National Institutes of Health (NIH)
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK)
Funding Opportunity Title
Limited Competition for the Continuation of the Assessment, Serial Evaluation and Subsequent Sequelae of Acute Kidney Injury (ASSESS AKI) Study (U01)
U01 Research Project – Cooperative Agreements
Reissue of RFA-DK-07-009
Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) Number
Companion Funding Opportunity
Only one application per institution is allowed as defined in Section III. 3. Additional Information on Eligibility.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number(s)
Funding Opportunity Purpose
The purpose of this limited competition is to extend the activities of the ASSESS AKI consortium to continue an observational cohort of patients with normal renal function and with chronic kidney disease (CKD) who have had an episode of AKI and appropriate control participants – to ascertain a) long-term renal functional outcomes, b) long-term cardiovascular disease outcomes, c) quality of life and cognitive functional outcomes, and d) survival. In addition, the utility of putative biomarkers to predict short and long-term outcomes will be assessed. The extension will insure the statistical power and the significance of the study outcomes. The extension will insure the statistical power and significance of the study outcomes. The ASSESS AKI is comprised of three Participating Clinical Centers (PCCs) and a data Coordinating Center. An additional site was added as an ancillary study in 2010.
August 30, 2012
Open Date (Earliest Submission Date)
October 19, 2012
Letter of Intent Due Date
October 19, 2012
Application Due Date(s)
November 21, 2012, by 5:00 PM local time of applicant organization.
AIDS Application Due Date(s)
Scientific Merit Review
Advisory Council Review
Earliest Start Date(s)
July 1, 2013
November 22, 2012
Due Dates for E.O. 12372
Required Application Instructions
It is critical that applicants follow the instructions in the SF 424 (R&R) Application Guide, except where instructed to do otherwise (in this FOA or in a Notice from the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts). Conformance to all requirements (both in the Application Guide and the FOA) is required and strictly enforced. Applicants must read and follow all application instructions in the Application Guide as well as any program-specific instructions noted in Section IV. When the program-specific instructions deviate from those in the Application Guide, follow the program-specific instructions. Applications that do not comply with these instructions may be delayed or not accepted for review.
Part 1. Overview Information
Part 2. Full Text of the Announcement
Section I. Funding Opportunity Description
Section II. Award Information
Section III. Eligibility Information
Section IV. Application and Submission Information
Section V. Application Review Information
Section VI. Award Administration Information
Section VII. Agency Contacts
Section VIII. Other Information
NIDDK has a longstanding interest in supporting both basic and clinical studies of long-term outcomes of acute kidney injury (AKI), and issued an FOA in 2007 to support a long-term observational study of the course of AKI. From that FOA, in 2008, four cooperative agreements were awarded to three Participating Clinical Centers (PCCs) and one Data Coordinating Center (DCC), to form the ASSESS AKI (Assessment, Serial Evaluation and Subsequent Sequelae of Acute Kidney Injury observational study) Consortium. The ASSESS AKI Consortium is governed by a Steering Committee comprised of PCC and DCC Program Director(s)/Principal Investigators(s) (PD(s)/(PI(s), a Steering Committee Chair and a NIDDK Project Scientist.
The ASSESS AKI recruits patients with and without an episode of AKI during a hospitalization, and follows them longitudinally for major cardiac, renal and mortality events. An important aspect of the study is the prospective evaluation of potential biomarkers for renal and cardiac outcomes. Enrollment began in late 2009. It is anticipated that enrollment will end in 2012, and participants will be followed during a multiyear observation period.
There were originally three patient enrolling sites for ASSESS AKI, including Vanderbilt University, Yale University and Kaiser Permanente of Northern California, and a DCC (Pennsylvania State University Hershey Medical Center). To ensure the proper number of events and the desired follow-up period, the study must be extended, and the study sites must be re-competed to finish the studies. The primary objective of this ASSESS AKI FOA is to provide for Participating Clinical Center and Data Coordinating Center support so that the ASSESS AKI study can be successfully completed as planned. The goals of this second funding phase of the study are to continue an observational cohort of patients with normal renal function and with CKD who have had an episode of AKI – to ascertain a) long-term renal functional outcomes, b) long-term cardiovascular disease outcomes, c) quality of life and cognitive functional outcomes, and d) survival. In addition, the utility of putative biomarkers to predict short and long-term outcomes will be assessed. It is anticipated that the PCCs will continue patient follow-up as outlined in the approved ASSESS AKI protocols for an additional four to five years, and complete data collection for the studies.
