Collaborative Proposals Across Tufts Units

Tufts Collaborative Sponsored Projects policy is in effect as of July 1, 2017. The following provides additional guidance regarding the collaborative proposal process.

  1. Proposal management is part of proposal preparation duties residing in local research administration. For complex proposals where parts of the project reside in different units, the ownership of the proposal preparation process by a local research administrator (LRA) becomes paramount. The LRA that supports the lead PI should closely review the call for proposals to identify what is needed, manage the timeline, follow up with all parties for their parts of the proposal, and ensure successful assembly and route of the proposal to Pre-Award office in time for submission.
  2. In instances when the lead PI is not yet identified, OVPR will work with the parties and units involved in the proposal, to facilitate the decision where work should reside based on the scientific direction of the proposal. Email to begin the process.
  3. Scopes/child accounts should be built by the respective units that own the scopes.
  4. Since the child proposal is not routed, the lead unit must check with the unit that owns the child regarding the approvers that need to be added to the approver list. These individuals are then added to the route path as ad hoc approvers of the Parent proposal. If the approver for the unit that owns the child is not known, the Lead RA for the school/center will provide the information regarding the route path and advise on the process.
  5. A child/scope account is recommended if a manager of funds is different across units and in situations where there is financial risk to the unit (i.e. award in non-US currency, cost sharing, reduced F&A, or high risk sponsor). The unit of the scope will determine if the scope is needed.
  6. A child/scope account is always required if any of the following is true:
    1. Annual funded effort is greater than 5% (0.6 calendar months for investigators on 12-months appointments; 0.45 calendar months for faculty on 9-months appointments) for PI or any other personnel, or, if any student labor is budgeted
    2. Materials, supplies, or any other direct non-labor expenses are budgeted​​​​​​​
  7. The fact that a child account was not created during the proposal process should not be an impediment to the correct award setup. Approvals for such “late scope” must be sent to Pre-Award as soon as the decision is made to have such a scope.
  8. In central Post-Award, the specialist that supports the lead PI also supports scope accounts.
  9. Supplies and other materials charged to the scope accounts are managed by the units of each scope.
  10. Scopes that ended with the remaining balance when the parent award is still ongoing:
    1. Consult with lead unit and notify Post-Award
    2. It may not be possible or the lead unit may not be willing to absorb the remaining balance
    3. Early closeout of the scope is desirable.

Hierarchy/Scope Decision Guide

  • Is annual funded effort greater than 5%?
    • If yes, then you need a Hierarchy/Scope.
    • If no, continue.
  • Are there Materials and other supplies or any other direct non-compensation expenses?
    • If yes, then you need a Hierarchy/Scope.
    • If not, then it is optional and at the discretion of the non-lead unit.

Related Policy

Collaborative Sponsored Projects