Wishes and Messages

Justification for award

  1. Home
  2. Anniversary Wishes
  3. Justification for award
Justification for award
February 06, 2019 Anniversary Wishes No comments

Oracle's protest of the JEDI contract targets what it calls shortcomings in DOD's justification for the $10 billion cloud contract.

The winners of the 20th annual Docaviv Film Festival have been announced this evening (May 23) in a ceremony held at Mindspace Tel- Aviv. Docaviv, the International Documentary Film Festival, which marks its 20th anniversary this year, will continue until May 26. This year’s festival has had a record-breaking lineup of 125 Israeli and international documentaries, as well as its first ever Shorts Competition. Festival attendance is at an all-time high, with many of the screenings selling out, and new screenings added due to high demand. Here are this year’s winners, sorted by category:

Israeli Competition

The Howard Gilman Award For the Best Israeli Documentary Film

Family in Transition

Ofir Trainin

NIS 70,000 prize Courtesy of Howard Gilman Israel Culture Foundation, supported by Glikson Camera Rental and Zinko Studios

Jury's justification: סרט זה משרטט בעדינות סיפור של With great sensitivity, this film tells the story of identities getting to know themselves and each other anew, and changing right before our eyes. The jury commends the filmmaker for the intimate dynamic he has formed with his subjects and for choosing to make their voices heard, unmediated. An important and timely film, it is a reminder of the power of documentary to refresh our experience of the world and make us question distorted worldviews. Behind the strong bond between subjects and audience is the director’s dedication to his subjects, and when the two meet, the magic happens.

More about the film

Special Jury Award

A Perfect Housewife

Jane Bibi

NIS 20,000 prize Courtesy of Harel Insurance Investments and Financial Services

Jury's justification: A brave new voice, this filmmaker demonstrates an uncompromising relationship to her craft. Smashing through the restrictive taboos of traditional values, she forges new cinematic pathways to create an unforgettable portrait of the tremendous love that can exist between three generations of women.

More about the film

The Mayor of Tel Aviv-Yafo Award for Best Debut Film


Uriel Sinai, Danel Elpeleg

NIS 30,000 prize

Jury's justification: Jumping between chaos and calm, poetry and humor, man and animal, this film transcends the clichés of its genre, providing a profoundly moving reflection on the fragility and preciousness of life.

More about the film

Best Cinematography Award

In The Desert - A Documentary Diptych

Cinematograper: Avner Faingulernt

NIS 4,000 prize Courtesy of the Ministry of Culture and Sport, the Israel Film Council

Jury's justification: In this opus, the cinematographer succeeds in crafting through his lens an epic allegory of hope infused with biblical intonations. From the harshest landscapes to the most intimate moments of human interaction, the camera is used with respectful restraint to accentuate the creator’s vision.

More about the film

Best Editing Award

The Wounded Healer

Editor: Yithzhak Sverdlov

NIS 4,000 prize Courtesy of The College of Management – School of Media

Jury's justification: The editor’s authorial stamp is strong and skillful, weaving the story with great sensitivity and leading us from scene to scene with natural confidence. The editing makes a series of twists and turns while compassionately revealing a complex character coming to terms with his tragic past.

More about the film

Research Award

You Only Die Twice

Research: Niko Hofinger

NIS 4,000 prize Courtesy of the Emile Zola Chair for Human Rights

Jury's justification: Research is the heart and soul of this film, a film where the director works as investigator, uncovering a personal mystery to reveal a profound truth about family, brotherhood and forgiveness.

More about the film

Best Original Music Award

A Sister's Song

Composer: Peter Venne

NIS 5,000 prize Courtesy of ACUM, The Society of Authors, Composers and Music Publishers in Israel

Jury's justification: In this film, a haunting original score interweaves the film’s competing dualities into the soundscape, fusing together the secular and the sacred worlds, the musical motifs succeed in mirroring the personal stories that unfold before us.

More about the film

AIDC Award for Innovative Filmmaking

A Sister's Song

Danae Elon

Courtesy of AIDC, The Australian International Documentary Conference. The winner will be invited to attend the conference in March 2019. Air-fare and accommodation expenses will be covered.

Jury's justification: This award recognizes the daring vision of a filmmaker who has shown a clear and deep understanding of the filmic language. An authorial stamp marks the film on every level, infusing the text with multiple layers of meaning, resulting in a meditative, thought-provoking journey that continues long after the film concludes.

