Advance Notice of Proposed Revision - OMB Circular A-110OMB Home
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
OMB Circular A-110, "Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals and
Other Non-Profit Organizations"
AGENCY: Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President
ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed Revision
SUMMARY: This advance notice seeks comments on a proposal by the Grants Management
Committee of the Chief Financial Officer's Council that would ask OMB to amend Circular A-110,
"Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education,
Hospitals, and Other Non-Profit Organizations." The amendment would require Federal awarding
agencies to offer recipients the option to request cash advances on a "pooled" basis. Before making this
recommendation, the Council seeks comments from recipients and Federal agencies on the merits of
pooled payment systems and grant-by-grant payment systems.
DATES: Comments must be received by June 30, 2000.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to: F. James Charney, Policy Analyst, Office of
Management and Budget, Room 6025, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
Comments may be submitted via E-mail (firstname.lastname@example.org), but must be made in the text of the
message and not as an attachment. The full text of Circular A-110 may be obtained by accessing
OMB's home page (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb), under the heading "Grants Management."
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Maupin, Chief Financial Officer, Food and
Nutrition Service, United States Department of Agriculture, at (703) 305-2046.
Section 22(c) of the Circular provides that "whenever possible, advances shall be consolidated to cover
anticipated cash needs for all awards made by the Federal awarding agency to the recipient." The Chief
Financial Officers Council (Council) is considering whether to recommend an amendment to the
Circular that would expand on this provision by requiring agencies to offer a pooled payment procedure
(where cash advances are requested from a "pool" of grants rather than on a grant-by-grant basis) as an
option for recipients in requesting cash advances under Federal awards. Under either method, however,
a recipient must maintain systems that minimize the time elapsing between the receipt of Federal advance
payments and their disbursement for program purposes. This issue emerged from the work of the
Council's Grants Management Committee as it considered a proposal to formally incorporate a pooled
payment process into the Federal Government's body of accounting standards.
In considering this proposal, the Council has consulted with several Federal agencies and some
recipients subject to the Circular. However, OMB and the Council are interested in soliciting comments
from the broader grants community, learning how pooled and grant-by-grant payment systems affect
Federal agencies and recipients, as well as what specific problems or benefits are created for recipients
under the two systems.
This proposal will not affect the policy recently adopted by the Council that each civilian agency permit
recipients the option of using one of two governmentwide payment systems, the Automated Standard
Application for Payments (ASAP) system managed by the Department of the Treasury, and the
Payment Management System (PMS) operated by the Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS). Both of these systems have the ability to track either pooled or award-by-award payment
The Pooled Payment System
Under a pooled payment process, the recipient estimates the aggregate amount of cash that it will need
for all its Federal awards from each awarding agency and requests a draw in that amount. The draw is
then allocated among all the awards based on a formula. When recipients report expenditures, the
allocation is adjusted to the actual reported expenditures.
The Council found that two major agencies currently using the pooling method - HHS and the National
Science Foundation - believe it provides a more efficient and customer-friendly method of drawing cash
for grant purposes. Recipients report individual cash expenditures for each grant via a financial report
such as the Standard Form (SF) 269 (Financial Status Report) or SF-272 (Report of Federal Cash
Transactions). Many recipients have expressed an inability to accurately determine cash needs on a
grant-by-grant basis at the time of draw. Requiring this determination "up front" may cause recipients to
draw larger amounts of cash, less frequently, resulting in poor management of Federal funds.
Grant-By-Grant Payment Systems
Other Federal agencies have developed systems that require recipients to request funds on a
grant-by-grant basis. Some of these agencies approve the requests on a grant-by-grant basis; pool the
individual amounts; and issue payments in the aggregate. At least one agency accepts grant-by-grant
payments as reports of cash usage and records them as expenditures, eliminating the requirement for
recipients to submit the SF-272 or, in most cases, the SF-269.
Agencies that use grant-by-grant payment systems believe that agency grant officers have more timely
information on payments and can provide more immediate technical assistance to a recipient
experiencing problems with a particular grant. These agencies believe that, under pooled payment
systems, reports often come in too late for them to be able to help recipients take corrective actions on
Effect on Federal Agencies
Federal agencies face some challenges accounting for advances similar to those of their recipients.
These challenges include identifying advances to multiple awards. Those agencies that currently use
pooling address this challenge by using estimates of how recipients will distribute a pooled payment
request among the various grants held by the institution. These estimates are then adjusted to actual
when the recipients submit their expense reports (SF-269 or SF-272).
After the agency has made these adjustments, it gains a better understanding of how the recipients are
using funds under each specific award. Thus, accurate and timely reporting is essential to the success of
any pooling method. For this reason, some agencies believe that a transition from grant-by-grant to
pooled payments for their awards must be accompanied by monthly reporting of actual expenditures, in
an electronic format, rather than the paper-based quarterly reporting that is currently required by
agencies currently using pooled payment systems.
Request for Comment
OMB and the Council seek comments from both recipients and Federal agencies on the merits of
pooled payment systems and grant-by-grant payment systems, as well as whether recipients should
have this option. Specifically, commenters are asked to respond to the following questions:
- Would it be worth it to recipients if they were allowed to make pooled payment requests only in
exchange for a requirement to electronically report their actual costs on a monthly basis? (Section
52(a)(2)(iv) of the Circular authorizes Federal agencies to require monthly submission of the SF-272
from recipients that receive advances of $1 million or more annually.)
- Should the Circular include a minimum number of awards and/or dollars below which the pooled
payment option is not be offered? That is, recipients that only get a few awards, or for only small
amounts, would not be offered the option to make pooled payment requests.
- How might a pool payment system impact the Federal agencies' abilities to monitor the financial
performance of recipients, and thus determine program compliance?
- Should recipients be permitted to determine whether they receive advances on a pooled or
grant-by-grant basis, or should Federal agencies continue to make that determination?
Executive Associate Director and Controller
The Budget Legislative Information Management Reform/GPRA Grants Management Financial Management Procurement Policy Information & Regulatory Policy Contact the White House Web Master
T H E W H I T E H O U S E