Page History
...
Some of the more common characteristics of a contractor relationship include when the non-Federal entity: (1) provides goods and services within normal business operations; (2) provides similar goods or services to many different purchasers; (3) operates in a competitive environment; (4) provides goods or services that are ancillary to the operations of the Federal program; and (5) is not subject to compliance requirements of the Federal program. Some additional characteristics (in reference to research projects) of a contractor relationship include, but are not limited to, when: (1) the entity has provided little or no independent decision-making in the design and conduct of the research being completed; (2) the entity commits to deliverable goods or services, which if not satisfactorily completed will result in no payment; (3) the entity does not expect to have its employees credited as co-authors on papers or publications that result from the research; and (4) the work will not result in any potential patentable or copyrightable products.
...
What additional requirements does the pass-through entity
...
have in regards to its subrecipients?
§ 200.331 lists the various requirements that pass-thru entities have in regards to subrecipients.
Am I required to complete a Risk Assessment on both subrecipients and contractors before issuing the award?
§ 200.331(b) requires all pass-through entities to evaluate each subrecipient's risk of noncompliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward for the purposes of determining the appropriate monitoring needed to ensure that Federal funds are used properly. Pass-through entities are not required to complete a risk assessment on contractors.
Is the pass-through entity required to complete the subrecipient risk assessment prior to issuing the subaward or disbursing funds to the subrecipient?
§ 200.331(b) requires pass-through entities to evaluate each subrecipient's risk, but does not specify that the risk assessment must be done prior to issuing the subaward or the subsequent disbursement of funds. COFAR addressed this question in its FAQs (updated July 2017). Their response is: "No. While section § 200.331(b) requires risk assessments of subrecipients, there is no requirement for pass-through entities to perform these assessments before making subawards. Under the Uniform Guidance, the purpose of these risk assessments is for pass-through entities to determine appropriate subrecipient monitoring. Pass-through entities may use judgement regarding the most appropriate timing for these assessments. Regardless of the timing chosen, the pass-through entity should document its procedures for assessing risk. § 200.331(b)(1-4) includes factors that a pass-through entity may consider when assessing subrecipient risk. While § 200.205 imposes requirements for a Federal awarding agency to review the risk posed by applicants prior to making a Federal award, there are no corresponding requirements for a pass-through entity; however, it is a best practice for pass-through entities to evaluate risk prior to making a subaward."
Can you provide an example of a scenario where a pass-through entity enters into a relationship with a subrecipient?
Scenario #1: A state fish and wildlife agency receives a Sport Fish Restoration grant to study the effects of stocking white crappie into a large flood control reservoir in terms of bolstering the population in order to improve abundance for recreational fishing. The state fish and wildlife
...
Scenario #1: A state fish and wildlife agency receives a Sport Fish Restoration grant to study the effects of stocking white crappie into a large flood control reservoir in terms of bolstering the population in order to improve abundance for recreational fishing. The state fish and wildlife agency in turn enters into a relationship with a local university to conduct the research as approved in the grant application. Under this scenario, the state fish and wildlife agency acts as the pass-through entity and the university becomes the subrecipient. A subrecipient determination would be adequate in this scenario because the university (1) has its performance measured against whether the objectives of the Federal program at met; (2) most likely has responsibility for programmatic decision making; (3) has responsibility for adherence to applicable Federal compliance requirements; and (4) uses the Federal funds to carry out a program of the organization as compared to simply providing goods or services.
Scenario #2: A state environmental protection agency has been designated by the governor to be the state agency to receive Clean Vessel Act (CVA) program funding. The state agency receives a Clean Vessel Act grant to construct marine sewage pumpout facilities at public lakes across the state. The state agency enters into an agreement with a private marina to construct a marine sewage pumpout facility that will be open and available to the boating public. The pumpout facility will safely accept and remove marine sewage from recreational vessels. Under this scenario, the state environmental protection agency acts as the pass-through entity and the private marina owner becomes the subrecipient. This subrecipient determination would be adequate because the private marina (1) has its performance measured against whether the objectives of the Federal program are met; (2) has responsibility for programmatic decision making; (3) has responsibility for adherence to applicable Federal compliance requirements; and (4) uses the Federal funds to carry out a program of the organization as compared to simply providing goods or services.
