Relevant Accomplishments. Describe the group s accomplishments relative to implementing clinical trials according the appropriate situation below:

Currently funded NeuroNEXT sites: Include a report describing the group’s accomplishments relative to participation in NeuroNEXT over the current funding period. This should include: 1) a list of the progress and achievements specific to the application since the previous competitive review; 2) summary of the center’s efficiency in starting new trials; 3) summary of efficiency of enrollment at their center and/or their satellite facilities in ongoing or completed NeuroNEXT trials; 4) description of timeliness and accuracy of data entry into the network data system; 5) description of team contributions of the site PI leadership, participation in network activities, attendance at meetings, etc.; and 6) description of the center s participation in Educational activities as measured by faculty/fellow presentations and participation (per educational core chairs); and 7) description of how the presence of the NeuroNEXT award has facilitated performance in the NeuroNEXT clinical trials and/or NINDS-funded clinical trials, particularly multi-site trials.

New Sites Only: Describe the group’s contributions to the research agenda of its affiliated cooperative groups during the past 3 years (if any). This should include efficiency of starting these trials (e.g., IRB submission, approval, etc.), the timeliness and accuracy of data entry to the trial, and efficiency of enrollment.

2) PD/PI Leadership Plan

The PD/PI should describe, in the Approach section of the Research Strategy, how clinical trials and research at the Clinical Site will be strategically supported by the network Clinical Site PD/PI and coordinator.

As the leader of the site, it is expected that the PD/PI plays a leadership role in some capacity to the community served by the site. The application should describe the leadership role played by PD/PI and other Senior/Key personnel (if applicable) and the impact it would have on the success of their center as well as on the overall network. The application should propose a committed group of multidisciplinary professionals appropriate for its expected clinical trials participation.

3) Collaboration Plan

In the relevant sections, applicants should state their general support of collaborative research and their willingness to participate in a collaborative and interactive manner with other Clinical Sites, the Clinical Coordinating Center, the Data Coordinating Center, and the NINDS and its partners in all aspects of the network program. Applicants are encouraged to describe any special group expertise or unique strengths of the team as a whole they can offer to the collaborative effort (e.g., team leadership and training, protocol adherence strategies, dissemination activities, recruitment strategies). Applicants should describe the potential pool of co-investigators at the site and their area of expertise. The applicant should indicate how co-investigators will be identified, motivated, and integrated into the network, and how the network team will support the co-investigators. A detailed plan must be included on outreach and collaboration with other clinical investigators at the Clinical Site.

4) Recruitment and Outreach Plan

Discuss access to a sufficient number of patients to participate in a wide range of neuroscience clinical trials, making reference to specific, objective sources of data on the size of the available population. This is best demonstrated by showing a table that lists by disease the potential co-investigators and their qualifications, track record and interest, as well as the patient population, e.g., total number of patients with the disease seen annually, number of patients currently participating in trials, number of new patients per year for the last full calendar year. Indicate how outreach into the community, to referring physicians and to patients will take place, what actions and materials will be used to support recruitment of patients, and how patients will be included in the conception, planning and implementation of trials so that a strong partnership between investigators and patients can serve as a foundation for successful trial recruitment and retention.

Patient access may be accomplished by establishing links with other groups (e.g., other health care providers in the community, such as neurology practices, primary care practitioners, pediatricians, local hospitals, rehabilitation centers, patient support groups, and health maintenance organizations) in addition to the applicant’s institution. If links with other groups are anticipated, the application should include a plan with appropriate letters of support (appended in the Letters of Support section of the application) describing (1) how the applicant Clinical Site will link to and operate with the other groups, and (2) how the Clinical Site will monitor the quality of the other group’s performance (screening, and, if applicable, patient recruitment and data collection).

The application should include a brief description of anticipated problems with recruitment and plans for addressing these problems. Note that proposed solutions to recruitment problems may not include requesting additional funds under this FOA.

For sites already in the NeuroNEXT network, a description of the relevant accomplishments in the network, including participation in network committees, is to be included. Details of activities within active studies at the NeuroNEXT site is to be provided in an Appendix (see below).

