I85PREP
⌘ K
CPRA study materials
CPRA study resources

CPRA practice questions

One question at a time. Build your CPRA understanding.

First 50 of 200 questions. Each one lists the choices, the correct answer, and an explanation. The checker at the top of this page saves progress in this browser when it is available.

Continue in the practice tool above to load more questions, 50 at a time.

Question 1Pre-Award Research Administration (CPRA Body of Knowledge areas not enumerated in source)

A researcher plans to submit a proposal to a federal agency that requires electronic submission through a government-wide portal. Which office typically holds the institution's authoritative registration for that portal and must be kept active for submission to succeed?

  1. The principal investigator's departmental business manager, who registers the lab annually
  2. The office of sponsored programs, which maintains the institutional registration and roles Correct answer.
  3. The agency program officer, who activates accounts after a letter of intent
  4. The university press office, which certifies public-facing institutional identity

Explanation

Institutional registrations for federal electronic submission systems are held and renewed by the sponsored programs office, which assigns roles such as authorized organizational representative. Investigators and departments cannot maintain these registrations themselves, and program officers have no role in account administration.

Question 2Pre-Award Research Administration (CPRA Body of Knowledge areas not enumerated in source)

Before drafting a proposal, a PI reads the agency's solicitation and finds a stated page limit, a required data management plan, and a mandatory cost-share. What is the best reason to treat the solicitation as the controlling document over the agency's general guide?

  1. The general guide is advisory only and can be ignored once a solicitation is issued
  2. The general guide applies only to training grants and not to research proposals
  3. Solicitations always supersede the general guide where they differ, so the stricter specific requirements govern Correct answer.
  4. Solicitations are shorter and therefore easier for reviewers to apply consistently

Explanation

A funding opportunity announcement or solicitation sets the specific rules for that competition and controls where it conflicts with broader agency guidance. Proposers must therefore reconcile both documents and follow the more specific, stricter instruction.

Question 3Pre-Award Research Administration (CPRA Body of Knowledge areas not enumerated in source)

A PI wants to include a collaborator at another university who will perform a defined scope of work for a portion of the budget. Which mechanism is normally used to route funds to that collaborator?

  1. An internal allocation of the prime budget
  2. A subaward issued after the prime award is made Correct answer.
  3. A procurement contract for consulting services
  4. A gift agreement from the collaborator's foundation

Explanation

When a collaborator at another organization performs a substantive portion of the programmatic work, the relationship is normally formalized as a subaward once the prime award is in place. Procurement is used for routine goods and services, and gifts carry no scope of work or deliverable obligations.

Question 4Pre-Award Research Administration (CPRA Body of Knowledge areas not enumerated in source)

Which item is normally treated as a direct cost on a federal research proposal rather than as part of the negotiated facilities and administrative rate?

  1. Consumable laboratory reagents used on the specific project Correct answer.
  2. Salaries of the sponsored programs office staff
  3. Depreciation on the building that houses the laboratory
  4. Utilities serving the entire research building

Explanation

Consumables that can be specifically attributed to a project are direct costs. Building depreciation, utilities, and central administrative salaries are pooled into the negotiated facilities and administrative rate because they support many activities and cannot be assigned to one project.

Question 5Pre-Award Research Administration (CPRA Body of Knowledge areas not enumerated in source)

An investigator is deciding whether a planned activity constitutes human subjects research. Which determination is most consistent with federal policy?

  1. Pilot studies with fewer than ten participants fall outside human subjects rules
  2. Any project that surveys employees of the institution is exempt from review by definition
  3. Research using only coded private information never requires review
  4. Research involving living individuals about whom data are collected through intervention or interaction requires review Correct answer.

Explanation

Human subjects research generally involves living individuals about whom an investigator obtains data through intervention or interaction or identifiable private information. Small samples, employee populations, and coded data do not automatically remove a project from review.

Question 6Pre-Award Research Administration (CPRA Body of Knowledge areas not enumerated in source)

A proposal includes a subcontract to a foreign university that will collect biological samples in its home country. Which compliance area most directly requires attention before submission?

  1. Foreign component review and any required approvals in the host country Correct answer.
  2. Export control review limited to the prime institution's own equipment purchases
  3. Institutional review board approval of the prime institution's laboratory safety plan
  4. Federal procurement integrity certification for the prime institution's purchasing staff

Explanation

Work performed at a foreign site that is significant to the project is a foreign component and triggers disclosure and review, including host-country permissions. The other listed areas may be relevant to the project but do not address the foreign performance of the scope.

