Merit Review Principles Sample Clauses

Merit Review Principles. These principles are to be given due diligence by PIs and organizations when preparing proposals and managing projects, by reviewers when reading and evaluating proposals, and by NSF program staff when determining whether or not to recommend proposals for funding and while overseeing awards. Given that NSF is the primary federal agency charged with nurturing and supporting excellence in basic research and education, the following three principles apply: All NSF projects should be of the highest quality and have the potential to advance, if not transform, the frontiers of knowledge. NSF projects, in the aggregate, should contribute more broadly to achieving societal goals. These "Broader Impacts" may be accomplished through the research itself, through activities that are directly related to specific research projects, or through activities that are supported by, but are complementary to, the project. The project activities may be based on previously established and/or innovative methods and approaches, but in either case must be well justified. Meaningful assessment and evaluation of NSF funded projects should be based on appropriate metrics, keeping in mind the likely correlation between the effect of broader impacts and the resources provided to implement projects. If the size of the activity is limited, evaluation of that activity in isolation is not likely to be meaningful. Thus, assessing the effectiveness of these activities may best be done at a higher, more aggregated, level than the individual project. With respect to the third principle, even if assessment of Broader Impacts outcomes for particular projects is done at an aggregated level, PIs are expected to be accountable for carrying out the activities described in the funded project. Thus, individual projects should include clearly stated goals, specific descriptions of the activities that the PI intends to do, and a plan in place to document the outputs of those activities. These three merit review principles provide the basis for the merit review criteria, as well as a context within which the users of the criteria can better understand their intent.
View Source

Related to Merit Review Principles

  • AUDIT REVIEW PROCEDURES A. Any dispute concerning a question of fact arising under an interim or post audit of this AGREEMENT that is not disposed of by AGREEMENT, shall be reviewed by LOCAL AGENCY’S Chief Financial Officer. B. Not later than thirty (30) calendar days after issuance of the final audit report, CONSULTANT may request a review by LOCAL AGENCY’S Chief Financial Officer of unresolved audit issues. The request for review will be submitted in writing. C. Neither the pendency of a dispute nor its consideration by LOCAL AGENCY will excuse CONSULTANT from full and timely performance, in accordance with the terms of this AGREEMENT. D. CONSULTANT and subconsultant AGREEMENTs, including cost proposals and Indirect Cost Rates (ICR), may be subject to audits or reviews such as, but not limited to, an AGREEMENT audit, an incurred cost audit, an ICR Audit, or a CPA ICR audit work paper review. If selected for audit or review, the AGREEMENT, cost proposal and ICR and related work papers, if applicable, will be reviewed to verify compliance with 48 CFR Part 31 and other related laws and regulations. In the instances of a CPA ICR audit work paper review it is CONSULTANT’s responsibility to ensure federal, LOCAL AGENCY, or local government officials are allowed full access to the CPA’s work papers including making copies as necessary. The AGREEMENT, cost proposal, and ICR shall be adjusted by CONSULTANT and approved by LOCAL AGENCY Contract Administrator to conform to the audit or review recommendations. CONSULTANT agrees that individual terms of costs identified in the audit report shall be incorporated into the AGREEMENT by this reference if directed by LOCAL AGENCY at its sole discretion. Refusal by CONSULTANT to incorporate audit or review recommendations, or to ensure that the federal, LOCAL AGENCY or local governments have access to CPA work papers, will be considered a breach of AGREEMENT terms and cause for termination of the AGREEMENT and disallowance of prior reimbursed costs. E. CONSULTANT’s Cost Proposal may be subject to a CPA ICR Audit Work Paper Review and/or audit by the Independent Office of Audits and Investigations (IOAI). IOAI, at its sole discretion, may review and/or audit and approve the CPA ICR documentation. The Cost Proposal shall be adjusted by the CONSULTANT and approved by the LOCAL AGENCY Contract Administrator to conform to the Work Paper Review recommendations included in the management letter or audit recommendations included in the audit report. Refusal by the CONSULTANT to incorporate the Work Paper Review recommendations included in the management letter or audit recommendations included in the audit report will be considered a breach of the AGREEMENT terms and cause for termination of the AGREEMENT and disallowance of prior reimbursed costs. 1. During IOAI’s review of the ICR audit work papers created by the CONSULTANT’s independent CPA, IOAI will work with the CPA and/or CONSULTANT toward a resolution of issues that arise during the review. Each party agrees to use its best efforts to resolve any audit disputes in a timely manner. If IOAI identifies significant issues during the review and is unable to issue a cognizant approval letter, LOCAL AGENCY will reimburse the CONSULTANT at an accepted ICR until a FAR (Federal Acquisition Regulation) compliant ICR {e.g. 48 CFR Part 31; GAGAS (Generally Accepted Auditing Standards); CAS (Cost Accounting Standards), if applicable; in accordance with procedures and guidelines of the American Association of State Highways and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Audit Guide; and other applicable procedures and guidelines}is received and approved by IOAI. Accepted rates will be as follows: a. If the proposed rate is less than one hundred fifty percent (150%) - the accepted rate reimbursed will be ninety percent (90%) of the proposed rate. b. If the proposed rate is between one hundred fifty percent (150%) and two hundred percent (200%) - the accepted rate will be eighty-five percent (85%) of the proposed rate. c. If the proposed rate is greater than two hundred percent (200%) - the accepted rate will be seventy-five percent (75%) of the proposed rate. 2. If IOAI is unable to issue a cognizant letter per paragraph E.1. above, IOAI may require CONSULTANT to submit a revised independent CPA-audited ICR and audit report within three (3) months of the effective date of the management letter. IOAI will then have up to six (6) months to review the CONSULTANT’s and/or the independent CPA’s revisions. 3. If the CONSULTANT fails to comply with the provisions of this paragraph E, or if IOAI is still unable to issue a cognizant approval letter after the revised independent CPA audited ICR is submitted, overhead cost reimbursement will be limited to the accepted ICR that was established upon initial rejection of the ICR and set forth in paragraph E.1. above for all rendered services. In this event, this accepted ICR will become the actual and final ICR for reimbursement purposes under this AGREEMENT. 4. CONSULTANT may submit to LOCAL AGENCY final invoice only when all of the following items have occurred: (1) IOAI accepts or adjusts the original or revised independent CPA audited ICR;

  • Basic Principles The Electrical Contractor and the Union have a common and sympathetic interest in the Electrical Industry. Therefore, a working system and harmonious relations are necessary to improve the relationship between the Employer, the Union and the Public. Progress in industry demands a mutuality of confidence between the Employer and the Union. All will benefit by continuous peace and by adjusting any differences by rational common-sense methods.

  • Claims Review Methodology ‌‌ a. C laims Review Population. A description of the Population subject‌‌ to the Quarterly Claims Review.

  • Cost Principles The Subrecipient shall administer its program in conformance with 2 CFR Part 200, et al; (and if Subrecipient is a governmental or quasi-governmental agency, the applicable sections of 24 CFR 85, “Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments,”) as applicable. These principles shall be applied for all costs incurred whether charged on a direct or indirect basis.

  • General Principles Each Party shall implement its tasks in accordance with the Consortium Plan and shall bear sole responsibility for ensuring that its acts within the Project do not knowingly infringe third party property rights.