Posts in Core Administrators Network Forum

1.  Do you consider labware processing (and its associated footprint) a
direct or indirect cost for your institution? DIRECT
  2.  Does your institution offer centralized glassware processing or do
investigators wash their own? Or, potentially, a combination of both? BOTH BUT
INCREASINGLY THROUGH CENTRALIZED FACILITY AS WE DO NOT INCLUDE GLASSWASHING
EQUIPMENT IN NEW CONSTRUCTION OR RENOVATION.
  3.  Are the costs for your glassware processing service fully recovered or
subsidized by your institution? If subsidized; by what percentage? SUBSIDIZED
AT 50%.

Amy Wilkerson
Associate Vice President, Research Support
The Rockefeller University
<email obscured>

-----Original Message-----
From: Core Administrators Network Forum <email obscured>] On Behalf
Of <email obscured>
Sent: Monday, October 07, 2019 9:42 AM
To: <email obscured>
Subject: [core administrators network forum] Glassware Washing Service

Hi All,

Our institution is currently in the process of deciding whether or not to
retain personalized glassware washing services for investigators. Currently, we
offer full service glassware processing including pickup/delivery, custom
processes, and sterilization. Due to high costs we are looking into alternative
options such as 'drop-off/pickup' or lab self-service .

How do you handle Glassware washing at your institution?  We would greatly
appreciate it if you could answer a few of our burning questions below.


  1.  Do you consider labware processing (and its associated footprint) a
direct or indirect cost for your institution?
  2.  Does your institution offer centralized glassware processing or do
investigators wash their own? Or, potentially, a combination of both?
  3.  Are the costs for your glassware processing service fully recovered or
subsidized by your institution? If subsidized; by what percentage?

Your insights are greatly appreciated.

Thank You,
John



=====================================================================

     Please note that this e-mail and any files transmitted from
     Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center may be privileged, confidential,
     and protected from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of
     this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent
     responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient,
     you are hereby notified that any reading, dissemination, distribution,
     copying, or other use of this communication or any of its attachments
     is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communication in
     error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message
     and deleting this message, any attachments, and all copies and backups
     from your computer.

――
View topic
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__list.abrf.org_r_topic_2HI22K6aE3lxlYelKHc1mE&d=DwIFaQ&c=JeTkUgVztGMmhKYjxsy2rfoWYibK1YmxXez1G3oNStg&r=pGr2uj4Tf53enqopgXzWO22Pusp4fN0IUoqy05DxNos&m=Ls435RkLZ2Sg0NFtYCfmiYnD0RmH7b34NmCPT0C--pc&s=_gNLKC0lDiyqfuS0kt0oPI0cafSoH45thEvVOOgAgOM&e=
Leave group <email obscured>?Subject=Unsubscribe

We had several instruments that required configuration changes and rates built
on changing the configuration every other week. If someone wanted to change the
configuration out of schedule, we would pass the cost of the extra staff time
onto the user so that the rest of our users did not have to subsidize the
non-standard activity.

If a faculty member needs to prioritize analysis of a standard sample for a
conference or publication, I just ask the PI to make the request to me directly
as the students were declaring everything to be a high priority sample. In
those cases, we charge the same amount since it is the same amount of work. We
rarely need to expedite samples under this model, but when we do, the faculty
are very thankful.

Andy

Director of Core Facilities
Office for Research

ph: 847-491-3032
email: <email obscured>


Director, Integrated Molecular Structure Education and Research Center (IMSERC)

ph: 847-467-1622
email: <email obscured>

-----Original Message-----
From: Core Administrators Network Forum <email obscured>> On Behalf Of
Hendrickson, William G
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2019 2:32 PM
To: <email obscured>
Subject: Re: [core administrators network forum] Expedited projects: Okay to
charge extra?

We would never do rush jobs if they caused loss of regular business.  However,
increased cost due to doing things out of normal, efficient sequence is not
hard to justify.  Increased labor having someone come in early to start
samples, doing fewer samples in a batch, etc.

