It is critical that applicants follow the Research (R) Instructions in the SF424 (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

FDA is working to confront the staggering human toll of the opioid crisis. Ensuring the availability of evidence-based, indication-specific prescribing information has always been part of FDA’s approach to ensuring the safe use of the products it regulates, including opioid analgesic products. However, the nation is facing a crisis: millions of Americans are misusing and abusing opioids,[1] and more than 40 people are dying every day from overdoses involving prescription opioids.[2] FDA’s goal is to reduce the opportunities for opioid misuse and abuse while ensuring that its actions are tailored to patient needs and adequately treats pain.

Recognizing the critical role that health care providers play in addressing this public health priority, and consistent with the goals of Section 3002 of the Substance Use-Disorder Prevention that Promotes Opioid Recovery and Treatment for Patients and Communities Act (SUPPORT Act),[3] FDA is re-examining the evidence on the use of opioids in the treatment of acute pain with a goal of improving opioid prescribing. Acute pain usually occurs suddenly and has a known cause like an injury, surgery, or infection. Examples of acute pain could be pain that occurs following a tooth extraction, broken arm, or surgical procedure.[4] By decreasing unnecessary and/or inappropriate exposure to opioid analgesics through refinement of prescribing practices for acute pain, health care providers may reduce the rate of new opioid use disorders (OUDs) as well as opioid-involved overdose, accidental poisoning, and death. To do this, health care providers need the most current and comprehensive guidance on the appropriate management of acute pain.

Frequently, people who develop an OUD are first exposed to opioid analgesics through a lawful prescription from a health care provider. While the number of opioid prescriptions and opioid morphine milligram equivalents have been on a steady decline for the last few years, including prescriptions for dental pain, concerns remain about opioid analgesic prescriptions for larger quantities than appropriate for the medical need being addressed. Patients commonly report having unused opioid tablets, pills, or capsules following surgical procedures.[5] Unused pills may be diverted to illicit markets or misused or abused by friends or family members 53% of people who report misuse or abuse of prescription pain relievers obtained the most recently misused drugs from a friend or relative.[6] In addition, patients who are prescribed more medication than necessary themselves have increased opportunities for misuse and abuse 36% of people who report misuse or abuse of prescription pain relievers obtained their most recently misused drugs through their own prescription.[7]

The variation in opioid prescribing (including overprescribing) for surgical and medical conditions, suggests that guidelines for acute pain management for these conditions would be beneficial for both health care providers and their patients, and public health. One approach to setting such standards would be to establish evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for opioids for acute pain management.

To address the need for a more consistent approach to the development of CPGs, in August 2018, FDA awarded a contract to the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) to help advance the development of evidence-based guidelines for appropriate opioid analgesic prescribing for acute pain resulting from specific conditions or procedures where such guidelines do not exist. The primary scope of NASEM’s work was to (1) gain an understanding of what evidence is needed to ensure that all current and future clinical practice guidelines for treating acute pain with opioid analgesics are evidenced-based to inform prescribing, (2) determine what research is needed to generate that evidence in a practical and feasible manner, and (3) recommend 10 clinical therapeutic areas (surgical procedures or medical conditions) for which either no prescribing guidelines for treating acute pain exist or for which evidence to support existing clinical practice guidelines for opioid analgesic prescribing is lacking.

As part of this work, NASEM scanned the landscape of existing opioid analgesic prescribing guidelines, examined how they were developed, identified any gaps in evidence for those guidelines, and outlined the research needed to generate the evidence to fill the gaps. Additionally, NASEM held a series of meetings and public workshops to engage a broad range of stakeholders, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which contributed expert knowledge on existing guidelines and on emerging evidence, or specific policy issues, related to the development and availability of opioid analgesic prescribing guidelines based on their specialties. In December 2019, NASEM published its findings in the report, Framing Opioid Prescribing Guidelines for Acute Pain: Developing the Evidence. [8]

According to the consensus study report, NASEM identified dental surgeries (e.g., third molar extraction) as a priority area for evidence-based guideline development because of the patient populations that are affected (e.g., adolescents and young adults), the high prevalence of the procedure, and the data that documents the efficacy of nonopioid pain management strategies for this procedure. Similarly, non-surgical dental pain was identified as a priority medical condition given its prevalence, evidence of overprescribing for the condition, and lack of an evidence-based guideline.

