CLOSEOUT FOR M-94060022 Award" section as q m s e h g work done under datespvidedbythesubjedinhis~fbrthe~gapersalltheworkcontainedinthemd nothavebeerrsugportedbytheaward. ~ o f t R e l p a g e r s w e ~ e s u b m i t t e d ~ a f t e r t h e a d s initiatim while two of the papers were accepted for prblicahonjust prior to the a d s initiation The co-PI on the proposal was not considered a subject in this case bearuse he was not associated with any of the information provided in the subjed's statement. OIG reviewed the subject's NSF proposal and the award as well as the 6ve papers identified by the complainant. OIG found that three of the five gapers were su&nitted between four and 6ve months after the official inihrion of the award while the other two ~aperswere submitted three and eleven months p i o r to its official initiation A[I five papers were plMished after the a d s initiation 01Gnotedthattheadcnowledgment~inall~papersbdicatedthatthesubjed'sNSF award supported the work. In arfditiots four ofthe he papers acknowledged that an NSF Graduate Student Fellowdig (GSF) supgorted the work Withregad tothehreegapersdnnitted hfburtofhemonthsaftertheawadsinitiation, OIG noted tRat all thre!e papers wen p d k k d welj over a year later. OIG conduded that the additional work associated with final analyses, revisions, and guMication costs was well within the time frame in which the subject was supported by the award. M o r e it was appropriate for the subject to acknowledge NSF support and to list these papers as part of the work done under the award. OIG wrote to the subject quest@ h f b m a h about the aclcno- 1) to the @SF support that we were unable! to dent@, and 2) to aRe award's support fbr the work associated with tRe t w o p p e s h t h a d l ~ ~ ~ ~ t o a h e a w a r d s o ~ i n i t i Thesubject'sresponse ation provided explanationswith appropriate supporting doammition. ahe~p~doarmentationahatRis~Jlhulentwhohadbeenacoguthoton fbur ofthe five pagers had been supported udx an NSF GSF fbr three years beghnhg one year prior t~ the official ir6tiation of the subjed's award. 81G cl#lduded that the subject had properOy ~wledgedNSFsupportfbfhisgraduaPesEudenPinthe~papers. 'Fhesubjeae>rplainedand~tha!heaskedfbrandreceivedgermissionhhis ~on'sGrantsdC~~toinatrBfegwardcosts~aboutthreemnths~or to the award's o t l h l initiation date. He requested this after he learned Eiom a program officer that he would seceive the award. He explained that, with respct to the two ppes submkl prior to the officialirritiationoftheaward,both~thecomrrritmentofawatdandgreawatdcostsfiuthe veaificatjonofseseardaand~revhns. I n a d d i t h , f i u t h e o n e p a g e r ~ e O e v e n m o n t h s priortotheofficial hitiahoftheaward, pwwadcostswerecommitted fiuthe payment ofexcess pagecRarges- O I G ~ t h a t t h e s u t j e d h a d ~ ~ h i s N S F s u p p oTherewasno r t . s u b s t a n c e t o t h e a l l & o n t h a t t h e s u t j e c t M ~ hisNSFsupportinhisppod. cc: StaffScientist, Deputy A=& AIG-Owmight,IG
Applicant/Grantee/PI False Certification
Published by the National Science Foundation, Office of Inspector General on 1995-09-14.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)