The ASSESS AKI Steering Committee will continue to serve as the governing board for the Consortium; its actions and decisions will be determined by majority vote. Membership on the Steering Committee will include a Steering Committee Chair appointed by the NIDDK, the Participating CCs and DCC Program Director(s)/Principal Investigators(s)(PD(s)/PI(s) and a NIDDK Project Scientist. The responsibilities of the Steering Committee include: Review and approval of all study protocols, data analyses, public presentations and publications of research conducted within the consortium; and developing policies and procedures for submission and approval of research applications using Consortium resources.
Application Types Allowed
The OER Glossary and the SF 424 (R&R) Application Guide provide details on these application types.
Funds Available and Anticipated Number of Awards
NIDDK intends to commit approximately $2.2 million dollars in FY 2013 to fund the Participating Clinical Centers and the Data Coordinating Center for ASSESS AKI in response to this FOA.
An applicant may request a budget for direct costs for the DCC of $500,000 to $700,000 and for direct costs for a PCC of up to $300,000 to $400,000.
Award Project Period
The maximum project period is 5 years.
NIH grants policies as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement will apply to the applications submitted and awards made in response to this FOA.
As this FOA is a limited competition opportunity, only the institutions that are the principal employer of the Program Director/Principal Investigator of the original ASSESS AKI Participating Clinical Centers and the ASSESS AKI Data Coordinating Center are eligible to apply in response to this FOA.
Non-domestic (non-U.S.) Entities (Foreign Institutions) are
not eligible to apply.
Non-domestic (non-U.S.) components of U.S. Organizations are not eligible to apply.
Applicant organizations must complete the following registrations
as described in the SF 424 (R&R) Application Guide to be eligible to apply
for or receive an award. Applicants must have a valid Dun and Bradstreet
Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number in order to begin each of the following
All Program Director(s)/Principal Investigator(s) (PD(s)/PI(s))
must also work with their institutional officials to register with the eRA
Commons or ensure their existing eRA Commons account is affiliated with the eRA
Commons account of the applicant organization.
All registrations must be completed by the application due date. Applicant organizations are strongly encouraged to start the registration process at least 4-6 weeks prior to the application due date.
Any individual(s) with the skills, knowledge, and resources
necessary to carry out the proposed research as the Program Director(s)/Principal
Investigator(s) (PD(s)/PI(s)) is invited to work with his/her organization to
develop an application for support. Individuals from underrepresented racial
and ethnic groups as well as individuals with disabilities are always
encouraged to apply for NIH support.
For institutions/organizations proposing multiple PD(s)/PI(s), visit the Multiple Program Director(s)/Principal Investigator(s) Policy and submission details in the Senior/Key Person Profile (Expanded) Component of the SF 424 (R&R) Application Guide.
Only the individuals currently serving as the Program Director(s)/Principal Investigator(s) for the original ASSESS AKI Participating Clinical Centers and the Data Coordinating Center may apply for support under this FOA.
This FOA does not require cost sharing as defined in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
Applicant organizations may submit more than one application, provided that each application is scientifically distinct.
NIH will not accept any application in response to this FOA that is essentially the same as one currently pending initial peer review unless the applicant withdraws the pending application.
Applicants must download the SF424 (R&R) application package associated with this funding opportunity using the “Apply for Grant Electronically” button in this FOA or following the directions provided at Grants.gov.
It is critical that applicants follow the instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide, except where instructed in this funding opportunity announcement to do otherwise. Conformance to the requirements in the Application Guide is required and strictly enforced. Applications that are out of compliance with these instructions may be delayed or not accepted for review.
For information on Application Submission and Receipt, visit Frequently Asked Questions – Application Guide, Electronic Submission of Grant Applications.
Although a letter of intent is not required, is not binding, and does not enter into the review of a subsequent application, the information that it contains allows IC staff to estimate the potential review workload and plan the review.
