Please advise by 10am tomorrow: Documents for congressional requests related to EHA grant

In context

A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.

1. 2023-03-08 14:17 Sara Selgrade open
   Hello all, Background As you may be aware, the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, as well as the House Energy and Commerce Committee, have requested documents related to EcoHealth Alliance's NIH grants. NIH OLPA has been working with NIH OER and others to provide documents responsive to the two requests outlined below. Please note the highlighted requests from NIH OLPA outlined below regarding these document productions. Action Item Please let us know by 10am tomorrow, Thursday March 9, if you know of any additional documentation or have any concerns to flag as requested by NIH OLPA. 1. Congressional Request: All documents related to the Scientific Review Group (SRG) review of the initial R01 grant. Note from OCGR-Leg: NIH OLPA/NIH OER has identified the two attached documents below responsive to this request. Please note that we suggested that OLPA should also consult with the Center for Scientific Review. < File: February 14 2019 Type 2 Summary Statement.pdf >> its 2n << File: AWS3993758 9.15.21.pdf >> << File: AWS3672471 7.15.20.pdf >> << File: AWS3438397 8.5.19.pdf >> << File: AWS3424934 7.24.19.pdf >> There are actually 6 award IV << File: December 18 2013 Summary Statement (1).pdf >> << File: February 14 2019 Type 2 Summary Statement.pdf >> NIH OLPA questions related to these documents: 1. If you know of any additional documentation from the SRG review we could share with Congress, please flag for OLPA. We have asked OER/OPERA to confirm as well. [note from OCGR-Leg: please advise if NIAID would have responsive documents. If so, we can assist with keywords and individuals for a CIT search for documents] 2. Are there any sensitivities you would like to flag? OLPA will work with OGC to redact personally identifiable information before transmission to Congress. 2. Energy & Commerce Committee Request (Follow up to prior document production consisting of Type 5 Checklists from the initial R01): Questions from the congressional staff, with proposed responses from NIH OER in red: Following up on the production of the Type 5 checklist documents, we noticed there was not an Award Worksheet Report for Year 6 of the EcoHealth award or Year 1 of the EcoHealth R02 award (depending on how you look at it). Based on this HHS OIG report (see excerpt below), the NIH may have closeout documentation for the EcoHealth R01 award. https://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-07-11-00190.pdf. However, we would like clarification on the following: When a grant award is renewed, do NIH staff complete closeout documentation for the R01 grant in lieu of the Award Worksheet Report? NIH Response: No. If not, do NIH staff complete an Award Worksheet Report for Year 6 (the Year 1 for the R02 award)? NIH Response: Yes. If there is closeout documentation for the EcoHealth R01, please provide these materials as responsive to the request for the grant file. NIH Response: There is no closeout documentation at this time, because the award continued with the renewal (Type 2). If instead there is no closeout documentation and there is an Award Worksheet Report, please provide the Year 6 Award Worksheet Report and any other subsequent Award Worksheet Reports. NIH Response: The Year 6 Award Worksheet Reports are attached. << File: AWS4298904 9.28.22.pdf >> << File: AWS3993758 9.15.21.pdf >> << File: AWS3672471 7.15.20.pdf >> << File: AWS3602757 4.27.20.pdf >> << File: AWS3438397 8.5.19.pdf >> << File: AWS3424934 7.24.19.pdf >> For background - OER/OPERA Response: Thanks to our OPERA colleagues, we can offer the following explanation. There are actually 6 award worksheets for the Type 2 due to the actions outlined below: · 7-24-19: initial award · 8-5-19: budget adjustment · 4-27-20: termination--award zero'd out · 7-15-20: award reinstated · 9-15-21: award extended (mid-budget period) · 9-28-22: WIV termination; budget renegotiated to remove aims involving WIV NIH OLPA questions related to these responses/documents: Please let us know if you have any concerns or flags Sara Selgrade, Ph.D. Section Chief for Legislative Activities Legislative Affairs and Correspondence Management Branch Office of Communications and Government Relations NIAID/NIH/DHHS Bldg. 31, Room 7A17, MSC 2520 Bethesda, MD 20892-2520 Phone: @mail.nih.gov Disclaimer: The information in this e mail and any of its attachments is confidential and may contain sensitive information. It should not be used by anyone who is not the original intended recipient. If you have received this e-mail in error please inform the sender and delete it from your mailbox or any other storage devices. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases shall not accept liability for any statements made that are sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of the NIAID by one of its representatives. Information to share with OCPL Background: The attached summary statements are from the Scientific Review Group, also known as peer review, of the initial application (review conducted in 2013) and the review of the renewal application (review conducted in 2019). The summary statement is the official record of these reviews. NIH peer reviewers use a 9-point scale for scoring NIH grant applications. A score of 1 means exceptional and 9 means poor, with 5 considered an average score. Impact scores run from 10 to 90 and are based on the normalized average of all reviewer impact/priority scores. Generally speaking, impact scores of 10 to 30 are most likely to be funded; scores between 31 and 45 might be funded; and scores greater than 46 are rarely funded. The review panel roster is posted publicly on the NIH website. These two rosters can be found: https://public.era.nih.gov/pubroster/preRosindex.era?AGENDA=265100&CID=102597 https: Tough Q/As: Did the NIH grant to EcoHealth Alliance with a subaward to WIV support ePPP research? public.era.nih.gov/pubroster/preRosindex.era?AGENDA=356932&CID=102597
