It is critical that applicants follow the Research (R) Instructions in How to Apply - Application Guide, except where instructed to do otherwise (in this NOFO or in a Notice from the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts). Conformance to all requirements (both in the Application Guide and the NOFO) 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. Notice of 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 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 management of acute low back pain. This process draws on a previous guideline development effort on the treatment of dental pain (surgical and non-surgical), treatment of postoperative pain in obstetric patients who have undergone surgeries, and safe tapering of benzodiazepines.

This funding opportunity announcement invites researchers to submit applications for the development, implementation, dissemination, and evaluation of an evidence-based CPG for the management of acute low back pain that advances safe 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.

Background:

FDA is working to confront the staggering human toll of the drug overdose 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 in 2021 there were 16,706 reported deaths 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 promote adequate treatment of 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 safe management of acute pain.

Some 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 dispensed and the number of opioid morphine milligram equivalents they contain have been on a steady decline for the last few years, 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 45% 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 43% 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 over-prescribing) for surgical and medical conditions suggests that guidelines for acute pain management for these conditions would be beneficial for health care providers, 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.

NASEM Consensus Study Report

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 acute low back pain (including lumbago, dorsalgia, and backache) as a priority area for evidence-based guideline development because of the prevalence of low back pain, the prevalence of opioid prescribing, the evidence of variation in opioid prescribing, the existence of pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic treatment options, and the association of opioid prescribing for low back pain with long-term continued opioid use.

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.

Project Example

The project is divided into three phases:

Phase 1: Development of the Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Acute Low Back Pain

Phase 2: Implementation and Dissemination of the CPG

Phase 3: Evaluation/Assessment of the CPG

Upon completion of Phase 1, the applicant will work 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 will 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 Management of Postoperative Pain After Diagnostic and Procedural Laparoscopic Abdominal Surgeries

Activities may include, but are not limited to:

Establishing a guideline development team with the expertise and experience to achieve the goals of this NOFO. Such a team would ideally have existing strong relationships with primary care practitioners, medical specialists, surgical specialists, allied care practitioners, and other health care providers that treat patients with low back pain, 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 the recommendations outlined in the NASEM report, including the analytic framework and evidence evaluation framework.[9]

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 patients with comorbidities, patients who are pregnant or postpartum, and patients with 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 and dosing 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, and the role of opioids in the context of non-opioid pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic 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 expectations about pain control with opioid prescribing practices, and the applicant would identify shared decision-making as a key component of patient-centered health care. Shared decision-making 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.[10]

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

Considering evidence from published literature or other sources on patient-reported amount of opioids used (including observational studies), where such articles or evidence are available, that may inform recommendations for initial prescribing amounts.

Providing a plan to address considerations for potential sociodemographic disparities, health equity issues, and special populations (e.g., pregnancy and postpartum, patients in treatment for opioid use disorder) in pain management.

Providing a plan to provide guidelines where evidence doesn t exist or may be outdated.

FDA understands that there are several evidence gaps in the realm of prescribing opioids. Discussing the general challenge of gaps in evidence, the NASEM report 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.[11]

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 based on opioid dosing, monitoring, and assessment

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

Healthcare setting (e.g., urban/rural, academic center, hospital, urgent care/emergency department, Federally Qualified Health Centers, primary care/specialist)

Patient populations (e.g., pediatric/adolescent/adult/geriatric, different demographics, underserved areas)

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 the Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Acute Low Back Pain

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 NOFO.

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:

o Hispanic-serving Institutions

o Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs)

o Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities (TCCUs)

o Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions

o 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)

Local 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)

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.

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.

o 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.

o Unique Entity Identifier (UEI)- A UEI is issued as part of the SAM.gov registration process. The same UEI must be used for all registrations, as well as on the grant application.

eRA Commons - Once the unique organization identifier is established, organizations can register with eRA Commons in tandem with completing their Grants.gov registration; 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 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 their organization to develop an application for support. Individuals from diverse backgrounds, including underrepresented racial and ethnic groups, individuals with disabilities, and women 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 NOFO 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 per 2.3.7.4 Submission of Resubmission Application. 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.

An application that has substantial overlap with another application pending appeal of initial peer review (see 2.3.9.4 Similar, Essentially Identical, or Identical Applications).

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 NOFO. 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 notice of funding opportunity 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.

All page limitations described in the SF424 Application Guide and the Table of Page Limits must be followed.