By the date listed in Part 1. Overview Information, prospective applicants are asked to submit a letter of intent that includes the following information:
The letter of intent should be sent to:
Dr. Francisco Calvo
Chief, Review Branch
National Institute of Diabetes, Digestive and Kidney Diseases
National Institutes of Health
6707 Democracy Boulevard, Room 752
Bethesda, MD 20892-5452
Bethesda, MD 20817 (express/courier service)
Telephone: (301) 594-8897
FAX: (301) 480-3505
The forms package associated with this FOA includes all applicable components, mandatory and optional. Please note that some components marked optional in the application package are required for submission of applications for this FOA. Follow all instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide to ensure you complete all appropriate “optional” components.
All page limitations described in the SF424 Application Guide and the Table of Page Limits must be followed.
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed, with the following additional instructions:
Resource Sharing Plan
Individuals are required to comply with the instructions for the Resource Sharing Plans (Data Sharing Plan, Sharing Model Organisms, and Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS)) as provided in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
Do not use the Appendix to circumvent page limits. Follow all instructions for the Appendix as described in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
Part I. Overview Information contains information about Key Dates. Applicants are encouraged to submit in advance of the deadline to ensure they have time to make any application corrections that might be necessary for successful submission.
Organizations must submit applications via Grants.gov, the online portal to find and apply for grants across all Federal agencies. Applicants must then complete the submission process by tracking the status of the application in the eRA Commons, NIH’s electronic system for grants administration.
Applicants are responsible for viewing their application in the eRA Commons to ensure accurate and successful submission.
Information on the submission process and a definition of on-time submission are provided in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
This initiative is not subject to intergovernmental review.
All NIH awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
Pre-award costs are allowable only as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
Applications must be submitted electronically following the instructions described in the SF 424 (R&R) Application Guide. Paper applications will not be accepted.
Applicants must complete all required registrations before the application due date. Section III. Eligibility Information contains information about registration.
For assistance with your electronic application or for more information on the electronic submission process, visit Applying Electronically.
All PD(s)/PI(s) must include their eRA Commons ID in the Credential field of the Senior/Key Person Profile Component of the SF 424(R&R) Application Package. Failure to register in the Commons and to include a valid PD(s)/PI(s) Commons ID in the credential field will prevent the successful submission of an electronic application to NIH.
The applicant organization must ensure that the DUNS number it provides on the application is the same number used in the organization’s profile in the eRA Commons and for the Central Contractor Registration (CCR). Additional information may be found in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
See more tips for avoiding common errors.
Upon receipt, applications will be evaluated for completeness by the Center for Scientific Review and responsiveness by components of participating organizations, NIH. Applications that are incomplete and/or nonresponsive will not be reviewed.
In order to expedite review, applicants are requested to notify the NIDDK Referral Office by email at mailto:email@example.com when the application has been submitted. Please include the FOA number and title, PD(s)/PI(s) name, and title of the application.
Applicants are required to follow the instructions for post-submission materials, as described in NOT-OD-10-115.
Only the review criteria described below will be considered in the review process. As part of the NIH mission, all applications submitted to the NIH in support of biomedical and behavioral research are evaluated for scientific and technical merit through the NIH peer review system.
Reviewers will provide an overall impact/priority score to reflect their assessment of the likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved, in consideration of the following review criteria and additional review criteria (as applicable for the project proposed).
Reviewers will consider each of the review criteria below in the determination of scientific merit, and give a separate score for each. An application does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have major scientific impact. For example, a project that by its nature is not innovative may be essential to advance a field.
Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field? If the aims of the project are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice be improved? How will successful completion of the aims change the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field?
Are the PD(s)/PI(s), collaborators, and other researchers well suited to the project? If Early Stage Investigators or New Investigators, or in the early stages of independent careers, do they have appropriate experience and training? If established, have they demonstrated an ongoing record of accomplishments that have advanced their field(s)? If the project is collaborative or multi-PD(s)/PI(s), do the investigators have complementary and integrated expertise; are their leadership approach, governance and organizational structure appropriate for the project?
Does the application challenge and seek to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions? Are the concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions novel to one field of research or novel in a broad sense? Is a refinement, improvement, or new application of theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions proposed?
Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses
well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the project?
Are potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success
presented? If the project is in the early stages of development, will the
strategy establish feasibility and will particularly risky aspects be managed?