More about the film

Israeli Competition Best Director Award by Fipresci

In The Desert - A Documentary Diptych

Avner Faingulernt

The International Federation of Film Critics award

Jury's justification: A personal and humane look at both sides of one of the biggest conflict zones in the Middle East. The director of In the Desert finds two separate lyrical languages to tell the film’s stories in a way that serves the differences and similarities between the two sides. Despite being challenging and demanding, the film manages not to patronize the viewers or its subjects. In a film that is tough and gentle at the same time, big concepts like ownership, family, spirituality and calling are all translated into human moments.

More about the film

International Competition Winners

Best International Film Award

The Distant Barking of Dogs

Simon Lereng Wilmont

NIS 20,000 prize Courtesy of the Ministry of Culture and Sport, the Israel Film Council

Jury's justification: Set in a village near the Ukraine/Russia frontline this highly accomplished film is a unique window into traumatic experience of growing up next to the battle zone in echoes of artillery fire. The International Competition Main Award goes to Simon Lereng Wilmont's The Distant Barking of Dogs.

More about the film

Honorable Mention

The Waldheim Waltz

Ruth Beckermann

Jury's justification: The Honorable Mention goes to a film about truth and lies in politics. The filmmaker follows the investigation of the Jewish World Congress about the military past of the former General Secretary of the United Nations and Austrian President Kurt Waldheim, who has tried to hide his involvement in war crimes in Yugoslavia and Greece during World War II. The film combines private archival footage of the filmmaker with international material and shows how Waldheim and his conservative supporters tried to protect the myth of Austria as a victim of the Third Reich. Ruth Beckermann's Waldheim Waltz is also a statement against growing populism and sometimes not even hidden anti-Semitism today.

More about the film

Depth of Field Competition

Artistic Vision Award

Playing Men

Matjaž Ivanišin

NIS 10,000 prize Courtesy of the Ministry of Culture and Sport, the Israel Film Council

Jury's justification: For its strong, memorable and vibrant cinematic language, its bold and surprising storytelling and its creative and alternative approach to the way we see men. In Playing Men, the male state of being is addressed in a funny, timely and touching way.

More about the film

Shorts Competition Winner

Best Short Film Award

Tracing Addai

Esther Niemeier

Courtesy of the Ministry of Culture and Sport, the Israel Film Council

Jury's justification: The winner of the Docaviv Shorts Competition is a true story about a son who disappeared without a trace. Addai, a young man, leaves his mother’s home to join a group of Salafi Syrian fighters and disappears, never to return. The director pieces together fragmented memories, facts and moments into a gentle, story loaded with emotion, yet manages to avoid pathos. The storylines converge into an honest examination of grief, regret and lost hope.

More about the film

The winners of the Students Competition in Memory and Honor of Ruthi Gottesman

Third Prize

A Train To The Horizon

Sharon Shahanny, Bezalel Academy of Arts and Design

NIS 4,000 Courtesy of Yoav Gottesman

Jury's justification: For turning the spotlight on the backyard of Israeli society and showing its personal and social aspects with sensitivity and humor. The day-to-day life stories the director has brought to the screen depict the complex human reality of life in the south of Israel, the far corner of its social consciousness.

More about the film


The winner of the Audience Award will be announced at the end of the Festival

DRUG DISCOVERY INITIATIVE REGISTERED REPORTS AWARD. BUDGET JUSTIFICATION. Please provide a breakdown of how requested funds will be.

Develop Your Budget

justification for award

Category: 500 + Employees
XYZ Family Pharmacy

Not for Profit agency would like to nominate XYZ Family Pharmacy as an exemplary “employment partner” in providing employment opportunities for individuals with disabilities and for providing employer feedback above and beyond just hiring individuals with disabilities. XYZ FAMILY PHARMACY is a regional chain pharmacy and convenience store that has shown dedication and support to individuals with disabilities who enter the workforce.

XYZ FAMILY PHARMACY management has gone above and beyond the customary to accommodate and ensure a supportive environment for their employees with disabilities. XYZ FAMILY PHARMACY is able to provide supports because they are committed to a work environment dedicated to service to “all” and have a corporate culture of “ALL OF US TOGETHER” can make it happen. XYZ FAMILY PHARMACY has been instrumental in educating the network of agencies in the upstate Albany region about their staffing needs. Accordingly, they have employed numerous (20 to 30) individuals in various departments throughout their pharmacies. The management has consistently participated in various partnerships with business advisory committees, ACCES-VR’s Statewide Workforce Development Council and consortium.

Eight individuals from NOT FOR PROFIT SERVICES have been employed for the past year in various positions, and seven are presently employed. The longest employee has been working for thirteen months. The different positions held by these individuals are facing, stock, light maintenance, and cashier.

After several months of employment some of these individuals were given additional responsibilities as they impressed their supervisors with their productivity and their desire to do more. Within a short period of time they were a part of the XYZ FAMILY PHARMACY team.

