• Document the quality of the research environment, the strengths and extent of the research programs in the NIH Intramural Research Program that are related to the candidate's area of research interest, and the key scientists and other researchers capable of productive collaboration with the candidate. Any unique features of the research environment, such as collaborative arrangements or subject populations, should be described.
• Describe the scientific environment including the resources and facilities that will be available to the candidate during the intramural Phase 1 of the K22.

• Describe the resources and facilities that will be available to the candidate, including any clinical trial-related resources, such as specialized administrative, data coordinating, enrollment, and laboratory/testing support. If applicable, include a description of the resources and facilities available at international sites.

Institutional Commitment to the Candidate’s Research Career Development

• The Scientific Director of the NIH Intramural Research Program must provide a statement of commitment that the Intramural laboratory or branch will ensure that the required effort of the candidate will be devoted directly to the proposed research training, career development, and research activities, and will facilitate the candidate’s transition to a faculty position in the extramural community. Assurance must be provided that the candidate will be provided with the appropriate facilities and other resources necessary to facilitate his/her transition to an extramural institution.

Appendix:

Limited items are allowed in the Appendix. Follow all instructions for the Appendix as described in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide; any instructions provided here are in addition to the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide instructions.

When involving NIH-defined human subjects research, clinical research, and/or clinical trials (and when applicable, clinical trials research experience) follow all instructions for the PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information form in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide, with the following additional instructions:

If you answered Yes to the question Are Human Subjects Involved? on the R&R Other Project Information form, you must include at least one human subjects study record using the Study Record: PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information form or Delayed Onset Study record.

Study Record: PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information

All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed, with the following additional instructions:

Section 1 - Basic Information

1.4 Clinical Trial Questionnaire

All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.

Reference Letters

Candidates must carefully follow the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide, including the time period for when reference letters will be accepted. Applications lacking the appropriate required reference letters will not be reviewed. This is a separate process from submitting an application electronically. Reference letters are submitted directly through the eRA Commons Submit Referee Information link and not through Grants.gov.

3. Unique Entity Identifier and System for Award Management (SAM)

See Part 1. Section III.1 for information regarding the requirement for obtaining a unique entity identifier and for completing and maintaining active registrations in System for Award Management (SAM), NATO Commercial and Government Entity (NCAGE) Code (if applicable), eRA Commons, and Grants.gov

4. Submission Dates and Times

Part I. Overview Information contains information about Key Dates and Times. Applicants are encouraged to submit applications before the due date to ensure they have time to make any application corrections that might be necessary for successful submission. When a submission date falls on a weekend or Federal holiday, the application deadline is automatically extended to the next business day.

Organizations must submit applications to Grants.gov (the online portal to find and apply for grants across all Federal agencies) using ASSIST or other electronic submission systems. 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. NIH and Grants.gov systems check the application against many of the application instructions upon submission. Errors must be corrected and a changed/corrected application must be submitted to Grants.gov on or before the application due date and time. If a Changed/Corrected application is submitted after the deadline, the application will be considered late. Applications that miss the due date and time are subjected to the NIH Policy on Late Application Submission.

Applicants are responsible for viewing their application before the due date 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.

5. Intergovernmental Review (E.O. 12372)

6. Funding Restrictions

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.

7. Other Submission Requirements and Information

Applications must be submitted electronically following the instructions described in the SF424 (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. If you encounter a system issue beyond your control that threatens your ability to complete the submission process on-time, you must follow the Guidelines for Applicants Experiencing System Issues. For assistance with application submission, contact the Application Submission Contacts in Section VII.

Important reminders:

All PD(s)/PI(s) must include their eRA Commons ID in the Credential field of the Senior/Key Person Profile Component of the SF424(R&R) Application Package. Failure to register in the Commons and to include a valid PD/PI Commons ID in the credential field will prevent the successful submission of an electronic application to NIH. See Section III of this FOA for information on registration requirements.

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 System for Award Management. Additional information may be found in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.

See more tips for avoiding common errors.