Question 7Pre-Award Research Administration (CPRA Body of Knowledge areas not enumerated in source)

Which statement best describes the role of the authorized organizational representative in proposal submission?

  1. The representative approves the PI's scientific methodology
  2. The representative negotiates the PI's salary level with the agency
  3. The representative certifies institutional compliance and submits the proposal on behalf of the organization Correct answer.
  4. The representative conducts the scientific peer review of the proposal

Explanation

The authorized organizational representative is empowered by the institution to submit proposals and certify that the organization and the project comply with applicable requirements. Scientific peer review, salary negotiation, and methodology approval lie outside that role.

Question 8Pre-Award Research Administration (CPRA Body of Knowledge areas not enumerated in source)

A PI is preparing a budget and wants to include a piece of equipment costing $12,000 that is essential to the project and not currently available. Under common federal costing practice, how should this item be treated?

  1. As an indirect cost, because equipment is always recovered through the negotiated rate
  2. As a direct cost, because it is an allowable project-specific item that meets the agency's equipment threshold or is otherwise justified Correct answer.
  3. As a cost share, because equipment purchases cannot be charged to federal awards
  4. As an unallowable cost, because equipment must be purchased before the project begins

Explanation

Equipment essential to the project and not otherwise available may be charged as a direct cost when it meets the agency's definition and threshold and is justified in the proposal. Equipment is not automatically recovered through the indirect rate, and it is not inherently unallowable or cost share.

Question 9Pre-Award Research Administration (CPRA Body of Knowledge areas not enumerated in source)

A PI learns that a program officer is enthusiastic about the concept and asks whether that conversation can substitute for the required letter of intent. What is the most accurate response?

  1. No, because letters of intent are never required for any federal solicitation
  2. Yes, because letters of intent are optional whenever a PI has prior contact
  3. No, because submission requirements in the solicitation govern regardless of informal encouragement Correct answer.
  4. Yes, because program officer interest waives the formal submission requirement

Explanation

Informal encouragement from a program officer does not waive requirements stated in the solicitation. If a letter of intent is required, it must be submitted through the specified channel by the stated deadline.

Question 10Pre-Award Research Administration (CPRA Body of Knowledge areas not enumerated in source)

A department wants to submit a proposal through a foundation that requires a brief concept paper before inviting a full application. Which pre-award activity is most appropriate first?

  1. Register the project in the federal submission portal as a precaution
  2. Ask the foundation to waive its concept paper stage because the PI is well known
  3. Submit the full application immediately and note that the concept paper will follow
  4. Confirm institutional eligibility and internal approval requirements, then draft the concept paper to the funder's format Correct answer.

Explanation

Even for a foundation, pre-award work begins with confirming that the institution and PI are eligible and that internal approvals can be obtained. The concept paper should then follow the funder's format before any full application is prepared.

Question 11Pre-Award Research Administration (CPRA Body of Knowledge areas not enumerated in source)

A proposal budget includes a 5 percent escalation on graduate student stipends in each of four years. What is the primary reason pre-award staff should verify the escalation against institutional policy and the solicitation?

  1. Escalation reduces the facilities and administrative rate applied to the award
  2. Escalation is always required by federal regulation for all personnel categories
  3. Escalation automatically converts stipends into equipment costs
  4. Escalation may be capped or disallowed, and unsupported increases can make the budget noncompliant Correct answer.

Explanation

Many sponsors cap or prohibit escalation on stipends and salaries, and budgets must reflect both sponsor rules and institutional policy. Unsupported escalation can render a budget noncompliant or trigger a revision during review.

Question 12Pre-Award Research Administration (CPRA Body of Knowledge areas not enumerated in source)

A PI proposes to charge 100 percent of a senior scientist's academic-year salary to a federal award while the scientist also teaches two courses. What concern should pre-award review raise?

  1. Charging salary to a federal award is prohibited for anyone who teaches
  2. The committed effort may exceed what is allowable and must be consistent with the individual's actual responsibilities Correct answer.
  3. The scientist must instead be listed as a consultant
  4. Academic-year salary can never be charged to federal awards

Explanation

Effort charged to a sponsored project must reflect the proportion of time devoted to the project and be consistent with the individual's total professional responsibilities. A full academic-year charge for someone with substantial teaching duties is likely unsupported.