Another testament of XYZ FAMILY PHARMACY’S dedication is their willingness to address workplace issues in a patient and professional manner as well as provide a flexible work schedule to accommodate individual needs, medical appointments, and transportation issues. Some of these accommodations are:

  • The East Greenbush store manager agreed to hire two individuals for one shift to accommodate the needs of these individuals.
  • The Troy store manager has worked out a flexible schedule for an individual who works part time at the store and also attends a high school equivalency program.
  • The Guilderland store manager worked with the individual and her job coach to address her anxiety issues while at work and effectively problem solve in order to improve her work skills.
  • A similar situation occurred at the Colonie store where another individual was experiencing difficulty with his tasks and thus was able to work with the manager in trying different methods. For this individual, a flexible schedule was worked out to accommodate his transportation needs.
  • At the Latham store, one individual has been offered a promotional opportunity and is now being trained to work as a cashier after completing one year of employment.

As the relationship between NOT FOR PROFIT AGENCY and XYZ FAMILY PHARMACY has developed there continues to be an equal exchange of expected standards. XYZ FAMILY PHARMACY has advocated for quality job coaching knowing the value of their work to their company and the value of the work experience for the individuals. This has resulted in consistent, successful employment for the individuals as well as satisfaction for the employer. Through their efforts, cooperation and patience, XYZ FAMILY PHARMACY has demonstrated an understanding of the importance of vocational rehabilitation for individuals with disabilities and is worthy of recognition for their commitment.

a good suggestion
Events invitation letter
when to use apostrophe possessive
Sample request business letter
nomination for award template
What is a persuasive letter
how to thank someone for invitation
My husband is the love of my life

Endorse or Nominate a Candidate For an Award

justification for award

Guidance for writing a high-quality Employee Award nomination

The Employee Awards Committee wants to help you prepare the best award nomination possible. So we’ve asked former nominators and winners if we could share their nominations with you. Please find a winning nomination for the Administrative Staff Award as well as one for the Team Award.

Learn more about the awards and how you can submit a nomination here. Nominations are due Friday, April 6!

Here’s a winning nomination for the Administrative Staff Award:

Q. Elaborate on how the nominee made a significant contribution to the College.

A. I would like to nominate Chris Hahn for the Administrative Staff of the Year award for the exemplary leadership he has shown in becoming the Dean of Perth Campus. Chris has successfully transitioned from the role of Chair to Dean and has had an enormous yet quiet impact in his role by leading a reinvigoration of the students, faculty and staff and general happiness at the Perth campus.

Chris is a tireless advocate for the skilled trades and apprenticeship programs offered at the College.  Over the course of the last few years, we have worked with Chris to organize, host and attend a vast number of skilled trades’ related events and always notice that he tries to attend the events and where ever possible he actively participates by staffing a table, providing tours or giving presentations to visitors.

Whether working with internal or external groups, Chris looks to find the best outcome for all involved and truly exemplifies the core values of the College.

Chris Hahn has and continues to take an active role in the success of all of the students he oversees.  He welcomes them through orientation and class visits in the first few weeks or school, sharing his favorite study tips and encourages them to collaborate with each other and support each other through the program.

Q. Elaborate on how the nominee demonstrated outstanding commitment and professionalism.

A. Chris brings a considered and thoughtful approach to leadership but equally a willingness to learn. Not one to be rushed, I have both interacted with him and observed him working with peers, faculty and direct reports. He takes the time to listen and make sure everyone is included in the conversation then returns with a thoughtful and inclusive decision. Yet when it is time take the initiative, he does with gusto and determination. His honesty, friendly and considerate nature a qualities that make him a natural leader.

He always sees the good side of people and encourages other staff members to do the same.  Chris has an open door policy and has time for everyone who comes to his door and he works tirelessly well beyond a normal work week.

In the two years since Chris has assumed the position of Dean, his affable nature, clear insight and guiding vision has garnered the respect and admiration of staff, students and the community alike.  Students feel more welcomed, involved and self-assured of their success.  Staff at all levels feel more supported, respected, engaged and confident of the Campus’ future growth. The community has become more enriched by the diversity and inclusivity of programs which were a result of meaningful consultation with a broader range of stakeholders.

Q. Elaborate on how the nominee is considered by colleagues to be an excellent role model in an educational institution.

A. In understand the depth of the challenges Chris faces with the enrolment at a regional college, he has made it his mission to engage the Perth community and surrounding area. He tirelessly promote the campus at every opportunity.  During the Festival of Small Halls initiative, he took it upon himself to attend all of the events in order in the local area like Clayton, Balderson etc. to promote Algonquin College and program offerings, often times at expense of his free time.