1. Criteria

Only the review criteria described below will be considered in the review process. Applications submitted in support of the NIH mission are evaluated for scientific and technical merit through the NIH peer review system.

• Does the candidate have the potential for becoming a successful independent investigator who will contribute significantly to a chosen dental, oral, and craniofacial research field?
• Will the research experiences in the mentored phase prepare the candidate to implement successfully the independent phase research project?
• Do the letters of reference from at least three well-established scientists address the candidate's potential for becoming an independent investigator who will contribute significantly to a chosen oral, dental, and craniofacial research field?

• Does the candidate have the potential to organize, manage, and implement the proposed clinical trial, feasibility or ancillary study?
• Does the candidate have training (or plans to receive training) in data management and statistics including those relevant to clinical trials?

Career Development Plan/Career Goals and Objectives

• To what extent are the plans for evaluating the awardee’s progress adequate and appropriate for guiding the applicant towards a successful transition to the independent phase of the award?
• Is the timeline planned for the transition to the independent phase of the award appropriate for the candidate’s current stage of scientific and professional development and the career development proposed for the independent phase of the award?
• Is the career development plan consistent with the candidate’s prior research experience and current research career goals?
• Are the content, phasing, and proposed duration of the career development plan appropriate when considered in the context of prior training/research experience and the stated training and research objectives for achieving scientific independence?

Research Plan

• Is the prior research that serves as the key support for the proposed project rigorous?
• ?Has the candidate included plans to address weaknesses in the rigor of prior research that serves as the key support for the proposed project?
• ?Has the candidate presented strategies to ensure a robust and unbiased approach, as appropriate for the work proposed?
• Has the candidate presented adequate plans to address relevant biological variables, such as sex, for studies in vertebrate animals or human subjects?
• Are the proposed research question, design, and methodology of significant scientific and technical merit?
• Is the proposed research plan relevant to the candidate’s research career objectives?
• Is the proposed research project appropriate to the candidate's stage of research development and as a vehicle for developing the research skills described in the career development plan?
• Is there strong potential for the proposed independent phase research project to foster the career of the candidate as an independent investigator in biomedical research?

• Are the scientific rationale and need for a clinical trial, feasibility or ancillary study well supported by preliminary data, clinical and/or preclinical studies, or information in the literature or knowledge of biological mechanisms?
• If proposing a small feasibility study, is the study warranted and will it contribute to planning and preliminary data needed for design of future larger scale clinical trials?
• Is the clinical trial or ancillary study necessary for testing the safety, efficacy or effectiveness of an intervention, or in the case of a feasibility study necessary to establish feasibility of future clinical trial?
• Is the study design justified and relevant to the clinical, biological, and statistical hypothesis(es) being tested?
• Are the plans to standardize, assure quality of, and monitor adherence to, the protocol and data collection or distribution guidelines appropriate?
• Are planned analyses and statistical approach appropriate for the proposed study design and methods used to assign participants and deliver interventions, if interventions are delivered?
• For trials focusing on mechanistic, behavioral, physiological, biochemical, or other biomedical endpoints, is this trial needed to advance scientific understanding?

Mentor(s), Co-Mentor(s), Consultant(s), Collaborator(s)

• Are the qualifications of the mentor(s) in the area of the proposed research appropriate?
• Does the mentor(s) adequately address the candidate’s potential and his/her strengths and areas needing improvement?
• Is there adequate description of the quality and extent of the mentor’s proposed role in providing guidance and advice to the candidate?
• Is the mentor’s description of the elements of the research career development activities, including formal course work adequate?
• Is there evidence of the mentor s, consultant s, and/or collaborator’s previous experience in fostering the development of independent investigators?
• Is there evidence of the mentor's current research productivity and peer-reviewed support?
• Is active/pending support for the proposed research project appropriate and adequate?
• Are there adequate plans for monitoring and evaluating the career development awardee’s progress toward independence?

Consultant(s), Collaborator(s)

• Is adequate information provided that clearly documents expertise in the proposed area(s) of consulting/collaboration?
• Have the proposed consultant(s) and collaborator(s) provided evidence of commitment to the candidate and the candidate’s project?
• Do the proposed consultant(s)/collaborator(s) provide the required expertise for successful conduct of the research project?