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

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.

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.

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 management of postoperative pain after diagnostic and procedural laparoscopic abdominal surgeries.

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. 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, FDA’s electronic system for grants administration. FDA 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 NOFO.

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 and 45 CFR 75, currently in effect or implemented during the period of the award, other Department regulations and policies in effect at the time of the award, and applicable statutory provisions.

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

Important reminders:

All PD(s)/PI(s) must include their eRA Commons ID in the Credential field of the Senior/Key Person Profile form. 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 NOFO for information on registration requirements.

The applicant organization must ensure that the unique entity identifier provided on the application is the same identifier 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, 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 and give a separate score for each. An application does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have major scientific impact. For example, a project that by its nature is not innovative may be essential to advance a field.

Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field? 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?

If the project involves human subjects and/or 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?

As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will evaluate the following additional items while determining scientific and technical merit, and in providing an overall impact score, but will not give separate scores for these items.

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 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 Animals 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

As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will consider each of the following items, but will not give scores for these items, and should not consider them in providing an overall impact score.

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 Resource Sharing Plan(s) (e.g., Sharing Model Organisms) or the rationale for not sharing the resources, is reasonable.

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 scientific peer review, all applications:

Will receive a written critique.

Appeals of initial peer review will not be accepted for applications submitted in response to this NOFO.

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

Scientific and technical merit of the proposed project as determined by scientific peer review.

Availability of funds.

Relevance of the proposed project to program priorities.

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

Information regarding the disposition of applications is available in the HHS 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 recipient’s business official.

Recipients must comply with any funding restrictions described in Section IV.6. 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 NOFO will be subject to terms and conditions found on the Any application awarded in response to this NOFO will be subject to terms and conditions found in the HHS Grants Policy Statement, this NOFO, and Notice of Award.

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

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

If a recipient is successful and receives a Notice of Award, in accepting the award, the recipient agrees that any activities under the award are subject to all provisions currently in effect or implemented during the period of the award, other Department regulations and policies in effect at the time of the award, and applicable statutory provisions.

Should the applicant organization successfully compete for an award, recipients of federal financial assistance (FFA) from HHS will be required to complete an HHS Assurance of Compliance form (HHS 690) in which the recipient agrees, as a condition of receiving the grant, to administer programs in compliance with federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, sex and disability, and agreeing to comply with federal conscience laws, where applicable. This includes ensuring that entities take meaningful steps to provide meaningful access to persons with limited English proficiency; and ensuring effective communication with persons with disabilities. Where applicable, Title XI and Section 1557 prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and gender identity, The HHS Office for Civil Rights provides guidance on complying with civil rights laws enforced by HHS. See https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-providers/provider-obligations/index.html and https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/nondiscrimination/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 NOFO.

For guidance on meeting the legal obligation to take reasonable steps to ensure meaningful access to programs or activities by limited English proficient individuals 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 information on an institution’s specific legal obligations for serving qualified individuals with disabilities, including reasonable accommodations and making services accessible to them, 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, see https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/sex-discrimination/index.html. For information about FDA's commitment to supporting a safe and respectful work environment, who to contact with questions or concerns, and what FDA's expectations are for institutions and the individuals supported on FDA-funded awards, please see https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/harassment.htm.

For guidance on administering programs in compliance with applicable federal conscience protection and associated anti-discrimination laws 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 and 2 CFR Part 200.206 Federal awarding agency review of risk posed by applicants. This provision will apply to all FDA grants and cooperative agreements.

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

Reporting Requirements:

All FDA grants require both Financial and Performance reporting.

Financial Reporting:

A. Financial Expenditure Reports

A required Federal Financial Report (FFR) must be submitted annually. All annual FFRs must be submitted electronically using the Payment Management System (PMS). This includes all initial FFRs being prepared for submission and any revised 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. If a grant is under expanded authorities, the grantee must indicate the carryover amount in Section 12. Remarks of the annual FFR.

Performance Progress Reporting:

When multiple years (more than one budget period) are involved, awardees will be required to submit the Research Performance Progress Report (RPPR) annually as required in the Notice of Award. Annual RPPRs must be submitted using the RPPR module in eRA Commons. The annual RPPR must include a detailed budget. Annual RPPRs are due no later than 60 days prior to the start of the next budget period.

