{"text_format":"3","workbook":"xlsx","n_sheets":5,"sheets":["RAQ","Answers","Instructions","Guidance","FAQ"],"not_rendered":{"defined_names":1},"read":"whole","date_system":"1900"}

{"sheet":"RAQ","index":0,"n_rows":42,"n_cols":28,"rows_kept":42,"merged":[[0,1,2,13],[3,1,3,13],[4,1,4,5],[4,6,4,13],[5,1,5,5],[5,6,5,13],[6,1,6,5],[6,6,6,13],[7,1,7,5],[7,6,7,13],[8,1,8,5],[8,6,8,13],[9,1,9,5],[9,6,9,13],[36,16,36,19],[37,16,37,17],[37,18,37,19],[38,16,38,17],[38,18,38,19],[41,1,41,27],[42,1,42,27],[43,1,43,27],[44,1,44,27],[45,1,45,22]]}
[null,"Risk Assessment Questionnaire",{"$nulls":13},"Institution Questions (Scored)",{"$nulls":11},"Score"]
[]
[{"$nulls":14},"16.","Is the Subrecipient institution foreign or domestic?"]
[null," Note: Entities wishing to participate in pilot program must use form as-is.",{"$nulls":25},{"$f":"IFERROR(CHOOSE(Answers!D2,Answers!C2,Answers!C3,Answers!C4,Answers!C5),\"\")","v":""}]
[null,"Subrecipient Institution",{"$nulls":12},"17.","What is the Subrecipient Organization type?"]
[null,"Internal Project Identifier",{"$nulls":25},{"$f":"IFERROR(CHOOSE(Answers!D6,Answers!C6,Answers!C7,Answers!C8),\"\")","v":""}]
[null,"Prime Sponsor",{"$nulls":12},"18.","Does the Subrecipient have a Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement?"]
[null,"Project Title",{"$nulls":25},{"$f":"IFERROR(CHOOSE(Answers!D9,Answers!C9,Answers!C10),\"\")","v":""}]
[null,"DUNS",{"$nulls":12},"19.","Were the results of the most recent audit under A-133/Uniform Guidance"]
[null,"FAC EIN",{"$nulls":13},"(or similar) satisfactory?"]
[{"$nulls":27},{"$f":"IFERROR(CHOOSE(Answers!D11,Answers!C11,Answers!C12,Answers!C13,Answers!C14,Answers!C15,Answers!C16,Answers!C17,Answers!C18),\"\")","v":""}]
[null,"Threshold Questions (Not Scored)",{"$nulls":11},"Y   N ","20.","Is the Subrecipient Institution mature?"]
[{"$nulls":27},{"$f":"IFERROR(CHOOSE(Answers!D19,Answers!C19,Answers!C20,Answers!C21,Answers!C22),\"\")","v":""}]
[null,"If yes to 1, 2, or 3, consider alternatives to initiating agreement:",{"$nulls":12},"21.","Does the Subrecipient Institution have experience with determining"]
["1.","Is the Subrecipient Institution presently debarred or suspended?",{"$nulls":13},"conflicts of interest (evidence of an acceptable Conflict of Interest Policy)?"]
["2.","Is the Subrecipient Institution's PI presently debarred or suspended?",{"$nulls":25},{"$f":"IFERROR(CHOOSE(Answers!D23,Answers!C23,Answers!C24),\"\")","v":""}]
["3.","Does the Subrecipient show \"delinquent federal debt\" in SAM?"]
[{"$nulls":15},"Project Questions (Scored)"]
[null,"If no to 4, 5, 6, or 7, consider alternatives to initiating agreement:"]
["4.","If required by the sponsor, does the Subrecipient have a compliant",{"$nulls":12},"22.","What is the Prime Sponsor type?"]
[null,"conflict of interest policy?",{"$nulls":25},{"$f":"IFERROR(CHOOSE(Answers!D25,Answers!C25,Answers!C26,Answers!C27,Answers!C28,Answers!C29,Answers!C30),\"\")","v":""}]
["5.","Does the Subrecipient have an acceptable accounting system?",{"$nulls":12},"23.","What is the Prime Award type?"]
["6.","Does the Subrecipient have an acceptable procurement system?",{"$nulls":25},{"$f":"IFERROR(CHOOSE(Answers!D31,Answers!C31,Answers!C32,Answers!C33),\"\")","v":""}]
["7.","If required, has the Subrecipient completed audit under A-133 or ",{"$nulls":12},"24.","Amount of Outgoing Funds?"]