William Hendrickson


> On Sep 23, 2019, at 3:20 PM, <email obscured>" <email obscured>> wrote:
>
> Funny timing!  I was just reviewing this section as well for the purposes of
determining rush pricing compliance.
>
> My takeaway is that rush pricing is allowed as long as the methodology is
well documented and applied consistently for all users.  I feel this is
included in the differential pricing "other factors" category.
>
> In cost accounting for this section I am planning to support my calculations
by assuming bumping non-rush jobs back in the queue will result in lost
business and potential over-time expense in the lab. As such, the premium is
justified.
>
> As long as this is applied consistently I doubt it would receive any
scrutiny.
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
> _______________________
> John Rocco Langone
> Core Facilities Operations  Business Manager Memorial Sloan Kettering
> Cancer Center
>
> ph. 646-888-3892
> c. 646-831-3071
> e. <email obscured>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Core Administrators Network Forum <email obscured>> On
> Behalf Of Amy Wilkerson
> Sent: Monday, September 23, 2019 3:05 PM
> To: CAN-CC <email obscured>) <email obscured>>
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [core administrators network forum] Expedited projects:
Okay to charge extra?
>
> I am wondering if anyone has interpreted this NIH FAQ (see below) as allowing
cores to assess an extra expedited fee for services that are provided on a
higher-priority basis.  If yes, I would appreciate a chance to discuss that
interpretation with you.  If folks feel strongly that expedited fees are
prohibited, I am interested in that interpretation as well.
> Regards,
> Amy
>
>
> d. Are there any circumstances when one federally-supported project may be
charged a reduced or discounted rate compared to another?
>
> Except for the example provided above (FAQ 4.c.), rates used to charge the
cost of the service must be charged to internal institutional users, on a
consistent basis, regardless of funding source(s). Billing rates should not
discriminate between federal and non-federal users, including internal
institutional activities. The schedule of rates will apply to all users of the
core facility on the basis of actual utilization and cannot discriminate
against any one segment of the population. However, institutions may consider
differential pricing for large quantity purchases, high-volume usage, off-peak
usage or other factors. A core may have multiple rates for the same service
when those rates are properly established, consistent with applicable Federal
cost principles, and the favorable rates are available to all users that meet
established criteria.
>
>
> Amy Wilkerson
> Associate Vice President, Research Support The Rockefeller University
> 1230 York Avenue, Box 217
> New York, NY 10065-6399
> (212)327-7110 fax (212)327-7688
> <email obscured>
>
>
> ――
> View topic
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__list.abrf.org_r_to
> pic_HPTzemeEPwsNUmGBGvF87&d=DwIFaQ&c=yHlS04HhBraes5BQ9ueu5zKhE7rtNXt_d
> 012z2PA6ws&r=vKap9hE9GfJuU5LYbpiSTthcnp57o5d7cb6Jh9jqt1o&m=whSBLvfoWoV
> IQ_31GyQJCofrvRIXnRpipdpabu2mwHY&s=rj6q1BSsfvLKsJLYyXMCBAqvf9Ewn0NUNo7
> k86Vwkbs&e= Leave group <email obscured>?Subject=Unsubscribe
>
>
>
>
> *** Only open attachments or links from trusted senders. Report
> phishing to <email obscured> ***
>
> =====================================================================
>
>     Please note that this e-mail and any files transmitted from
>     Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center may be privileged, confidential,
>     and protected from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of
>     this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent
>     responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient,
>     you are hereby notified that any reading, dissemination, distribution,
>     copying, or other use of this communication or any of its attachments
>     is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communication in
>     error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message
>     and deleting this message, any attachments, and all copies and backups
>     from your computer.
>
> ――
> View topic
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__list.abrf.org_r_to
> pic_5GPLyqQ9CiRxgmvSK4Lagp&d=DwIFaQ&c=yHlS04HhBraes5BQ9ueu5zKhE7rtNXt_
> d012z2PA6ws&r=vKap9hE9GfJuU5LYbpiSTthcnp57o5d7cb6Jh9jqt1o&m=whSBLvfoWo
> VIQ_31GyQJCofrvRIXnRpipdpabu2mwHY&s=9jCHaQLTl2vhjhXQUWqCb0puDuFQnCZsd4
> _w3QFB8PI&e= Leave group
> <email obscured>?Subject=Unsubscribe
>

――
View topic
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__list.abrf.org_r_topic_1DTPi0aWoiEJ2bmWioJ6lG&d=DwIFaQ&c=yHlS04HhBraes5BQ9ueu5zKhE7rtNXt_d012z2PA6ws&r=vKap9hE9GfJuU5LYbpiSTthcnp57o5d7cb6Jh9jqt1o&m=whSBLvfoWoVIQ_31GyQJCofrvRIXnRpipdpabu2mwHY&s=y0AJPXfY7GD8SyLS__AoDL_0KJWfpXOD4QU-hgopxgI&e=
Leave group <email obscured>?Subject=Unsubscribe

I am in agreement with Sheenah's approach.  As long as the service of
"expedition" is available to all user equitably, I feel it is consistent with
the guidelines.