Failure to submit timely reports may affect future funding. Additional Financial and Performance Progress reports may be required for this award. Any additional reporting requirements will be listed under Section IV Special Terms and Condition of the Notice of Award.

Salary Caps:

None of the funds in this award shall be used to pay the salary of an individual at a rate in excess

of the current Executive Level II of the Federal Executive Pay Scale.

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).

Acknowledgment of Federal Support:

When issuing statements, press releases, publications, requests for proposal, bid solicitations and other documents --such as tool-kits, resource guides, websites, and presentations (hereafter statements )--describing the projects or programs funded in whole or in part with FDA federal funds, the recipient must clearly state:

1. the percentage and dollar amount of the total costs of the program or project funded with federal money; and,

2. the percentage and dollar amount of the total costs of the project or program funded by non-governmental sources.

When issuing statements resulting from activities supported by FDA financial assistance, the recipient entity must include an acknowledgement of federal assistance using one of the following statements.

If the FDA Grant or Cooperative Agreement is NOT funded with other non-governmental sources:

This [project/publication/program/website, etc.] [is/was] supported by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) as part of a financial assistance award [FAIN] totaling $XX with 100 percent funded by FDA]/HHS. The contents are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official views of, nor an endorsement, by FDA/HHS, or the U.S. Government.

If the FDA Grant or Cooperative Agreement IS partially funded with other nongovernmental sources:

This [project/publication/program/website, etc.] [is/was] supported by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) as part of a financial assistance award [FAIN] totaling $XX with XX percentage funded by FDA/HHS and $XX amount and XX percentage funded by non-government source(s). The contents are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official views of, nor an endorsement, by FDA/HHS, or the U.S. Government.

The federal award total must reflect total costs (direct and indirect) for all authorized funds (including supplements and carryover) for the total competitive segment up to the time of the public statement. Any amendments by the recipient to the acknowledgement statement must be coordinated with FDA. If the recipient plans to issue a press release concerning the outcome of activities supported by FDA financial assistance, it should notify FDA in advance to allow for coordination.

Additional prior approval requirements pertaining to Acknowledgement of Federal Support, publications, press statements, etc. may be required, and if applicable, will be listed under Section IV Special Terms and Condition of the Notice of Award.

Prior Approval:

All prior approval requests must be submitted using the Prior Approval module in eRA Commons. Any requests involving budgetary issues must include a new proposed budget and a narrative justification of the requested changes. If there are any questions regarding the need or requirement for prior approval for any activity or cost, the grantee is to contact the assigned Grants Management Specialist prior to expenditure of funds.

For grant awards not covered under Expanded Authorities, Carryover and No Cost Extension (NCE) requests will require prior approval. All Carryover and NCE requests should be submitted using the Prior Approval module in eRA Commons. ****Please review the section on Expanded Authorities to determine if this award is covered/not covered under Expanded Authorities and whether prior approval is needed for carryover and no cost extension requests.****

The following activities require prior approval from FDA on all awards:

1. Change in Grantee Organization

2. Significant Rebudgeting

3. Change in Scope or Objectives

4. Deviation from Terms and Conditions of Award

5. Change in Key Personnel which includes replacement of the PD/PI or other key personnel as specified on the NoA.

6. Disengagement from the project for more than three months, or a 25 percent reduction in time devoted to the project, by the approved PD/PI. No individual may be committed to more than 100% professional time and effort. In the event that an individual's commitment exceeds 100%, the grantee must make adjustments to reduce effort. For FDA-sponsored projects, significant reductions in effort (i.e., in excess of 25% of the originally proposed level of effort) for the PD/PI and key personnel named on named on this Notice of Award must receive written prior approval from FDA.

Additional prior approval requirements may be required for this award, and if applicable, will be listed under Section IV Special Terms and Condition of the Notice of Award.

Audits and Monitoring:

Audit Requirements:

1. Recipients of Federal funds are subject to annual audit requirements as specified in 45 CFR 75.501 (https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=1&SID=8040c4036b962cc9d75c3638dedce240&ty=HTML&h=L&r=PART&n=pt45.1.75#se45.1.75_1501). Grantees should refer to this regulation for the current annual Federal fund expenditure threshold level which requires audit.

2. Foreign recipients are subject to the same audit requirements as for-profit organizations (specified in 45 CFR 75.501(h) through 75.501(k).

