Research Administration Shared Services

Transcription

1 Administration Shared Services Committee Report Submitted to Regent Bill Jones December 2009

2 Committee s Charge The Administration Shared Services (RASS) Committee (Attachment 1) was formed at the direction of The Texas A&M University System Board of Regents (BOR) on June 15, Originally, the Committee was to focus on shared services between Texas A&M University (TAMU) and the Texas A&M Foundation (TAMRF). However, following discussions with the Committee s BOR liaison (Regent Jones) it was agreed the Committee would provide a comprehensive cost analysis of administration of sponsored projects (i.e., extramural grants and contracts) for all the major System members located in College Station, including: Texas AgriLife (AgriLife), Texas A&M University, Texas A&M Health Science Center (HSC), Texas Engineering Experiment Station (TEES), and Texas Transportation Institute (TTI), in addition to the TAMRF. These A&M System members account for 91% ($615.9M) of the total research expenditures reported to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board for Fiscal Year 2008 (Attachment 2). Scope The RASS Committee noted that research administration encompasses many activities, foremost among which is management of sponsored projects. In addition, overall research administration activities include, but are not limited to: grant proposal writing; managing indirect cost recovery and distribution within a System member; approval of indirect costs (IDC) waiver requests; managing research compliance requirements; selection of limited submission grant applicants for the System member; and administration of intramural research programs, among many others. Within the subject of research administration, the RASS Committee focused its review on contract and grant management, which includes pre and post award services for extramural sponsored projects. Pre award services include preparing proposals for submission, such as budget preparation and routing proposal forms for approval, and negotiating contract terms for sponsored contracts. Post award services include setting up an award and assuring compliance with sponsor requirements through close out of the award. The analyses were based on data from Fiscal Year Guiding Principles The RASS Committee adopted a number of guiding principles in identifying opportunities for shared services related to administration of sponsored projects. A successful shared services model must: Advance the strategic ability of the System member to achieve its academic, research and scholarship mission. Increase the quality, timeliness and consistency of information and services provided to principal investigators, administration, and other stakeholders. December

3 Facilitate the identification, management and control of risk without compromising decision making responsibility of the System member to effectively oversee the research programs, personnel, facilities, and federal reporting requirements for which each entity is assigned responsibility and accountability. Achieve best in class efficiencies for research administration and compliance. Increase, enhance and facilitate the successful funding and administration of research projects that leads to increased funding levels at the System member. This also will result in the most efficient and effective utilization of indirect costs. Method for Analyses of Administration Costs of Projects The Committee conducted comprehensive cost analyses of the processes for administration of sponsored projects within each of the five System members and the TAMRF. TAMRF s expense categories were used as a basis for matching research administration expense categories of the five System members to provide, as best as possible, an apples to apples cost comparison. Costs for System members included all direct expenses and overhead expenses related to their central research administration offices, as well as costs associated with support for management of sponsored projects performed by staff locally within colleges, departments, and agency units. The System members also included expenses such as employee health insurance costs, which in many cases are paid by the State of Texas. Other examples of overhead costs included in the analyses for System members are building maintenance, utility costs, and the costs of legal support from System Offices. A primary quantitative variable that was used to determine and compare the efficiency of processes for administration of sponsored projects between System members and the TAMRF is the sponsored projects cost ratio, which is based on the total expenses associated with administration of sponsored projects by the System member relative to the total expenditures from sponsored projects. A low sponsored projects cost ratio should indicate a greater cost effectiveness of administration of sponsored projects. System Member Administration Each System member maintains a central office, typically under a vice president or director of research, in order to accomplish all of the responsibilities related to oversight of research administration. However, the process and infrastructure for administration of sponsored projects, including the size of the office, varies widely between System members. For example, the HSC outsources virtually all of its administration of sponsored projects to the TAMRF and thus maintains a relatively small central office for administration of sponsored projects; while TEES provides nearly all of this function internally and thus has a much larger office. TAMU, AgriLife, and TTI have more of a hybrid approach as both use the TAMRF to some extent but also maintain relatively comprehensive central offices devoted to administration of sponsored projects. December

4 Cost Analyses An overview of The Texas A&M University System research expenditures is presented in Attachment 2. A summary of the results of the comprehensive cost analyses is provided below (Table 1). Comprehensive data on the costs of administration of sponsored projects by the TAMRF on behalf of the System member are provided in Attachment 3 (Table 2). Data on the total cost of administration of sponsored projects by the central office of each System member, including college and departmental offices, is provided in Attachment 4 (Table 3). Table 1 provides a summary of results for each System member and the TAMRF for the following data: Grand total direct research expenditures of all sponsored projects administered by the System member and by the TAMRF on behalf of the System member. Grand total of expenses related to administration of grants and contracts by the System member and by the TAMRF on behalf of the System member. The sponsored projects cost ratio, which represents the percentage of expenses used for administration of sponsored projects relative to total direct research expenditures. The number of full time equivalent (FTE) positions devoted to administration of sponsored projects, both in the System member s central research office as well as in college and departmental offices. Total Direct Expenditures of Projects Administered by a System member and TAMRF Total of Expenses Related to Administration* Projects Cost Ratio** System Member FTE s*** TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF SPONSORED RESEARCH ACTIVITY (FY 2009) AgriLife TAMU HSC TEES TTI TAMRF $ M $ M $ M $ M $ M $ M $4.301 M $7.094 M $2.802 M $6.360 M $3.925 M $8.903 M 5.5% 9.9% 8.6% 8.6% 10.8% 10.7% * Grand total of expenses used to support administration of sponsored projects from each System member (central research office, college research offices, and departmental offices) plus expenses on behalf of each System member by the TAMRF. ** Ratio of total expenses for administration of sponsored to total direct research expenditures. *** Total FTEs in the System member central research office as well as colleges, departments, agency units, and at TAMRF for administration of grants and contracts. December

