MRAM . May 8, 2014
Review and Submission
Requirements for Proposals
Effective May 12, 2014
The PI is responsible for ensuring each
component of the proposal is complete,
accurate, and meets all programmatic,
administrative, and compliance requirements
prior to its submission to OSP. The PI must
provide the proposal on an eGC1 and indicate it
is Ready to Submit to a sponsor, consistent with
the requirements of GIM 19. The PI has made all
assurances on the eGC1.
In accordance with
UW Executive Order 34,
as authorized signing official
and as delegated by the Vice Provost for
Research,
OSP approves, signs, and transmits
proposals to external sponsors.



Define a proposal
OSP Review – when, what is included, what is
not included
Standard Procedures
 OSP Review Comments
 Re-review
 Submission

Resources for Campus


An application submitted by the UW on the
recommendation of the PI to an external
sponsor seeking funding or other support for a
project.
Generally, a proposal contains:





Scope of work
Budget
Budget justification
Collaborator letters of intent
Other sponsor-required documentation


Proposals are applications that are
typically submitted in competition with
other applicants.
Usually in response to a broadlydistributed sponsor-issued solicitation for
funding, request for proposal, or other
funding opportunity announcement.






New
Resubmission
Competing Renewal
Competing Revision
Competing Supplement
Transfer to the University requiring
application materials




Progress Report (i.e., RPPR)
After-the-Fact (ATF)
Industry-Sponsored Clinical Trial
Sponsored Program related Agreement
These are reviewed using review criteria
applicable to the item.
Begins:
 When eGC1 is in “In OSP” Status
 The program information in eGC1 is complete
and consistent with associated proposal
Ready to Submit (RTS) may be answered either
Yes or No



Incomplete eGC1s – fields left unanswered so
as to prevent meaningful review
eGC1s containing significant inconsistent info
with the attached proposal
eGC1s that do not contain proposal
documents
NOTE: The “IN OSP” date for these eGC1s will
not be counted as meeting GIM 19 deadlines.
1
Eligibility requirements are met.
2
Formatting, page limit and technical requirements are
followed; University data is correct.
3
Specific sponsor budgetary requirements are met.
4
F&A costs are calculated in accordance with GIM 13.
5
Proposal meets cost share requirements, and cost share
contributions are approved by the paying unit/party.
6
All required documentation for subawards is included in the
proposal.
Requisite compliance approvals have been obtained and
compliance information is complete.
7






Proposal meets institutional policies
Consistent treatment by OSP Reviewers
Able to make the necessary representations,
certifications and assurances to an external
sponsor
Manage UW institutional risk
Ensure a successful submission to the
sponsor
Ensure hard deadlines can be met
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Grammar, spelling, sentence structure, jargon,
scientific and technical terminology, punctuation,
and abbreviations.
Grantsmanship, including strategy, persuasiveness,
and significance.
Scientific and technical merit.
Correct application of non-research related UW
policies, such as academic human resource rules.
Academic value of the research activity.
Reasonableness of the commitment of faculty and
staff effort, and possible impacts to teaching and
other obligations.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Facilities and resources listed are available for use.
Accuracy of salaries listed for individuals, including
faculty and staff.
Sufficiency, adequacy, appropriateness, and
accuracy of the budget for the proposed
research/activity (see GIM 2).
Department or School/College PI eligibility rules.
Debarment, suspension or ineligibility status of key
personnel.
Qualifications and training of personnel to carry out
the proposed research or other activity.
Assurances and Certifications are made by the
PI when he/she approves the eGC1
 Proposal is Ready to Submit (when RTS = yes)
 Necessary SFI disclosures made per GIM 10
 Key personnel are not debarred, suspended
 Statements are true, accurate and complete
 Responsible for scientific conduct
 University policy will be followed
The Proposal meets eligibility requirements.


Limited Submission
PI not listed on the OSP Closeout
Delinquency List
Other examples: Sponsor requires that PI has
certain degree; that UW qualifies as applicant
entity type specified by Sponsor (e.g. “IHE”
versus “must be 501(c)(3)”)
The proposal meets sponsor formatting, page
limit, and technical requirements and the
business data is correct.