[null,"Uniform Guidance for the most recent fiscal year?",{"$nulls":25},{"$f":"IFERROR(CHOOSE(Answers!D34,Answers!C34,Answers!C35,Answers!C36,Answers!C37),\"\")","v":""}]
[{"$nulls":14},"25.","What is the percentage of the Prime Award being subcontracted "]
[null,"Other Considerations (Not Scored)",{"$nulls":13},"(specific to this Subrecipient—not total)?"]
[{"$nulls":27},{"$f":"IFERROR(CHOOSE(Answers!D38,Answers!C38,Answers!C39,Answers!C40),\"\")","v":""}]
["8.","Has there been a PTE-issued management decision on audit findings",{"$nulls":12},"26.","Does the work include Human Subjects, Animal Subjects, "]
[null,"that may affect this award?",{"$nulls":13},"or Embryonic stem cells?"]
["9.","Does the Subrecipient have a negotiated indirect cost rate",{"$nulls":25},{"$f":"IFERROR(CHOOSE(Answers!D41,Answers!C41,Answers!C42,Answers!C43,Answers!C44,Answers!C45),\"\")","v":""}]
[null,"(or experience setting up such a rate)?",{"$nulls":12},"27.","What are the Subrecipient's Scope of Work/Deliverables?"]
["10.","Does the project include work covered by ITAR or EAR ",{"$nulls":25},{"$f":"IFERROR(CHOOSE(Answers!D46,Answers!C46,Answers!C47,Answers!C48,Answers!C49),\"\")","v":""}]
[null,"(at Subrecipient, or Subrecipient accessing at PTE?)",{"$nulls":12},"28.","Where is the Place of Performance?"]
["11.","Is there a potential or identified conflict of interest?",{"$nulls":25},{"$f":"IFERROR(CHOOSE(Answers!D50,Answers!C50,Answers!C51,Answers!C52),\"\")","v":""}]
["12.","Is cost-share required or included?"]
["13.","Is participant support included in the Subrecipient’s budget?",{"$nulls":14},"Assessment Performed:",{"$nulls":4},"Assessed Risk",{"$nulls":5},"Score"]
["14.","Does the Subrecipient have adequate experience receiving same ",{"$nulls":14},"Initials",null,"Date",null,null,"Institution",{"$nulls":5},{"$f":"SUM(AB4:AB16)","v":0}]
[null,"or similar federal awards?",{"$nulls":19},"Project",{"$nulls":5},{"$f":"SUM(AB21:AB35)","v":0}]
["15.","Have other risks been identified? If yes, explain in Notes below.",{"$nulls":19},"Total",{"$nulls":5},{"$f":"SUM(AB38:AB39)","v":0}]
[]
[null,"Notes: "]

{"sheet":"Answers","index":1,"n_rows":52,"n_cols":4,"rows_kept":52}
["Question","Answer","Score","Combo Box Output"]
[16,"Subrecipient is a U.S. based institution",0]
[null,"Subrecipient is a foreign location with stable government and financial systems ",3]
[null,"Subrecipient is a foreign location with unstable government or financial systems ",6]
[null,"Subrecipient is in a restricted foreign location ",9]
[17,"University ",0]
[null,"Other non-profit ",4]
[null,"Industry ",6]
[18,"Yes ",0]
[null,"No ",3]
[19,"Yes, audit is clean (no findings) or no relevant findings",0]
[null,"A-133/UG audit has findings but no significant deficiencies or material weaknesses ",1]
[null,"A-133/UG audit has qualified or adverse opinions ",4]
[null,"No A-133/UG audit, but completed mini-audit (or similar audit) with no problem(s) ",2]
[null,"No A-133/UG audit, but has alternative recurring annual audit with no findings ",1]
[null,"No A-133/UG audit, but successfully completed an audit or major review by a federal agency ",2]
[null,"No A-133/UG audit, and mini-audit (or similar audit) identified problem(s) ",6]
[null,"No audit ",6]
[20,"Subrecipient experience 10+ years",0]
[null,"Subrecipient experience 5-9 years",2]
[null,"Subrecipient experience 1-4 years",4]
[null,"Subrecipient is start-up (less than 1 year)",6]
[21,"Yes",0]
[null,"No",6]
[22,"Foundation or Routine Granting Agency",0]
[null,"State, Corporate, or more stringent Federal Sponsor",4]
[null,"Federal Contracting Agency",4]
[null,"Corporate Sponsor flowing down Federal Prime",6]
[null,"Government Owned/Contractor Operated",6]
[null,"Foreign sponsor or other very stringent sponsor (from any funding source)",8]
[23,"Grant",0]
[null,"Grant with conditions",2]
[null,"Contract or Subcontract",6]
[24,"Outgoing Funds > $650,000",3]
[null,"Outgoing Funds $150,000 – $649,999",2]
[null,"Outgoing Funds $25,000 - $149,999",1]
[null,"Outgoing Funds $1 - $24,999",0]
[25,"0-24%",0]
[null,"25-49%",3]
[null,"50% +",9]
[26,"No",0]
[null,"Human or Animal Subjects approved by Subrecipient IRB or IACUC",1]
[null,"Embryonic stem cells",4]
[null,"Sponsor must approve ",6]
