The Appendix B – Survey Data Sheet details the results of a 2017 survey administered by the Council on Governmental Relations, focusing on institutional practices related to federal rate agreements, clinical trials, and negotiation experiences. Of the 145 institutions responding, 70% were public and 30% private, with a significant majority (89%) designating the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) as their cognizant agency. The survey revealed that 63% of institutions had four-year rate agreements, 64% utilized tiered rates, and most did not have a current rate extension. Among those with clinical trials, responses varied: 35% reported no clinical trials, while the remainder used separate, off-campus, on-campus, or OSA rates, often distinguishing between federal and industry trials. The method of charging benefits was nearly evenly split between actual costs and negotiated fringe benefit rates, with the majority including future capital projections in their approved rates.
In terms of negotiation practices, the majority of respondents did not utilize the four-year rate extension, but a substantial portion engaged in specialized studies, such as componentizing buildings. Most reported allocating equipment costs on a room-by-room basis and calculating the University Cost Allocation (UCA) when required. Negotiations generally were seen as fair and reasonable by 95% of respondents, although concerns were raised by a minority over predetermined rate adjustments and a lack of justification for such changes. Institutions were divided in their experience with federal negotiators, particularly regarding walkthroughs and adjustments of research space, and whether budget projections were addressed. Lastly, only a third had submitted a DS-2 or revised DS-2 document. The report reflects significant diversity in institutional practices and highlights areas of both consensus and contention in the federal rate negotiation process.