5 With the exception of AgriLife, each of the System members and the TAMRF reported sponsored projects cost ratios that were very similar, ranging from 8.6% for the HSC and TEES to approximately 11% for TTI and the TAMRF. The lowest sponsored projects cost ratio (5.5%) was recorded for AgriLife. However, based on a recent internal review of their contract and grants management office, AgriLife determined this ratio is not sustainable and that, under the present distributed system, significant additions of staff and other resources with associated costs would be necessary to bolster its central office for administration of sponsored projects. Committee s Initial Recommendations The Committee completed the comprehensive analyses of the cost of administration of sponsored projects (i.e., extramural grants and contracts) for all the major System members located in College Station and the TAMRF. The cost analyses indicated there is not a significant cost variance among the organizations. In addition to quantifiable cost factors included in the report, the Committee noted other critical factors that can impact the research enterprise that need to be considered when evaluating changes to the current research administration process. The major stakeholders of the research enterprise, the Principal Investigators (PIs) and the System members, stated that flexibility in determining the best way to manage sponsored research projects is a critical issue. Areas where the Committee noted opportunities for shared services that will improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the growing research enterprise within the A&M System are summarized below. Administration of Federal Competitive Projects TAMU and AgriLife decided to transfer federal competitive projects to TAMRF. This will result in a combined costavoidance of $317,000. TEES continues to evaluate the cost, but at this time it is more cost effective for TEES to continue to manage these projects internally. Administration Management Information System Development of a new system (MAESTRO) began in fall 2008 and currently is in year two of a four year implementation plan. It is anticipated that MAESTRO will assist all users in more efficiently and effectively managing sponsored research. Establish a Administration Council (RAC) Establish a council consisting of the leaders of each System member s research administration staff and the chair of the Council of Principal Investigators, to share best practices. Potential areas of research administration to be addressed by the RAC include, but are not limited to: compliance issues, export control requirements, ways to enhance outreach to researchers in need of grant writing training and development of best practices for contract and grants management. December

6 Other recommendations to ensure the A&M System is positioned to manage the increased growth in research in the future include: Establish a group to review compliance issues on a System wide basis. Continue effective support and training for College Station researchers in writing grant proposals by TAMU s Office of Proposal Development and TEES Office of Strategic Development. However, additional resources may be needed in this area to provide assistance to researchers at regional campuses. Review pre and post award research administration processes at regional campuses as they grow their research enterprise systems to ensure an effective structure to manage the increased growth. Finally, the Committee noted the current analyses of administration of sponsored projects does not provide a basis for comparing System members and TAMRF against contract and grants offices at peer institutions. Therefore, the Committee recommends continuing its efforts into a second phase (Phase II) in order to gather data to benchmark our processes against peer institutions. In a subsequent phase (Phase III) the financial data from the initial analyses of System members (Phase I) and the benchmark data from Phase II would be analyzed to recommend a contract and grants structure that best positions the A&M System for the future. The Committee estimates that Phase II and Phase III can be completed by May 2010 and July 2010 respectively. December

7 Shared Services Administration Team Committee Member Title Organization Date Assigned Mr. Leo J. Paterra Team Leader President and Chief Executive Officer Texas A&M Foundation June 23, 2009 Mr. Don Bugh Executive Associate Agency Director Texas Transportation Institute August 18, 2009 Dr. David S. Carlson Dr. Bill A. Dugas Vice President for & Graduate Studies Associate Vice Chancellor for Business & Strategic Operations Texas A&M Health Science Center July 14, 2009 Texas AgriLife June 30, 2009 Dr. Brett P. Giroir Vice Chancellor for Texas A&M University System June 23, 2009 Dr. Theresa A. Maldonado Dr. Mary Meagher Dr. David H. Russell Executive Associate Vice President for Texas A&M University June 23, 2009 Professor, Psychology Member Faculty Senate Council of Principal Investigators Texas A&M University June 30, 2009 Executive Committee Member Head Professor, Department of Chemistry Texas A&M University June 23, 2009 Dr. Jeffrey R. Seemann Vice President for Texas A&M University July 7, 2009 Mr. Mark S. Smock Dr. Terry Thomas Consultant Associate Agency Director & Chief Financial Officer Professor, Biology, Council of Principal Investigators Executive Committee Member, CPI Representative Texas Engineering Experiment Station June 23, 2009 Texas A&M University June 23, 2009 Mr. Andrew L. Strong General Counsel Texas A&M University System June 23, 2009 Team Coordinators Dr. Frank B. Ashley III Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs Texas A&M University System Mr. Greg R. Anderson Associate Vice Chancellor and Treasurer Texas A&M University System December 2009 Attachment /1/2009