• Does the mentor or mentoring team have the expertise, experience, and ability to guide the applicant in the organization, management and implementation of the proposed clinical trial, feasibility or ancillary study and help him/her to meet timelines?

Environment & Institutional Commitment to the Candidate

• Are the research facilities, resources and training opportunities, including faculty capable of productive collaboration with the candidate adequate and appropriate?
• Based on the statement of the Scientific or Clinical Director of the sponsoring NIH Intramural Program, is there clear commitment of the sponsoring institution to ensure that the required effort of the candidate will be devoted directly to the research training, career development, and research activities described in the proposed career development and research plans?
• Is there strong institutional commitment to fostering the career development of the candidate?
• Are there unique features of the intramural scientific environment that benefit the proposed research; e.g., useful collaborative arrangements or subject populations?
• Is the environment of high quality and relevance for scientific and professional development of the candidate?

• Are the administrative, data coordinating, enrollment and laboratory/testing centers, appropriate for the trial proposed?
• Does the application adequately address the capability and ability to conduct the trial, feasibility or ancillary study at the proposed site(s) or centers? If applicable, are there plans to add or drop enrollment centers, as needed, appropriate?
• If international site(s) is/are proposed, does the application adequately address the complexity of executing the clinical trial?

Study Timeline for Clinical Trials

Is the study timeline described in detail, taking into account start-up activities, the anticipated rate of enrollment, and planned follow-up assessment? Is the projected timeline feasible and well justified? Does the project incorporate efficiencies and utilize existing resources (e.g., CTSAs, practice-based research networks, electronic medical records, administrative database, or patient registries) to increase the efficiency of participant enrollment and data collection, as appropriate?

Are potential challenges and corresponding solutions discussed (e.g., strategies that can be implemented in the event of enrollment shortfalls)?

Protections for Human Subjects

For research that involves human subjects but does not involve one of the 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 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 Guidelines for the Review of Human Subjects.

Inclusion of Women, Minorities, and Individuals Across the Lifespan

When the proposed project involves human subjects and/or NIH-defined clinical research, the committee will evaluate the proposed plans for the inclusion (or exclusion) of individuals on the basis of sex/gender, race, and ethnicity, as well as the inclusion (or exclusion) of individuals of all ages (including children and older adults) to determine if it is justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed. For additional information on review of the Inclusion section, please refer to the Guidelines for the Review of Inclusion in Clinical Research.

Vertebrate Animals

The committee will evaluate the involvement of live vertebrate animals as part of the scientific assessment according to the following criteria: (1) description of proposed procedures involving animals, including species, strains, ages, sex, and total number to be used; (2) justifications for the use of animals versus alternative models and for the appropriateness of the species proposed; (3) interventions to minimize discomfort, distress, pain and injury; and (4) justification for euthanasia method if NOT consistent with the AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals. Reviewers will assess the use of chimpanzees as they would any other application proposing the use of vertebrate animals. For additional information on review of the Vertebrate Animals section, please refer to the Worksheet for Review of the Vertebrate Animal Section.

Biohazards

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.

Resubmissions

For Resubmissions, the committee will evaluate the application as now presented, taking into consideration the responses to comments from the previous scientific review group and changes made to the project.

Renewals

Not Applicable

Revisions

Not Applicable

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) Genomic Data Sharing Plan (GDS).

Training in the Responsible Conduct of Research

All applications for support under this FOA must include a plan to fulfill NIH requirements for instruction in the Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR). Taking into account the level of experience of the applicant, including any prior instruction or participation in RCR as appropriate for the applicant’s career stage, the reviewers will evaluate the adequacy of the proposed RCR training in relation to the following five required components: 1) Format - the required format of instruction, i.e., face-to-face lectures, coursework, and/or real-time discussion groups (a plan with only on-line instruction is not acceptable); 2) Subject Matter - the breadth of subject matter, e.g., conflict of interest, authorship, data management, human subjects and animal use, laboratory safety, research misconduct, research ethics; 3) Faculty Participation - the role of the mentor(s) and other faculty involvement in the fellow’s instruction; 4) Duration of Instruction - the number of contact hours of instruction (at least eight contact hours are required); and 5) Frequency of Instruction instruction must occur during each career stage and at least once every four years. Plans and past record will be rated as ACCEPTABLE or UNACCEPTABLE, and the summary statement will provide the consensus of the review committee. See also: NOT-OD-10-019.