The NASEM report further recommended that organizations developing evidence-based CPGs on opioid prescribing for acute pain establish a process for disseminating, implementing, and monitoring the uptake and impacts of the CPG on opioid prescribing practices.

FDA seeks to stimulate development of evidence-based CPGs for acute pain conditions where such guidelines don t exist. The Agency proposes a multi-year, multi-phase project to fund an evidence-based CPG for the treatment of acute dental pain (surgical and non-surgical). This process, if successful, could serve as a model for future guidelines in other priority areas.

This FOA invites researchers to submit applications for the development, implementation, dissemination, and evaluation of an evidence-based CPG for the treatment of acute dental pain that advances appropriate prescribing of opioid analgesics. FDA believes a successful project might best be approached in a phased manner. In the description below FDA provides an example of an approach that could address development, implementation and evaluation of such a potential project. This is not the only approach that could be pursued, but provides one model for consideration by applicants.

Project Example:

The project is divided into three phases:

- Phase 1: Development of the Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guideline for the treatment of acute dental pain (surgical and non-surgical)

- Phase 2: Implementation and Dissemination of the CPG

- Phase 3: Evaluation/Assessment of the CPG

Upon completion of Phase 1, the applicant works with FDA to initiate the dissemination and implementation plan (Phase 2). The effectiveness of CPGs in improving the quality of health care depends on the degree to which health care providers are aware of the guidelines and alter practice behavior to incorporate the guidelines.

After adoption of the guideline, the applicant plans to conduct an evaluation of the guideline (Phase 3) to assess the impact on prescribing practices and outcomes and ensure the guideline is applied in the manner for which it was intended.

Applicant approach:

Phase 1: Development of the Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guideline for the treatment of acute dental pain (surgical and non-surgical)

Activities may include, but are not limited to:

- Establishing a guideline development team with the expertise and experience to achieve the goals of this FOA. Such a team would ideally have existing strong relationships with dentists from all specialties, (oral and maxillofacial surgeons, prosthodontist, endodontist, periodontist etc.), other health care providers that treat patients with acute dental pain (e.g., primary care practitioners, emergency department providers, etc.), as well as methodologists, epidemiologists, and statisticians. The team should include the perspectives of patients/patient advocates, health care systems, electronic health record developers, and payers. Diverse expertise, experience, and geographic locations are desirable.

- Considering findings from the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality (AHRQ) projects related to treatments for acute pain.[9],[10]

- Considering the recommendations outlined in the NASEM report, including the analytic framework and evidence evaluation framework.[11]

- Establishing the scope of the guideline and setting. Ideally, the CPG would state the patient populations to which the CPG is applicable (e.g., adults versus children) and those subpopulations for whom the CPG recommendations may need to be modified such as, for example, patients with comorbidities, prior opioid exposure, or opioid use disorder. Ideally, the guideline would define the contextual aspects of prescribing, such as setting, prescriber type, and prior treatments.

- Considering the appropriate use of opioids for the indication as well as the optimal opioid prescribing strategies based on a review of existing evidence. Ideally, the CPG would explicitly state the role of opioid alternatives, such as acetaminophen or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents, and the role of opioids in the context of nonopioid pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic alternatives.

- Describing the role of patient education and shared decision-making in the guideline. Ideally, the CPG would integrate patient education on pain management to help align patients expectation about pain control with opioid prescribing practices. Ideally, the applicant would identify shared-decision making as a key component of patient-centered health care. It is defined as a process in which clinicians and patients work together to make decisions and select tests, treatment and care plans based on clinical evidence that balances risks and expected outcomes with patient preferences and values.[12]

- Considering how to decrease opioid prescribing without compromising patient pain management.

- Providing a plan to provide guidelines where evidence doesn t exist.

