Laserfiche WebLink
<br />001880, <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />Reclamation to support GCMRC and its scientific activities." This policy was followed as specified <br />through 2002. However, with the implementation of the new USGS common business practices, <br />including the new bureau overhead policy, the decision was made to require SBSC to assess the AMP <br />funds at the DOl preferred rate (15%). <br /> <br />1. SBSC appealed the USGS overhead decision, arguing that policy No.8 in Mark Schaefer's <br />March 31 2000 memo represented a good faith commitment to the AMP that the USGS should <br />honor. <br /> <br />2. In response to SBSC's appeal, Director Groat vetted his decision to require SBSC to levy <br />overhead charges on the AMP funds with the Commissioner ofBOR, the Assistant Secretary <br />for Water and Science, and the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget. All <br />three senior leaders agreed to support his decision. <br /> <br />3. Director Groat then turned down the SBSC appeal, which effectively repealed the Mark <br />Schaefer prohibition against USGS overhead charges against AMP funds. The Director's <br />argument was that overhead costs are a legitimate and unavoidable cost of doing business and <br />that these costs must be covered. The Director was also hesitant to set a precedent that <br />excluded any part of USGS from this common business practice and policy. <br /> <br />4. USGS agreed to grant SBSC the authority to levy the special.6% pass-through rate for all <br />cooperative agreements (which today amounts to slightly less than half of the AMP funds <br />available to GCMRC). This request must be renewed each year. How long the USGS will <br />grant this authority to use the pass-through rate is unknown. <br /> <br />What Impact Does USGS Overhead Have on GCMRC's Budl!et? <br /> <br />Let's assume for simplicity of math that GCMRC receives $6,000,000 in AMP funds from BOR. Further, <br />assume that $3,000,000 goes to agreements and faces the pass-through rate of 6%, while $3,000,000 is <br />kept with the USGS and faces the 15% assessment rate and a 20% cost share (the difference between the <br />15% DOl assessment rate and the 35% SBSC regular assessment rate). <br /> <br />$3,000,000 x .06 = $180,000 in assessment charges against AMP funds at the pass-through rate, with <br />$90,000 going to Reston $90,000 going to SBSC. <br /> <br />$3,000,000 x .15 = $450,000 in assessment charges againstAMP funds at the DOl preferred customer <br />rate, with $300,000 going to Reston and $150,000 going to SBSC. <br /> <br />$3,000,000 x .20 = $600,000 in cost share assessment charges paid by USGS appropriated funds, all of it <br />staying at SBSC. <br /> <br />$1,000,000 x .19 = $190,000 in assessment charges levied by SBSC against the funds provided by the <br />Director for the AMP. <br /> <br />Summing these charges shows that AMP funds are assessed a total of$180,000 + $450,000 = $630,000 in <br />USGS overhead, with $390,000 ofthis amount going to Reston and $240,000 going to SBSC. This <br />$630,000 is a cost to the AMP program and reduces the amount of science dollars available to the <br />program. <br /> <br />2 <br />