In 2025, the landscape of federal grant management is defined by one word: accountability. With increased oversight from agencies like the NIH and NSF and evolving policies from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), “good enough” compliance is no longer good enough. For university leadership, failing to adapt isn’t just a risk; it’s a direct threat to funding and reputation. 

Is your institution’s infrastructure built to withstand this new era of scrutiny? A compliance strategy that relies on manual tracking and siloed data is a risk you can’t afford. Use this checklist to assess your readiness and identify critical gaps. 

1. Do you have a single, auditable system for all compliance data? 

When an auditor calls, can you instantly pull up a complete record for any grant, including all proposals, awards, conflict of interest disclosures, and effort certifications? If your data is scattered across disconnected systems, shared drives, and email inboxes, you are perpetually in a reactive, high-risk position. 

• The Gold Standard: An integrated, cloud-based platform that serves as a single source of truth for the entire research lifecycle. Systems like Fibi create an unchangeable audit trail for every action, from proposal submission to final closeout, making audits straightforward and transparent. 

2. Can you proactively manage conflicts of interest (COI)? 

Regulators are increasingly focused on identifying and managing conflicts of interest, especially regarding foreign influence. Is your COI disclosure process manual and disconnected from your grant application process? This makes it nearly impossible to ensure disclosures are up-to-date and reviewed before a proposal is submitted. 

• The Gold Standard: An automated disclosure system that integrates with sponsored projects. The platform should automatically prompt researchers to update their disclosures annually and on a per-proposal basis. This creates a proactive compliance workflow, not a reactive cleanup. 

3. Is your effort reporting process easily defensible? 

Effort reporting remains one of the highest-risk areas in a federal audit. If your process relies on spreadsheets and memory, it is difficult to defend. You need a clear, documented methodology that links certified effort to payroll data in a timely manner. 

• The Gold Standard: A system that provides clear, user-friendly effort reports pre-populated with payroll data. It should have a simple, auditable certification workflow that provides administrators with a dashboard to track completion and easily identify outstanding reports. 

4. Can you monitor sub-recipient compliance effectively? 

Your institution is responsible for the compliance of your sub-recipients, but tracking their performance and risk level is a major challenge for many universities. Are you still relying on email and spreadsheets to monitor them? 

• The Gold Standard: A dedicated sub-recipient monitoring module. This allows you to track risk assessments, milestones, and reports from all your partners in one central location, providing a clear view of your entire grant ecosystem and its associated risks. 

5. Are you prepared for new data sharing and security requirements? 

New federal policies mandate robust data sharing and management plans. Can your current infrastructure support these requirements securely and efficiently, ensuring sensitive data is protected while meeting funder mandates? 

• The Gold Standard: A secure, centralized platform with robust data management capabilities. This ensures that your institution’s valuable research data is stored securely, with clear access controls and the ability to link data management plans directly to the grants they support. 

If you checked “no” to any of these questions, your institution may be carrying unnecessary risk. Modernizing your research administration infrastructure isn’t just an efficiency upgrade; it’s a strategic imperative for sustainable funding in 2025 and beyond.