FDA understands that there are several evidence gaps in the realm of prescribing opioids. The NASEM Report also references this fact and states the following:

Several strategies are used by CPG developers to address these challenges. To facilitate greater individualization of therapy, CPGs can explicitly consider patient, setting, clinician, and other factors that affect response to therapy, to the extent possible. When evidence is lacking with which to guide individualization of therapy for certain subgroups (e.g., patients with history of opioid use disorder), CPGs can acknowledge the evidence gaps and indicate situations in which deviation from recommendations may be warranted.7

Phase 2: Implementation and Dissemination of the CPG

Activities may include, but are not limited to:

- Proposing an implementation and dissemination plan for adoption of the guideline by specialty societies, health care providers, health systems, and payers. Applicant may identify innovative strategies to promote guideline uptake (e.g., health care provider education, chair-side educational tools, clinical decision support tools) and approaches that leverage existing health information technology or electronic health record systems.

- Proposing an implementation and dissemination plan (including a notification to FDA) of any related publications or events.

Phase 3: Evaluation/Assessment of the CPG

Activities may include, but are not limited to:

Addressing the essential elements of the evaluation and assessment plan, which may include but are not limited to the following:

- High level evaluation plan

- Impact of the CPG on prescribing practices

- Presence of unintended negative consequences for patients and/or providers

- Suggestions for broader adoption and improved implementation of the CPG

- Prescriber feedback

- Suggestions for updating the CPG

- CPG revision plan to accommodate newly available evidence and analysis findings

- Lessons learned

Identifying outcomes of interest, which may include but are not limited to:

- Adoption metrics of CPG by:

- Prescriber specialty

- Condition or surgical procedure

- Healthcare setting (urban/rural, dental clinic, academic center, surgical center, hospital,

Dental Service Organizations, Federally Qualified Health Centers)

- Patient populations (pediatric, adolescent, adult)

- Barriers impacting implementation (e.g., workflow/system limitations, insurance coverage, lack of flexibility)

- Impact of CPG on prescriber preferences

- Feedback on pain management with use of CPG (patient and prescriber)

Timeline:

Provides a project timeline showing the major scheduled activities and milestones for the project, including:

- Phase 1: Development of an evidence-based CPG for the treatment of acute dental pain (surgical and non-surgical)

- Phase 2: Implementation and Dissemination of the CPG

- Phase 3: Evaluation/Assessment of the CPG

See Section VIII. Other Information for award authorities and regulations.

HHS grants policies as described in the HHS Grants Policy Statement will apply to the applications submitted and awards made from this FOA.

Higher Education Institutions

• Public/State Controlled Institutions of Higher Education
• Private Institutions of Higher Education

The following types of Higher Education Institutions are always encouraged to apply for FDA support as Public or Private Institutions of Higher Education:

• Hispanic-serving Institutions
• Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs)
• Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities (TCCUs)
• Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions
• Asian American Native American Pacific Islander Serving Institutions (AANAPISIs)

Nonprofits Other Than Institutions of Higher Education

• Nonprofits with 501(c)(3) IRS Status (Other than Institutions of Higher Education)
• Nonprofits without 501(c)(3) IRS Status (Other than Institutions of Higher Education)

For-Profit Organizations

• Small Businesses
• For-Profit Organizations (Other than Small Businesses)

Governments

• State Governments
• County Governments
• City or Township Governments
• Special District Governments
• Indian/Native American Tribal Governments (Federally Recognized)
• Indian/Native American Tribal Governments (Other than Federally Recognized)
• U.S. Territory or Possession

Other

• Independent School Districts
• Public Housing Authorities/Indian Housing Authorities
• Native American Tribal Organizations (other than Federally recognized tribal governments)
• Faith-based or Community-based Organizations
• Regional Organizations

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 HHS Grants Policy Statement, are not allowed.

Applicant Organizations

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. Failure to complete registrations in advance of a due date is not a valid reason for a late submission.