5) Plan to Optimize Efficiency of the Clinical Research Enterprise at the Site

Describe plans to reduce start up time of new trials by increasing the efficiency of contracting and IRB review through use of standardized master trial agreements and central IRB. Means to monitor and track performance and to increase recruitment and retention should also be described.

The NIH NeuroNEXT has already established and relies on a central IRB and master contract agreement, which are available at https://www.neuronext.org/researchers. Therefore Applicant Institutions must state their intent to commit to the use of a master trial agreement and the central IRB coordinated by the network.

6) Performance Monitoring and Potential Interventions Plan

The application should include a plan for how the PD/PI will monitor performance and collect data on startup, recruitment and retention for new and ongoing NINDS-funded clinical trials at the Site. For current NeuroNEXT centers, detail should be included regarding active and past trials.

7) Research Experience and Career Enhancement Plan Each application must include a program that will provide research experiences and career enhancement opportunities to early stage investigators, selecting one trainee at a time for a maximum of 2 years. Applicants should describe their center's experience in mentoring early stage investigators in neuroscience clinical trials. Applicants should describe their eligible pool of early stage investigators, how applications will be solicited (i.e., only at one institution or include neighboring institutions), who will be on the selection committee, and how the candidates will be selected.

The center must demonstrate a consistent and significant commitment to career enhancement to early stage investigators in clinical trial research.

Letters of support:

• Include Letters of support from potential co-investigators at the Clinical Site, affirming an interest in collaborating with the potential local network site PD/PI and with the network as such, describing their expertise, track record, interest, and access to patient populations. These should be included in the separate Letters of Support section of the application.
• An institutional letter of support from the applicant's departmental and/or institutional leadership: Institutions will be required to document commitment to the PD/PI by providing departmental and institutional support letters, and they are encouraged to demonstrate support via other means (e.g., additional protected time, departmental research leadership position, facilities, space, resources for the PD/PI and/or network center, and how the NeuroNEXT research effort will be given a high priority within the institution (relative to other research efforts and non-NIH supported programs).
• Under Facilities and Other Resources, identify the resources that could be available to support the proposed network Clinical Site, including GCRC or CTSA, facilities for blood and biological specimen processing and storage, research pharmacy services, shared core resources with other networks, repositories, etc. A description of the resource and how the applicant proposes interacting with it should be included, as well as letter of agreement from either the GCRC/CTSA Program Director or PI if applicable.

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:

Do not use the Appendix to circumvent page limits. Follow all instructions for the Appendix as described in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.

The following information is required and should be provided in an appendix:

• A table listing the current and the five most recent multi-center trials that the site has participated in should be included, consisting of the following:
• The complete name of the trial;
• The funding source;
• The name of the site PD/PI;
• The start-up time from award to IRB approval;
• The time from initiation of contract negotiation with lead site to contract executed;
• The time from award to first patient screened;
• The time from award to first patient enrolled;
• The enrollment rate;
• The total number of patients enrolled at the site;
• The accrual ethnic, racial and gender distribution
• The proportion of patients lost to follow-up;
• The number of protocol violations at the site.

For sites already in the NeuroNEXT network, the above should include all active NeuroNEXT trials.

When conducting clinical research, follow all instructions for completing PHS Inclusion Enrollment Report as described in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.

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

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

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

Organizations must submit applications to Grants.gov (the online portal to find and apply for grants across all Federal agencies). Applicants must then complete the submission process by tracking the status of the application in the eRA Commons, NIH’s electronic system for grants administration. NIH and Grants.gov systems check the application against many of the application instructions upon submission. Errors must be corrected and a changed/corrected application must be submitted to Grants.gov on or before the application due date and time. If a Changed/Corrected application is submitted after the deadline, the application will be considered late. Applications that miss the due date and time are subjected to the NIH Policy on Late Application Submission.

Applicants are responsible for viewing their application before the due date in the eRA Commons to ensure accurate and successful submission.

Information on the submission process and a definition of on-time submission are provided in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.

This initiative is not subject to intergovernmental review.

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

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

Applications must be submitted electronically following the instructions described in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide. Paper applications will not be accepted.

Applicants must complete all required registrations before the application due date. Section III. Eligibility Information contains information about registration.