8 Attachment 2: Texas A&M System Expenditures For Fiscal Year 2008 the A&M System reported to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) research expenditures of $676.5 million. (FY 2008 is the most recently reported data to the THECB.) Of these total research expenditures, $615.9 million or 91% are accounted for by System members from College Station: Texas A&M University (TAMU), Texas AgriLife (AgriLife), Texas Engineering Experiment Station (TEES), Texas A&M Health Science Center (HSC), and Texas Transportation Institute (TTI). Since the vast majority of research activity is conducted within these five System members, the Committee focused its data analysis and discussions around these System members. Total Expenditures (in millions) Fiscal Year 2008 HSC, $76.5, 11% TTI, $59.6, 9% Other, $60.6, 9% TAMU, $187.6, 28% TEES, $115.5, 17% AgriLife, $176.7, 26% The cost analyses are base on FY 2009 direct research expenditures. Direct research expenditures provide a common basis for analyzing research administration activity. As a result, the research expenditures reported per System member will be lower than the expenditures reported in the THECB report. This is due to the fact that the THECB report includes other research expenditures such as indirect costs and cost sharing on the part of the System member. Also included in the THECB report, but not included as part of the analyses, is the $68 million in research expenditures for the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (IODP) managed by TAMRF. IODP was excluded from the analyses in part because its uniqueness as a very large single research program requires fewer research administration resources and would skew the results of the analyses. December

9 Attachment 3: Administered by TAMRF on Behalf of System Members System members identified labor costs within their central administration and departments for projects administered by TAMRF. Departmental costs tend to be fixed costs that would exist regardless whether TAMRF or a System member administers the research project. For example, on all research projects the departments must process documents to record labor charges against a project. Central Admin. Payroll Related Cost Central Payroll to Expenditure Ratio Department Payroll Cost Dept. Payroll to Expenditure Ratio TAMRF Admin Fee Total Expenses for Managed by TAMRF Administered by TAMRF Total Expenses for TAMRF managed projects to Administered by TAMRF TABLE 2. SPONSORED RESEARCH ADMINISTERED BY TAMRF (FY 2009) AgriLife TAMU HSC TEES TTI TOTAL TAMRF $7,784 $267,273 $132,305 $0 $180,750 $588,112.08%.70%.52% 1.94%.71% $165,623 $1,730,342 $589,613 $2,757 $245,263 $2,733,598 $2.734 M 1.66% 4.56% 2.33%.82% 2.64% 3.3% $858,834 $2,361,586 $1,866,485 $22,451 $826,900 $5,936,257 $1,032,241 $4,359,201 $2,588,403 $25,208 $1,252,913 $10,936,257 $6,169 M $9.971M $37.969M $25.326M $0.335M $9.296M $82.897M $82.897M 10.4% 11.5% 10.2% 7.5% 13.5% 11.2% 10.7% December

10 Attachment 4: Administered by System Members The following table summarizes sponsored research administered by System members. With the exception of HSC and AgriLife, the percentage of the expense to administer research projects per sponsored research expenditures does not vary significantly by System member. HSC s and AgriLife s percentage for expense to administer research projects per sponsored research expenditures is 3% and 4.8% respectively. The HSC contracts with TAMRF to administer most of its projects. Also, projects that the HSC decides to manage internally tend to be less complex than the projects it sends to TAMRF. This appears to have a positive effect on the HSC costs for projects it manages internally. Central Admin. Payroll Related Cost Central Payroll to Expenditure Ratio Department Payroll Cost Dept. Payroll to Expenditure Ratio Other Operating Costs Total Expenses for Managed by System members Administered by System members Total Expenses for projects managed by System members to Administered by System members TABLE 3. SPONSORED RESEARCH ADMINISTERED BY SYSTEM MEMBERS (FY 2009) AgriLife TAMU HSC TEES TTI TOTAL $1,301,754 $1,093,415 $33,076 $4,751,586 $1,457,870 $8.638 M 1.90% 3.23% 0.46% 6.46% 5.36% 4.11% $1,551,290 $1, $147,403 $605,304 $954,614 $4.522 M 2.27% 3.74% 2.06% 0.82% 3.51% 2.15% $415,466 $377,856 $33,300 $977,901 $259,888 $2,064M $3,268,510 $2,734,401 $213,779 $6,334,791 $2,672,372 $15,224M $68,386,433 $33,802,326 $7,144,838 $73,514,871 $27,191,794 $ M 4.8% 8.1% 3.0% 8.6% 9.8% 7.2% AgriLife also has a low ratio of research administration cost per research expenditures for projects managed internally. Recently AgriLife has completed an internal review of its own contract and grants management office and has determined that this ratio is not sustainable. In order to be more effective in managing its volume of sponsored research activity, AgriLife began to shift its federally competitive sponsored proposals and subsequent awards to the Foundation effective September 1, December