Chris leads by example. He does not shy away the tough challenges.  For Strategic Enrolment Management, he has work tirelessly to both raise his level of knowledge of a complex problem but has taken the time to bring his colleagues with him in the journey so that all will benefit.

I cannot express within the limits of this short description all of the attributes that Chris Hahn possesses to qualify his nomination for Algonquin College’s Administrative Staff Award. Rest assured that the list would be too exhaustive.  If I had to distill the description to its essence, it would include those tangibles:  intelligence, vision, tact, diplomacy, leadership, decisiveness and responsibility.  However, of greater importance would be the list of intangibles that make up the fabric of a true leader of any organization:  caring, respect, humility, commitment, dedication, humor, honesty, integrity, empathy, transparency, hard work and resiliency.

During his tenure Dean Hahn has established a renewed and reinvigorated spirit of cooperation and collaboration.  He has captured through effort and consensus building the imagination of many who envision now a brighter and more stable future for the Campus and the community as a whole. It is without hesitation and with much pride that I support Chris Hahn’s nomination for Algonquin College’s Administrative Staff Award.

Here’s a winning nomination for the Team Staff Award:

Q. Demonstrated ability to work effectively as a team.

A. I would like to nominate the Automated Grade Entry folks for the Team Award.

The implementation of this college-wide initiative was highly effective and smooth. What was my favourite part? The experience was devoid of complaints! It is my hope that this will become the model for other college-wide initiatives. The automated final grade entry project has been, without a doubt, the smoothest roll-out of any college-wide initiative I can recall. It was so smooth that it was almost a non-event; it was very refreshing that the Department Academic Chair was not gating to the implementation.

Communications, both internal and external, can be indicative of effective teamwork. The “team” consisted of twenty-six (26) participants. Including the User Acceptance Testers (UAT), that would have pushed it to over eighty (80). The team demonstrated their advocacy by constantly soliciting feedback and it felt like they really listened to the end users.

Q. Recognized as outstanding advocates for the College.

A. This accomplishment has all the hallmarks of effective teamwork and very much focused upon the end user community. For example, in my department, the former process required entering the grades six times! The current process has reduced this to two times. Grades are now less prone to error and are available quicker with less effort. This accomplishment is undoubtedly due to the collaboration between four (4) areas of the college. That is not to mention over 60 faculty, support and admin from across the college who participated in the pilots for the early releases and provided feedback, which was critical for it being ready for college-wide implementation in 2015-fall. The very effective consultation and resulting feedback was converted into release-by-release improvements and a near flawless roll-out last semester. Faculty, Support Staff and Admin love it.

Q. Demonstrated outstanding innovation.

A. Saying that the implementation / roll-out went relatively smoothly might be a bit of an understatement. From the first release, the application was user-friendly to the point of being intuitive. For most users, the only needed instruction was, “Enter / approve final grades on ACSIS”. For a small minority, a second needed message was, “If you forgot your ACSIS password, please contact ITS @ 5555”.

Innovation often manifests itself in the details. As the chair, another aspect I appreciated was the default format of the spreadsheet download; it did not require any modification to run Evaluation and Progression (E&P) meetings.

Q. Demonstrated a significant contribution to the success of the College.

A. What was my favourite part? The experience was devoid of complaints! It is my hope that this will become the model for other college-wide initiatives. The automated final grade entry project has been, without a doubt, the smoothest roll-out of any college-wide initiative I can recall. It was so smooth that it was almost a non-event; it was very refreshing that the Department Academic Chair was not gating to the implementation.

I would like the broader college to join me in celebrating the accomplishments of this team. Their significant contribution bodes well for success of future automation exercises.

Learn more about the awards and how you can submit a nomination here. Nominations are due Friday, April 6!

Award Justification Statement. Solicitation #MP Contract Name: Digital Print & Copy Services. Conclusion. Three offers were received. One offer was.

Court deems single-award justification for JEDI ‘flawed’ in opinion rejecting Oracle lawsuit

justification for award


As you begin to develop a budget for your research grant application and put all of the relevant costs down on paper, many questions may arise. Your best resources for answering these questions are the grants or sponsored programs office within your own institution, your departmental administrative officials, and your peers. They can answer questions such as:

  • What should be considered a direct cost or indirect cost?
  • What is the fringe benefit rate?
  • What is the graduate student stipend rate?
  • What Facilities and Administrative (F&A) costs rate should I use?
Below are some additional tips and reminders we have found to be helpful for preparing a research grant application, mainly geared towards the SF424 (R&R) application. (Note: these tips do not supersede the budget instructions found in the relevant application instruction guide found on the How to Apply - Application Guide page.