2. 2023-03-08 14:17 Sara Selgrade
   Hello all, Background As you may be aware, the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, as well as the House Energy and Commerce Committee, have requested documents related to EcoHealth Alliance's NIH grants. NIH OLPA has been working with NIH OER and others to provide documents responsive to the two requests outlined below. Please note the highlighted requests from NIH OLPA outlined below regarding these document productions. Action Item Please let us know by 10am tomorrow, Thursday March 9, if you know of any additional documentation or have any concerns to flag as requested by NIH OLPA. 1. Congressional Request: All documents related to the Scientific Review Group (SRG) review of the initial R01 grant. Note from OCGR-Leg: NIH OLPA/NIH OER has identified the two attached documents below responsive to this request. Please note that we suggested that OLPA should also consult with the Center for Scientific Review. < File: February 14 2019 Type 2 Summary Statement.pdf >> its 2n << File: AWS3993758 9.15.21.pdf >> << File: AWS3672471 7.15.20.pdf >> << File: AWS3438397 8.5.19.pdf >> << File: AWS3424934 7.24.19.pdf >> There are actually 6 award IV << File: December 18 2013 Summary Statement (1).pdf >> << File: February 14 2019 Type 2 Summary Statement.pdf >> NIH OLPA questions related to these documents: 1. If you know of any additional documentation from the SRG review we could share with Congress, please flag for OLPA. We have asked OER/OPERA to confirm as well. [note from OCGR-Leg: please advise if NIAID would have responsive documents. If so, we can assist with keywords and individuals for a CIT search for documents] 2. Are there any sensitivities you would like to flag? OLPA will work with OGC to redact personally identifiable information before transmission to Congress. 2. Energy & Commerce Committee Request (Follow up to prior document production consisting of Type 5 Checklists from the initial R01): Questions from the congressional staff, with proposed responses from NIH OER in red: Following up on the production of the Type 5 checklist documents, we noticed there was not an Award Worksheet Report for Year 6 of the EcoHealth award or Year 1 of the EcoHealth R02 award (depending on how you look at it). Based on this HHS OIG report (see excerpt below), the NIH may have closeout documentation for the EcoHealth R01 award. https://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-07-11-00190.pdf. However, we would like clarification on the following: When a grant award is renewed, do NIH staff complete closeout documentation for the R01 grant in lieu of the Award Worksheet Report? NIH Response: No. If not, do NIH staff complete an Award Worksheet Report for Year 6 (the Year 1 for the R02 award)? NIH Response: Yes. If there is closeout documentation for the EcoHealth R01, please provide these materials as responsive to the request for the grant file. NIH Response: There is no closeout documentation at this time, because the award continued with the renewal (Type 2). If instead there is no closeout documentation and there is an Award Worksheet Report, please provide the Year 6 Award Worksheet Report and any other subsequent Award Worksheet Reports. NIH Response: The Year 6 Award Worksheet Reports are attached. << File: AWS4298904 9.28.22.pdf >> << File: AWS3993758 9.15.21.pdf >> << File: AWS3672471 7.15.20.pdf >> << File: AWS3602757 4.27.20.pdf >> << File: AWS3438397 8.5.19.pdf >> << File: AWS3424934 7.24.19.pdf >> For background - OER/OPERA Response: Thanks to our OPERA colleagues, we can offer the following explanation. There are actually 6 award worksheets for the Type 2 due to the actions outlined below: · 7-24-19: initial award · 8-5-19: budget adjustment · 4-27-20: termination--award zero'd out · 7-15-20: award reinstated · 9-15-21: award extended (mid-budget period) · 9-28-22: WIV termination; budget renegotiated to remove aims involving WIV NIH OLPA questions related to these responses/documents: Please let us know if you have any concerns or flags Sara Selgrade, Ph.D. Section Chief for Legislative Activities Legislative Affairs and Correspondence Management Branch Office of Communications and Government Relations NIAID/NIH/DHHS Bldg. 31, Room 7A17, MSC 2520 Bethesda, MD 20892-2520 Phone: @mail.nih.gov Disclaimer: The information in this e mail and any of its attachments is confidential and may contain sensitive information. It should not be used by anyone who is not the original intended recipient. If you have received this e-mail in error please inform the sender and delete it from your mailbox or any other storage devices. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases shall not accept liability for any statements made that are sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of the NIAID by one of its representatives. Information to share with OCPL Background: The attached summary statements are from the Scientific Review Group, also known as peer review, of the initial application (review conducted in 2013) and the review of the renewal application (review conducted in 2019). The summary statement is the official record of these reviews. NIH peer reviewers use a 9-point scale for scoring NIH grant applications. A score of 1 means exceptional and 9 means poor, with 5 considered an average score. Impact scores run from 10 to 90 and are based on the normalized average of all reviewer impact/priority scores. Generally speaking, impact scores of 10 to 30 are most likely to be funded; scores between 31 and 45 might be funded; and scores greater than 46 are rarely funded. The review panel roster is posted publicly on the NIH website. These two rosters can be found: https://public.era.nih.gov/pubroster/preRosindex.era?AGENDA=265100&CID=102597 https: Tough Q/As: Did the NIH grant to EcoHealth Alliance with a subaward to WIV support ePPP research? public.era.nih.gov/pubroster/preRosindex.era?AGENDA=356932&CID=102597

Full conversation →