All the best,
Julie

On 9/23/19, 12:20 PM, "Core Administrators Network Forum on behalf of
<email obscured>" <email obscured> on behalf of <email obscured>>
wrote:

    Funny timing!  I was just reviewing this section as well for the purposes
of determining rush pricing compliance.

    My takeaway is that rush pricing is allowed as long as the methodology is
well documented and applied consistently for all users.  I feel this is
included in the differential pricing "other factors" category.

    In cost accounting for this section I am planning to support my
calculations by assuming bumping non-rush jobs back in the queue will result in
lost business and potential over-time expense in the lab. As such, the premium
is justified.

    As long as this is applied consistently I doubt it would receive any
scrutiny.

    Thanks,
    John

    _______________________
    John Rocco Langone
    Core Facilities Operations  Business Manager
    Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center

    ph. 646-888-3892
    c. 646-831-3071
    e. <email obscured>


    -----Original Message-----
    From: Core Administrators Network Forum <email obscured>> On Behalf Of
Amy Wilkerson
    Sent: Monday, September 23, 2019 3:05 PM
    To: CAN-CC <email obscured>) <email obscured>>
    Subject: [EXTERNAL] [core administrators network forum] Expedited projects:
Okay to charge extra?

    I am wondering if anyone has interpreted this NIH FAQ (see below) as
allowing cores to assess an extra expedited fee for services that are provided
on a higher-priority basis.  If yes, I would appreciate a chance to discuss
that interpretation with you.  If folks feel strongly that expedited fees are
prohibited, I am interested in that interpretation as well.
    Regards,
    Amy


    d. Are there any circumstances when one federally-supported project may be
charged a reduced or discounted rate compared to another?

    Except for the example provided above (FAQ 4.c.), rates used to charge the
cost of the service must be charged to internal institutional users, on a
consistent basis, regardless of funding source(s). Billing rates should not
discriminate between federal and non-federal users, including internal
institutional activities. The schedule of rates will apply to all users of the
core facility on the basis of actual utilization and cannot discriminate
against any one segment of the population. However, institutions may consider
differential pricing for large quantity purchases, high-volume usage, off-peak
usage or other factors. A core may have multiple rates for the same service
when those rates are properly established, consistent with applicable Federal
cost principles, and the favorable rates are available to all users that meet
established criteria.


    Amy Wilkerson
    Associate Vice President, Research Support The Rockefeller University
    1230 York Avenue, Box 217
    New York, NY 10065-6399
    (212)327-7110 fax (212)327-7688
    <email obscured>


    ――
    View topic http://list.abrf.org/r/topic/HPTzemeEPwsNUmGBGvF87
    Leave group <email obscured>?Subject=Unsubscribe




    *** Only open attachments or links from trusted senders. Report phishing to
<email obscured> ***

    =====================================================================

         Please note that this e-mail and any files transmitted from
         Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center may be privileged,
confidential,
         and protected from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of
         this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent
         responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient,
         you are hereby notified that any reading, dissemination, distribution,
         copying, or other use of this communication or any of its attachments
         is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communication in
         error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this
message
         and deleting this message, any attachments, and all copies and backups
         from your computer.

    ――
    View topic http://list.abrf.org/r/topic/5GPLyqQ9CiRxgmvSK4Lagp
    Leave group <email obscured>?Subject=Unsubscribe

Hi,
There is no problem charging more for expedited services as long as there is a
cost justification.  It is also helpful if the charge is on a published
schedule so that it is clear it is charged equally to all.  For example,
overnight DNA sequencing.