If the project involves clinical research, are the plans for 1) protection of human subjects from research risks, and 2) inclusion of minorities and members of both sexes/genders, as well as the inclusion of children, justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed?
Will the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Are the institutional support, equipment and other physical resources available to the investigators adequate for the project proposed? Will the project benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, subject populations, or collaborative arrangements?
As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will evaluate the following additional items while determining scientific and technical merit, and in providing an overall impact/priority score, but will not give separate scores for these items.
Have the PCC investigators demonstrated how they will optimize participant retention?
Have the PCC investigators proposed new hypotheses based on their preliminary findings? Have the PCC investigators proposed meaningful new evaluations of participants in light of the preliminary findings and recent observations in the literature?
Has the DCC proposed novel analyses based on the preliminary findings?
Are the current ASSESS AKI infrastructure and organization sufficient to optimize participant retention and evaluation, and to obtain and analyze data to reach novel, clinically important conclusions?
Protections for Human Subjects
For research that involves human subjects but does
not involve one of the six categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR
Part 46, the committee will evaluate the justification for involvement of human
subjects and the proposed protections from research risk relating to their
participation according to the following five review criteria: 1) risk to
subjects, 2) adequacy of protection against risks, 3) potential benefits to the
subjects and others, 4) importance of the knowledge to be gained, and 5) data
and safety monitoring for clinical trials.
For research that involves human subjects and meets the criteria for one or more of the six categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46, the committee will evaluate: 1) the justification for the exemption, 2) human subjects involvement and characteristics, and 3) sources of materials. For additional information on review of the Human Subjects section, please refer to the Human Subjects Protection and Inclusion Guidelines.
Inclusion of Women, Minorities, and Children
When the proposed project involves clinical research, the committee will evaluate the proposed plans for inclusion of minorities and members of both genders, as well as the inclusion of children. For additional information on review of the Inclusion section, please refer to the Human Subjects Protection and Inclusion Guidelines.
Reviewers will assess whether materials or procedures proposed are potentially hazardous to research personnel and/or the environment, and if needed, determine whether adequate protection is proposed.
For Renewals, the committee will consider the progress made in the last funding period.
As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will consider each of the following items, but will not give scores for these items, and should not consider them in providing an overall impact/priority score.
Applications from Foreign Organizations
Select Agent Research
Reviewers will assess the information provided in this section of the application, including 1) the Select Agent(s) to be used in the proposed research, 2) the registration status of all entities where Select Agent(s) will be used, 3) the procedures that will be used to monitor possession use and transfer of Select Agent(s), and 4) plans for appropriate biosafety, biocontainment, and security of the Select Agent(s).
Resource Sharing Plans
Reviewers will comment on whether the following Resource Sharing Plans, or the rationale for not sharing the following types of resources, are reasonable: 1) Data Sharing Plan; 2) Sharing Model Organisms; and 3) Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS).
Budget and Period of Support
Reviewers will consider whether the budget and the requested period of support are fully justified and reasonable in relation to the proposed research.
Applications will be evaluated for scientific and technical merit by (an) appropriate Scientific Review Group(s) convened by the NIDDK, in accordance with NIH peer review policy and procedures, using the stated review criteria. Review assignments will be shown in the eRA Commons.
As part of the scientific peer review, all applications:
Appeals of initial peer review will not be accepted for applications submitted in response to this FOA.
Applications will be assigned to the appropriate NIH Institute or Center. Applications will compete for available funds with all other recommended applications submitted in response to this FOA. Following initial peer review, recommended applications will receive a second level of review by the National Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Advisory Council (NDDKAC). The following will be considered in making funding decisions:
After the peer review of the application is completed, the PD(s)/PI(s) will be able to access his or her Summary Statement (written critique) via the eRA Commons.
Information regarding the disposition of applications is available in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
If the application is under consideration for funding, NIH
will request "just-in-time" information from the applicant as
described in the NIH
Grants Policy Statement.
A formal notification in the form of a Notice of Award (NoA) will be provided to the applicant organization for successful applications. The NoA signed by the grants management officer is the authorizing document and will be sent via email to the grantee’s business official.
Awardees must comply with any funding restrictions described in Section IV.5. Funding Restrictions. Selection of an application for award is not an authorization to begin performance. Any costs incurred before receipt of the NoA are at the recipient's risk. These costs may be reimbursed only to the extent considered allowable pre-award costs.