[null,"Subrecipient using Prime Recipient’s IRB or IACUC",9]
[27,"The Subrecipient will only submit progress reports",0]
[null,"The Subrecipient is responsible for tangible products",1]
[null,"The PTE’s PI’s work is dependent upon Subrecipient’s work",3]
[null,"The PTE’s work is dependent upon Sub’s work and continuation funding is tied to performance",6]
[28,"All work will be performed at the Subrecipient’s Institution",0]
[null,"Some work will be performed at the PTE’s Institution",4]
[null,"All work will be performed at the PTE’s Institution",6]

{"sheet":"Instructions","index":2,"n_rows":19,"n_cols":1,"rows_kept":19}
["Risk Assessment Questionnaire in Excel - Instructions"]
[]
["The Risk Assessment Questionnaire may be used as-is or modified to suit an individual institution's approach to subrecipient risk assessment. Instructions for modifying the questionnaire are below. Additional tools are being developed to assist institutions in automating the collection and analysis of data from multiple RAQs. They will be posted on the FDP website and announced on the FDP subaward listserv."]
[]
["The FDP risk assessment subgroup intends to collect data on how the RAQ is used in practice, by gathering data on subaward scores across institutions and examining the modifications institutions make to the RAQ. Institutions interested in contributing to this project should send an email to the following address for more information:"]
["risk.assess.quest.fdp@gmail.com"]
[]
["Modifying Questions"]
[]
["Questions in the RAQ worksheet may be modified by editing them directly."]
[]
["Modifying Answers"]
[]
["Scored answers in the RAQ have their source in the Answers worksheet, but are embedded in form controls (combo boxes) in the RAQ worksheet. The text of each answer exists in column B of the Answers worksheet, and may be edited directly. To change the number of answers, the form control on the RAQ worksheet must be modified. To do so, right-click on the combo box and select 'format control'. Under the control tab, the input range specifies where the answers in the combo box are drawn. To add or subtract questions, make the adjustment on the Answers worksheet, then modify the input range to cover the adjusted answers. More information on form controls is available from:"]
["https://support.office.com/en-sg/article/Add-a-list-box-or-combo-box-to-a-worksheet-555bee5f-96e6-4047-a469-78e4f1d988b3"]
[]
["Modifying Scores"]
[]
["Scores in the RAQ also have their source in the Answers worksheet. They may be adjusted by editing the scores in column C."]

{"sheet":"Guidance","index":3,"n_rows":44,"n_cols":1,"rows_kept":44}
["Risk Assessment Questionnaire – Guidance Document"]
[]
["The purpose of this document is to provide an overview of using the Risk Assessment Questionnaire (RAQ) and the intent behind some of the questions. Please note using this questionnaire is not mandatory. It is not designed to be prescriptive in how your institution will determine or manage risk, nor does it represent every possible scenario. The RAQ focuses on federal and federal flow-through funds but could be used to assess risk of subrecipients regardless of funding source. It is a tool to assist a pass-through entity (PTE) with determining the risk of a subrecipient, and should not be recycled as a questionnaire to send to a subrecipient to complete. Use of the RAQ does not guarantee a clean audit."]
[]
["The working group encourages the use of the FDP Subaward ListServ (FDPSUBAWARD-L@LSW.NAS.EDU) as a resource for feedback from other research administrators on more atypical scenarios.  "]
[]
["The RAQ is organized into four separate sections:  Threshold Questions, Other Considerations, Institutional Questions, and Project Specific Questions."]
["The Institutional Questions and the Project Questions are scored independently. This is intentional as there could be an instance where the risk of issuing an agreement to a subrecipient is determined to be very low, but the project is determined to be very high risk or vice versa. The working group felt that these scores should not be averaged together in an overall score as the subaward’s language and risk mitigation plan should address the specific areas of risk."]
