Are you familiar with the new Federal funders “naughty” list called FAPIIS Grant Managers-Part II?
Now more than ever, organizations will be punished if they are apply for federal grants before they are ready to manage them.
Starting January 1, 2016, Federal agencies are required to check the non-public section of the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System.
This database (FAPIIS) was originally established to track contractor misconduct and performance, but beginning on January 1, 2016, federal agencies are also using this to track grant recipients.
The updated regulations require funding agencies to review FAPIIS as part of a risk assessment prior to awards greater than $150,000.
If they determine an applicant is not qualified for an award, their status will be retained in FAPIIS for five years
Even more…other federal agencies must consider “non-qualified” applicant status in making decisions about future awards.
More Questions (and Answers) for Grant Managers-Part II
In our first part of our three-part series 10 Essential Questions (and Answers) for Grant Managers-Part I we looked at documentation, sub-recipient monitoring and the new Procurement Standards in 2 CFR Part 200.
In Part II of our series we are going to cover questions about FAPIIS asked by participants on our recent Grant Management Update webinar.
Question: This is the first I’ve heard about FAPIIS. Where can I get more information?
Answer: The requirements for funding agencies to check FAPIIS was added to 2 CFR Part 200 in sub-section 200.212 as part of the overall risk assessment requirements which were added with the Uniform Guidance:
Here is the section from 2 CFR Part 200: ( emphasis on 200.212 (a) and (c)-(1) (c)-(2) and (c)-(3))
200.212 Reporting a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award.
(a) If a Federal awarding agency does not make a Federal award to a non-Federal entity because the official determines that the non-Federal entity does not meet either or both of the minimum qualification standards as described in §200.205, Federal awarding agency review of risk posed by applicants, paragraph (a)(2), the Federal awarding agency must report that determination to the designated integrity and performance system accessible through SAM (currently FAPIIS), only if all of the following apply:
(1) The only basis for the determination described in paragraph (a) of this section is the non-Federal entity’s prior record of executing programs or activities under Federal awards or its record of integrity and business ethics, as described in §200.205 Federal awarding agency review of risk posed by applicants, paragraph (a)(2) (i.e., the entity was determined to be qualified based on all factors other than those two standards), and
(2) The total Federal share of the Federal award that otherwise would be made to the non-Federal entity is expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold over the period of performance.
(b) The Federal awarding agency is not required to report a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award if they make the Federal award to the non-Federal entity and includes specific award terms and conditions, as described in §200.207 Specific conditions.
(c) If a Federal awarding agency reports a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award, as described in paragraph (a) of this section, the Federal awarding agency also must notify the non-Federal entity that—
(1) The determination was made and reported to the designated integrity and performance system accessible through SAM, and include with the notification an explanation of the basis for the determination;
(2) The information will be kept in the system for a period of five years from the date of the determination, as required by section 872 of Public Law 110-417, as amended (41 U.S.C. 2313), then archived;
(3) Each Federal awarding agency that considers making a Federal award to the non-Federal entity during that five year period must consider that information in judging whether the non-Federal entity is qualified to receive the Federal award when the total Federal share of the Federal award is expected to include an amount of Federal funding in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold over the period of performance;
(4) The non-Federal entity may go to the awardee integrity and performance portal accessible through SAM (currently the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)) and comment on any information the system contains about the non-Federal entity itself; and
(5) Federal awarding agencies will consider that non-Federal entity’s comments in determining whether the non-Federal entity is qualified for a future Federal award.
(d) If a Federal awarding agency enters information into the designated integrity and performance system accessible through SAM about a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award and subsequently:
(1) Learns that any of that information is erroneous, the Federal awarding agency must correct the information in the system within three business days;
(2) Obtains an update to that information that could be helpful to other Federal awarding agencies, the Federal awarding agency is strongly encouraged to amend the information in the system to incorporate the update in a timely way.
(e) Federal awarding agencies shall not post any information that will be made publicly available in the non-public segment of designated integrity and performance system that is covered by a disclosure exemption under the Freedom of Information Act. If the recipient asserts within seven calendar days to the Federal awarding agency that posted the information that some or all of the information made publicly available is covered by a disclosure exemption under the Freedom of Information Act, the Federal awarding agency that posted the information must remove the posting within seven calendar days of receiving the assertion. Prior to reposting the releasable information, the Federal awarding agency must resolve the issue in accordance with the agency’s Freedom of Information Act procedures.
[80 FR 43309, July 22, 2015]
Question: In FAPIIS, is the information available about the institution as a whole-for example by institution, or is it more detailed, for example, by Principal Investigator?
Answer: The answer is yes, there are many levels of detail in FAPIIS. I have looked up by Organization, PI, DUNS, etc. (See the search notes below about searching on individuals.)
Because the use of FAPIIS for grant recipients is relatively new, you may find the database could be missing some of the organizations who you would expect to see in there.
However, in the coming months and years, this database will be filling out with additional information.
Here are the search instructions from FAPIIS-https://www.fapiis.gov/fapiis/index.action
“Search Instructions: Search by DUNS, CAGE, or by selecting a filter from the dropdown box. NOTE: If you enter multiple search criteria, the DUNS code will take precedence.
CAGE or DUNS/DUNSPLUS4 searches must be exact. CAGE must be 5 characters; DUNS must be either 9 or 13 characters.
Special Search Note: It is possible in the FAPIIS application that a contractor may not have a CAGE CODE. If you search by CAGE and do not get the contractor you are looking for, try again using the ‘Name’ search option. Note some of the Extended Systems do not require DUNS. If your search of the FAPIIS system does not produce a Performance Information section of SAM record, you can go directly to the System for Award Management (SAM) https://www.sam.gov/ and use the ‘Advanced Search’ option to locate the entity of interest.
To search for an individual by name, search using the ‘Contains’ option and specify only the person’s last name.”
Question: Does a grantee have access to see what is written about them in FAPIIS?
Answer: You can look up government entered records such as:
- Administrative Agreements
- Defective Pricing
- DoD Determination of Contractor Fault
- Non-Responsibility Determination
- Recipient Not-Qualified Determination
- Termination for Cause
- Termination for Default
- Termination for Material Failure to Comply
- Suspension/Debarment information if the entity has any of these records
- Administrative Proceedings information entered by the company
However, there can be delays in viewing these updates to FAPIIS for public use.
The reason cited for the Federal Agencies using the non-public Grant Managers-Part II part of the database is that those parts are more current than the public section.
Whether or not there is additional information in the nonpublic section has not been revealed…yet…stay tuned!
BUT…grant recipients do have the right to comment on the record. (See §200.212 part (4) and (5) above.)
Grant Management Training with a Greater Purpose
You’ve just gotten a behind the scenes look at our approach to grant management training.
We are dedicated to helping grant professionals connect on a deeper Grant Managers-Part II level to their work and communities as they continue their life-changing work funded by Federal grants.
Stay tuned for Part III of our series next week wrapping up with more risk assessment and procurement standards questions Grant Managers-Part II.
Ready to Improve Your Grant Management?
How about you?
Would you like to be a better grant manager?
We have another grant management training seminar coming soon.
Click here to get all the details!
Hope to see you there!
Lucy Morgan CPA, MBA
CEO, Compliance Warrior
Author of “Decoding Grant Management-The Ultimate Success Guide to the Federal Grant Regulations in 2 CFR Part 200” The 2nd Edition is now available on Amazon in Paperback and Kindle versions.