Question 13Pre-Award Research Administration (CPRA Body of Knowledge areas not enumerated in source)

A solicitation requires a cost-sharing commitment of 20 percent of total project costs. Which approach best ensures the commitment is credible at submission?

  1. State a general institutional commitment without identifying specific costs
  2. Identify specific allowable costs from non-federal sources, document their availability, and include them in the proposal budget Correct answer.
  3. Count the same costs already charged to another federal award
  4. List anticipated future gifts that have not yet been received

Explanation

Cost sharing must consist of allowable, verifiable costs from eligible sources that are not already counted elsewhere. Specific identification and documentation make the commitment credible and auditable.

Question 14Pre-Award Research Administration (CPRA Body of Knowledge areas not enumerated in source)

A PI plans to include a foreign collaborator's unpublished data in a proposal and to send the collaborator a copy of the full proposal. Which pre-award action is most prudent?

  1. Send the proposal immediately, because proposals are always public documents
  2. Review the arrangement for export control and confidentiality obligations before transmitting controlled technical content Correct answer.
  3. Rely on the collaborator's assurance that no restrictions apply
  4. Remove all budget information and send the remainder without review

Explanation

Sharing technical content with foreign persons can raise export control and confidentiality issues, and some sponsors treat proposals as confidential. Pre-award review should occur before transmitting potentially controlled information.

Question 15Pre-Award Research Administration (CPRA Body of Knowledge areas not enumerated in source)

A proposal involves a subcontractor whose scope includes designing a survey of human participants. Who must typically review the human subjects protections for that portion of the work?

  1. Only the prime institution's IRB, because it holds the award
  2. The funding agency's grants management specialist
  3. No review is needed because the work is performed under a subcontract
  4. The subcontractor's IRB, with documentation provided to the prime institution Correct answer.

Explanation

Each institution engaged in human subjects research is generally responsible for review by its own IRB, and the prime institution must document the collaborator's approval. Grants specialists administer awards but do not perform ethical review.

Question 16Pre-Award Research Administration (CPRA Body of Knowledge areas not enumerated in source)

A PI wants to begin recruiting participants and ordering specialized reagents two months before the anticipated award start date. What should pre-award staff advise?

  1. Expenses incurred before the award start date are generally unallowable unless a specific pre-award cost authorization exists Correct answer.
  2. Pre-award costs are automatically allowed for all federal awards up to 90 days
  3. Recruiting participants is exempt from pre-award cost rules
  4. Reagents may be ordered early if the PI pays personally and seeks reimbursement

Explanation

Costs incurred before the award start date are generally unallowable absent specific authorization, which some sponsors permit for limited pre-award costs under stated conditions. Automatic allowances and personal reimbursement arrangements do not create authority.

Question 17Pre-Award Research Administration (CPRA Body of Knowledge areas not enumerated in source)

A proposal includes a statement that the institution will provide a renovated laboratory as cost share. Which question is most important for pre-award review?

  1. Whether the laboratory is used by undergraduate students
  2. Whether the renovation was designed by an outside architect
  3. Whether the renovation will be completed before peer review
  4. Whether the value is properly documented and the cost is allowable and not already counted elsewhere Correct answer.

Explanation

Third-party or institutional cost sharing must be valued according to applicable rules and must consist of allowable costs not counted toward another award. Documentation and non-duplication are the central review questions.

Question 18Pre-Award Research Administration (CPRA Body of Knowledge areas not enumerated in source)

A proposal will involve transferring a cell line received under a material transfer agreement that restricts use to noncommercial research. What should pre-award staff confirm?

  1. That the agreement automatically becomes a subaward
  2. That the proposed use and any sharing with collaborators are consistent with the agreement's terms Correct answer.
  3. That the material transfer agreement can be ignored once federal funds support the work
  4. That the cell line must be listed as equipment in the budget

Explanation

Material transfer agreements impose obligations on use, transfer, and publication that must be honored regardless of funding source. Pre-award review should confirm that the planned work and any distribution to collaborators fit those terms.

Question 19Pre-Award Research Administration (CPRA Body of Knowledge areas not enumerated in source)

An agency limits indirect costs on a particular program to 8 percent of modified total direct costs, while the institution's negotiated rate is much higher. How should the proposal budget handle this?

  1. Omit indirect costs entirely and add them to the following year's budget
  2. Charge the full negotiated rate and let the agency reduce it after award
  3. Apply the sponsor's lower cap and note the unrecovered amount as an institutional allowance if the institution permits Correct answer.
  4. Charge the full negotiated rate as a direct cost instead

Explanation

When a sponsor caps indirect cost recovery, the proposal must use the capped rate and the institution decides whether the difference is absorbed or documented. Charging above the cap or reclassifying it as a direct cost violates sponsor terms.