[]
["Threshold Questions"]
[]
["These questions are intended to quickly identify the highest risk candidates: debarred or suspended, lack of COI policy, and the existence or not of an established accounting system, and acceptable procurement system. “Yes” answers should prompt your institution to carefully evaluate its ability to issue and successfully manage a project with that subrecipient. The working group felt that each of these questions was important enough to consider on its own merit."]
[]
["Other Considerations"]
[]
["The questions included in this section are intended to assess risk that may or may not result in additional language in the subaward, depending upon your institutional policies. This section can also be used as a historical record of what considerations were made when issuing an agreement."]
[]
["Institutional Questions (Scored)"]
[]
["These questions focus on institutional characteristics and are independently scored.  For institutions that receive $750,000 or more in federal funds, this institutional score should be static during the year, but may change after their single audit has been completed. For institutions under the $750,000 threshold, this number may change during the year. Some of these questions are similar to those in other sections.  For example, the question related to COI in this section is trying to evaluate the institution’s experience with COI, not just if they have a compliant policy (where compliant policy may depend on the sponsor/specific project)."]
[]
["Project Questions (Scored)"]
[]
["These questions focus on the characteristics of the project and are independently scored. Again, some are similar to prior questions. For example, Question #28 related to place of performance in this section is trying to evaluate the risk of a project being awarded to a domestic institution, but where the research may be performed in a foreign country, or where the work is being performed outside of their institution."]
[]
["Question #22 is intended to provide guidance regarding the type of sponsor and the challenges of adhering to sponsor guidelines. An example of a more stringent sponsor would be one that may require nonstandard reporting (technical and/or financial), frequency and/or required detail. An example of a very stringent sponsor would be one that has nonstandard reporting requirements (technical and/or financial), frequency and/or required detail, extreme prior approval requirements for any award changes and/or any deliverable requirements that may necessitate manual preparation of information."]
[]
["Scoring Methodologies"]
[]
["Institutions should devise a methodology for using the scores to assess risk that works with their institutional culture. The working group recognizes that institutions have different types of projects and types of subrecipients, and believes that institutions should be free to adjust the scores, the actions taken to mitigate risk, and the questionnaire overall. What one institution considers low risk, another may consider high risk. Please note that these scores are not intended to be best practice cutoffs (minimums) nor absolute maximums. To assist institutions in getting started on the risk assessment process, two examples of possible scoring methodologies are presented below."]
[]
["Simple Scoring Methodology"]
[]
["Some institutions may review their subaward scores and decide upon fixed thresholds for determining risk pools. For instance, a medium risk subaward might be one with an institutional score of at least 8 or 9, or a project score of at least 12 or 13. A total score in the upper 20s might constitute a high risk subaward. Some institutions may have only two risk pools (low and high), and some may have more than three."]
[]
["Complex Scoring Methodology"]
[]
["One institution has implemented a scoring methodology based on a formula. Their methodology is described below as an example of a complex methodology."]
[]
["Medium risk is set by the institutional and project thresholds. The thresholds are calculated as the mean plus the average deviation from the mean of the institution’s scores from the previous twelve months. The Excel formula for this calculation is AVERAGE(range)+AVEDEV(range)."]
[]
["High risk is set by the total score threshold. The threshold is calculated as the mean plus twice the average deviation from the mean of the institution’s scores from the previous twelve months. The Excel formula for this calculation is AVERAGE(range)+(AVEDEV(range)*2)."]
[]
["Thresholds are then reset every six months. The first thresholds set by this institution were 8 (institutional score) and 13 (project score) for medium risk, and 28 (total score) for high risk. "]

{"sheet":"FAQ","index":4,"n_rows":60,"n_cols":1,"rows_kept":60}
["Risk Assessment Questionnaire – Frequently Asked Questions"]
[]
["GENERAL"]
[]
["1)     What is the goal of completing the Risk Assessment Questionnaire (RAQ)? "]
[]
["2 CFR 200.331(b) requires that institutions, at a minimum, “evaluate each subrecipient's risk of noncompliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring. . .”"]
[]
["The RAQ as a tool provides a good starting place for institutions to craft a risk assessment process and to document assessment of risk. It supports responsible stewardship of awarded funds and other institutional needs as well as compliance with the Uniform Guidance and other sponsor requirements."]
