Abstract
Current contracting and granting practices in the State of California are overly burdensome and lead to inefficient management of time, energy, and funds. These processes consume already-scarce resources for state agencies, contractors, and grantees. Worse, these processes risk reducing access to the technical expertise available through state-funded research. In order to help mitigate this problem and to maximize public benefit projects, it is critical to first understand some of the challenges contracting and granting experts face when entering into agreements with one another. In this study, I—as an employee of the California Council on Science and Technology (CCST), guided by a Steering Committee of experts—aimed to identify common barriers in the State’s contracting and granting processes, and to offer solutions that may help reduce some of these challenges. This thesis covers the first part of a larger, two-part CCST study about contracting and granting challenges pertaining to research performed with and for the State of California, from multiple perspectives: academic and research institutions, and state agencies. In this first phase of the study I focused on surveying and interviewing multiple contracting and granting experts from CCST Partner Institutions and from within CCST in order to characterize contracting and granting from the perspective of California academic and research institutions. Concentrating on five major areas of concern as identified in an initial survey (indirect costs, staff capacity and workload, intellectual property, invoicing and reporting, and institutional risk), I discovered some of the cross-cutting challenges these institutions face when entering into contracts and grants with the State, as well as some potential solutions. Academic partner interviews and surveys revealed several overarching themes, including the need for greater accountability and a lack of flexibility and consistency within state contracting and granting practices. These issues produce delays and inefficiencies in the execution and management of contracts and grants. I find that previous attempts to reduce difficulties have not fully addressed the issues, such that significant challenges remain to achieving efficient negotiation and enactment of contracts and awarding of grants for research. Model contracts, for example, either failed to include all intended provisions or failed at achieving broad consistency once implemented. I offer recommendations aimed at improving accountability as well as flexibility and consistency, while additionally providing other benefits. More broadly, implementation of the recommendations should improve the ability of the State to access scientific expertise for public benefit.