Question 20Pre-Award Research Administration (CPRA Body of Knowledge areas not enumerated in source)

A PI's proposal includes a letter from a member of Congress expressing support for the project. How should this be handled in the submission?

  1. Use the letter in place of the required institutional letter of commitment
  2. Follow the solicitation's rules on lobbying and letters of support, and generally avoid political endorsement content Correct answer.
  3. Forward the letter directly to reviewers after submission
  4. Include the letter prominently to demonstrate strong community backing

Explanation

Political endorsement letters can raise lobbying and propriety concerns, and many solicitations restrict what support letters may contain. Proposers should follow the solicitation and institutional rules rather than use political content to influence review.

Question 21Pre-Award Research Administration (CPRA Body of Knowledge areas not enumerated in source)

A proposal includes a plan to use a proprietary dataset owned by a company that will retain the right to approve any publications. What is the most significant pre-award concern?

  1. The dataset must be purchased with cost-share funds
  2. The publication restriction may conflict with the sponsor's open access and results dissemination requirements Correct answer.
  3. The dataset must be described as equipment
  4. The company must be listed as a co-principal investigator

Explanation

Sponsors commonly require that results be publishable and that data be shared under stated terms, so a company's prepublication approval right can conflict with award conditions. This should be resolved before submission.

Question 22Pre-Award Research Administration (CPRA Body of Knowledge areas not enumerated in source)

A PI proposes to include a foreign national collaborator who will work on campus for three months and will have access to controlled technology. Which pre-award step is most appropriate?

  1. Ask the collaborator to sign a general confidentiality statement instead of review
  2. Assume that on-campus work is exempt from export controls
  3. Defer the review until after the award is made
  4. Conduct an export control review, including deemed export considerations, and document any license need or exclusion Correct answer.

Explanation

Access by a foreign national to controlled technology in the United States can constitute a deemed export requiring review and possibly a license or exclusion. On-campus location and confidentiality statements do not substitute for that review, which should occur before submission.

Question 23Pre-Award Research Administration (CPRA Body of Knowledge areas not enumerated in source)

A PI proposes to commit 25 percent effort on a proposal, but the same individual already has committed effort exceeding 100 percent across existing awards during the same period. What is the most accurate pre-award assessment?

  1. The commitment is likely infeasible and should be reconciled with actual responsibilities before submission Correct answer.
  2. The commitment is acceptable because effort is measured only in person-months on new awards
  3. The commitment is acceptable if the individual agrees to work evenings
  4. The commitment is acceptable because existing awards are not considered in effort review

Explanation

Committed effort must be feasible given an individual's total professional obligations, including existing awards. Pre-award review should reconcile proposed commitments with documented responsibilities to avoid overcommitment and later effort reporting problems.

Question 24Pre-Award Research Administration (CPRA Body of Knowledge areas not enumerated in source)

A proposal involves a subaward to an entity that will be selected competitively after award, but the proposal names a specific partner and includes that partner's scope and budget. What is the best characterization of the arrangement?

  1. The proposal should describe the competitive selection process and avoid committing to a specific partner unless the solicitation permits it Correct answer.
  2. The arrangement is prohibited because subawards cannot be competed after award
  3. The partner should be removed from the proposal entirely with no further explanation
  4. The named partner must be treated as a consultant regardless of scope

Explanation

When a partner is not yet selected, the proposal should explain the planned competitive process and avoid implying a commitment that the solicitation does not allow. Mislabeling the partner as a consultant or omitting the plan misrepresents the project structure.

Question 25Pre-Award Research Administration (CPRA Body of Knowledge areas not enumerated in source)

A PI plans to include a statement that the project will create jobs in a specific legislative district to strengthen the proposal. Which pre-award concern is most relevant?

  1. Job creation statements replace the need for a broader impacts section
  2. Such statements are permissible only if the district is represented by a committee chair
  3. Such statements may raise lobbying and merit review propriety issues and should follow solicitation guidance Correct answer.
  4. Job creation statements are required in all federal research proposals

Explanation

Content aimed at influencing legislative support or implying political favor can raise lobbying and propriety concerns, and merit review must focus on the solicitation's criteria. Proposers should follow solicitation guidance rather than tailoring to a district.