Cost Considerations

An applicant's budget request is reviewed for compliance with the governing cost principles and other requirements and policies applicable to the type of recipient and the type of award. Any resulting award will include a budget that is consistent with these requirements.
Information on the applicable cost principles and on allowable and unallowable costs under NIH grants is provided in the NIH Grants Policy Statement under Cost Considerations https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps/HTML5/section_7/7_cost_consideration.htm. In general, NIH grant awards provide for reimbursement of actual, allowable costs incurred and are subject to Federal cost principles https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps/HTML5/section_7/7.2_the_cost_principles.htm.

The cost principles address four tests that NIH follows in determining the allowability of costs. Costs charged to awards must be allowable, allocable, reasonable, necessary, and consistently applied regardless of the source of funds. NIH may disallow the costs if it determines, through audit or otherwise, that the costs do not meet the tests of allowability, allocability, reasonableness, necessity, and consistency.

Budgets: Getting Started

  • Know your limits! Carefully read the Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) for budget criteria. You should look for limits on the types of expenses (e.g. no construction allowed), spending caps on certain expenses (e.g. travel limited to $10,000), and overall funding limits (e.g. total costs cannot exceed $300,000 per year). Relevant FOA sections include:
    • II.1 (Mechanism of Support),
    • II.2 (Funds Available),
    • III.2 (Cost Sharing or Matching), and
    • IV.5 (Funding Restrictions).
  • Identify all the costs that are necessary and reasonable to complete the work described in your proposal.
  • Throughout the budgeting process, round to whole dollars and use only U.S. dollars.
  • The best strategy is to request a reasonable amount money to do the work, not more and not less because:
    • Reviewers look for reasonable costs and will judge whether your request is justified by your aims and methods.
    • Reviewers will consider the person months you've listed for each of the senior/key personnel and will judge whether the figures are in sync with reviewer expectations, based on the research proposed.
    • Significant over- or under-estimating suggests you may not understand the scope of the work. Despite popular myth, proposing a cost-sharing (matching) arrangement where you only request that NIH support some of the funding while your organization funds the remainder does not normally impact the evaluation of your proposal. Only a few select programs require cost-sharing, and these programs will address cost-sharing in the FOA.

What is the difference between allowable direct costs and allowable facilities & administrative (F&A) costs?

Direct Costs: Costs that can be identified specifically with a particular sponsored project, an instructional activity, or any other institutional activity, or that can be directly assigned to such activities relatively easily with a high degree of accuracy.

F&A Costs: Necessary costs incurred by a recipient for a common or joint purpose benefitting more than one cost objective, and not readily assignable to the cost objectives specifically benefitted, without effort disproportionate to the results achieved. To facilitate equitable distribution of indirect expenses to the cost objectives served, it may be necessary to establish a number of pools of F&A (indirect) costs. F&A (indirect) cost pools should must be distributed to benefitted cost objectives on bases that will produce an equitable result in consideration of relative benefits derived.

  • The total costs requested in your budget will include allowable direct costs (related to the performance of the grant) plus allowable F&A costs. If awarded, each budget period of the Notice of Award will reflect direct costs, applicable F&A, and in the case of SBIR or STTR awards, a "profit" or fee.
  • F&A costs are determined by applying your organization's negotiated F&A rate to your direct cost base. Most educational, hospital, or non-profit organizations have negotiated their rates with other Federal (cognizant) agencies such as the Department of Health and Human Services or the Office of Naval Research. If you are a for-profit organization, the F&A costs are negotiated by the Division of Cost Allocation (DCA) , Division of Financial Advisory Services (DFAS) in the Office of Acquisition Management and Policy, NIH.
  • What is your direct cost base?
    • For most institutions the negotiated F&A rate will use a modified total direct cost base, which excludes items such as: equipment, student tuition, research patient care costs, rent, and sub-recipient charges (after the first $25,000). Check with your sponsored programs office to find out your negotiated direct cost base.
    • When calculating whether your direct cost per year is $500,000 or greater, do not include any sub-recipient F&A in the base but do include all other direct costs as well as any equipment costs.   NOTE:  Direct cost requests equal to or greater than $500,000 require prior approval from the NIH Institute/Center before application submission.  For more information, see NIH Guide Notice NOT-OD-02-004.
    • For many SBIR/STTR grantees, 40% of modified total direct costs is a common F&A rate, although rates at organizations may vary.

Modular versus Detailed Budgets

The NIH uses 2 different formats for budget submission depending on the total direct costs requested and the activity code used. 