For assistance with your electronic application or for more information on the electronic submission process, visit Applying Electronically. If you encounter a system issue beyond your control that threatens your ability to complete the submission process on-time, you must follow the Guidelines for Applicants Experiencing System Issues. For assistance with application submission, contact the Application Submission Contacts in Section VII.

Important reminders:

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

The applicant organization must ensure that the DUNS number it provides on the application is the same number used in the organization’s profile in the eRA Commons and for the System for Award Management. Additional information may be found in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.

See more tips for avoiding common errors.

Upon receipt, applications will be evaluated for completeness and compliance with application instructions by the Center for Scientific Review and responsiveness by NINDS, NIH. Applications that are incomplete, non-compliant and/or nonresponsive will not be reviewed.

Applicants are required to follow the instructions for post-submission materials, as described in the policy.

Only the review criteria described below will be considered in the review process. As part of the NIH mission, all applications submitted to the NIH in support of biomedical and behavioral research are evaluated for scientific and technical merit through the NIH peer review system.

Reviewers will provide an overall impact score to reflect their assessment of the likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved, in consideration of the following review criteria and additional review criteria (as applicable for the project proposed).

Reviewers will consider each of the review criteria below in the determination of scientific merit, and give a separate score for each. An application does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have major scientific impact. For example, a project that by its nature is not innovative may be essential to advance a field.

Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field? Is there a strong scientific premise for the project? 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?

For currently funded NeuroNEXT site applications, how significant was the involvement and/or contribution to collaborative activities within the network? How successful was the center in starting and enrolling subjects in clinical trials? How committed was the center’s participation in other network activities?

For new site applications, how relevant are the group’s accomplishments in implementing clinical trials in the group’s practice setting to the goals and requirements for the network?

How will the proposed clinical site contribute to the advancement of clinical research and clinical trials within the framework of the network?

• Are the PD(s)/PI(s), collaborators, and other researchers well suited to the project? If Early Stage Investigators or New Investigators, or in the early stages of independent careers, do they have appropriate experience and training? If established, have they demonstrated an ongoing record of accomplishments that have advanced their field(s)? If the project is collaborative or multi-PD/PI, do the investigators have complementary and integrated expertise; are their leadership approach, governance and organizational structure appropriate for the project?
• How adequate is the experience of the applicants team in conducting clinical trials and working together as a group in implementing clinical trials? Is the overall team of professionals participating in the site group appropriate and adequate to achieve the goals and aim of the program?
• Are the qualifications, training, and experience of the PD/PI appropriate for organizing and managing a research program that includes accrual to network-approved trials as well as design and development of clinical trial protocols and research applications? Has the PD/PI demonstrated effective leadership abilities in the community served by the center and/or to the affiliated sites? Have other Key/Senior personnel taken on leadership roles that contribute to the success of the site and/or the research agenda of the affiliated spokes?
• Does the PD/PI have a track record of working collaboratively? Does the PD/PI have a track record in successfully implementing clinical trials? Is there evidence of experience in and willingness to participate appropriately in a collaborative program as described in this FOA? Is the investigator willing and likely sufficiently available to participate in network-wide teleconferences, and SC working groups?

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?

Is the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the 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? How appropriate is the planned organizational structure to accomplishing the proposed research activities?

If the project involves human subjects and/or NIH-defined clinical research, are the plans to address 1) the protection of human subjects from research risks, and 2) inclusion (or exclusion) of individuals on the basis of sex/gender, race, and ethnicity, as well as the inclusion or exclusion of children, justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed?

Are the site’s plans for implementing network-approved clinical trials well thought out and appropriate for the group’s structure and capacity? Does the application provide evidence that they will establish (new sites) or have established (existing sites) standardized master trial agreements with the network? Are the recruitment/retention plans and outreach plans adequately described and a rationale provided for the likely effectiveness of the plan?

How effective is the existing site group (or new group applicants) in engaging the community served?

Are interactions/communications between investigators at the site and the community (e.g., referring physicians and patient populations) clearly described and creatively optimized? Does the investigator have adequate plans to recruit patients with a variety of neurological disorders and with diverse gender/minority representation, as well as plans for human subjects' protection, good clinical practices (GCP)? Is there a track record of patient recruitment and compliance in active or past studies?