Can you provide an example of a WSFR scenario where a pass-through entity enters into a relationship with a contractor?
Scenario #1: A state fish and wildlife agency receives a Wildlife Restoration grant for annual operations and maintenance of its wildlife management areas and facilities located at the areas. The state fish and wildlife agency determines that a new roof is needed on one of its regional wildlife offices located at one of the wildlife management areas. The state agency in turn enters into a relationship with a local business to remove the existing roof and replace with a new roofuniversity to conduct the research as approved in the grant application. Under this scenario, the state fish and wildlife agency acts as the nonpass-Federal through entity and the local roofing business university becomes the contractorsubrecipient. A contractor subrecipient determination would be adequate in this scenario because the local roofing business university (1) provides goods or services within normal business operations; (2) provides similar goods or services to many different purchasers; (3) operates in a competitive environment; (4) provides good or services that are ancillary to the operation of the Federal program; and (5) is not subject to compliance requirements of the Federal programhas its performance measured against whether the objectives of the Federal program at met; (2) most likely has responsibility for programmatic decision making; (3) has responsibility for adherence to applicable Federal compliance requirements; and (4) uses the Federal funds to carry out a program of the organization as compared to simply providing goods or services.
Scenario #2: A state fish and wildlife agency receives a Sport Fish Restoration grant to sample, monitor, and manage 50 public recreational sport fisheries across the state. Included in the grant, the state agency requests to purchase five new vehicles and two new electrofishing boats from private businessesenvironmental protection agency has been designated by the governor to be the state agency to receive Clean Vessel Act (CVA) program funding. The state agency receives a Clean Vessel Act grant to construct marine sewage pumpout facilities at public lakes across the state. The state agency enters into an agreement with a private marina to construct a marine sewage pumpout facility that will be open and available to the boating public. The pumpout facility will safely accept and remove marine sewage from recreational vessels. Under this scenario, the state fish and wildlife environmental protection agency acts as the nonpass-Federal through entity , while both the vehicle dealership and the electrofishing boat manufacturer become contractors, respectively. A contractor and the private marina owner becomes the subrecipient. This subrecipient determination would be adequate in this scenario because both entities are (a) providing goods and services within normal business operations; (2) providing similar goods or services to many different purchasers; (3) operating in a competitive environment; (4) providing goods or services that are ancillary to the operation of the Federal program; and (5) not subject to compliance requirements of the Federal program.because the private marina (1) has its performance measured against whether the objectives of the Federal program are met; (2) has responsibility for programmatic decision making; (3) has responsibility for adherence to applicable Federal compliance requirements; and (4) uses the Federal funds to carry out a program of the organization as compared to simply providing goods or services.
Can you provide an example of a scenario where a pass-through entity enters into a relationship with a contractor?
Scenario #1Scenario #3: A state fish and wildlife agency receives a Sport Fish Wildlife Restoration grant to compare growth, mortality, and recruitment of northern-strain vs Florida-strain largemouth bass in Lake Bobberfor annual operations and maintenance of its wildlife management areas and facilities located at the areas. The state fish and wildlife agency will use its internal research biologist staff to conduct the research. However, they do not have the equipment and expertise to run the genetic samples from all largemouth bass collected. They enter into a relationship with a university that will perform the genetic testing of samples to determine which largemouth bass are northern-strain vs Florida-strain. Once completed, the university will provide the results back to the state fish and wildlife agency staff who will in turn then perform the data analysis and develop the final report. Under this scenario, the state fish and wildlife agency determines that a new roof is needed on one of its regional wildlife offices located at one of the wildlife management areas. The state agency in turn enters into a relationship with a local business to remove the existing roof and replace with a new roof. Under this scenario, the state fish and wildlife agency acts as the non-Federal entity and the university acts as a the local roofing business becomes the contractor. A contractor determination is appropriate would be adequate in this scenario because the university is local roofing business (1) providing provides goods or services within normal business operations; (2) providing provides similar goods and or services to many different purchasers; (3) providing goods operates in a competitive environment; (4) provides good or services that are ancillary to the operation of the Federal program; and (45) is not subject to compliance .
