National Institute on Aging (NIA)
August 23, 2019- Clarifying Competing Application Instructions and Notice of Publication of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) Regarding Proposed Human Fetal Tissue Research. See Notice NOT-OD-19-137
NIA invites applications for the Leadership Award for Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias Research (R35).
Applicants will be supported to develop and implement innovative multidisciplinary research and mentoring programs through an interchange of ideas that enable individuals and their institutions to strengthen existing programs and the development of new research programs that are specific to the goals/milestones of the NIH Alzheimer's Disease and Alzheimer's Disease Related Dementias Summits.
November 8, 2019
May 19, 2020
June 19, 2020
All applications are due by 5:00 PM local time of applicant organization. All types of non-AIDS applications allowed for this funding opportunity announcement are due on the listed date(s).
Applicants are encouraged to apply early to allow adequate time to make any corrections to errors found in the application during the submission process by the due date.
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.
There are several options available to submit your application through Grants.gov to NIH and Department of Health and Human Services partners. You must use one of these submission options to access the application forms for this opportunity.
NIA is seeking applications from investigators looking to enhance their research programs to address selected NIH Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias Research Implementation Milestones. Investigators will be provided protected time to produce a program of investigation specific to selected goals/milestones. Investigators and their institutions will also be expected to advance more junior researchers' capacity to address selected goals/milestones.
Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias Research Implementation Milestones
These milestones represent a framework guide for the scientific field and are an opportunity to build multidisciplinary programs with them as their focus. The milestones can be found in NIA's online database. They span basic, translational, clinical, and health services research. The milestones were developed based on recommendations from over 350 leading academic and industry experts, innovators, and public advocates participating in strategic research summits over the last eight years. Applicants should select one milestone or a set of milestones on which to focus. The choice of milestones should reflect the competencies and research experiences of the award recipient. Applicants must demonstrate how their expertise, institution, and research program will address the specific milestones.
This leadership award will provide resources to foster outstanding scientists to expand their potential to make significant contributions to the goals/milestones of the NIH Alzheimer's Disease and Alzheimer's Disease Related Dementias (AD/ADRD) Summits. Applicants are required to serve as research mentors for New Investigators and Early Stage Investigators (NI/ESI).See Section VIII. Other Information for award authorities and regulations.
Grant: A support mechanism providing money, property, or both to an eligible entity to carry out an approved project or activity.
The OER Glossary and the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide provide details on these application types. Only those application types listed here are allowed for this FOA.
NIA intends to commit $5 million in FY 2021 to fund 8-10 awards.
Applications may request a maximum project period of five years.
Higher Education Institutions
The following types of Higher Education Institutions are always encouraged to apply for NIH support as Public or Private Institutions of Higher Education:
Nonprofits Other Than Institutions of Higher Education
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.
Foreign components, as defined in the NIH Grants Policy Statement, are allowed.
Applicant organizations must complete and maintain the following registrations as described in the SF 424 (R&R) Application Guide to be eligible to apply for or receive an award. All registrations must be completed prior to the application being submitted. Registration can take 6 weeks or more, so applicants should begin the registration process as soon as possible. The NIH Policy on Late Submission of Grant Applications states that failure to complete registrations in advance of a due date is not a valid reason for a late submission.
Program Directors/Principal Investigators (PD(s)/PI(s))
All PD(s)/PI(s) must have an eRA Commons account. PD(s)/PI(s) should work with their organizational officials to either create a new account or to affiliate their existing account with the applicant organization in eRA Commons. If the PD/PI is also the organizational Signing Official, they must have two distinct eRA Commons accounts, one for each role. Obtaining an eRA Commons account can take up to 2 weeks.
For institutions/organizations proposing multiple PDs/PIs, visit the Multiple Program Director/Principal Investigator Policy and submission details in the Senior/Key Person Profile (Expanded) Component of the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
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.
The NIH will not accept duplicate or highly overlapping applications under review at the same time. This means that the NIH will not accept:
The application forms package specific to this opportunity must be accessed through ASSIST, Grants.gov Workspace or an institutional system-to-system solution. Links to apply using ASSIST or Grants.gov Workspace are available in Part 1 of this FOA. See your administrative office for instructions if you plan to use an institutional system-to-system solution.
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:
Cerise Elliott, Ph.D.
National Institute on Aging (NIA)
Outline the program you intend to implement that will initiate or expand a particular Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias Research Implementation Milestone(s) at your institution.
List and identify the exact Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias Research Implementation Milestone(s) that your application will be addressing.
PD(s)/PI(s) should demonstrate a record of conducting rigorous research that will lead to achieving the identified Milestone(s).