Is the career enhancement plan adequate? Does the proposed career development plan describe how promising candidates for independent careers (academic, industrial, governmental) in

translational and clinical research will be recruited and selected? Does the proposed plan address

how the investigators will seek out and include qualified women and minorities for participation in

the proposed training program?

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?

• Is there adequate evidence of institutional and departmental commitment to the PD/PI (e.g., additional protected time, departmental research leadership position, facilities, space, or resources for the PD/PI and/or CS)?
• Based on data provided from the current and five most recently completed clinical trials at the site (existing sites must include most recent NeuroNEXT trials, or all NeuroNEXT trials participated in if fewer than five), is there evidence to support efficient trial-start up, availability of appropriate patient populations, and success in recruitment, especially with respect to gender and minority recruitment?
• Does the structure appear realistic and is there adequate institutional commitment?
• Are there supporting documents from participating institutions? Are the available facilities, laboratories, in-patient and outpatient resources, and space for administrative activities adequate to support the proposed research activities?

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 six categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46, the committee will evaluate the justification for involvement of human subjects and the proposed protections from research risk relating to their participation according to the following five review criteria: 1) risk to subjects, 2) adequacy of protection against risks, 3) potential benefits to the subjects and others, 4) importance of the knowledge to be gained, and 5) data and safety monitoring for clinical trials.

For research that involves human subjects and meets the criteria for one or more of the six categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46, the committee will evaluate: 1) the justification for the exemption, 2) human subjects involvement and characteristics, and 3) sources of materials. For additional information on review of the Human Subjects section, please refer to the Guidelines for the Review of Human Subjects.

When the proposed project involves human subjects and/or NIH-defined clinical research, the committee will evaluate the proposed plans for the inclusion (or exclusion) of individuals on the basis of sex/gender, race, and ethnicity, as well as the inclusion (or exclusion) of children 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

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.

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 Scientific Review Group(s) convened by the NINDS Review Branch, in accordance with NIH peer review policy and procedures, using the stated review criteria. Assignment to a Scientific Review Group will be shown in the eRA Commons.

As part of the scientific peer review, all applications:

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

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

Applications will be assigned to the appropriate NIH Institute or Center. Applications will compete for available funds with all other recommended applications submitted in response to this FOA. Following initial peer review, recommended applications will receive a second level of review by the NINDS Advisory Council. 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.
• Agreement to accept the Cooperative Agreement Terms and Conditions of Award delineated in this FOA (see Section VI.2.A);
• Geographic balance of Clinical Center awardees;
• Access to pediatric and/or adult patient populations with a wide range of neurological disorders;
• Diversity of study populations among Clinical Center awardees, as well as balance between pediatric and adult populations, and access to minority populations.

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

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

If the application is under consideration for funding, NIH will request "just-in-time" information from the applicant as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.

A formal notification in the form of a Notice of Award (NoA) will be provided to the applicant organization for successful applications. The NoA signed by the grants management officer is the authorizing document and will be sent via email to the grantee’s business official.

Awardees must comply with any funding restrictions described in Section IV.5. Funding Restrictions. Selection of an application for award is not an authorization to begin performance. Any costs incurred before receipt of the NoA are at the recipient's risk. These costs may be reimbursed only to the extent considered allowable pre-award costs.

Any application awarded in response to this FOA will be subject to terms and conditions found on the Award Conditions and Information for NIH Grants website. This includes any recent legislation and policy applicable to awards that is highlighted on this website.

All NIH grant and cooperative agreement awards include the NIH Grants Policy Statement as part of the NoA. For these terms of award, see the NIH Grants Policy Statement Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart A: General and Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart B: Terms and Conditions for Specific Types of Grants, Grantees, and Activities. More information is provided at Award Conditions and Information for NIH Grants.

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

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

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

Cooperative Agreement Terms and Conditions of Award

The following special terms of award are in addition to, and not in lieu of, otherwise applicable U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) administrative guidelines, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) grant administration regulations at 45 CFR Parts 75, and other HHS, PHS, and NIH grant administration policies.

