers, to UCLA EFM. The UCOP administering department can determine if it needs to review and approve campus IRRs before they are paid. If so, then the OP program needs to instruct its campus recipients in the award document to submit the IRR first to the UCOP department which will be responsible for sending an approved IRR to UCLA EFM which prepares the inter-campus journals to transfer the funds requested and approved.

b . Transmitting Award or Subaward Funds to an External Institution

The procedures for requesting payments to external institutions via the Los Angeles campus Disbursement Office differ, depending on whether the source of the funding to the external institution is a University internally funded program or an extramural sponsored award to UCOP. External subrecipients submit their invoices, no more frequently than monthly, based on actual expenses incurred during that month, to the UCLA Accounts Payable Office. As with the inter-campus awards, if the UCOP administering department wants to review and approve invoices before UCLA pays them, the UCOP department needs to instruct its subrecipients in their subawards to submit their invoices to the UCOP department. The UCOP department is then responsible for payment procedures.

The final invoice must always be so marked and required within enough time after the end date of the subaward to allow UCLA EFM to prepare a final report/final invoice for the UCOP program within the time requirements set forth in the UCOP award.

UCOP programs which decide to advance fund subrecipients need to consider some controls when funds are advanced. First the subrecipient’s organizational capabilities must be assessed in view of an advance payment. A subrecipient should never be provided the full amount of the award in advance. There should always be a final payment withheld, at a minimum of 10% of the award amount, to assure delivery of all reports, recovery of any unallowed costs, and to prevent the additional administrative burden of collecting unexpended funds in time to return them prime fund sources or rebudget them for other program needs.




OP programs may occasionally require temporary personnel transfers. These transfers may include transfers of UCOP employees to non UC organizations as well as transfers of non UC employees to UCOP for a specified period of time. In either case, inter-personnel agreements may be used when the employee wishes to retain his/her position and seniority with his/her current employer without a break in service, and the assignment is for a limited specified duration.. Inter-personnel agreements are used to transfer the funding needed to cover the employee’s salaries and benefits and other related expenses from the entity seeking the services to the employer entity. Most temporary transfers of personnel involve financial reimbursement. Some do not as the employee may be “on loan” as a program contribution from his/her employer.


This procedure describes how temporary personnel transfers involving transfer of funds between UCOP and a non UC organization or the DOE Laboratories may be accomplished. Temporary personnel transfers that do not involve a transfer of funds between UCOP and a non UC organization or that transfer a UC employee temporarily or on a permanent basis between UCOP and a campus may be accomplished directly by UCOP departments without using this procedure.


Temporary transfers involving transfers of funds often require evaluation of the following issues:

  • Needs and benefit to UCOP, the non UC organization, and the employee.
  • Allocation of responsibility for funding the transferred employee's compensation, benefits, and other expenses.
  • Availability of office space and support services.
  • Personnel policies, i.e., duration and terms of leaves of absence, sick leave, and holidays.
  • Allocation of general liability and worker's compensation responsibility.
  • Intellectual property rights.
  • Supervision of other employees.


The considerations noted above involve responsibilities of several UCOP offices. Offices which may be involved and their respective responsibilities are described below.

1. Departmental Responsibilities

The UCOP unit requesting a funds transfer to an external organization for a temporary employee must complete the Request for an Agreement and forward it to RPAC with the relevant documentation. For payments to external organizations, the UCOP unit follows the same payment procedures in described above for subawards.

The UCOP department responsible for the employee who is to be transferred out, or the non UC employee who is being transferred in has the following responsibilities:

  • Approve the purpose and general program terms under which a transfer may take place.
  • Approve leave, if necessary, for an UCOP employee in accordance with University personnel policy.
  • Select non UC employee being transferred.
  • Decide the allocation of financial responsibility between UCOP department and the non-UC organization for employee's salary, provision for merit increase, benefits, travel, relocation costs, and other expenses. The allocation will be influenced by which organization is directly benefiting from the transferred employee's work effort.
  • Provides space, support services, and any additional expenses or resources for transfers into UCOP.
  • Prepares detailed line item budget reflecting the allocation of financial responsibility agreed to with the non UC organization.
  • Review invoices and prepare check requests in cases involving payments to non UC organizations.
  • Provides correspondence, completed budget, and general terms for the proposed transfer to RPAC.

The development of a final inter-personnel agreement can be facilitated if RPAC is notified in advance at the point that a transfer is being considered. The UCOP department contact person for RPAC should be knowledgeable about the details and understanding of the proposed transfer.

2. RPAC Responsibilities

RPAC is responsible for reviewing, negotiating, and signing any agreement from a non UC organization which provides funds to the University for a temporary employee transfer. If RPAC has any questions or concerns about the agreement, RPAC staff consults with the UCOP department contact before calling the external organization. The terms and conditions of the agreement are negotiated and finalized by RPAC. The agreement is signed on behalf of The Regents of the University of California by the authorized RPAC staff.

3. Extramural Funds Accounting Office

When an agreement involves the transfer of funds from an external organization to UCOP, the UCLA Extramural Funds Accounting (EFM) Office must invoice the external organization based on the payment terms of the agreement. As described in Part I, Section 5. B. above, the UCOP department provides the account number to RPAC which forwards it with the signed agreement and Award Notification to the EFM Office. EFM provides an account/fund number to the department for each award.

4. Risk Management, General Counsel, and Human Resources Offices

RPAC reviews any unusual language or terms and conditions in the proposed agreement which do not conform with University policy with the UCOP office responsible for the issue in question. Issues involving insurance or liability may be reviewed with the Risk Management and/or Office of the General Counsel. Questions about employee leave or other personnel policies may be reviewed with the Human Resources Office.


All temporary transfers of employees must be documented in a written agreement. At a minimum, an inter-personnel agreement must contain the following items:

  • Name of the external organization.
  • Name of the employee being transferred.
  • Purpose or scope of work for employee.
  • Names of contact persons/supervisors, addresses and telephone numbers for both organizations.
  • Total dollar amount to be reimbursed.
  • Start and end dates of the transfer period covered by the dollar amount.
  • Detailed budget information about what the funds will pay for.
  • Administration of leave time such as sick leave and vacations.
  • Payment schedule and invoicing/payment information including name and address of where invoices or payments are sent. University policy requires advance payments for reimbursements to the University. Checks are made out to The Regents of the University of California.
  • Termination clause.

Some organizations may want liability and/or intellectual property clauses. If the inter-personnel agreement itself does not describes what the funding is to pay for, a line item budget should be attached. Normally in this type of agreement, the budget only consists of the salaries, benefits, and indirect costs.

RPAC coordinates review and approval of the final inter-personnel agreement with the department office involved and with any other UCOP offices, as necessary. RPAC signs the agreement on behalf of The Regents if UCOP is the recipient of funds; the Office of Strategic Sourcing signs if UCOP is sending University funds to an external organization.