Question 26Pre-Award Research Administration (CPRA Body of Knowledge areas not enumerated in source)

A PI wants to submit the same scientific project to two federal agencies at the same time, with each application describing essentially the same aims and methods. What is the most appropriate pre-award action?

  1. Submit both applications without comment because each agency reviews independently
  2. Disclose the overlap to both agencies and confirm in writing whether concurrent submission is permitted before submitting Correct answer.
  3. Submit to both but alter the aims slightly in each so the projects appear distinct
  4. Withdraw both applications and wait for the next review cycle

Explanation

Most sponsors prohibit or restrict concurrent submission of substantially overlapping proposals and require disclosure of related pending support. The institution's research administration office should confirm the sponsor's rule in writing before submission so that no misrepresentation occurs. Altering aims to disguise overlap is a research-integrity violation.

Question 27Pre-Award Research Administration (CPRA Body of Knowledge areas not enumerated in source)

Which document typically gives an institution the authority to submit proposals and accept awards on behalf of the organization?

  1. The sponsored programs office's internal routing form
  2. The sponsor's program announcement
  3. The institutional signature/authorized official designation and delegation of authority Correct answer.
  4. The PI's curriculum vitae

Explanation

Authority to obligate the organization comes from an institutional delegation that designates authorized officials and describes the scope of their signature authority. Individual investigators do not hold this authority by virtue of their faculty appointment. Routing forms document internal review but do not themselves confer authority.

Question 28Pre-Award Research Administration (CPRA Body of Knowledge areas not enumerated in source)

A funding opportunity limits proposals to one per institution and requires an internal selection process. What should the research administrator confirm first?

  1. Whether the sponsor will accept a late submission
  2. Whether the PI has previously received funding from this sponsor
  3. Whether the institution has an established limited-submission review with a published internal deadline Correct answer.
  4. Whether the project can be split into two smaller proposals

Explanation

Limited-submission opportunities require the institution to select which proposal may go forward, usually through an internal competition with a published deadline. Confirming that process and its timing prevents wasted effort and ineligible submissions. Prior funding history and proposal splitting do not resolve the one-per-institution limit.

Question 29Pre-Award Research Administration (CPRA Body of Knowledge areas not enumerated in source)

Before submitting, a research administrator verifies that each key person's other support is disclosed in the format and timeframe the sponsor requires. What is the primary purpose of this review?

  1. To set the salary escalation rate for outyears
  2. To determine the order of authors on future publications
  3. To confirm that committed effort does not exceed available person-months and that all required support is transparently reported Correct answer.
  4. To calculate the indirect cost rate

Explanation

Other support disclosure lets the sponsor and institution assess overlap, commitment, and availability of key personnel. Reviewers check that effort commitments are feasible and that all reportable resources are disclosed as the sponsor defines them. It does not affect indirect cost rates or publication authorship.

Question 30Pre-Award Research Administration (CPRA Body of Knowledge areas not enumerated in source)

A program announcement states that cost sharing is not required but that voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited unless explicitly permitted. How should the budget be prepared?

  1. Include cost share only if the institution's policy requires it for all proposals
  2. Include cost share but omit it from the budget narrative
  3. Exclude voluntary committed cost sharing from the proposal and budget narrative Correct answer.
  4. Include a modest voluntary contribution to make the proposal more competitive

Explanation

When a sponsor prohibits voluntary committed cost sharing, any quantified contribution in the proposal becomes a binding commitment and must be excluded. Only cost sharing explicitly required by the sponsor or mandated by institutional policy should appear. Hiding a commitment from the narrative does not remove the obligation.

Question 31Pre-Award Research Administration (CPRA Body of Knowledge areas not enumerated in source)

Which item is generally treated as a direct cost rather than an indirect cost on a federally funded research project?

  1. General library subscriptions
  2. Salaries of departmental administrative staff
  3. Materials and supplies consumed specifically for the project Correct answer.
  4. Depreciation on buildings used for the project

Explanation

Direct costs are those that can be identified specifically with a particular sponsored project with relative ease and a high degree of accuracy. Project-specific supplies meet that test, while building depreciation, departmental administration, and general library costs are typically recovered through the indirect cost rate.

Question 32Pre-Award Research Administration (CPRA Body of Knowledge areas not enumerated in source)

A PI asks whether a colleague who will provide occasional unpaid advice can be listed as a consultant with zero cost. What is the best response?