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).

Authentication of Key Biological and/or Chemical Resources:

For projects involving key biological and/or chemical resources, reviewers will comment on the brief plans proposed for identifying and ensuring the validity of those resources.

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.

2. Review and Selection Process

Applications will be evaluated for scientific and technical merit by (an) appropriate Scientific Review Group(s), in accordance with NIH peer review policy and procedures, using the stated review criteria. Assignment to a Scientific Review Group will be shown in the eRA Commons.

As part of the scientific peer review, all applications:

• May undergo a selection process in which only those applications deemed to have the highest scientific and technical merit (generally the top half of applications under review) will be discussed and assigned an overall impact score.

• Will receive a written critique.

• Scientific and technical merit of the proposed project as determined by scientific peer review.
• Availability of funds.
• Relevance of the proposed project to program priorities

3. Anticipated Announcement and Award Dates

After the peer review of the application is completed, the PD/PI will be able to access his or her Summary Statement (written critique) via the eRA Commons. Refer to Part 1 for dates for peer review, advisory council review, and earliest start date.

Information regarding the disposition of applications is available in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.

1. Award Notices

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 terms and conditions found on the Award Conditions and Information for NIH Grants website. This includes any recent legislation and policy applicable to awards that is highlighted on this website.

Individual awards are based on the application submitted to, and as approved by, the NIH and are subject to the NIDCR-specific terms and conditions identified in the NoA.

Institutional Review Board or Independent Ethics Committee Approval: Grantee institutions must ensure that the application as well as all protocols are reviewed by their IRB or IEC. To help ensure the safety of participants enrolled in NIH-funded studies, the awardee must provide NIH copies of documents related to all major changes in the status of ongoing protocols.

Data and Safety Monitoring Requirements: The NIH policy for data and safety monitoring requires oversight and monitoring of all NIH-conducted or -supported human biomedical and behavioral intervention studies (clinical trials or basic experimental studies with humans) to ensure the safety of participants and the validity and integrity of the data. Further information concerning these requirements is found at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/hs/data_safety.htm and in the application instructions (SF424 (R&R) and PHS 398).

2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements

Recipients of federal financial assistance (FFA) from HHS must administer their programs in compliance with federal civil rights law. This means that recipients of HHS funds must ensure equal access to their programs without regard to a person’s race, color, national origin, disability, age and, in some circumstances, sex and religion. This includes ensuring your programs are accessible to persons with limited English proficiency. HHS recognizes that research projects are often limited in scope for many reasons that are nondiscriminatory, such as the principal investigator’s scientific interest, funding limitations, recruitment requirements, and other considerations. Thus, criteria in research protocols that target or exclude certain populations are warranted where nondiscriminatory justifications establish that such criteria are appropriate with respect to the health or safety of the subjects, the scientific study design, or the purpose of the research.

For additional guidance regarding how the provisions apply to NIH grant programs, please contact the Scientific/Research Contact that is identified in Section VII under Agency Contacts of this FOA. HHS provides general guidance to recipients of FFA on meeting their legal obligation to take reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to their programs by persons with limited English proficiency. Please see http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/resources/laws/revisedlep.html. The HHS Office for Civil Rights also provides guidance on complying with civil rights laws enforced by HHS. Please see http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/understanding/section1557/index.html; and http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/understanding/index.html. Recipients of FFA also have specific legal obligations for serving qualified individuals with disabilities. Please see http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/understanding/disability/index.html. Please contact the HHS Office for Civil Rights for more information about obligations and prohibitions under federal civil rights laws at http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/office/about/rgn-hqaddresses.html or call 1-800-368-1019 or TDD 1-800-537-7697. Also note it is an HHS Departmental goal to ensure access to quality, culturally competent care, including long-term services and supports, for vulnerable populations. For further guidance on providing culturally and linguistically appropriate services, recipients should review the National Standards for Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services in Health and Health Care at http://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/omh/browse.aspx?lvl=2&lvlid=53.