The application forms package associated with most NIH funding opportunities includes two optional budget forms—(1) R&R Budget Form; and, (2) PHS 398 Modular Budget Form. NIH applications will include either the R&R Budget Form or the PHS 398 Modular Budget Form, but not both. To determine whether to use a detailed versus modular budget for your NIH application, see the flowchart below.

Modular Budgets

NIH uses a modular budget format to request up to a total of $250,000 of direct costs per year (in modules of $25,000, excluding consortium F&A costs) for some applications, rather than requiring a full detailed budget.

The modular budget format is NOT accepted for​​

  • ​SBIR and STTR grant applications,
  • applications from foreign (non-U.S.) institutions (must use detailed budget even when modular option is available), or
  • applications that propose the use of human fetal tissue (HFT) obtained from elective abortions (as defined in NOT-OD-19-128 for HFT) whether or not costs are incurred.
Creating a modular budget
  • Select the PHS398 Modular Budget form for your submission package, and use the appropriate set of instructions from the electronic application user's guide. You do not need to submit the SF424 (R&R) Budget form if you submit the PHS398 Modular Budget form.
  • Consider creating a detailed budget for your own institution's use including salaries, equipment, supplies, graduate student tuition, etc. for every year of funds requested. While the NIH will not ask for these details, they are important for you to have on hand when calculating your F&A costs base and writing your justification, and for audit purposes.
  • In order to determine how many modules you should request, subtract any consortium F&A from the total direct costs, and then round to the nearest $25,000 increment.
A modular budget justification should include:
  • Personnel Justification:The Personnel Justification should include the name, role, and number of person-months devoted to this project for every person on the project. Do not include salary and fringe benefit rate in the justification, but keep in mind the legislatively mandated salary cap when calculating your budget. [When preparing a modular budget, you are instructed to use the current cap when determining the appropriate number of modules.] 
  • Consortium Justification: If you have a consortium/subcontract, include the total costs (direct costs plus F&A costs), rounded to the nearest $1,000, for each consortium/subcontract. Additionally, any personnel should include their roles and person months; if the consortium is foreign, that should be stated as well.
  • Additional Narrative Justification: Additional justification should include explanations for any variations in the number of modules requested annually. Also, this section should describe any direct costs that were excluded from the total direct costs (such as equipment, tuition remission) and any work being conducted off-site, especially if it involves a foreign study site or an off-site F&A rate.
​See the NIH Modular Research Grant Applications page and the NIH Grants Policy Statement for more information. 

Detailed Budget: Personnel (Sections A & B)

Personnel make up sections A and B of the SF424 (R&R) Budget form. All personnel from the applicant organization dedicating effort to the project should be listed on the personnel budget with their base salary and effort, even if they are not requesting salary support.

  • Effort: Effort must be reported in person months. For help converting percent effort to person months, see: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/person_months_faqs.htm.
  • Salary Caps:NIH will not pay requested salary above the annual salary cap, which can be found at https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/salcap_summary.htm. If salary is requested above the salary cap, NIH will reduce that line item to the salary cap, resulting in a reduced total award amount. In future years, if the salary cap increases, grantees may rebudget to pay investigator salaries up to the new salary cap, but NIH will not increase the total award amount. If you are preparing a detailed budget, you are instructed to base your request on actual institutional base salaries (not the cap) so that NIH staff has the most current information in hand at the time of award and can apply the appropriate salary cap at that time.
  • Fringe Benefits: The fringe benefits rate is based on your institution's policy; the NIH does not have a pre-set limit on fringe benefits. More information on what is included as fringe benefits can be found in the Grants Policy Statement at https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps/HTML5/section_12/12.8.1_salaries_and_fringe_benefits.htm. If you have questions about what rate to use, consult your institution's sponsored programs office.
  • Senior/Key Personnel: The Senior/Key Personnel section should include any senior or key personnel from the applicant organization who are dedicating effort to this project. "Other Significant Contributors" who dedicate negligible effort should not be included. Some common significant contributors include: 1) CEOs of companies who provide overall leadership, but no direct contribution to the research; and 2) mentors for K awardees, who provide advice and guidance to the candidate but do not work on the project. Likewise, any consultants or collaborators who are not employed by the applicant organization should not be included in section A, but rather should be included in section F.3 of the budget (for consultants) or in section A of the consortium/subaward budget page (for collaborators).
  • Postdoctoral Associates:Postdocs can be listed in either section A or B depending on their level of involvement in project design and execution. If listed in section B, include the individuals' names and level of effort in the budget justification section.
  • Graduate Students: Graduate students can be listed in either section A or B, but if listed in section B, include the individuals' names and level of effort in the budget justification section. Tuition remission is included in section F.8 (not section A), but is included in the graduate student compensation limits. For more about the graduate student compensation limit, see: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-02-017.html. For current NRSA stipend levels, see the NRSA help page at: https://researchtraining.nih.gov.
  • Other Personnel: Other personnel can be listed by project role. If multiple people share the same role such as "lab technician", indicate the number of personnel to the left of the role description, add their person months together, and add their requested salaries together. The salaries of secretarial/clerical staff should normally be treated as F&A costs. Direct charging of these costs may be appropriate where a major project or activity explicitly budgets for administrative or clerical services and individuals involved can be specifically identified with the project or activity [see Exhibit C of OMB Circular A-21 (relocated to 2 CFR, Part 220)]. Be specific in your budget justifications when describing other personnel's roles and responsibilities.