Any application awarded in response to this FOA will be subject to the DUNS, CCR Registration, and Transparency Act requirements as noted on the Award Conditions and Information for NIH Grants website.
All NIH grant and cooperative agreement awards include the NIH Grants Policy Statement as part of the NoA. For these terms of award, see the NIH Grants Policy Statement Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart A: General and Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart B: Terms and Conditions for Specific Types of Grants, Grantees, and Activities. More information is provided at Award Conditions and Information for NIH Grants.
Cooperative Agreement Terms and Conditions of Award
The following special terms of award are in addition to, and
not in lieu of, otherwise applicable U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
administrative guidelines, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)
grant administration regulations at 45 CFR Parts 74 and 92 (Part 92 is
applicable when State and local Governments are eligible to apply), and other
HHS, PHS, and NIH grant administration policies.
The administrative and funding instrument used for this program will be the cooperative agreement, an "assistance" mechanism (rather than an "acquisition" mechanism), in which substantial NIH programmatic involvement with the awardees is anticipated during the performance of the activities. Under the cooperative agreement, the NIH purpose is to support and stimulate the recipients' activities by involvement in and otherwise working jointly with the award recipients in a partnership role; it is not to assume direction, prime responsibility, or a dominant role in the activities. Consistent with this concept, the dominant role and prime responsibility resides with the awardees for the project as a whole, although specific tasks and activities may be shared among the awardees and the NIH as defined below.
The PD(s)/PI(s) will have the primary responsibility for:
The PD(s)/PI(s) will have the primary responsibility for working with the clinical sites to define the protocols, approaches and details of the project within the guidelines of this FOA. The PD(s)/PI(s) will be responsible for data coordination of all trial sites, including data form changes, protocol changes, oversight of all sub-contracts, quality control, assistance with retention of study subjects, analysis of study results and close-out activities. The PD(s)/PI(s) will be a voting member of the Consortium Steering Committee and will participate in all Steering Committee activities, and will follow the policies and procedures developed by the Steering Committee. Each Clinical Center PD(s)/PI(s) will have primary responsibility for providing study data to the DCC for management, quality control and analysis. PD(s)/PI(s) responsibility regarding Steering Committee membership, protocol development and conduct are described under Collaborative Responsibilities.
The NIDDK has established Central Biosample, Genetic, and
Data Repositories for the archival and storage of data and biosamples collected
in large, multi-site studies funded by NIDDK. The HALT-PKD PD(s)/PI(s) will
work with the NIDDK Biosamples Repository to coordinate procedures for coding,
shipping, processing, receipt, and storage of study samples that are to be
maintained in the Repository. In addition, the DCC will coordinate with the
NIDDK Repository to prepare the collected data for eventual archiving and
distribution. All samples and data transferred to the Repositories will be
under the custodianship of the NIDDK, although the Consortium Steering
Committee will have proprietary control of and exclusive access to the samples
and data for an agreed-upon period of time.
Awardees will retain custody of and have primary rights to the data and software developed under these awards, subject to Government rights of access consistent with current HHS, PHS, and NIH policies.
An NIH Project Scientist will have substantial programmatic involvement that is above and beyond the normal stewardship role in awards, as described below.
The NIDDK Project Scientist will serve as a voting member of the Steering Committee and will participate in all Committee activities, serving as a resource with respect to the study design and implementation.
The NIDDK Project Scientist, together with the Steering Committee, will review the performance of each participating Center through consideration of the annual reports, sites visits, compliance with the Consortium procedures, meeting timeliness, adherence to uniform data collection procedures, and the timeliness and quality of data reporting. The NIDDK Project Scientist may contribute, through review, comment, analysis, and/or authorship, to reporting results of consortium studies to the investigator community and other interested scientific and lay organizations.
The NIDDK reserves the right to terminate or curtail any study or any individual award in the event of (a) substantial shortfall in data collection or submission, quality control, or other major breach or a study protocol or Consortium policy and procedure, (b) substantive changes in a study protocol that are not in keeping with the objectives of the RFA, and/or a human subject ethical issues that may dictate a premature termination.
Additionally, an agency program official or IC program director will be responsible for the normal scientific and programmatic stewardship of the award and will be named in the award notice.