The administrative and funding instrument used for this program will be the cooperative agreement, an "assistance" mechanism (rather than an "acquisition" mechanism), in which substantial NIH programmatic involvement with the awardees is anticipated during the performance of the activities. Under the cooperative agreement, the NIH purpose is to support and stimulate the recipients' activities by involvement in and otherwise working jointly with the award recipients in a partnership role; it is not to assume direction, prime responsibility, or a dominant role in the activities. Consistent with this concept, the dominant role and prime responsibility resides with the awardees for the project as a whole, although specific tasks and activities may be shared among the awardees and the NIH as defined below.

The PD(s)/PI(s) will have the primary responsibility for:

• Trial participant safety, implementation of network protocols in accordance with GCP and other regulatory requirements, participant recruitment and retention, reporting to the NINDS, NCC, DMC, and DSMB.
• 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 DHHS, PHS, and NIH policies.
• Center PDs/PIs will be expected to serve on NEC working groups established as-needed and charged with tasks such as the development of protocols, submission of clinical trial applications to NINDS for review, publication guidelines, quality assurance monitoring, etc.
• The center PD/PI and coordinator are expected to participate in all network teleconferences and investigator meetings. They are also expected to assist the network NEC in deciding how peer-reviewed research and trial proposals will be selected and prioritized for implementation through the network.

NIH staff have substantial programmatic involvement that is above and beyond the normal stewardship role in awards, as described below:

• The NINDS staff working with the network investigators will develop performance milestones for centers. Failure to meet the agreed upon milestones may result in reduced funding or early termination of the cooperative agreement.
• An NINDS Project Scientist will have substantial programmatic involvement that is above and beyond the normal stewardship role in awards, as described below.
• In addition to the Project Scientist, an NINDS Program Official will be responsible for the normal scientific and programmatic stewardship of the award and will be named in the award notice.
• A separate NINDS Program Official, from the Office of Clinical Research, will serve as the NINDS liaison to the Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB).
• If the proposed trial should require that FDA issue an IND/IDE, the NINDS Project Scientist and/or Program Official(s) will be present at any meetings held with the FDA related to this NIH-funded protocol.

Areas of Joint Responsibility include:

None; all responsibilities are divided between awardees and NIH staff as described above.

Dispute Resolution:

Any disagreements that may arise in scientific or programmatic matters (within the scope of the award) between award recipients and the NIH may be brought to Dispute Resolution. A Dispute Resolution Panel composed of three members will be convened. It will have three members: a designee of the Steering Committee chosen without NIH staff voting, one NIH designee, and a third designee with expertise in the relevant area who is chosen by the other two; in the case of individual disagreement, the first member may be chosen by the individual awardee. This special dispute resolution procedure does not alter the awardee's right to appeal an adverse action that is otherwise appealable in accordance with PHS regulation 42 CFR Part 50, Subpart D and DHHS regulation 45 CFR Part 16.

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 NIH 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 NIH Grants Policy Statement.

The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Transparency Act), includes a requirement for awardees of Federal grants to report information about first-tier subawards and executive compensation under Federal assistance awards issued in FY2011 or later. All awardees of applicable NIH grants and cooperative agreements are required to report to the Federal Subaward Reporting System (FSRS) available at www.fsrs.gov on all subawards over $25,000. See the NIH Grants Policy Statement for additional information on this reporting requirement.

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

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 registration, submitting and tracking an application, documenting system problems that threaten submission by the due date, 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 submission, downloading forms and application packages)
Contact Center Telephone: 800-518-4726
Email: support@grants.gov

GrantsInfo (Questions regarding application instructions and process, finding NIH grant resources)
Email: GrantsInfo@nih.gov (preferred method of contact)
Telephone: 301-945-7573

Codrin Lungu, MD
National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS)
Telephone: 301-496-9135
Email: lunguci@ninds.nih.gov

Chief, Scientific Review Branch
National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS)
Telephone: 301-496-9223
Email: nindsreview.nih.gov@mail.nih.gov

Tijuanna DeCoster, PhD
National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS)
Telephone: 301-496-9231
Email: decostert@mail.nih.gov

Recently issued trans-NIH policy notices may affect your application submission. A full list of policy notices published by NIH is provided in the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts. All awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.

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