Below I summarize the 29 responses from academe (+1 industry)
to my recent email asking about the setup of academic facility
charges. Many of the responses were detailed, so I will send
another (long!) email in a day or two containing all the
responses, but stripped of the author and institutional
information as some respondents requested anonymity.
I realize this "summary" is quite long, so I start with an
Executive Summary, and follow it with the longer summary. I've
worked hard to produce a document that conveys not just numbers,
but many of the great ideas and useful comments I received. I
have also injected my own comments in a few areas I think merit
further discussion. I hope the document is not too long to
remain useful to you.
Once again let me thank the respondents for their energy and
time in providing this very useful information.
Charlie
______________________________________________________________
------------Executive Summary---------------------------------
It seems the accountants/auditors are winning, but perhaps not
completely. (Winning what? see below.)
All respondents charge hourly fees. But how these fees are set
up, the scaling of fees (eg., 2x reduction for nighttime use),
and the rate structures for department versus campus versus
other academic users varies widely.
Even so, a good percentage of respondents (7 of the 29) charge
flat rate structures independent of instrument or user (with the
exception of non-Fed funded industrial users). Two respondents
have been involved in audits, and both are in this group. A
number of their most relevant comments are quoted in the summary
below. Their complete responses are worth reading, and will lead
the list in the following email. Certainly they throw cold, cold
water on the idea of varying any type of fees: for different
hours, for different instruments, and for charges to _any_
federally funded research.
I think there are probably some hard-and-fast rules we need to
know and follow in this regard. Some will even make sense. I
don't feel knowledgeable enough yet to attempt to list these.
But one wonders just how "scared" we have to be of audits.
Paranoia is never useful, but does control many other aspects
of our litigious society. Would auditors really access fines
for reasonably set cost structures that don't follow some
not well-defined, seemly overly-strict policy? Especially
when the policy is counter to common sense (or more importantly,
common consent of the experts--us!) for efficient and proper
operation of our facilities.
General areas for further discussion:
1. What are the rules that are cast in stone, and should not be
strayed from?
2. Conversely, what flexibility does exist in setting up a system?
Viewed here from what is being done, a lot; but according to
the audited, not nearly so much.
Specific questions for further discussion:
3. How does one prevent _abuse_ of high field instruments in a
flat fee system (eg., doing everything on the 500 since it
costs the same)?
4. Is it true that fees cannot be "scaled" in any way? A large
number of institutions are currently scaling fees with
considerable variation.
5. Do reduced nighttime/weekend rates really help, or just force
students into weird sleeping habits?
6. Are "rebates" or subsidies ok? How are they properly set up?
______________________________________________________________
------------Longer Summary------------------------------------
>1. Do any of you charge a flat fee per user, rather than hourly
> charges?
None charge a flat fee; all 29 charge on an hourly basis.
--------------------------------------------------------------
>2. Do any of you charge a training fee (ie. a fee up front to
> gain access)?
Most (15) simply said NO to this question.
Some (6) charge normal hourly rates during training.
Some of the first 15 might fall in this category but weren't
specific enough in their response to know.
Some (2) apply no charge during training on some instruments, but
hourly on other instruments. Both cases cited difficulty of
disentangling training from normal use as reason.
One (1) does not charge for nominal training, but does for more
advanced training, and for _repeat_ offenders of the nominal
training.
One (1) charges for a training course, but does not require
enrollment if the student can demonstrate proficiency without it.
One (1) charges a $2-4/h "access fee," applied for each login.
This fee helps balance out the cost of less efficient (in time)
shorter experiments: "to more efficiently schedule their usage,
i.e. to run several samples together rather than [individually]."
A common comment from the respondents was that training should
not be charged, as one never wants to discourage this function in
a facility.
--------------------------------------------------------------
>3. Do any of you charge per sample fees for routine spectra?
Nearly all (27) do not charge per sample fees.
One (1) charges per sample fees, but only for "outside" use.
One (1) charges per spectrum only for the sample changer.
--------------------------------------------------------------
>4. Do you charge a flat hourly fee, or vary per instrument?
Many (11) use flat hourly rates for all instruments.
A few (3) vary the rates proportional to field strength.