Detailed Budget: Equipment, Travel, and Trainee Costs (Sections C, D, and E)

  • Equipment:Equipment is defined as an item of property that has an acquisition cost of $5,000 or more (unless the organization has established lower levels) and an expected service life of more than one year. Tips:
    • Generally equipment is excluded from the F&A base, so if you have something with a short service life (< 1 year), even if it costs more than $5,000, you are better off including it under "supplies".
    • If you request equipment that is already available (listed in the Facilities & Other Resources section, for example), the narrative justification must explain why the current equipment is insufficient to accomplish the proposed research and how the new equipment's use will be allocated specifically to the proposed research. Otherwise, NIH may disallow this cost.
    • General purpose equipment, such as desktop computers and laptops, that will be used on multiple projects or for personal use should not be listed as a direct cost but should come out of the F&A costs, unless primarily or exclusively used in the actual conduct of the proposed scientific research.
    • While the application does not require you to have a price quote for new equipment, including price quotes in your budget justification can aid in the evaluation of the equipment cost to support the project.
  • Travel: In the budget justification, include the destination, number of people traveling and dates or duration of your stay for all anticipated travel. As with the equipment justification, it is important that you clearly state how the travel is directly related to your proposed research (e.g. you can go to a conference to present your research, but not just for the purpose of "staying current in your field"). You should refer to your institution's travel policy for guidance on how you should arrange the travel, but if your institution lacks a policy, it is expected that you will follow the U.S. federal government policy found here: http://www.gsa.gov/federaltravelregulation.
  • Trainee Costs: Leave this section blank unless otherwise stated in the FOA. Graduate student tuition remission can be entered in section F.8.

Detailed Budget: Other Direct Costs (Section F)

  • Materials and Supplies:In the budget justification, indicate general categories such as glassware, chemicals, animal costs, including an amount for each category. Categories that include costs less than $1,000 do not have to be itemized.
  • Animal Costs: While included under "materials and supplies", it is often helpful to include more specific details about how you developed your estimate for animal costs. Include the number of animals you expect to use, the purchase price for the animals (if you need to purchase any), and your animal facility's per diem care rate, if available.  Details are especially helpful if your animal care costs are unusually large or small. For example, if you plan to follow your animals for an abnormally long time period and do not include per diem rates, the reviewers may think you have budgeted too much for animal costs and may recommend a budget cut.
  • Publication Costs:You may include the costs associated with helping you disseminate your research findings from the proposed research. If this is a new application, you may want to delay publication costs until the later budget periods, once you have actually obtained data to share.
  • Consultant Services:Consultants differ from Consortiums in that they may provide advice, but should not be making decisions for the direction of the research. Typically, consultants will charge a fixed rate for their services that includes both their direct and F&A costs. You do not need to report separate direct and F&A costs for consultants; however, you should report how much of the total estimated costs will be spent on travel. Consultants are not subject to the salary cap restriction; however, any consultant charges should meet your institution's definition of "reasonableness".
  • ADP/Computer Services: The services you include here should be research specific computer services- such as reserving computing time on supercomputers or getting specialized software to help run your statistics. This section should not include your standard desktop office computer, laptop, or the standard tech support provided by your institution. Those types of charges should come out of the F&A costs.
  • Alterations and Renovations (A&R): A&R does not include general maintenance projects (normally handled under F&A) or projects exceeding $500,000 (considered "construction" projects). A&R can be used for projects such as altering a room to make space for a new grant-related piece of equipment. If applicable:
    • Justify basis for costs, itemize by category.
    • Enter the total funds requested for alterations and renovations. Where applicable, provide the square footage and costs.
    • If A&R costs are in excess of $300,000 further limitations apply and additional documentation will be required.
  • Research Patient Care Costs:Few budgets contain patient care expenses, however if inpatient and/or outpatient costs are requested, the following information should be provided:
    • The names of any hospitals and/or clinics and the amounts requested for each.
    • If both inpatient and outpatient costs are requested, provide information for each separately.
    • Provide cost breakdown, number of days, number of patients, costs of tests/treatments.
    • Justify the costs associated with standard care or research care. (Note: If these costs are associated with patient accrual, restrictions may be justified in the Notice of Award.)
      (See NIH Grants Policy Statement NIH Grants Policy Statement, Research Patient Care Costs)
  • Tuition:In your budget justification, for any graduate students on your project, include what your school's tuition rates are. You may have to report both an in-state and out-of-state tuition rate. Depending on your school stipend and tuition levels, you may have to budget less than your school's full tuition rate in order to meet the graduate student compensation limit (equivalent to the NRSA zero-level postdoctorate stipend level).
  • Human Fetal Tissue (HFT) from elective abortions: If your application proposes the use of human fetal tissue obtained from elective abortions (as defined in NOT-OD-19-128), you must include a line item titled “Human Fetal Tissue Costs” on the budget form and an explanation of those costs in the budget justification.
  • Other: Some types of costs, such as entertainment costs, are not allowed under federal grants. NIH has included a list of the most common questionable items in the NIH Grants Policy Statement (https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps/HTML5/section_7/7_cost_consideration.htm). If NIH discovers an unallowable cost in your budget, generally we will discount that cost from your total award amount, so it is in your best interest to avoid requesting unallowable costs. If you have any question over whether a cost is allowable, contact your sponsored programs office or the grants management specialist listed on the funding opportunity announcement.