3. For-profit and foreign entities can email their audit reports to AuditResolution@hhs.gov or mail them to the following address:

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Audit Resolution Division, Room 549D

Attention: Robin Aldridge, Director

200 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20201

Monitoring:

Recipients are responsible for managing the day-to-day operations of grant-supported activities using their established controls and policies, as long as they are consistent with Federal, DHHS and FDA requirements. However, to fulfill their role in regard to the stewardship of Federal funds, FDA monitors our grants to identify potential problems and areas where technical assistance might be necessary. This active monitoring is accomplished through review of reports and correspondence from the recipient, audit reports, site visits, and other information available to FDA.

1. Desk review: FDA grants monitoring specialists will periodically reach out to recipients to request information for the completion of desk reviews. Requested information may include:

Policies and procedures

List of grant expenditures

Accounting records

Supporting documents (e.g., invoices, receipts, paystubs, timesheets, contracts, etc.)

Financial statements

Audit reports

Other related documentation

2. Site visits: FDA will conduct site visits when necessary and will notify the recipient with reasonable advance notice of any such visit(s).

3. Foreign entities: All Foreign entities are subject to the same monitoring requirements as domestic entities. Foreign entities covered under immunity Executive Orders will provide supporting documents for monitoring requirements unless such an action is a violation of the Executive Orders. Recipients may discuss with the FDA to come up with an alternate approach to satisfy the award monitoring requirements.

All recipients will make reasonable efforts to resolve issues found, including audit findings. Successful resolutions to issues are important as they are part of the grant performance review. All recipients are responsible for submitting all requested information in an expeditious manner. Failure to submit timely reports and/or respond to inquiries from FDA may affect future funding or enforcement actions, including withholding, or conversion to a reimbursement payment method.

Financial Conflict of Interest (FCOI):

This award is subject to the Financial Conflict of Interest (FCOI) regulation at 42 CFR Part 50 Subpart F.

Closeout Requirements (when applicable):

A Final Research Performance Progress Report (FRPPR), Final Invention Statement HHS-568 (if applicable), Tangible Personal Property Report SF-428 (if applicable), and Statement of Disposition of Equipment (if applicable) must be submitted within 120 days after the expiration date of the project period. All closeout documents must be submitted electronically in eRA Commons.

The Final Federal Financial Report (FFR SF-425), must be submitted in PMS and indicate the exact balance of unobligated funds and may not reflect unliquidated obligations. There must be no discrepancies between the Final FFR expenditure data and FFR cash transaction data in the Payment Management System (PMS). The expended funds reported on the Final FFR must exactly match the disbursements and the charge advances in PMS. It is the recipient's responsibility to reconcile reports submitted to PMS and to the FDA.

Program Income:

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.

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.

Any Program Income generated during the Project Period of this grant by the grantee or sub-grantee will be treated as identified below.

Treatment of Program Income:

Prohibition on certain telecommunications and video surveillance services or equipment:

(a) As described in CFR 200.216, recipients and subrecipients are prohibited to obligate or spend grant funds (to include direct and indirect expenditures as well as cost share and program) to:

(1) Procure or obtain,

(2) Extend or renew a contract to procure or obtain; or

(3) Enter into contract (or extend or renew contract) to procure or obtain equipment, services, or systems that use covered telecommunications equipment or services as a substantial or essential component of any system, or as critical technology as part of any system. As described in Pub. L. 115-232, section 889, covered telecommunications equipment is telecommunications equipment produced by Huawei Technologies Company or ZTE Corporation (or any subsidiary or affiliate of such entities).

i. For the purpose of public safety, security of government facilities, physical security surveillance of critical infrastructure, and other national security purposes, video surveillance and telecommunications equipment produced by Hytera Communications Corporation, Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology Company, or Dahua Technology Company (or any subsidiary or affiliate of such entities).

ii. Telecommunications or video surveillance services provided by such entities or using such equipment.

iii. Telecommunications or video surveillance equipment or services produced or provided by an entity that the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Director of the National Intelligence or the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, reasonably believes to be an entity owned or controlled by, or otherwise, connected to the government of a covered foreign country.

Other:

This award is subject to the requirements of 2 CFR Part 25 for institutions to maintain an active registration in the System of Award Management (SAM). Should a consortium/subaward be issued under this award, a requirement for active registration in SAM must be included.

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 with cumulative total value greater than $10,000,000 must report and maintain information 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 the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)). Full reporting requirements and procedures are found in Appendix XII to 45 CFR Part 75.

