Post in External Company buys the core an instrument - Free usage forever?: Core Administrators Network Forum: ABRF Discussion Forums

I would be game for this as long as it is in the core's roadmap and not a way to foist an instrument on the core. At NU, we would just make sure that anytime a core wants to charge an external rate that is below 2x the actual cost to deliver services, the units that provide operational support provide consent. This is to avoid using school funds to subsidize external work. The 2X number ensures that all UBI is collected and that it is not cheaper for companies to use facilities on a fee for service than to go through a grant which would receive F&A costs. With a sizable equipment donation, I am sure that would not be an issue. Andy Director of Core Facilities Administration Office for Research ph: 847-467-1622 ph: 847-491-3032 email: <email obscured>

-----Original Message----- From: Core Administrators Network Forum <email obscured>> On Behalf Of Andrew Chitty Sent: Friday, November 13, 2020 8:23 PM To: <email obscured> Subject: Re: [core administrators network forum] Re: External Company buys the core an instrument - Free usage forever? Hello, Most cores charge internal and external rates for their services, of course. I'm wondering what you all think about the following scenario: Assuming someone wanted to go through with obtaining the instrument in collaboration with an external company, could they then offer the company a reduced rate to the company for the services. The rate would still need to be at or above the internal rate, but it could be below the rate normally set for the external commercial entities. My understanding is that would still be in compliance with federal guidelines, but also might incentivize the partnership with the commercial entity. Andy Chitty On 11/10/20, 10:21 AM, "Core Administrators Network Forum on behalf of Meyn, Susan M" <email obscured> on behalf of <email obscured>> wrote: I am in complete agreement with Julie’s comprehensive response! Susan > On Nov 10, 2020, at 12:18 PM, Julie A Auger <email obscured>> wrote: > > Hi Matt - > > My initial opinion is that the external company must pay to access the technology. There are multiple principles that make me lean that way. > > In general: > > 1. The company is essentially giving you equipment but asking you to “repay” them by not charging them for normal service fees. This feels more like a cash loan to purchase equipment with the repayment being made by “lost revenue” for you. > 2. Is this equipment important enough to your internal user base to make it worth considering? (I have no understanding of your market analysis.) > > Rates: > > 1. I assume your normal rates include the direct costs of providing the service including staff salaries, reagents, maintenance costs (service contract or self-funded repairs). Ownership of the equipment does not pay salaries. > 2. I assume your rates DO NOT include University costs of housing the technology including electricity, administration and other routine F&A costs. Ownership of the equipment actually increases university costs. > 3. Would the rates for use of the new technology include instrument depreciation? If so, you could exempt the company from paying depreciation (just like is done for equipment purchased on federal grants) but they should still pay the remainder of the other components that make up the rate. > 4. If the company does not pay for non-equipment fixed costs, those costs get spread across the university users of the new equipment resulting in those users paying the external company’s share of the fixed costs. > > Mission: > > 1. The university, not the company, must bear the long-term risk of owning the technology including maintenance, use of space, eventual disposal. If the campus user base does not embrace the technology or it is too expensive for them to use (not everyone needs a Lamborghini), you bear the burden of keeping it. > 2. Is the University is a public or private institution? Policies for public universities may be more restrictive with regard to a focus on efforts to assist for-profit companies in making money. > > > > Please do ask if this raises more questions than answers. It was a bit of a stream-of-consciousness response for me. ☺ > > All the best, > > Julie > > > > > > On 11/10/20, 8:10 AM, "Core Administrators Network Forum on behalf of Matt DeVries" <email obscured> on behalf of <email obscured>> wrote: > > > > This is an odd scneario I'm having a hard time getting my head around. > > > > Scenario: > > An external for profit company wants access to the expertise and resources of a University's core facility, however they need the work done on a specific instrument the core does not currently have. The company purchases the instrument and gives it to the core/university. The core then assumes operating costs and staffing needs for it. Core is free to roll excess capacity into their normal operation. > > > > Should the company get free access to that instrument until the original purchase cost is paid for, or should they get free access to that instrument forever? > > > > Does the scenario change if the company retains ownership of the instrument but keeps it on core property? --Matt > > ―― > > View topic https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http*3A*2F*2Flist.abrf.org*2Fr*2Ftopic*2F36bvKxLSVsO2wqTNp94x7N&data=04*7C01*7Cs.meyn*40vumc.org*7C00b7e104370041a391d008d885a4f51e*7Cef57503014244ed8b83c12c533d879ab*7C0*7C0*7C637406290828174329*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C1000&sdata=cyQMSWneW4htIVawrFpqOLjA5AyBbuCS9Xwm4UOZqWc*3D&reserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJQ!!Dq0X2DkFhyF93HkjWTBQKhk!CtsDFoFgOthiDy_MuHUL8OTeIHqJwUG14c6zKYevfotWltkr5KfjaTJq9nkgczLjdEqg$ > > Leave group <email obscured>?Subject=Unsubscribe > > > > > > ―― > View topic https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http*3A*2F*2Flist.abrf.org*2Fr*2Ftopic*2F6eVoI0PydT7iXwnPmrTdL8&data=04*7C01*7Cs.meyn*40vumc.org*7C00b7e104370041a391d008d885a4f51e*7Cef57503014244ed8b83c12c533d879ab*7C0*7C0*7C637406290828174329*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C1000&sdata=EnAAdVNB2Awr*2FLTV7Znc6CEpkI53LpTDy97SbKmoVLk*3D&reserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSU!!Dq0X2DkFhyF93HkjWTBQKhk!CtsDFoFgOthiDy_MuHUL8OTeIHqJwUG14c6zKYevfotWltkr5KfjaTJq9nkgcxSHIxVV$ > Leave group <email obscured>?Subject=Unsubscribe > > [ WARNING : This email came from an external source. Please treat this message with additional caution.] ―― View topic https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://list.abrf.org/r/topic/4yb4ZeYgFrb7tPvjdtsSTK__;!!Dq0X2DkFhyF93HkjWTBQKhk!CtsDFoFgOthiDy_MuHUL8OTeIHqJwUG14c6zKYevfotWltkr5KfjaTJq9nkgcxBkaA5z$ Leave group <email obscured>?Subject=Unsubscribe ―― View topic https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://list.abrf.org/r/topic/3JX0Vi4UrUIm7ttg0loDKE__;!!Dq0X2DkFhyF93HkjWTBQKhk!CtsDFoFgOthiDy_MuHUL8OTeIHqJwUG14c6zKYevfotWltkr5KfjaTJq9nkgcyBwSnSd$ Leave group <email obscured>?Subject=Unsubscribe