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.
Due to the nature of this award, applicants are required to devote at least 6 person months effort throughout the duration of this award. Applicants with administrative responsibilities or other duties inconsistent with this time commitment may apply but must reduce those other commmitments to accept the award. PDs/PIs with effort on other grant support will be expected to provide, as part of the Just-in-Time information, a detailed explanation describing how effort on his/her other grants will be adjusted, if necessary, to permit 6 person months on this award. PD/PIs will need to renegotiate their time and effort on other grant support, if necessary, in order to accommodate this award level of effort.
Specific Aims: Do not use. Specific Aims are not allowed.
Research Strategy: Upload the Research Strategy as a single attachment and organize the Research Strategy using the instructions provided below. Start each section of the document with the appropriate section heading:
1) Evidence of PD(s)/PI(s) programmatic contributions: Explain how PD(s)/PI(s) will leverage and translate the seminal past contributions of their research program (novel ideas, accomplishments, experience, sustained productivity, etc.) into the new approaches proposed for the future research program. If the planned research differs from the PD(s)/PI(s)' past or current work, explain how the new direction relates to their current research activities and describe their ability to pursue the new approaches and rationale for the change, such as the development of new strategies and/or the posing of new hypotheses. Discuss the reasons and the likelihood that the research program is likely to continue to make novel and important contributions to achieving the selected Milestone(s). Describe the PD(s)/PI(s)' ability, experiences, and potential to achieve the Milestone(s). Explain how combined expertise will likely enhance the achievement in the Milestone(s). Explain how productivity will remain high throughout the program. Describe what successful mentoring will look like in the program.
2) Research program description: What is the broad scientific question or challenge that will be addressed and why is it important? Summarize the basis of the proposed research program based on past accomplishments. Describe how this program represents an outstanding way forward. Describe how this strategy contributes substantially to the academic and research program. Explain how the program is broad and ambitious. Explain how the program is groundbreaking and paradigm-shifting in achieving the Milestone(s). Describe the program's substantive scope.
3) Overview of future research program: Describe in broad terms the research vision, strategies, and potential outcomes over the length of the program. Describe how the goals build on an existing program and past contributions or the current state of the science. Describe how the proposed program is innovative and/or provides new insight. Describe the new opportunities, knowledge, and/or technologies proposed. Explain the expected outcomes that will contribute to achieving the Milestone(s).
Letters of Support: Institutions must include a Letter of Nomination for the applicant being proposed for the Outstanding Investigator Award. The Letter of Nomination should be signed by the person at the institution who has the authority to evaluate and endorse the outstanding research productivity of the nominee(s) and commit the institution to all the requirements of the application and award (e.g. Dean, Center Director, etc.). Applications that are missing a Letter of Nomination will not be reviewed.
In two pages or less, the Letter of Nomination should describe:
1) The selection process used by the Institution to nominate the PD(s)/PI(s) for this award;
2) A brief statement of the PD(s)/PI(s)' demonstrated outstanding research productivity for at least the past five years and the potential for the PD(s)/PI(s)' research productivity and influence to continue at the same high-caliber level;
3) The PD(s)/PI(s)' commitment of at least 6 person-months effort to this award (applicants with administrative responsibilities or other duties inconsistent with this time commitment may apply but must reduce those other commitments to accept the award); and
4) A clear and continuing substantial institutional commitment to the PD(s)/PI(s) beyond the normal level extended by the Institution to faculty (e.g, providing 20% salary support, resources, space, etc.) for the duration of the award.Resource Sharing Plan: Individuals are required to comply with the instructions for the Resource Sharing Plans as provided in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
The following modifications also apply:
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.Delayed Onset Study
Note: Delayed onset does NOT apply to a study that can be described but will not start immediately (i.e., delayed start).All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.
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
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). 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.
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 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 How to Apply – Application Guide. If you encounter a system issue beyond your control that threatens your ability to complete the submission process on-time, you must follow the Dealing with System Issues guidance. For assistance with application submission, contact the Application Submission Contacts in Section VII.
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.
Upon receipt, applications will be evaluated for completeness and compliance with application instructions by the Center for Scientific Review and responsiveness by components of participating organizations, NIH. Applications that are incomplete, non-compliant and/or nonresponsive will not be reviewed.
Only the review criteria described below will be considered in the review process. Applications submitted to the NIH in support of the NIH mission are evaluated for scientific and technical merit through the NIH peer review system.