  1. List the person as a consultant with zero cost and describe the advisory role
  2. Describe the person's role in the plan and disclose the arrangement as unpaid collaboration rather than a costed consultant Correct answer.
  3. Omit the person entirely to avoid complicating the budget
  4. List the person as a consultant and assign a nominal fee to satisfy the sponsor

Explanation

A consultant relationship normally involves a fee and a defined scope of work documented in a letter of commitment. An unpaid advisor should be described as a collaborator or advisor rather than mislabeled as a costed consultant. Omitting a substantive contribution misrepresents the project plan.

Question 33Pre-Award Research Administration (CPRA Body of Knowledge areas not enumerated in source)

What is the main reason a research administrator reviews the sponsor's proposal guide before the PI finalizes the project description?

  1. To negotiate the indirect cost rate
  2. To identify potential co-authors for the PI
  3. To confirm page limits, required sections, and review criteria so the narrative matches sponsor expectations Correct answer.
  4. To select the journal for future publication

Explanation

Sponsor guides define required content, formatting, page limits, and review criteria that determine whether a proposal is accepted for review. Reviewing them early lets the PI structure the narrative correctly instead of revising after drafting. Co-authorship, rate negotiation, and publication venues are outside this purpose.

Question 34Pre-Award Research Administration (CPRA Body of Knowledge areas not enumerated in source)

A PI proposes a three-year project, but the sponsor's announcement caps the project period at 24 months. What is the most appropriate action before submission?

  1. Reduce only the budget, keeping the three-year timeline
  2. Restructure the scope and budget to fit within 24 months or contact the program officer about the discrepancy Correct answer.
  3. Submit the three-year plan with a note that year three is optional
  4. Submit the three-year plan and note that the sponsor may shorten it

Explanation

Project period limits are eligibility requirements, and a proposal exceeding them may be returned without review. The team should rescope and rebudget to the allowed period or confirm with the program officer whether any exception exists. Submitting an over-length plan with a caveat does not satisfy the requirement.

Question 35Pre-Award Research Administration (CPRA Body of Knowledge areas not enumerated in source)

An investigator plans to include a dataset obtained from a collaborator at another institution under an agreement that requires the collaborator's approval of any publication. How should pre-award review address this?

  1. Add the collaborator as a co-PI to eliminate the restriction
  2. Remove all mention of the dataset from the proposal
  3. Flag the restriction for institutional review of publication and data-sharing terms before the proposal is submitted Correct answer.
  4. Ignore the restriction because it applies only after the award

Explanation

Publication-review or approval clauses can conflict with sponsor open-access and data-sharing requirements, so they must be identified during pre-award review. The institution can then negotiate the agreement or adjust the plan before obligations are accepted. Ignoring the clause or hiding the dataset does not resolve the conflict.

Question 36Pre-Award Research Administration (CPRA Body of Knowledge areas not enumerated in source)

A proposal includes a subaward to a partner organization. What pre-award step best protects the prime recipient?

  1. Defer all subaward details until after the prime award is made
  2. Rely on the partner's verbal assurance that it can perform the work
  3. Assume the partner's institutional review board will handle all approvals without documentation
  4. Obtain a detailed statement of work, budget, and commitment letter from the partner and assess the partner's capacity and compliance risk Correct answer.

Explanation

Prime recipients are responsible for subrecipient monitoring, which begins with a documented scope of work, budget, and institutional commitment. Assessing the partner's capacity and compliance posture supports the risk assessment the sponsor expects. Verbal assurances and undocumented assumptions leave the prime exposed.

Question 37Pre-Award Research Administration (CPRA Body of Knowledge areas not enumerated in source)

A sponsor requires that proposals be submitted through an electronic system that validates against agency rules and rejects noncompliant files. When should the submission team begin the upload and validation process?

  1. After the program officer confirms informal interest
  2. On the submission deadline after the PI signs off
  3. Only after the award is announced
  4. Several business days before the deadline to allow time to correct validation errors Correct answer.

Explanation

Electronic systems enforce formatting and business rules that can reject a proposal, and corrections may require institutional approvals. Building in several business days allows errors to be resolved without missing the deadline. Waiting until the deadline or after informal contact leaves no margin for correction.

Question 38Pre-Award Research Administration (CPRA Body of Knowledge areas not enumerated in source)

A PI asks to charge a laptop computer used partly for the project and partly for teaching to the award. Under typical federal guidance, what is the appropriate treatment?