Sponsor-specific documented requirements
are met so submission via a system is
expected to be successful.
UW institutional data is accurate.
The proposal meets sponsor’s specific
budgetary requirements.

The budget is within limits imposed by
sponsor.

Items of cost listed in budget are not
explicitly deemed unallowable by sponsor.
F&A costs are calculated in accordance with
GIM 13 unless sponsor publishes a cap, the
sponsor is listed on the non-profit list, or an
F&A waiver is granted.
Examples: off-campus location is using offcampus rate; split rates are appropriate per
rate agreement; if F&A is not included in
budget, dept has provided a published sponsor
policy or has an F&A waiver in place.
Proposal meets cost share requirements.



If mandatory or prohibited by sponsor, proposal
is consistent with this requirement.
If cost-share presented, it is intended as costshare by the PI/dept.
All cost share (mandatory and committed) is
supported by approval by the cost-sharing UW
unit on the eGC1 or if third-party cost-share, a
letter of commitment from third-party.
All proposed subrecipients meet the
documentation requirement in GIM 7.

Subawardee documents are provided on eGC1:
 Letter of Intent or Facepage signed by institutional




official
Scope of work
Budget
Budget justification
Any sponsor-required documents
Requisite compliance approvals are met.




SFI disclosures are completed per GIM 10.
Human Subjects, Animal Subjects – JIT or if
we certify we have approval, that approval is
in place.
Sponsor specific regulatory
assurances/certifications can be made.
We are not submitting to an entity within a
country under a comprehensive embargo.

We use the seven (7) criteria for review.

Comments by OSP will be sent to the PI and
Department Contacts after initial review:
o Required changes – must take place prior to
submission to the sponsor
o Recommended changes – are recommended by
OSP based on its review to enhance compliance
or responsiveness

If a proposal is reviewed and changes are
requested, the proposal will be re-reviewed
when it is routed back to OSP, but this is
limited to:
o Programmatic additions comply with formatting
o OSP Reviewer Comments were addressed
We encourage campus to acknowledge all
changes (required and recommended) in the
order they were presented in our Review.
1.
OSP – Failure to received Limited Submission Committee approval will preclude
submission of the application. Please attach the Committee’s approval to the eGC1.
• Campus – Please see letter now attached
2.
OSP – Use of special characters in the File Name is known to cause Errors upon
submission via Grants.gov, per SF424 Guide. Please rename.
• Campus – The attachment has been renamed and uploaded
3.
OSP – Cost-share is prohibited by the sponsor per the funding announcement,
however, the budget/budget justification reflects effort on the part of ___ without a
commensurate request for salary. Please revise the budget to remove the costshare commitment.
• Campus – We have included a salary request for ___’s effort
4.
OSP - Missing Letter of Intent , signed by the authorized official, from Yale. A letter
from Yale’s PI does not suffice.
• Campus – letter is now included (we were waiting on Yale)
OSP Review comments are provided or an OSP touchback to PI/dept
is provided in 2 business days
E.g. Arrives “In OSP” on Monday afternoon; response from OSP by
end of business Wednesday, e.g.:
o
Full review with OSP Reviewer Comments
o
I am in the middle of reviewing your Proposal; I will provide
reviewer comments momentarily
o
I have been assigned your proposal for review because I am on
coverage for __. I will be providing my Review Comments shortly.

Must give OSP access to proposal in sponsor
system, if applicable (e.g.Fastlane)

OSP will upload* copy of submitted version
to eGC1; this is the system of record.
*Sometimes we need the full submitted copy from PI/dept, if sponsor system
precludes access to final submitted version by anyone other than PI.
Before finalizing this policy and guidance,
significant feedback and testing was
performed.



OSP Pilot Group – tested review criteria
Dean & Dept Group provided feedback
Report given to the Faculty Council on
Research (FCR)

To measure the effectiveness of the new
policy, guidance and process

eGC1 Admin Contacts for competing
proposals arriving in OSP between May 13th
and June 5th will receive a survey

New OSP Prepare Proposal webpages
(phase I).

Additional pages are coming this
spring/summer; MRAM overviews of content
will be provided.
Your feedback or questions