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>
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.
Rest of post
>
>
> 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>
>
>
> ββ
> View topic http://list.abrf.org/r/topic/HPTzemeEPwsNUmGBGvF87
> Leave group <email obscured>?Subject=Unsubscribe
>
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.
Rest of post
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>
ββ
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.
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
ο»ΏOn 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>
ββ
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.
ββ
View topic http://list.abrf.org/r/topic/5GPLyqQ9CiRxgmvSK4Lagp
Leave group <email obscured>?Subject=Unsubscribe
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.
Rest of post
>
> 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>
>
>
> ββ
> 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.
>
> ββ
> View topic http://list.abrf.org/r/topic/5GPLyqQ9CiRxgmvSK4Lagp
> 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>
Rest of post
-----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>
>
>
> ββ
> 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.
>
> ββ
> 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
>
ββ
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