  1. Charge the full cost to the award and document it in the budget justification
  2. Charge the full cost to the award because the PI will use it for the project
  3. Exclude computing devices from all federal budgets regardless of use
  4. Charge only the portion allocable to the project or treat it as a computing device subject to the sponsor's specific rules Correct answer.

Explanation

Costs must be allocable to the project, so a shared-use item cannot be charged in full without a documented allocation. Sponsors may also have specific treatment for computing devices, which should be applied. Charging the full cost or excluding devices categorically ignores those rules.

Question 39Pre-Award Research Administration (CPRA Body of Knowledge areas not enumerated in source)

A proposal involves human subjects research at multiple sites, including a site in another country. What should be confirmed during pre-award planning?

  1. That foreign sites are exempt from ethics review
  2. That only the prime institution's review board will ever need to approve the work
  3. That human subjects approvals can be obtained after data collection begins
  4. That each site has an appropriate ethics review plan and that required approvals and assurances will be in place Correct answer.

Explanation

Multi-site human subjects research requires a documented plan for ethics review at each engaged site, including foreign sites, and often requires assurances and reliance agreements. Approvals must precede engagement in the research. Assuming a single board or an exemption misstates the regulatory framework.

Question 40Pre-Award Research Administration (CPRA Body of Knowledge areas not enumerated in source)

A solicitation requires a letter of institutional commitment signed by a person with authority to commit the organization. Who should sign?

  1. The PI
  2. An authorized institutional official designated to commit the organization Correct answer.
  3. The department's administrative assistant
  4. A graduate student on the project

Explanation

Letters committing institutional resources must be signed by someone holding delegated authority to obligate the organization. PIs and staff may draft or route the letter but cannot bind the institution. Signing by an unauthorized person can invalidate the commitment.

Question 41Pre-Award Research Administration (CPRA Body of Knowledge areas not enumerated in source)

A PI plans to name a specific company as the provider of a specialized service in the proposal but has not obtained a quote or letter. What risk does this create?

  1. No risk, because vendor selection can be changed after award
  2. The company becomes a coinvestigator on the project
  3. The budgeted cost may be unsupported and the arrangement may conflict with procurement or competition requirements Correct answer.
  4. The sponsor will automatically award the contract to that company

Explanation

Budgeted costs should be supported by quotes or documented estimates, and naming a vendor can raise competition and procurement concerns. Pre-award review should confirm that the proposed arrangement is allowable and that costs are reasonable. Vendor selection does not automatically transfer to the sponsor or create coinvestigator status.

Question 42Pre-Award Research Administration (CPRA Body of Knowledge areas not enumerated in source)

A research administrator learns that a proposed senior key person is retiring before the project start date. What is the best pre-award response?

  1. Submit as planned and address the change after peer review
  2. Remove the person's name but keep the salary in the budget
  3. Replace or reassign the role and update the budget, justification, and any required sponsor notifications before submission Correct answer.
  4. Keep the person listed because the effort is already budgeted

Explanation

Key personnel must be able to perform the proposed work, and their effort and qualifications are part of the merit review. If availability changes, the team should revise the plan and budget before submission. Submitting a plan that depends on an unavailable person misrepresents capacity.

Question 43Pre-Award Research Administration (CPRA Body of Knowledge areas not enumerated in source)

What is the purpose of an internal routing and review process before proposal submission?

  1. To replace the sponsor's peer review
  2. To document institutional approvals, verify compliance, and confirm commitments before the organization obligates itself Correct answer.
  3. To determine the scientific merit of the proposal
  4. To set the sponsor's funding priorities

Explanation

Internal routing records the approvals of departments, deans, and research administration and verifies that the proposal complies with sponsor and institutional requirements. It creates an auditable record of institutional commitments. It does not substitute for sponsor peer review or set sponsor priorities.

Question 44Pre-Award Research Administration (CPRA Body of Knowledge areas not enumerated in source)

A sponsor requires a data management and sharing plan. What should the pre-award review confirm?

  1. That the plan is identical to a previously submitted plan from another project
  2. That the plan describes data types, standards, repository, timeline, and any access restrictions consistent with the budget Correct answer.
  3. That the plan promises to share all data without any restrictions
  4. That the plan can be written after the award is made

Explanation

Data sharing plans must describe what data will be preserved and shared, the standards and repository used, timing, and any limitations, with costs reflected in the budget. Generic reuse or promises of unrestricted sharing may conflict with privacy or contractual obligations. The plan is generally required at submission.