If you are using the detailed budget format, each consortium you include must have an independent budget form filled out.

  • Direct costs:
    • In the rare case of third tier subawards, section F.5 "subawards/consortium/contractual" costs should include the total cost of the subaward, and the entire third tier award is considered part of the direct costs of the consortium for the purposes of calculating the primary applicant's direct costs.
    • Cost Principles. Regardless of what cost principles apply to the parent grantee, the consortium is held to the standards of their respective set of cost principles.
  • F&A:
    • Consortium F&A costs are NOT included as part of the direct cost base when determining whether the application can use the modular format (direct costs < $250,000 per year), or determining whether prior approval is needed to submit an application (direct costs $500,000 or more for any year).

      NOTE: The $500K prior approval policy does not apply to applications submitted in response to RFAs or in response to other funding opportunity announcements including specific budgetary limits above $500K.
    • F&A costs for the first $25,000 of each consortium may be included in the modified total direct cost base, when calculating the overall F&A rate, as long as your institution's negotiated F&A rate agreement does not express prohibit it.
    • If the consortium is a foreign institution or international organization, F&A for the consortium is limited to 8%.
    • If the consortium is with a for-profit entity, such as a small business, the organization must have a negotiated F&A rate before they can charge F&A costs. The default small business rate of 40% is only applicable to SBIR (R43 &R44) and STTR (R41 & R42) applications. See the Division of Financial and Accounting Services (DFAS) at NIH to set up a rate: http://oamp.od.nih.gov/dfas/indirect-cost-branch/indirect-cost-submission
  • Justification:
    • Consortiums should each provide a budget justification following their detailed budget. The justification should be separate from the primary grantee's justification and address just those items that pertain to the consortium.

Understanding the Out Years

  • We do not expect your budget to predict perfectly how you will spend your money five years down the road. However, we do expect a reasonable approximation of what you intend to spend. Be thorough enough to convince the reviewers that you have a good sense of the overall costs.
  • In general, NIH does not have policy on salary escalation submitted in an application. We advise applicants to request in the application the actual costs needed for the budget period and to request cost escalations only if the escalation is consistent with institutional policy. See https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/salcap_summary.htm and https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/fy2012_salary_cap_faqs.htm.
  • Any large year-to-year variation should be described in your budget justification. For example, if you have money set aside for consultants only in the final year of your budget, be sure to explain why in your justification (e.g. the consultants are intended to help you with the statistical interpretation of the data and therefore are not needed before the final year).
  • In general, NIH grantees are allowed a certain degree of latitude to rebudget within and between budget categories to meet unanticipated needs and to make other types of post-award changes. Some changes may be made at the grantee's discretion as long as they are within the limits established by NIH. In other cases, NIH prior written approval may be required before a grantee makes certain budget modifications or undertakes particular activities (such as change in scope). See NIH Grants Policy Statement - Changes in Project and Budget.

Other resources to help you create your budget


<--- Previous Topic | Next Topic --->                                            

2, Local Assistance Base Award. 3, Summary Budget FY . A. 1, Local Assistance Base Award. 2, Line Item Justification FY

justification for award
Written by Arashakar
Write a comment