• Dun and Bradstreet Universal Numbering System (DUNS) - All registrations require that applicants be issued a DUNS number. After obtaining a DUNS number, applicants can begin both SAM and eRA Commons registrations. The same DUNS number must be used for all registrations, as well as on the grant application.
• System for Award Management (SAM) Applicants must complete and maintain an active registration, which requires renewal at least annually. The renewal process may require as much time as the initial registration. SAM registration includes the assignment of a Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Code for domestic organizations which have not already been assigned a CAGE Code.
• NATO Commercial and Government Entity (NCAGE) Code Foreign organizations must obtain an NCAGE code (in lieu of a CAGE code) in order to register in SAM.
• eRA Commons - Applicants must have an active DUNS number to register in eRA Commons. Organizations can register with the eRA Commons as they are working through their SAM or Grants.gov registration, but all registrations must be in place by time of submission. eRA Commons requires organizations to identify at least one Signing Official (SO) and at least one Program Director/Principal Investigator (PD/PI) account in order to submit an application.
• Grants.gov Applicants must have an active DUNS number and SAM registration in order to complete the Grants.gov registration.

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.

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 FDA support.

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 HHS Grants Policy Statement.

Applicant organizations may submit more than one application, provided that each application is scientifically distinct.

The FDA will not accept duplicate or highly overlapping applications under review at the same time.  This means that the FDA will not accept:

• A new (A0) application that is submitted before issuance of the summary statement from the review of an overlapping new (A0) or resubmission (A1) application.
• A resubmission (A1) application that is submitted before issuance of the summary statement from the review of the previous new (A0) application.

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.

It is critical that applicants follow the Research (R) 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.

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 FDA 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:

• Descriptive title of proposed activity
• Name(s), email address(es), and telephone number(s) of the PD(s)/PI(s)
• Names of other key personnel
• Participating institution(s)
• Number and title of this funding opportunity

The letter of intent should be sent to:

Shashi Malhotra
Telephone: 301-240-7592
Email: [email protected]

A technical session will be held for prospective applicants in MAY 2020. The conference call information will be provided to prospective applicants that submit a letter of intent. The technical session will provide an overview of the submission requirements and allow prospective applicants an opportunity to ask questions regarding the application process. Participation in the technical session is optional, but strongly encouraged.

All page limitations described in the SF424 Application Guide and the Table of Page Limits must be followed, with the following exceptions or additional requirements:

For this specific FOA, the Research Strategy section is limited to 12 pages.

The following section supplements the instructions found in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide and should be used for preparing an application to this FOA.

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

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

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

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

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

• Applications requesting multiple years of support must complete and submit a separate detailed budget breakdown and narrative justification for each year of financial support requested.
• If an applicant is requesting indirect costs as part of their budget, a copy of the most recent Federal indirect cost rate or F&A agreement must be provided as part of the application submission. This agreement should be attached to the RESEARCH & RELATED Other Project Information Component as line #12 'Other Attachments'.
• If the applicant organization has never established an indirect cost rate and/or does not have a negotiated Federal indirect cost rate agreement, a de minimis indirect cost rate of 10 percent (10%) of modified total direct costs (MTDC) will be allowed. MTDC means all direct salaries and wages, applicable fringe benefits, materials and supplies, services, travel, and subaward and subcontracts up to the first $25,000 of each subaward or subcontract. MTDC excludes equipment, capital expenditures, charges for patient care, rental costs, tuition remission, scholarships and fellowships, participant support costs and the portion of each subaward and subcontract in excess of $25,000.

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

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

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

Research Strategy:

All applicants must specifically address the ability to achieve the following objectives in the cooperative agreement in the Research Strategy:

- Demonstrate the ability to develop, disseminate, implement, and evaluate, an evidence-based Clinical Practice Guideline (CPG) for the treatment of acute dental pain (surgical and non-surgical).

- Work in collaboration with the FDA to support and advance appropriate prescribing of opioid analgesics for patients with acute dental pain.

- Have experienced personnel, and clinical and other technical expertise in the field of dentistry and clinical practice guideline development.

- Demonstrate the ability to establish collaborations with and include the perspectives of health care providers that treat patients with acute dental pain (e.g., primary care practitioners, emergency department providers, etc.); patients/patient advocates; health care systems; electronic health record developers; payers; and other relevant stakeholders throughout the course of the project.