You must administer your project 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 (including gender identity, sexual orientation, and pregnancy). This includes taking reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to persons with limited English proficiency and providing programs that are accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities. The HHS Office for Civil Rights provides guidance on complying with civil rights laws enforced by HHS. See https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-providers/providerobligations/index.html and https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/forindividuals/nondiscrimination/index.html.

You must take reasonable steps to ensure that your project provides meaningful access to persons with limited English proficiency. For guidance on meeting your legal obligation to take reasonable steps to ensure meaningful access to your programs or activities by limited English proficient individuals, see https://www.hhs.gov/civilrights/for-individuals/special-topics/limited-english-proficiency/fact-sheetguidance/index.html and https://www.lep.gov.

For information on your specific legal obligations for serving qualified individuals with disabilities, including providing program access, reasonable modifications, and taking appropriate steps to provide effective communication, 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, see https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/sexdiscrimination/index.html.

For guidance on administering your project in compliance with applicable federal religious nondiscrimination laws and applicable federal conscience protection and associated anti-discrimination laws, see https://www.hhs.gov/conscience/conscienceprotections/index.html and https://www.hhs.gov/conscience/religiousfreedom/index.html.

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.

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.

Submit data for quality assessment and/or validation in any manner if requested by FDA.

Conduct the research in compliance with all applicable regulations, rules and guidance, and with the Terms and Conditions of Award.

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.

Note that publications or presentations relating to outcomes of this grant may involve collaborative authoring and may undergo an FDA/CDER review and approval process. This process can take 30-90 days.

FDA staff have substantial programmatic involvement that is above and beyond the normal stewardship role in awards, 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.

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.

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

Note: The HHS Policy for Data Management and Sharing is effective for due dates on or after January 25, 2023.

Consistent with the HHS Policy for Data Management and Sharing, when data management and sharing is applicable to the award, recipients will be required to adhere to the Data Management and Sharing requirements as outlined in the HHS Grants Policy Statement. Upon the approval of a Data Management and Sharing Plan, it is required for recipients to implement the plan as described.

When multiple years are involved, recipients will be required to submit the Research Performance Progress Report (RPPR) annually and financial statements as required in the HHS Grants Policy Statement.

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 HHS Grants Policy Statement. FDA NOFOs outline intended research goals and objectives. Post award, FDA will review and measure performance based on the details and outcomes that are shared within the RPPR, as described at 45 CFR Part 75.301 and 2 CFR Part 200.301.

The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Transparency Act), includes a requirement for recipients of Federal grants to report information about first-tier subawards and executive compensation under Federal assistance awards issued in FY2011 or later. All recipients 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 the threshold. See the HHS Grants Policy Statement for additional information on this reporting requirement.

In accordance with the regulatory requirements provided at 45 CFR 75.113 and 2 CFR Part 200.113 and Appendix XII to 45 CFR Part 75 and 2 CFR Part 200, 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 and 2 CFR Part 200 Award Term and Condition 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: https://www.era.nih.gov/need-help (preferred method of contact)
Telephone: 301-402-7469 or 866-504-9552 (Toll Free)

General Grants Information (Questions regarding application instructions, application processes, and FDA grant resources)
Email: GrantsInfo@nih.gov (preferred method of contact)
Telephone: 301-480-7075

Grants.gov Customer Support (Questions regarding Grants.gov registration and Workspace)
Contact Center Telephone: 800-518-4726
Email: support@grants.gov

Olga Rass

Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER)

Telephone: 240-620-1428

Email: olga.rass@fda.hhs.gov

Kimberly Pendleton

Office of Acquisitions & Grants Services (OAGS)

Food and Drug Administration

Telephone: 240-402-7610

Email: Kimberly.Pendleton@fda.hhs.gov

Kimberly Pendleton

Office of Acquisitions & Grants Services (OAGS)

Food and Drug Administration

Telephone: 240-402-7610

Email: Kimberly.Pendleton@fda.hhs.gov

All awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations described in the HHS Grants Policy Statement, Notice of Award, and 45 CFR 75, currently in effect or implemented during the period of the award, other Department regulations and policies in effect at the time of the award, and applicable statutory provisions.

Awards are made under the authorization of Sections 301 and 405 of the Public Health Service Act as amended (42 USC 241 and 284) and under Federal Regulations 42 CFR Part 52 and 45 CFR Part 75 and 2 CFR Part 200.