Our main objectives include:
Identify common contract processing practices that can be expedited by uniform procedures within FDP VII
Design, monitor, and evaluate new procedures and concepts that are in response to the legal requirements of the contracts process
Study the similarities/differences between the grant and contract processes to see if gains in costs and efficiency can be generated by adapting some of the FDP grant procedures for use with contracts
Provide a forum for discussion of and possible resolutions for contracting issues as they arise for member institutions and agencies
Stay Tuned! Troublesome Clauses Database 2.0: June 2022 Update: The Contracts Subcommittee is working on iterating a demonstration allowing members to (1) determine the frequency with which research institutions receive clauses in government contracts that require lengthy negotiation for acceptance, or which are so burdensome that the contract cannot be accepted; and (2) enable the FDP membership to more effectively and efficiently negotiate and execute contracts. This demonstration will result in an online database that contains information about specific negotiations of these clauses and their outcomes.
Current Contracts Subcommittee Working Groups (in alphabetical order):
Federal Lab Review & Negotiation Techniques Working Group
Description: Group would review expected terms and conditions from a selected universe of FFRDC R&D contracts and summarize a subset of issues universities commonly faced in matrix form as well as draft a guidance document on negotiation techniques associated with receiving awards from FFRDCs.
Work Group Lead(s): Bill Schoelwer, University of Virginia
Fundamental Research Model Language Memo Working Group
Description: Group would create a selection of templates for FDP member institutions to use when requesting a fundamental research determination on a federal subcontract.
Work Group Lead(s): Andrea Lupu, University of California, San Diego
IT Security Clause/CMMC Working Group
Description: Group would review, summarize, create tools for IT security language in awards. To include focus areas based on current needs (CUI, NSPM-33, CMMC).
Work Group Lead(s): Heide Eash, University of Pittsburgh and Julie Robinson, University of Illinois
State Requirements Working Group
Description: Group would review, discuss and create negotiation best practices for burdensome State requirements flowdowns.
Work Group Lead(s): Elizabeth Eason, Georgia Institute of Technology
Troublesome Clause 2.0 Requirements/Specs Working Group
Description: Group would finish the TC 2.0 Requirements document. This includes adding reporting requirements and specs.
Work Group Lead(s): Elizabeth Peloso, University of Pennsylvania
Contracts Subcommittee Webpage Working Group
Description: Group would review and discuss changes to the FDP Contracts Subcommittee webpage.
Work Group Lead(s): Katie Cook, Michigan State University and Janette Hannam-Hayes, Emory University
Federal Contracts Toolkit
Carter/DOD Fundamental Research Directive Memo
Data Transfer and Use Agreement information can be found on the Data Stewardship Subcommittee page
Please contact the Contracts Subcommittee chairs with any questions, comments, suggestions, or concerns: Missy Peloso (firstname.lastname@example.org); Jannette Hannam-Hayes (email@example.com); Katie Cook (firstname.lastname@example.org).
Direct questions related to the FDP website to email@example.com.