- Demonstrate the ability to establish an adequate administrative and scientific infrastructure to implement all phases under this collaborative effort

- Identify and/or hire sufficient number of qualified personnel to conduct the necessary research and project-manage all related activities, including review of project milestones for degree of completion, preparation/reporting of project findings, periodic and final reports, all for approval by FDA, and for subsequent distribution in the public domain

- In conjunction with FDA, develop plans for the conduct of identified project activities

- Identify and/or build, and effectively leverage databases and other facilities and/or resources for the conduct of identified project activities

- Upon completion of the project, propose related studies/projects, if needed, to build on the findings of the project and continue to leverage established resources and personnel

- In collaboration with FDA, develop needed training, workshops, and/or educational materials.

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, with the following modification:

• All applications, regardless of the amount of direct costs requested for any one year, should address a Data Sharing Plan.

Appendix:

Only limited Appendix materials are allowed. Follow all instructions for the Appendix as described in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.

When involving 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.

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.

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.

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, FDA’s electronic system for grants administration. eRA Commons 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. Late applications will not be accepted for this FOA.

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 FDA awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations described in the HHS Grants Policy Statement.

Pre-award costs are allowable only as described in the HHS Grants Policy Statement.

Additional funding restrictions may be part of the Notice of Award.

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. 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 FDA. 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 assigned Grants Management Specialist and responsiveness by components of participating organizations, FDA. Applications that are incomplete, non-compliant and/or nonresponsive will not be reviewed.

Post-submission materials are those submitted after submission of the grant application but prior to objective review. They are not intended to correct oversights or errors discovered after submission of the application. FDA accepts limited information between the time of initial submission of the application and the time of objective review. Applicants must contact the assigned Grants Management Specialist to receive approval, prior to submitting any post submission materials. Acceptance and/or rejection of any post submission materials is at the sole discretion of the FDA. Any inquiries regarding post submission materials should be directed to the assigned Grants Management Specialist.

Only the review criteria described below will be considered in the review process.

Reviewers will consider each of the review criteria below in the determination of scientific merit.

Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field? Is the prior research that serves as the key support for the proposed project rigorous? 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 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? Is there diversity among the investigators with regard to expertise, experience and geographic location? Is there a transparent process in place that acknowledges and minimizes the potential for bias and conflicts of interest?

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? 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? 

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 but will not give separate scores for these items, and should not consider them in providing an overall score.

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 FDA-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.

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

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 Objective Review Committee, using the stated review criteria.

As part of the objective review, all applications:

• Will receive a written critique.

Appeals of objective review will not be accepted for applications submitted in response to this FOA.

Applications will compete for available funds with all other recommended applications submitted in response to this FOA. The following will be considered in making funding decisions:

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

Successful applicants will be notified of additional information that may be required or other actions leading to an award. The decision not to award a grant, or to award a grant at a particular funding level, is discretionary and is not subject to appeal to any FDA or HHS official or board.

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 in the HHS Grants Policy Statement, this FOA, and Notice of Award. 

All FDA grant and cooperative agreement awards include the HHS Grants Policy Statement as part of the NoA.

Recipients of federal financial assistance (FFA) from HHS must administer their programs in compliance with federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, disability, age and, in some circumstances, religion, conscience, and sex.  This includes ensuring programs are accessible to persons with limited English proficiency. The HHS Office for Civil Rights provides guidance on complying with civil rights laws enforced by HHS. Please see https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-providers/provider-obligations/index.html and http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/understanding/section1557/index.html.

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 FDA grant programs, please contact the Scientific/Research Contact that is identified in Section VII under Agency Contacts of this FOA.

• Recipients of FFA must ensure that their programs are accessible to persons with limited English proficiency. HHS provides 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/fact-sheet-guidance/index.html and https://www.lep.gov. 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 https://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/omh/browse.aspx?lvl=2&lvlid=53.
• 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.
• HHS funded health and education programs must be administered in an environment free of sexual harassment.  Please see https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/sex-discrimination/index.html; https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/shguide.html; and https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/publications/upload/fs-sex.pdf.
• Recipients of FFA must also administer their programs in compliance with applicable federal religious nondiscrimination laws and applicable federal conscience protection and associated anti-discrimination laws.  Collectively, these laws prohibit exclusion, adverse treatment, coercion, or other discrimination against persons or entities on the basis of their consciences, religious beliefs, or moral convictions.  Please see https://www.hhs.gov/conscience/conscience-protections/index.html and https://www.hhs.gov/conscience/religious-freedom/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.