[]
["One objective of scoring the RAQ is to better understand a subrecipient’s policies and practices; another is to prompt consideration of subrecipient monitoring of the subrecipient. Negative answers may not constitute a basis for rejection, but will assist your institution in effectively monitoring subrecipients to ensure success of activities."]
[]
["2)     Who should complete the RAQ? "]
[]
["Who completes the RAQ depends on several factors. Some institutions will delegate risk assessments entirely to their contracting officers or subawards team. Other institutions delegate risk assessments to their Controller’s Offices, in close collaboration with pre-award offices. The FDP does not prescribe who should complete it, but rather, leaves it to institutions to decide how best to implement it internally."]
[]
["3)     Should the RAQ be sent to subrecipient institutions to complete? "]
[]
["No. The RAQ is a tool for pass-through entities to determine the risk of subrecipients. It should not be recycled and sent to subrecipients for completion as a commitment form. A separate FDP working group is working on standardizing subrecipient commitment forms to reduce administrative burden. Information about the progress of that working group will be communicated at a later date."]
[]
["4)     When should the questionnaire be completed?"]
[]
["Some institutions will want to complete the questionnaire at the time the prime award proposal is made. At other institutions, the volume of proposal submissions may preclude this. In general, less established and more obviously high risk subrecipients should be evaluated earlier in the process, to allow time to assess and mitigate any risks."]
[]
["5)     Which sponsors should this questionnaire apply to?"]
[]
["The RAQ is intended for all federal funding. It is applicable to other types of funding if the institution chooses to use it.  "]
[]
["6)     Are there specific questions for state or industry-funded subawards? "]
[]
["No, but some institutions have chosen to develop additional questions to refine their scoring of non-federal awards."]
[]
["7)     What mechanisms are being used to track and collect answers?"]
[]
["In addition to subrecipient name, ID number, score, and risk category, one institution is tracking the following data on each subaward in an Excel workbook:"]
["a.    Subrecipient entity type (College/University, Non-profit, University Affiliate, Foreign, Large Company, Small Company)"]
["b.    Funding source (Federal, State, Local, Private)"]
["c.    Prime sponsor"]
["d.    Principal Investigator"]
["e.    Research Unit"]
[]
["The first three data elements are used to draw general conclusions about the sources of subrecipient risk. The last two data elements are used to calculate the average subrecipient risk level of the institution’s PIs and research units. PIs and research units with high risk subawards will be given additional training in subrecipient monitoring and risk mitigation."]
[]
["8)     How does the RAQ respond to the four examples of subrecipient risk factors listed in 2 CFR 200.331(6)(b)?"]
[]
["The four risks are:"]
["a.    The subrecipient's prior experience with the same or similar subawards;"]
["b.    The results of previous audits including whether or not the subrecipient receives a Single Audit in accordance with Subpart F—Audit Requirements of this part, and the extent to which the same or similar subaward has been audited as a major program;"]
["c.    Whether the subrecipient has new personnel or new or substantially changed systems; and"]
["d.    The extent and results of Federal awarding agency monitoring (e.g., if the subrecipient also receives Federal awards directly from a Federal awarding agency)."]
[]
["The first factor is addressed by question 14. The second factor is addressed by questions 7 and 8. The third factor is addressed in part by questions 5 and 6. The fourth question is addressed by question 19."]
[]
["In general, question 15 can be used to address other risks not specifically listed elsewhere in the questionnaire. The risks cited as examples in the Uniform Guidance may be measured, but tend to be difficult to quantify. New personnel and substantially changed systems, for instance, may constitute a short-term risk, but may also produce a long-term reduction in risk when those new personnel and systems function better than those they replaced. "]
[]
["Institutions may decide that certain answers given to scored or non-scored questions may prompt an additional set of questions outside of the RAQ, or a broader assessment of risk by means other than a questionnaire."]
[]
["9)     Why are certain risk factors addressed in both the scored and non-scored questions? For instance, questions 4 and 21 both address conflict of interest, and questions 7 and 19 both address audits."]
[]
["The questions differ in the degree of risk being measured. A ‘no’ to question 4 is a stronger statement than a ‘no’ to question 21. Question 4 refers to a prime sponsor requirement for a conflict of interest policy, and question 21 does not. The risk implied by this question is therefore greater. Similarly, a ‘no’ to question 7 is a stronger statement than a ‘no’ to question 19. Question 7 indicates that an audit is required but has not been performed, and that the subrecipient is non-compliant. Question 19 does not specify that the audit is required."]