Does the program address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field? Is the strong scientific background that serves as the key support for the proposed project rigorous? If the overall goals of the program are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice be improved? How will successful completion of the research change the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field
In what ways does the strategy show potential to become an outstanding way forward related to the identified Milestone(s)? How does the strategy contribute substantially to the host institution's academic and research program? In what ways is the proposed research program adequately broad and ambitious? How likely is the research program to be groundbreaking and paradigm-shifting in achieving the Milestone(s)? Is the proposed research program substantive in scope?
Are the PD(s)/PI(s), collaborators, and other researchers well suited to the project? If Early Stage Investigators or those 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/PI, do the investigators have complementary and integrated expertise; are their leadership approach, governance and organizational structure appropriate for the project?
How strong are the PD(s)/PI(s)' relevant abilities and experiences, and how do they contribute to their potential of achieving the identified Milestone(s)? What record of conducting rigorous research does the PD(s)/PI(s) have and do they report it transparently? What collaborations are presented for the identified Milestone(s) and how well will they contribute to achieving the Milestone(s)? How will the combined expertise, roles, and responsibilities of any involved consultants, collaborators, mentees, and mentors enhance the identified Milestone(s)? What is the potential for the PD(s)/PI(s)’ research productivity and influence to continue at a high-caliber level? In what ways does the PD(s)/PI(s) show promise as a mentor of undergraduate and graduate students, postdoctoral or clinical fellows, medical students, or junior faculty?
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?
How innovative and strong is the research plan for the identified Milestone(s)? What insights have the PD(s)/PI(s) provided regarding new directions for the identified Milestone(s)? Is there a fundamental new insight into the potential solution for a problem, which may derive from the development of exceptionally novel approaches and/or from the posing of radically unconventional hypotheses? How likely is it that the proposed program will result in new opportunities, explore new areas of scientific inquiry, and/or develop new systems and strategies?
Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the project? Have the investigators included plans to address weaknesses in the rigor of prior research that serves as the key support for the proposed project ? Have the investigators presented strategies to ensure a robust and unbiased approach, as appropriate for the work proposed? 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? Have the investigators presented adequate plans to address relevant biological variables, such as sex, for studies in vertebrate animals or human subjects?
What outcomes are presented for the work proposed that will contribute to achieving the Milestone(s)? How is the PD(s)/PI(s)' work seminal in nature? Evaluate the PD(s)/PI(s)' broad plans for research. How do the proposed goals facilitate future planned research toward achieving the Milestone(s)? Evaluate the likelihood that the PD(s)/PI(s) will continue at the frontiers of research. Does the application indicate appropriate commitment of time and effort for the proposed work? How strong is the evidence that the research program will evolve appropriately as the work is performed? How likely is the proposed research to be performed rigorously and the results carefully interpreted?
If the project involves human subjects and/or NIH-defined clinical research, are the plans to address 1) the protection of human subjects from research risks, and 2) 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), 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?
How will the environment and institutional commitment to the PD(s)/PI(s) benefit the identified Milestone(s)? What evidence is provided that the PD(s)/PI(s) and institution create a program that will lead and sustain efforts to resolve the identified Milestone(s) following the period of the award? Does the application indicate a level of institutional commitment of support for the PD(s)/PI(s) beyond the normal level extended by the institution to faculty?
Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias Research Implementation Milestones
How will the identified Milestone(s) influence the scientific field once the project period is complete? What new knowledge or technologies related to the identified Milestone(s) will be produced as an outcome of this program?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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).
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.
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 NIA, 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:
Information regarding the disposition of applications is available 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.
Institutional Review Board or Independent Ethics Committee Approval: Grantee institutions must ensure that 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.
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.
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.
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 https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/special-topics/limited-english-proficiency/index.html. The HHS Office for Civil Rights also provides guidance on complying with civil rights laws enforced by HHS. Please see https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/section-1557/index.htmlhttps://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-providers/laws-regulations-guidance/index.html. Recipients of FFA also have specific legal obligations for serving qualified individuals with disabilities. Please see https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/disability/index.html. Please contact the HHS Office for Civil Rights for more information about obligations and prohibitions under federal civil rights laws at https://www.hhs.gov/ocr/about-us/contact-us/index.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.
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.
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 instructions, application processes, and NIH grant resources)
Email: GrantsInfo@nih.gov (preferred method of contact)
Grants.gov Customer Support (Questions regarding Grants.gov registration and Workspace)
Contact Center Telephone: 800-518-4726
Cerise Elliott, Ph.D.
National Institute on Aging (NIA)
Ramesh Vemuri, Ph.D.
National Institute on Aging (NIA)
National Institute on Aging (NIA)
Note: For help accessing PDF, RTF, MS Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Audio or Video files, see Help Downloading Files.