Question 45Pre-Award Research Administration (CPRA Body of Knowledge areas not enumerated in source)

An institution's negotiated indirect cost rate agreement has expired, and a proposal is due to a sponsor that requires a current rate. What should research administration do?

  1. Increase the direct costs to compensate for the missing rate
  2. Use the most recent rate with a documented plan to obtain a current agreement, or apply the sponsor's published cap if one exists Correct answer.
  3. Apply an arbitrary rate and disclose the assumption
  4. Charge no indirect costs on the proposal

Explanation

When the negotiated rate is not current, institutions typically use the prior approved rate with documentation while pursuing a new agreement, or apply a sponsor-published cap. Arbitrary rates or shifting costs into direct charges misstate the budget. Waiving all indirect costs is a business decision, not a compliance solution.

Question 46Pre-Award Research Administration (CPRA Body of Knowledge areas not enumerated in source)

A proposal will involve export-controlled technology, and the PI plans to include a foreign collaborator who will not be physically present at the institution. What should pre-award review determine?

  1. Whether the collaborator should be listed as a consultant to avoid review
  2. Whether the collaborator can be paid in cash without documentation
  3. Whether the collaborator's access to controlled technology requires an export license or other authorization Correct answer.
  4. Whether the sponsor will waive all export regulations

Explanation

Export control rules can apply even when no one leaves the country, because releasing controlled technology to a foreign national may require authorization. Pre-award review identifies the technology, the parties, and any license requirements before commitments are made. Labeling the role differently does not avoid the regulation.

Question 47Pre-Award Research Administration (CPRA Body of Knowledge areas not enumerated in source)

A PI proposes to commit 20 percent effort on a new proposal while already committed at 95 percent across existing awards. What is the most rigorous pre-award analysis?

  1. Approve the proposal because effort commitments are only estimates
  2. Reduce the new commitment to 1 percent to avoid scrutiny
  3. Remove the individual from the proposal entirely
  4. Compare total committed person-months across all active and pending projects to confirm the individual can meet the new commitment Correct answer.

Explanation

Effort commitments must be feasible across all active and pending support, and sponsors often require disclosure of pending proposals. A person-month analysis shows whether the proposed commitment can actually be met. Arbitrary reductions or removal without discussing the science are not reasoned solutions.

Question 48Pre-Award Research Administration (CPRA Body of Knowledge areas not enumerated in source)

A proposal includes a plan to pay a foreign subrecipient in advance for the entire subaward at the start of the project. What concern should pre-award review raise?

  1. Advance payment automatically converts the subaward into a procurement contract
  2. Foreign subrecipients cannot receive federal funds under any circumstances
  3. Advance payment eliminates the need for a subaward agreement
  4. Prepayment of the full amount may conflict with reimbursement-based sponsor terms and creates risk if performance does not occur Correct answer.

Explanation

Payment terms must align with sponsor requirements and the prime's risk assessment of the subrecipient. Paying the full amount up front exposes the prime to loss if the subrecipient fails to perform. A written subaward agreement is still required, and foreign entities are not categorically excluded.

Question 49Pre-Award Research Administration (CPRA Body of Knowledge areas not enumerated in source)

A PI wants to include preliminary data generated under a prior award to a different sponsor whose terms require approval before re-publication of results. What should be confirmed before the data appear in the new proposal?

  1. Whether the data can be relabeled as unpublished findings
  2. Nothing, because preliminary data are always freely usable
  3. Whether the new sponsor will pay the prior sponsor a fee
  4. Whether the prior sponsor's terms permit the proposed use and disclosure of the data Correct answer.

Explanation

Data generated under a prior award may carry use, disclosure, or publication restrictions that follow the data. Pre-award review should confirm that the prior terms allow the proposed disclosure in the new proposal. Relabeling the data does not change the underlying obligations.

Question 50Pre-Award Research Administration (CPRA Body of Knowledge areas not enumerated in source)

An institution is deciding whether to submit a proposal to a sponsor whose award terms would require the institution to indemnify the sponsor against all claims. What is the soundest pre-award approach?

  1. Route the terms to the office authorized to review and negotiate institutional risk before submission Correct answer.
  2. Ask the PI to sign a personal indemnification agreement
  3. Accept the terms because awards are always take-it-or-leave-it
  4. Sign the proposal certification and address indemnification after award

Explanation

Terms that shift unusual risk to the institution require review by the office with authority over contracts and institutional liability. Identifying conflicts before submission allows negotiation or a decision not to submit. Individual investigators cannot absorb institutional risk personally.