In accordance with the statutory provisions contained in Section 872 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417), NIH awards will be subject to the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) requirements. FAPIIS requires Federal award making officials to review and consider information about an applicant in the designated integrity and performance system (currently FAPIIS) prior to making an award. An applicant, at its option, may review information in the designated integrity and performance systems accessible through FAPIIS and comment on any information about itself that a Federal agency previously entered and is currently in FAPIIS. The Federal awarding agency will consider any comments by the applicant, in addition to other information in FAPIIS, in making a judgement about the applicant’s integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards when completing the review of risk posed by applicants as described in 45 CFR Part 75.205 Federal awarding agency review of risk posed by applicants. This provision will apply to all NIH grants and cooperative agreements except fellowships.

Transition from the intramural phase (Phase 1) to the extramural phase (Phase 2) is intended to be continuous in time. Support for Phase 2 is not automatic and is contingent upon the K22 awardee obtaining an appropriate extramural position at an eligible institution, an appropriate start-up package, and the successful NIDCR programmatic review of the tenure-track (or equivalent) faculty position the candidate has accepted and the institutional commitment to the candidate. In order to submit a independent Phase 2 application, individuals must have been offered and accepted a research faculty position at an eligible institution that has both appropriate infrastructure to support the proposed research program and a history of external research funding.

To avoid potential problems, candidates are strongly encouraged to contact their NIDCR Program Official as soon as plans to apply for, or assume, an independent position develop. At that time, individuals should discuss plans for transition to, and the transition application for, the Phase 2 award. The application for the Phase 2 award should be submitted no later than 2 months prior to the proposed start date of the Phase 2 award.

The extramural phase institution will submit an application on behalf of the candidate for the Phase 2 award using the PHS 398 Application. The application must include:

• A new Form Page 1 (face page) signed by the Phase 2 institutional representative;

• An updated Form Page 2 (project summary page) that reflects current plans for the Phase 2 award;

• Form Page 3 (table of contents);

• Form Pages 4 and 5 (Budget for Initial and Entire Proposed Project Periods): Detailed budget pages for a non-modular budget and narrative justification for all requested funds for each budget year, including:

• The name, role on project, and level of effort for all project personnel (salaried and unsalaried) and a narrative justification for each person;

• The name and organizational affiliation of all consultants and a description of the services to be performed;

• Biographical sketches for the PD/PI and any other Key Personnel;

• A new Resources Format Page including a description of specific resources committed by the sponsoring institution to support the Candidate’s research; research facilities; and the availability of appropriate educational opportunities, including collaborating faculty, if appropriate.

• A brief description of progress made during Phase 1 that will serve as the Final Progress Report for the initial phase.

• Updated Specific Aims that reflect current plans for the Phase 2 project; An updated Research Plan (not to exceed 5 pages);

• Letters of Support (e.g., Consultants): if previously unnamed consultants/collaborators are added, provide letters of commitment from these individuals;

• A Letter of Institutional Commitment from the Department or Division Chairperson that describes the sponsoring institution's commitment to the candidate’s scientific independence (see additional details below);

• Updated Protections for Human Subjects and Inclusion of Women, Minorities and Children (as appropriate);

• Updated Vertebrate Animals (as appropriate);

• Updated Biohazards (as appropriate)

• Updated Resource Sharing Plan (as appropriate); and

• A new checklist.