Many (12) vary rates somewhere in between.
One might presume that flat rates would cause problems for the
high field instruments; after all, if it costs the same, why not
use the 500 for everything?
Although we have had no costs for any instrument up to now, we
have been successful at somewhat (but not completely) controlling
this problem by making it much more difficult (a 2-credit course
required) to gain access to a 500. I assume those using flat
fees do something similar? This would be a good topic for further
discussion.
Certainly carrying most weight on this subject are comments by
the two respondents that have been involved in Fed. audits. Both
now charge flat fees for all instruments. Two very germane quotes:
"DCAA auditors were quite specific on this. Unless there is a
reason, ... fees need to mirror cost of operation.... a lot of
VERY DETAILED book keeping would be needed to justify this."
"... different fees can only be charged if sufficient cost
records are kept to justify the different rate structures."
Wham... well, ok. But varying costs per field strength seems to
make a lot of sense...
> . If the fee changes, how were the different rates fixed:
> total purchase cost of instrument, University cost (match
> to Federal or State grant), etc.? Are labor/maintenance
> costs included?
As above, a lot of variation.
Most (10) base fees only on operations and maintenance costs.
Seven (7) include at least partial labor costs. {ouch, lots of
soft money out there}
One (1) includes capital costs with operations and maintenance.
{Grants _cannot_ be used to collect for matching funds, so
this response must refer only to probe/computer/etc. upgrade
costs.}
One (1) calculates based on commercial rates; the formula makes
sense, albeit perhaps a bit arbitrary.
Seven (7) recover enough to pay for some upgrades of probes/
computers/etc.
How rates were fixed for those varying fees per instrument
ranged widely. Many quoted something similar to setting costs
proportional to "relative quality of data obtained;" or age/
expense of instrument. One mentioned their structure as a
"market driven approach," i.e. getting users spread across the
available equipment in a reasonable fashion according to cost.
See the complete responses for many more details.
--------------------------------------------------------------
>5. Do you "scale" the fees in some way?
Five (5) do not scale in any way. All five also have flat fee
structures, i.e. no variation per instrument. I was surprised
by the number doing this, initially, but noted that both
institutions that were audited are in this category. One of
the audited summarizes:
"Can't do this... Unless you are recovering salaries for techs
... on certain instruments you cannot scale fees."
Ouch!! Really getting beat up now. Don't know quite what this
means for everyone else... Certainly seems an important topic for
further discussion.
> . Do you impose a cap after which a user or research group
> pays no more?
Only two (2) currently do this.
One did not state the cap amount; the other caps at $4000/yr/group.
One other used to, but says "the bean counters stopped the practice."
> . Do you charge less for non-primetime hours?
Six (6) specified 1/2 rates for evenings and weekend use.
Six (6) more said YES, but did not specify the rate change.
Two (2) have three-level rate structures for daytime, evening, and
overnight times.
A number (6) reduce rates after a certain length of time per
experiment, usually >3 h. Some had also reductions if a group
exceeds a certain $/month. Lots of variations here; see
complete listing for details.
These types of fee changes certainly seem reasonable. But we are
one example of how overnights can be handled in a flat (zero) fee
structure. Overnights are used here because that's often the only
time to do longer experiments. >4h are not allowed, for example,
on one 500 between 8am-10pm; the overnights are very competitive
on this instrument. So it depends on how busy the instrument is.
If the instrument isn't so busy, then why put a system in place
that pressures students to stay up nights? I'm not convinced
about the actual utility of off-hour fee reductions. Not saying
it's wrong, but would like to hear more feedback about this.
> . Do you bin groups or users according to use: ie., charge
> flat fees for light, medium and heavy users?
Two (2) charge less if a group "contracts in large blocks"
throughout the year.
--------------------------------------------------------------
>6. What are the variations in fees charged to users on the same
> instrument:
> . are they different between department and campus users, or
> the same rate across the campus?
> . are there different rates for academicians outside of the
> campus or university system?
Nearly a third (8) charge the same rate; many commented that they
believe flat rates to all federally funded programs are required:
"There is an OMB circular (number now lost to me) {anyone know
this #?} which in essence says that you must charge Fed funded
users at the lowest rate you charge anyone."
