SHOW ME THE GRANT MONEY!
Retool your gray matter with JONATHAN O'BRIEN and win more grant money!
Categories:

Archives:
Meta:
August 2017
M T W T F S S
« Feb    
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031  
12/02/08
MISTAKES? I’VE MADE A FEW…THOUSAND – Pt.5
Filed under: GENERAL
Posted by: Jon @ 6:45 am

THE CASE OF NO PAUSE FOR A CLAUSE

Project: A federal grant to form local alliances for safer schools and neighborhoods

What Happened:  Toward the end of the grant, I was writing some MOUs with some very large county law enforcement agencies who were not part of our planning team but had to be part of the collaboration — both in approving the plan and providing personnel.  This was such a big county that there were probably over 30 communities within the county applying for the same grant.  So there’s no way this county agency could be involved in each proposal.  They did, however, agree to rubber stamp each proposal; sign the face sheet and sign all MOUs.  That is, they would sign all MOUs under one stipulation:  that these MOUS were not to be legally binding.

Problem:  We all know that MOUS are, LEGALLY BINDING memos of longer, more detailed contracts between two or more agencies.  If they are not legally binding, then they are just fancier versions of Letters of Support.
So, although the RFPs stated that these MOUs were to be considered contracts — the large agency would sign them with a wink of the eye and say, call us if you win the grant award and then we’ll negotiate a REAL contract.  
This is not for some dastardly, underhanded reason.  Instead, it’s pure economics.  The larger agency knows that the grant writing and award process can sometimes take over a year (or more) and salaries and benefits and other related expenses can change drastically over a one-year period.  So, they are going to avoid burdening themselves with absorbing any COLA increases.  Also, they don’t want to waste a lot of time on PROPOSED programs - just those that win.

MISTAKES

  1. We wrote in our MOU with this larger agency that this was a “non-binding agreement with final costs and terms to be negotiated with ten days after grant award notification.”
  2. As the deadline quickly approached, I made the decision to put in that wording by myself and did not consult the team.  

RESULTS WHAT I WOULD DO DIFFERENTLY
  • This was one for the team to decide — not just me.  Perhaps someone would have come up with a better alternative.  
  • POST MORTEM
    There’s another aspect of this to consider.  Because the smaller winning collaborative is, in essence, at the mercy of the larger agency, the larger agency could name their own price — potentially demanding much more money than they originally requested.  This would leave the winning agency with no choice but to pay the high price and cut back in other areas of program operation to compensate.  This puts them in the position of not delivering the services promised and, worse, would result in fewer people served by less effective services.

    More about this in my new book RIGHT BEFORE YOU WRITE: THE GROUNDBREAKING PROCESS USED TO WIN MORE THAN $385 MILLION IN COMPETITIVE GRANT AWARDS.  Available at www.SandyPointInk.com or Amazon.com.