Letter of Institutional Commitment: A letter of institutional commitment is required at the time of the Phase 2 application and is typically provided by the Department or Division Chairperson. The letter should describe the following: A detailed description of the candidate’s position, responsibilities, and duties: The institution’s tenure-track policy should be defined, or a description should be provided of the equivalent arrangements for institutions without a formal tenure-track. The start-up and salary package and other evidence of institutional support must be described and must be comparable to that provided to other, recently hired faculty who did not have a grant at the time they were hired. K22 funds may not be used to offset the typical startup package or to offset the usual institutional commitment to provide salary for faculty who are hired without grant support. Commitment to providing adequate resources, an appropriate institutional environment, and protected research time: Describe the quality and relevance of the institutional environment for the scientific and professional development of the candidate. In addition to space, facilities, resources, and other support needed to conduct the proposed research, the sponsoring institution must demonstrate a commitment to the candidate by providing a minimum of nine person-months (75% full-time professional effort) of protected research time for at least the duration of the K22 award. Consequently, teaching, clinical duties and other non-research activities should be reduced during the K22 award period. Institutional commitment to fostering the candidate's career development: Discuss how the institution will foster and support the candidate's efforts to secure independent research grant (R01) support during the K22 award period. NIDCR will not make a K22 award if the institutional commitment is deemed inadequate. These materials should be sent directly to the NIDCR. The original application plus one copy (preferably in PDF format) are to be are to be mailed or e-mailed directly to the NIDCR Financial/ Grants Management contact person listed in the PD/PI's eRA Commons account. The K22 transition application will be evaluated by extramural Program staff of the awarding component for completeness and responsiveness to the program.

Applicants who are approved to transition will receive a Notice of Award reflecting the dollar amount and the recipient organization. Candidates who are not approved to transition will receive written notification from the NIDCR communicating the rationale for the disapproval. This notification typically will be transmitted within 60 days of receipt of the Phase 2 application. Although the financial plans of the NIDCR provide support for this program, awards pursuant to this funding opportunity are contingent upon the availability of funds.

3. Reporting

A final RPPR, 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.

In accordance with the regulatory requirements provided at 45 CFR 75.113 and Appendix XII to 45 CFR Part 75, recipients that have currently active Federal grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from all Federal awarding agencies with a cumulative total value greater than $10,000,000 for any period of time during the period of performance of a Federal award, must report and maintain the currency of information reported in the System for Award Management (SAM) about civil, criminal, and administrative proceedings in connection with the award or performance of a Federal award that reached final disposition within the most recent five-year period. The recipient must also make semiannual disclosures regarding such proceedings. Proceedings information will be made publicly available in the designated integrity and performance system (currently FAPIIS). This is a statutory requirement under section 872 of Public Law 110-417, as amended (41 U.S.C. 2313). As required by section 3010 of Public Law 111-212, all information posted in the designated integrity and performance system on or after April 15, 2011, except past performance reviews required for Federal procurement contracts, will be publicly available. Full reporting requirements and procedures are found in Appendix XII to 45 CFR Part 75 Award Term and Conditions for Recipient Integrity and Performance Matters.

4. Evaluation

In carrying out its stewardship of human resource-related programs, the NIH may request information essential to an assessment of the effectiveness of this program from databases and from participants themselves. Participants may be contacted after the completion of this award for periodic updates on various aspects of their employment history, publications, support from research grants or contracts, honors and awards, professional activities, and other information helpful in evaluating the impact of the program.

Finding Help Online: http://grants.nih.gov/support/ (preferred method of contact)
Telephone: 301-402-7469 or 866-504-9552 (Toll Free)

General Grants Information (Questions regarding application processes and NIH grant resources)
Email: [email protected] (preferred method of contact)
Telephone: 301-945-7573

Grants.gov Customer Support (Questions regarding Grants.gov registration and Workspace)
Contact Center Telephone: 800-518-4726
Email: [email protected]

Leslie A. Frieden, PhD

National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR)
Telephone: 301-496-4263
Email: [email protected]

Janice Lee, DDS, MD
National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR)
Telephone: 301-594-4591
Email: [email protected]

Yasaman Shirazi, PhD
National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR)
Telephone: 301-594-5593
Email: [email protected]

Diana Rutberg, MBA
National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR)
Telephone: 301-594-4798
Email: [email protected]