![]() ![]() Desk reviews are typically prepared by an external contractor. RolesĬAAR leads the desk review effort in collaboration with other NSF divisions. Minor concerns may not require a corrective action plan, but awardees are expected to address the issues promptly. ![]() NSF tracks the status of each awardees implementation of a mutually agreed upon remedy until the issues are resolved. Awardees may be required to prepare a corrective action plan to remedy any deficiencies. Throughout the desk review process, the contractor communicates the status of each desk review to NSF, including any issues that may arise during the review.Īfter the desk review has been completed and approved by NSF, the awardee will receive a letter which provides feedback by describing any issues identified during the review. Last, the contractor compiles the draft desk review report for NSF review and approval. In most cases, the contractor will then send a letter notifying the awardee about any issues identified during the review, and the awardee will be allowed a short period of time to respond and/or submit additional documentation. After completion of the discussion call(s), the contractor may request additional documentation. The contractor will correspond directly with the awardee to collect the required information and schedule one or more discussion calls. The awardee will then receive a request for documentation from an external contractor. The desk review process begins when NSF sends a letter notifying the awardee that they have been selected to participate in a desk review. The annual risk assessment assigns each awardee to a review category and includes award factors, institutional factors, prior monitoring activities and results, and award administration and program staff feedback. CAAR will document changes in policies and procedures since the last monitoring activity and any related concerns identified during the review will be noted in the summary report.ĬAAR prioritizes awardee institutions to participate in advanced monitoring (i.e., site visits or desk reviews) based on the results of its annual award portfolio risk assessment, monitoring requests from other NSF divisions, and professional judgment. These desk reviews may include both the standard review and/or a review of ARRA related information. Desk reviews may also be performed on awardees whose prior monitoring activities include a desk review, site visit, or both. In some cases, desk reviews are scheduled in advance of a site visit. ![]() CAAR performs approximately 120 desk reviews every year. The process also ensures that NSFs recipient institutions are utilizing sound business and administrative practices in order to achieve the purpose of their grant-funded projects. By gathering information in these four core areas, CAAR assesses the extent to which an awardee maintains a controlled environment within which awards are likely to be administered in compliance with Federal regulations and NSF agreement provisions. These reviews include four core review areas: General Management, Accounting System, Award Cash Management (ACM$) Reconciliation, and American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) Reporting Procedures Review (as needed). Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU)ĭesk reviews are essentially an overarching appraisal of an institutions award administration capacity.National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES).Award Statistics (Budget Internet Info System).Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG).Responsible and Ethical Conduct of Research.Technology, Innovation and Partnerships (TIP).Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences (SBE).Mathematical and Physical Sciences (MPS).International Science and Engineering (OISE).Environmental Research and Education (ERE).Computer and Information Science and Engineering (CISE). ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |