Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 13, 2021 / Rules and Regulations Directed Question 1Limiting Reimbursement of Indirect Costs Comment: Commenters had differing opinions on whether the Department should limit the reimbursement of indirect costs. Two commenters were opposed to establishing a limit on reimbursement of indirect costs or a cap. They stated that a limit would reduce the number of qualified applicants, which would correspondingly reduce competition.
Specifically, the two commenters noted that a limit would make it cost prohibitive for some organizations to compete for the grant, as they may not be able to absorb any unrecovered indirect costs. They also expressed concerns that the implementation of an indirect cost rate limit would not impact each applicant equally or result in equal savings to the government because categories of indirect costs vary across organizations. Finally, the commenters noted that indirect costs are established and audited through a lengthy and rigorous process administered by the cognizant agency and that the already negotiated rate should be appropriate for this program.
In contrast, three commenters supported establishing a cap on the indirect cost rate. One commenter supported the range of 20 to 35 percent proposed by the Department. Another commenter recommended a rate between 45 and 55 percent. The third commenter wanted to know the percentage of current grantees that had indirect cost rates higher than 35
percent and recommended increasing the cap if that percentage was high.
One commenter sought clarification on how the Department defined administrative costs if the Department set a limit to indirect cost reimbursement.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the stakeholder input it received in response to the directed question on the Departments considering potentially limiting indirect costs. We considered this potential requirement based on 2 CFR
200.414c1, which allows a Federal awarding agency to use an indirect cost rate different from the negotiated rate when required by Federal statute or regulation or when approved by a Federal awarding agency head based on documented justification when the Federal awarding agency implements, and makes publicly available, the policies, procedures, and general decision making criteria that their programs will follow to seek and justify deviations from negotiated rates.
Federal discretionary grantees have
VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:52 Jul 12, 2021

Jkt 253001

often historically been reimbursed for indirect costs at the rate that each grantee negotiates with its cognizant Federal agency. At this time, given the mixed and limited public comments and upon further reflection, the Department has decided not to impose a limit on the indirect costs for this competition and relies instead on the negotiated rate process with cognizant Federal agencies.
Changes: The final requirement does not include an indirect cost rate cap.
Directed Question 2Supporting an External or Third-Party Evaluator Comment: Commenters had differing opinions on the value of an external or third-party evaluator. Some commenters stated that an external or third-party evaluator would result in a high-quality impartial evaluation of the Centers success and improve the quality of the Center services and products.
Other commenters did not think that an external or third-party reviewer was necessary. One commenter noted that the role of the evaluator and expectations for evaluation are more important than whether the evaluator was internal or external to the Center.
The commenter noted that the currently funded projects in the Comprehensive Centers Program Network successfully utilize a variety of evaluation approaches involving external and internal evaluators.
Two commenters noted that an external evaluator would unnecessarily divert funds from other Center activities. Both commenters noted that providing crucial TA to teachers and educators should be prioritized over evaluation activities. One commenter stated that an external evaluator would also divert funds from conducting important formative evaluation activities to determine the quality, relevance, and usefulness of the Centers work and that the size of the award, in general, was not sufficient for conducting a rigorous evaluation of Center activities. One commenter pointed out that in a post-pandemic climate, having more funds dedicated to services may be particularly important given that students would likely have more academic needs when they return to in-person instruction. This commenter recommended exploring low-cost evaluation efforts such as the Department conducting the evaluation.
Discussion: The Department agrees with the commenters who recommend requiring a third-party or external evaluator. A third-party or external evaluator will provide objectivity and credibility in evaluating the Centers success; provide input to Center staff to
PO 00000

Frm 00025

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

36657

support mid-course corrections; bring additional technical expertise in evaluation methodology, statistics, or related topics; and allow Center staff to devote their attention to project implementation. Despite potentially diverting funds from important TA
services or products, a third-party or external evaluator will be crucial for developing and implementing a strong evaluation plan and ensuring the effectiveness of those TA services and products that are provided and developed.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asked whether the Center would be independent from or integrated with the current Comprehensive Centers Program Network. Specifically, the commenter wanted to know whether the Center would be part of the evaluation of the Comprehensive Centers program being conducted by the Departments Institute of Education Sciences IES and required to utilize the networks evaluation-related resources and data collection protocols and activities.
Discussion: The Department will encourage collaboration between the Center and the network; however, the Center will have its own set of requirements. It will not be part of the Comprehensive Centers program evaluation conducted by IES. Similarly, the networks evaluation-related resources and data collection protocols and activities will not be required, though the Department encourages applicants to consider adopting or adapting them as part of their evaluation work. The resources will be shared with the Center when funded, and the Department will work with the Center and its third-party evaluator in aligning its evaluation plan.
Changes: None.
Meeting the Needs of Multiple Populations and Settings Comment: One commenter recommended adopting a definition of the term families that includes the variety of individuals who care for and interact with students with disabilities in their home lives.
Discussion: The Department agrees that a variety of individuals care for, interact with, and play important roles in the lives of children and students with disabilities in their home lives. We decline to define the term families because we understand that family structures may vary and encompass individuals with different relationships to each other.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter noted gender differences and potential referral
E:FRFM13JYR1.SGM

13JYR1