NIH staff have substantial programmatic involvement that is above and beyond the normal stewardship role in awards, as described below:
The Steering Committee will be the governing board of the Consortium; its actions and decisions will be determined by majority vote. Voting members of the Steering Committee include a Steering Committee Chair, PCC and the DCC PIs and the NIDDK Project Scientist. A Chair will be chosen from among the Steering Committee member (but not the NIDDK Project Scientist or DCC PI) or alternatively, from among experts in the field of clinical trials in kidney diseases who are not participating directly in the study. The Committee has the primary responsibility for determining the study protocol, monitoring the conduct of the study and reviewing data prior to reporting of study results. It will also be responsible for determining study policies in such areas as access to participant data, ancillary studies, publication and presentations, recruitment and quality standards. Each PI will be responsible for close coordination and cooperation with other Consortium investigators and with NIH staff. The PI will participate in regular (monthly) Steering Committee telephone calls and attend two Steering Committee meetings per year in the Washington DC Metro area.
The NIDDK Project Scientist (and other NIDDK scientists) may
work with awardees on issues coming before the Steering Committee and, as
appropriate, other committees, e.g. issues of recruitment, follow-up, quality
control, standards and methods, adherence to protocol, assessment of problems
affecting the study and potential changes in the protocol, interim data and
safety monitoring, final data analysis and interpretation, preparation of
publications, and development of solutions to major problems such as
insufficient participant participation. Regardless of the number of NIH
staff participating in technical advisory roles, the NIDDK will be limited to
one vote on the Steering Committee.
Each full member will have one vote. Awardee members of the Steering Committee will be required to accept and implement policies approved by the Steering Committee.
Any disagreements that may arise in scientific or programmatic matters (within the scope of the award) between award recipients and the NIH may be brought to arbitration. An Arbitration Panel composed of three members will be convened. It will have three members: a designee of the Steering Committee chosen without NIH staff voting, one NIH designee, and a third designee with expertise in the relevant area who is chosen by the other two; in the case of individual disagreement, the first member may be chosen by the individual awardee. This special arbitration procedure in no way affects the awardee's right to appeal an adverse action that is otherwise appealable in accordance with PHS regulations 42 CFR Part 50, Subpart D and HHS regulations 45 CFR Part 16.
When multiple years are involved, awardees will be required to submit the Non-Competing Continuation Grant Progress Report (PHS 2590) annually and financial statements as required in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
A final progress report, invention statement, and the expenditure data portion of the Federal Financial Report are required for closeout of an award, as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Transparency Act), includes a requirement for awardees of Federal grants to report information about first-tier subawards and executive compensation under Federal assistance awards issued in FY2011 or later. All awardees of applicable NIH grants and cooperative agreements are required to report to the Federal Subaward Reporting System (FSRS) available at www.fsrs.gov on all subawards over $25,000. See the NIH Grants Policy Statement for additional information on this reporting requirement.
We encourage inquiries concerning this funding opportunity and welcome the opportunity to answer questions from potential applicants.
GrantsInfo (Questions regarding application instructions and
process, finding NIH grant resources)
eRA Commons Help Desk (Questions regarding eRA Commons
registration, tracking application status, post submission issues)
Phone: 301-402-7469 or 866-504-9552 (Toll Free)
Dr. Paul L Kimmel
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK)
National Institutes of Health
Telephone: (301) 594-7717
FAX: (301) 480-3510
Dr. Francisco Calvo
Chief, Review Branch
National Institute of Diabetes, Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK)
Telephone: (301) 594-8897
FAX: (301) 480-3505
Ms. Aricia Ajose
Grants Management Branch
Division of Extramural Activities
National Institute of Diabetes, Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK)
Telephone: (301) 594-9023
FAX: (301) 594-9523
Recently issued trans-NIH policy notices may affect your application submission. A full list of policy notices published by NIH is provided in the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts. All awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
Awards are made under the authorization of Sections 301 and 405 of the Public Health Service Act as amended (42 USC 241 and 284) and under Federal Regulations 42 CFR Part 52 and 45 CFR Parts 74 and 92.
Weekly TOC for this Announcement
NIH Funding Opportunities and Notices
Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS)
NIH... Turning Discovery Into Health®
Note: For help accessing PDF, RTF, MS Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Audio or Video files, see Help Downloading Files.