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), FDA 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 FDA grants and cooperative agreements.

FDA considers the sharing of research resources developed through FDA-sponsored research an important means to enhance the value and further the advancement of research. When research resources have been developed with FDA funds and the associated research findings published, those findings must be made readily available to the scientific community.

Upon acceptance for publication, scientific researchers must submit the author’s final manuscript of the peer-reviewed scientific publication resulting from research supported in whole or in part with FDA funds to the NIH National Library of Medicine's (NLM) PubMed Central (PMC). FDA defines the author's final manuscript as the final version accepted for journal publication, which includes all modifications from the publishing peer review process. The PMC archive is the designated repository for these manuscripts for use by the public, health care providers, educators, scientists, and FDA. Please see the FDA Public Access Policy.

Certificates of Confidentiality 42 U.S.C. 241(d)

Awardees are responsible for complying with all requirements to protect the confidentiality of identifiable, sensitive information that is collected or used in biomedical, behavioral, clinical, or other research (including research on mental health and research on the use and effect of alcohol and other psychoactive drugs) funded wholly or in part by the Federal Government.  See 42 U.S.C. 241(d).  All research funded by FDA, in whole or in part, that is within the scope of these requirements is deemed to be issued a Certificate of Confidentiality through these Terms and Conditions.   Certificates issued in this manner will not be issued as a separate document. 

Awardees are expected to ensure that any investigator or institution not funded by FDA who receives a copy of identifiable, sensitive information protected by these requirements, understand they are also subject to the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 241(d).  Awardees are also responsible for ensuring that any subrecipient that receives funds to carry out part of the FDA award involving a copy of identifiable, sensitive information protected by these requirements understand they are also subject to subsection 42 U.S.C. 241(d).

Additional terms and conditions regarding FDA regulatory and CDER programmatic requirements may be part of the Notice of Award.

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 (HHS) grant administration regulations at 45 CFR Part 75, and other HHS, PHS, and FDA 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 FDA programmatic involvement with the awardees is anticipated during the performance of the activities. Under the cooperative agreement, FDA's 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 FDA as defined below.

2.A.1. Principal Investigator Rights and Responsibilities

The PD(s)/PI(s) will have the primary responsibility for the scientific, technical, or programmatic aspects of the cooperative agreement and for day-to-day management of the project or program. The PD(s)/PI(s) will maintain general oversight for ensuring compliance with the financial and administrative aspects of the award, as well as ensuring that all staff have sufficient clearance and/or background checks to work on this project or program. This individual will work closely with designated officials within the recipient organization to create and maintain necessary documentation, including both technical and administrative reports; prepare justifications; appropriately acknowledge Federal support in publications, announcements, news programs, and other media; and ensure compliance with other Federal and organizational requirements.

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 FDA policies.

Additionally PD/PIs will:

Participate in site visits or attend meetings as requested by the FDA. A portion of the budget should be reserved for such travel.

Make the resources available for site inspections during and/or after the study if requested by FDA.

FDA may also request data be made available through speaking engagements and publications, presentations at scientific symposia and seminars, while making sure that confidentiality and privacy of the data is protected.

Provide FDA any data obtained from investigations if requested by FDA.

2.A.2. FDA Responsibilities

An FDA Project Officer (PO) will have substantial programmatic involvement as described below. The PO is the official responsible for the programmatic, scientific, and/or technical aspects of assigned applications and grants. The PO's responsibilities include, but are not limited to, post-award monitoring of project/program performance, including review of progress reports and making site visits; and other activities complementary to those of the Grants Management Officer (GMO). The PO and the GMO work as a team in many of these activities.

Additionally, an agency program official will be responsible for the scientific and programmatic stewardship of the award and will be named in the award notice.

FDA will provide technical monitoring and/or guidance of the work, including monitoring of data analysis, interpretation of analytical findings and their significance.