William Hendrickson


> On Sep 23, 2019, at 3:05 PM, Amy Wilkerson <email obscured>>
wrote:
>
> I am wondering if anyone has interpreted this NIH FAQ (see below) as allowing
cores to assess an extra expedited fee for services that are provided on a
higher-priority basis.  If yes, I would appreciate a chance to discuss that
interpretation with you.  If folks feel strongly that expedited fees are
prohibited, I am interested in that interpretation as well.
> Regards,
> Amy
>
>
> d. Are there any circumstances when one federally-supported project may be
charged a reduced or discounted rate compared to another?
>
> Except for the example provided above (FAQ 4.c.), rates used to charge the
cost of the service must be charged to internal institutional users, on a
consistent basis, regardless of funding source(s). Billing rates should not
discriminate between federal and non-federal users, including internal
institutional activities. The schedule of rates will apply to all users of the
core facility on the basis of actual utilization and cannot discriminate
against any one segment of the population. However, institutions may consider
differential pricing for large quantity purchases, high-volume usage, off-peak
usage or other factors. A core may have multiple rates for the same service
when those rates are properly established, consistent with applicable Federal
cost principles, and the favorable rates are available to all users that meet
established criteria.

>
>
> Amy Wilkerson
> Associate Vice President, Research Support
> The Rockefeller University
> 1230 York Avenue, Box 217
> New York, NY 10065-6399
> (212)327-7110 fax (212)327-7688
> <email obscured>
>
>
> ――
> View topic http://list.abrf.org/r/topic/HPTzemeEPwsNUmGBGvF87
> Leave group <email obscured>?Subject=Unsubscribe
>

Finally found the time to get back to this conversation....

thanks for your comments Derek, yes, your comments are all correct. It is a
tricky situation.

Rather than having rules around instrument age or claim frequency limits,
perhaps only certain items could be eligible for self-insurance. For example,
particularly delicate instruments could be named ineligible, as they should be
on service contracts instead? Whereas other items that are relatively robust
could be included.

I suppose eligibility would need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis, with
each instrument being considered with respect to its age, usage levels,
reliability and the relative cost of service contract to replacement parts.

yes, a very tricky situation.

Has anyone had any success self-insuring?

Sarah

Hello Joe,

Thank you for sharing this position opening.

Would you like us to add it to the Job Openings on the ABRF web site?


Ken



Ken Schoppmann, CAE
Executive Director
Association of Biomolecular Resource Facilities (ABRF)
301 634 7457
<email obscured>

-----Original Message-----
From: Core Administrators Network Forum <email obscured>> On Behalf Of
Joseph Dragavon
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2019 2:44 PM
To: <email obscured>
Subject: [core administrators network forum] Position open: Core Facilities
Director

Dear All,

The University of Colorado Boulder has created the new position of Core
Facilities Director. The application process is now open:
https://jobs.colorado.edu/jobs/jobDetail?jobId=20810

Please take a look and apply if you are interested. Feel free to contact me
directly with any questions.

Sincerely,

Joe

-----
Joe Dragavon
Director
BioFrontiers Advanced Light Microscopy Core JSCBB C315 University of Colorado,
Boulder

http://bficores.colorado.edu/imaging-facility

Phone: (303) 735-6988
Cell: (720) 934-2933

――
View topic http://list.abrf.org/r/topic/2KDvWz5OdJRktOYMjSpkju
Leave group <email obscured>?Subject=Unsubscribe

Dear Colleagues –
Due to the relocation of Desiree Porter to UT San Antonio, I have an opening in
my program in sunny Davis, CA.  The posting brief is below along with a link to
apply.  If you or anyone you know may be interested and would like more
information, feel free to contact me directly.  Principal project
responsibilities of this position include onboarding of cores to use the
Stratocore PPMS software, operational core facility business plan management,
development of an equipment maintenance management program and management of
various competitive funding programs available to the cores.

All the best,
Julie

The RCFP Program Manager for the Office of Research position has posted for
recruitment:

Brief Description:

Under general direction of the Executive Director (ED) of the Research Core
Facilities Program (RCFP), manage, analyze and administer multiple programs
within the newly created RCFP. Collaborate with core Faculty Directors and
staff to understand the research and core business processes that support
academic research.

Monitor compliance and progress of individual projects, provide support to
project leads in achieving project goals, including administrative and
operational problem-solving and facilitating the development of research
initiatives and partnerships across campus and with other universities,
national labs, educational and public institutions and industry (domestic and
international).

Develop program communications strategy and content, write reports to assess
overall program, organize meetings, workshops and technology-focused seminar
series.

