The above rates will be applied to total direct costs (MTDCs) as defined in the collective agreement: there will be three (3) months at a rate of 24% and nine (9) months at a rate of 24.5%. UC Davis` research and development agreement is negotiated every three to five years with the Department of Health and Human Services and is derived from a complex calculation including the use of space and the following cost pools: The Office of the President of the University of California (UCOP) has found that nutrition, movement or other behavioral interventions , including, but not limited, to meditation, are not considered “clinical trials” for the application of the reduced research and development costs described above. As a result, this research remains subject to the current indirect cost rate negotiated by the federal government. The only reason “treatment” was included in the above definition of “clinical trial,” as well as the terms “new drugs, devices or diagnostic devices,” was to cover studies with authorized drugs or devices that were administered in a new manner and are not subject to the requirements of an NDI, FDI or NOA. The current application of indirect clinical trials at 26% has not kept pace with the increase in the research and development rate at UC Davis, which is necessary due to the increased costs associated with the “installations and management” of these projects. As a result, campus management has authorized the increase in the clinical trial research rate to 32% of the total direct cost as of January 1, 2021. The space survey aims to develop the research and development cost rate proposed by UC Davis. Functional use of space is the most critical part of the research and development proposal. As a result, federal auditors carefully check the results of the investigation to verify their accuracy. Studies that are not fully funded by one or more for-profit companies, but otherwise meet the aforementioned definition of “clinical trial,” are not eligible for an indirect cost rate of 26% and are considered the federally negotiated indirect cost rate for “other sponsored projects.” What happens if a sponsorship agency refuses to pay indirect costs? Sponsors sometimes limit the reimbursement of indirect costs to a rate lower than the full rate. In certain circumstances, a derogation from the authorized indirect cost rates may be requested.
The indirect cost rate of the sponsor must be a credit initiated by the promoter and not an ad hoc restriction based on discussions with the campus. This derogation from the Sponsorship Directive generally does not apply to for-profit organizations or foreign government organizations. When developing a proposal budget, you always assume that the full indirect costs will be applied. In the event that indirect costs can be reduced or eliminated on an exceptional basis, you can increase your planned budget by rescheduling indirect costs at direct costs. However, if you present a budget to a sponsor that does not contain indirect costs and indirect bookings are found to be applicable, you will likely need to reduce budgeted funds for program activities to cover indirect costs. If you think a distinction may be subject to a lower standard overhead, contact OCG. We will determine whether the university has an exception for a single sponsor program or whether an overhead application is successful in the specific case. Current rates for funding by the State of California, with the exception of CDFA funding, in prPAC 17-07 and in accordance with UCOP`s April 15, 2020 update, have been revised as follows.