FDA will assist and approve (as deemed appropriate) the substance of publications, co-authorship of publications and data release.

Financial Reporting:

A. Cash Transaction Reports

The Federal Financial Report (FFR) has a dedicated section to report Federal cash receipts and disbursements. For recipients, this information must be submitted quarterly directly to the Payment Management System (PMS) using the web-based tool. Quarterly reports are due 30 days following the end of each calendar quarter. The reporting period for this report continues to be based on the calendar quarter. Questions concerning the requirements for this quarterly financial report should be directed to the PMS.

B. Financial Expenditure Reports

A required Federal Financial Report (FFR) must be submitted annually. FDA now requires all annual financial expenditure reports to be submitted electronically using the Federal Financial Report (FFR) system located in the eRA Commons. This includes all initial FFRs being prepared for submission and any revised FSR/FFRs being submitted or re-submitted to FDA. Paper expenditure/FFR reports will not accepted.

Annual FFRs must be submitted for each budget period no later than 90 days after the end of the calendar quarter in which the budget period ended. The reporting period for an annual FFR will be that of the budget period for the particular grant; however, the actual submission date is based on the calendar quarter. Failure to submit timely reports may affect future funding.

Performance Progress Reporting:

Annual progress reports are required. The Annual Progress Report will be due as part of the Research Performance Progress Report (RPPR).

Grants with Multiple Years: When multiple years are involved, awardees will be required to submit the Research Performance Progress Report (RPPR).

Information regarding submitting the RPPR is available at https://era.nih.gov/erahelp/commons/default.htm#cshid=1020

PROGRAM INCOME:

1. The grantee is required to report any Program Income generated during the Project Period of this grant. Except for royalty income generated from patents and inventions, the amount and disposition of Program Income must be identified on lines 10 (l), (m), (n), and (o) of the grantee's Federal Financial Report (FFR) SF-425.

2. Examples of Program Income include (but are not limited to): fees for services performed during the grant or sub-grant period, proceeds from sale of tangible personal or real property, usage or rental fees, patent or copyright royalties, and proceeds from the sale of products and technology developed under the grant.

3. Any Program Income generated during the Project Period of this grant by the grantee or sub-grantee is subject to the Addition Alternative for Program Income and, therefore, must only be used to further the goals of the project for which this grant was awarded.

PRIOR APPROVAL:

All requests that require prior approval must include the award number and bear the signature of an authorized official of the grantee business office as well as that of the PI/PD. Any requests involving funding issues must include a new proposed budget and a narrative justification of the requested changes. If a grantee questions whether prior approval is required for an activity or cost, they should contact the assigned Grants Management Specialist prior to expenditure of funds for clarification.

Below are activities that require prior approval from FDA:

CHANGE IN SCOPE OR OBJECTIVES

CHANGE IN KEY PERSONNEL

CHANGE IN GRANTEE ORGANIZATION

DEVIATION FROM TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE AWARD

CARRYOVER OF UNOBLIGATED BALANCES

NO COST EXTENSIONS

SIGNIFICANT REBUDGETING

When multiple years are involved, awardees will be required to submit the Research Performance Progress Report (RPPR) annually and financial statements as required in the Notice of Award.

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 terms and conditions of award and the HHS 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 FDA 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.

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.

We encourage inquiries concerning this funding opportunity and welcome the opportunity to answer questions from potential applicants.

eRA Service Desk (Questions regarding ASSIST, eRA Commons, application errors and warnings, documenting system problems that threaten submission by the due date, and post-submission issues)

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

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

Janelle Derbis
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER)
Telephone: 312-596-6516
Email: [email protected]

Shashi Malhotra
Office of Acquisitions & Grants Services (OAGS)
Food and Drug Administration
Telephone: 240-402-7592
Email: [email protected]

Shashi Malhotra
Office of Acquisitions & Grants Services (OAGS)
Food and Drug Administration
Telephone: 240-402-7592
Email: [email protected]

All awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations described in the HHS Grants Policy Statement.

Awards are made under the authorization of Section 301 of the Public Health Service Act as amended (42 USC 241) and under Federal Regulations 42 CFR Part 52 and 45 CFR Part 75.