For Full Consideration Apply By:  September 25, 2019
Requisition Number:  03024773
Payroll Title:  Project/Policy Analyst 4
Position Number:  02018680
Department:  VICE CHANCELLOR - RESEARCH - 061800
Salary Range:  $5,683.33 - $ $6,666.67/MO

Quick Link To This Position:  RCFP Program Manager - Apply
Now!<http://www.employment.ucdavis.edu/applicants/Central?quickFind=83412>

Hi from Australia,

This is something that has crossed my mind a few times, but I don't know quite
how it would be run. I'm thinking about self-insurance of all the cores at our
university Faculty, so it might be something that the Faculty could fund. I
suspect Tom, you are talking about participating cores depositing into the
communal fund?

Some thoughts that immediately pop to mind for either funding strategy are:

1. would the pool cover individual instruments or an entire facility? I think
it would have to be the former.
2. the self-insurance pool would mean Cores would not purchase preventative
maintenance contracts on their equipment. I suspect there would have to be
limits on either the types of equipment eligible for self-insurance, or rules
around how long the instruments could go without a service contract. Maybe
every second or third year would make sense?
3. Would there be a limit on how many times a Core or an instrument could dip
into the pool for funds? Maybe twice or three times in an instrument's
lifetime, or no more than once every two years?
4. Would there be a limit on how old an instrument could be to qualify for self
insurance? Perhaps anything less than 5 years old?
5. Would there be a limit on how much will be contributed to the repair? Eg: up
to half the instrument's replacement value.
6. What would happen if the pool is not exhausted at the end of the financial
year? At our university, we cannot carry funds over financial years, so it
would need to be spent. I guess it could be returned proportionally to
contributing cores.

Would love to hear everyone else's thoughts.

Sarah

Faculty of Medicine
University of Queensland
Brisbane, Australia.

Hello Tom,

I am interested in what kinds of ideas you and others have around this.

Andy Chitty
Director | University Shared Resources
<https://www.ohsu.edu/xd/research/research-cores/>
Oregon Health and Science University
Phone: 503.494.5887
<email obscured>



On 8/20/19, 9:52 AM, "Core Administrators Network Forum on behalf of tmchugh"
<email obscured> on behalf of <email obscured>> wrote:

    Good Afternoon,

    I will be directly emailing a few of you out there in "Core Administrative
Land" but wanted to cast a wide net on this.

    We are exploring the feasibility of establishing a "Group-Self-Insurance
Pool" for Core instrumentation vs. equipment specific, Core-level contracts.

    If you are currently managing such a pool, have done this in the past or
examined it please let me know if I can contract you to discuss.

    Tom McHugh
    <email obscured>
    410 706 6041
    http://medschool.umaryland.edu/cibr
    ――
    View topic http://list.abrf.org/r/topic/4v4nI2p64345UX38yyXkjB
    Leave group <email obscured>?Subject=Unsubscribe

HI Janie,

I would be happy to connect you with several experts in this area at VUMC.
Also, you may wish to connect with the folks at ISBER (International Society
for Biological and Environmental Repositories)
https://www.isber.org/default.aspx

Best,
Susan

Susan Meyn | Director for Research Resources & Strategy
Vanderbilt University Medical Center | Office of Research
Twitter: @VUMCResearch | 615.322.0470 | <email obscured>

-----Original Message-----
From: Core Administrators Network Forum <email obscured>> On Behalf Of
Janie Merkel
Sent: Friday, August 16, 2019 12:07 PM
To: <email obscured>
Subject: [core administrators network forum] Biorepository at institutional
level?

Is anyone out there particularly proud of your institution's biorepository? We
have some questions regarding access and fee structures, as a start. Happy to
take any conversation offline.
Is this an area where others are actively working? Would be happy to join
forces and pool knowledge/thinking.
All best,
Janie Merkel
Yale University
――
View topic
https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flist.abrf.org%2Fr%2Ftopic%2F7icRY0o2lQuv91GKNV4Tml&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cs.meyn%40vumc.org%7C7a7b718f9d794a5e766808d7226c374c%7Cef57503014244ed8b83c12c533d879ab%7C0%7C1%7C637015720497297998&amp;sdata=d6NrbkLK7XXw3ayuXH7485XFUXErLfrkt3zVhAa%2BwRc%3D&amp;reserved=0
Leave group <email obscured>?Subject=Unsubscribe