Nearly half (13) charge the same rate to campus users, but more for
academic users off-campus. A number added that they don't get
off-campus users, so they in practice have flat rates.
Six (6) charge higher rates once outside the department, often as
a three-tier system.
At least six in the last two groups discussed "rebates" or
"subsidies" for departmental or campus users. Some involved
overhead, which the first group implies is not ok with auditors.
But the others are talking of something similar to:
"... it is perfectly ok for the department to 'subsidize' rates
for internal customers via some cost-recovery mechanism. Then,
you charge one rate for everyone... but internal users get a
rebate, later."
Very interesting. Further discussion, please!
> . do you charge fees for operator assistance?
Six (6) do not. Comments all similar to:
"I try to encourage their asking for help [with no fees] before
they damage things. I believe this pays off in less down time."
Eight (8) do charge for operator assistance.
Two (2) clearly involve labor recovery with these costs.
For two (2), I cannot tell whether labor is involved.
Four (4) do not involve labor recovery. Once more, that falls
outside the recommendations of those audited:
"Is the salary for the operator coming from the operating fund?
If so, [then you can charge for assistance]. If not, no."
--------------------------------------------------------------
>7. Are there any other aspects of your fee system that vary from
> the suggestions/questions raised above?
Got a number of comments along the following idea:
"My advise is to keep everything as simple as possible."
A suggestion I really like:
"I suggest you rigorously apply the sunshine-rule.... setup
a series of common sense rates, fees, and structure...
publish them on an accessible web site... Problems usually
arise when there is a lot of hanky-panky going on under the
covers."
Some great "common sense" ideas:
1. Approve use of _development time_ at no cost "to get a new
experiment running, but [the user has] to leave a detailed
tutorial." A great idea!
2. Charging for _repeat_ offenders of initial training. Another one!
3. Charging an access fee applied to each login, to help balance
shorter experiments. No doubt students will work to cluster
their shorter experiments in a single session, which will make
more efficient use of the equipment.
4. Many (including me) liked the idea of a cap on fees. I like
even better an up-front fee based on bins: chair determines at
beginning of the year (based on data from the previous year) low,
medium, and heavy user groups. Faculty pay the yearly fee
up-front, and students perform research free from worries about
fees. The main purpose of the bins is to be equitable between
larger and smaller groups.
5. Here's another of my own: reduce fees as a student gains hours
of NMR time during their career at an institution. We know
that the more a student does NMR the more efficient they become,
and the less trouble/damage they create on the instrument. The
biggest users are always valuable in assisting with training,
answering questions, and troubleshooting. Hard to measure these
things for accounting justifications, but we all know it is true.
I say common sense, because as you've read from the quotes of those
audited, it seems none of these would pass without considerable
trouble in an audit. The bins, for example, seem completely verboten.
Finally, I want to digress briefly on a big problem I have with
flat fees. They impose a real restraint on open, unhindered
curiosity and ability to do basic research. We have been rewarded
through the years at UW with our no-fee structure, in allowing
students to learn/study/research bounded really only by their own
desire and interest. Now we will have students that are curious,
want to learn more about their project, but worry about the
costs. Perhaps the major professor has imposed a cap on the
student's NMR time/money. Will he/she carry on and do that
crucial experiment? She/he wonders about doing an important
experiment over again. In the past, no problem; now it costs.
I am convinced that flat hourly charges are unnecessary, and
counter-productive.
So one should focus on what we can do to remove/reduce these
barriers to research in the truest academic traditions. Caps and
up-front fees would be huge helps in this regard, but it seems
the bean counters are carrying the day. Too bad, if true! That
a group of accountants and lawyers, that likely have no clue how
research is done, imposes these constraints on us is not a good
reflection of our government.
I believe common practices of this group are a good measure of
what _should_ be ok. If the group agrees by practice that a
fee structure assists in the proper operation of a facility,
that should at least help in fending off audit problems.
----------------------------------------------------------
Charles G. Fry, Ph.D. Tel: (608)262-3182
Director, MR Facility Fax: (608)262-0381
Chem. Dept., Univ. Wisconsin
Madison, WI 53706 USA email: fry@chem.wisc.edu
----------------------------------------------------------