What additional requirements does the pass-through entity have in regards to its subrecipients?
§ 200.331 lists the various requirements that pass-thru entities have in regards to subrecipients.
Am I required to complete a Risk Assessment on both subrecipients and contractors before issuing the award?
§ 200.331(b) requires all pass-through entities to evaluate each subrecipient's risk of noncompliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward for the purposes of determining the appropriate monitoring needed to ensure that Federal funds are used properly. Pass-through entities are not required to complete a risk assessment on contractors.
Is the pass-through entity required to complete the subrecipient risk assessment prior to issuing the subaward or disbursing funds to the subrecipient?
requirements of the Federal program.
Scenario #2: A state fish and wildlife agency receives a Sport Fish Restoration grant to sample, monitor, and manage 50 public recreational sport fisheries across the state. Included in the grant, the state agency requests to purchase five new vehicles and two new electrofishing boats from private businesses. Under this scenario, the state fish and wildlife agency acts as the non-Federal entity, while both the vehicle dealership and the electrofishing boat manufacturer become contractors, respectively. A contractor determination would be adequate in this scenario because both entities are (a) providing goods and services within normal business operations; (2) providing similar goods or services to many different purchasers; (3) operating in a competitive environment; (4) providing goods or services that are ancillary to the operation of the Federal program; and (5) not subject to compliance requirements of the Federal program.
Scenario #3: A state fish and wildlife agency receives a Sport Fish Restoration grant to compare growth, mortality, and recruitment of northern-strain vs Florida-strain largemouth bass in Lake Bobber. The state fish and wildlife agency will use its internal research biologist staff to conduct the research. However, they do not have the equipment and expertise to run the genetic samples from all largemouth bass collected. They enter into a relationship with a university that will perform the genetic testing of samples to determine which largemouth bass are northern-strain vs Florida-strain. Once completed, the university will provide the results back to the state fish and wildlife agency staff who will in turn then perform the data analysis and develop the final report. Under this scenario, the state fish and wildlife agency acts as the non-Federal entity and the university acts as a contractor. A contractor determination is appropriate because the university is (1) providing goods or services within normal business operations; (2) providing similar goods and services to many different purchasers; (3) providing goods or services that are ancillary to the operation of the Federal program; and (4) not subject to compliance.
§ 200.331(b) requires pass-through entities to evaluate each subrecipient's risk, but does not specify that the risk assessment must be done prior to issuing the subaward or the subsequent disbursement of funds. COFAR addressed this question in its FAQs (updated July 2017). Their response is: "No. While section § 200.331(b) requires risk assessments of subrecipients, there is no requirement for pass-through entities to perform these assessments before making subawards. Under the Uniform Guidance, the purpose of these risk assessments is for pass-through entities to determine appropriate subrecipient monitoring. Pass-through entities may use judgement regarding the most appropriate timing for these assessments. Regardless of the timing chosen, the pass-through entity should document its procedures for assessing risk. § 200.331(b)(1-4) includes factors that a pass-through entity may consider when assessing subrecipient risk. While § 200.205 imposes requirements for a Federal awarding agency to review the risk posed by applicants prior to making a Federal award, there are no corresponding requirements for a pass-through entity; however, it is a best practice for pass-through entities to evaluate risk prior to making a subaward."
Learning Aids
...
Related Pages
...
