Nancy, et al: I inquired of eGAPS why they could not recognize the application authority of campuses as does NSF and received the following from Mr. Bill Spitzgo last Thursday. I received a similar message from Dod, which follows the Dept of Education response. Subject: Submission of Electronic Proposals Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 15:44:53 -0500 From: "Spitzgo, Bill" <xxxxxx@ed.gov> To: "'xxxxxx@csulb.edu'" <xxxxxx@csulb.edu> CC: "Deluca, Cathy" <xxxxxx@ed.gov>, "Harding, Rebecca" <xxxxxx@ed.gov>, "Robison, Greg" <xxxxxx@ed.gov> Please see our response to the issue you raised. The electronic submission of applications mirrors the paper copy submission. We can not add any ADDITIONAL safeguards beyond what is required of those who submit hard copies of applications. As a policy decision for the pilot program, we have to have the same controls for electronic submission as are in place for hard copy submissions. Currently, there is nothing to stop different people from submitting hard copy applications for an institution, other than their institutional policy. We will not fund duplicative proposals but we can not stop people from sending in applications. For the electronic submission we hoped that the warning message on the Internet site, would serve as a reminder to the application manager. If the application manager had not followed institutional policy, the warning would remind them to do so. You explained your institutional policy very clearly in your opening paragraph. Given ED's eligible applicant pool, it would be extremely difficult and limiting to try and set up a designated person or office like NSF. NSF eligible applicant pool is very limited compared to ED. ED has tried to accommodate this review process requirement through the E-GAPS security function. The E-GAPS Security function allows the application manager (the person who initiated the application) to assign other users to the application or name someone else as application manager. Users assigned to an application can be given view , edit and/or submission privileges. The Security function was developed to accommodate multiple users working on a single proposal, as well as individuals who might need to review the application prior to submission. If California State University (CSU) designated individuals that must review applications prior to submission they can be given view access to the application. CSU could also designate via University policy who is authorized to submit applications. If the submission access is limited to a few individuals, this could also serve as a review control. This would require that University staff be given guidance on the names of the users and the type of access to assign to each application created. As with all responses we get on our Pilot Project, we will review, analyze, and if need be, make changes before we expand E-GAPS. We also plan to review the NSF Fast Lane review process to try and address this concern. We do thank you for your input and interest in E-GAPS. =================== Subject: CDMRP Concept Award Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 17:45:51 -0500 From: "Lebo, Craig D Mr USAMRAA" <xxxxxx@DET.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL> To: "'xxxxxx@csulb.edu'" <xxxxxx@csulb.edu> This is in response to your inquiry of Feb 23, 2000: There is nothing in our Department of Defense (DOD) Breast Cancer Concept Award Research Program to interfere with any internal university policy. We still desire that the submission arrive electronically, consistent with whatever process you need follow to conform to California State University policy. The DOD BCRP will review applications received. As stated in the Program Announcement, if selected for funding, the investigator will be asked to submit a number of documents including a cover booklet signed by an institution official authorized to negotiate the award. If for some reason your administrative offices do not wish to support an application selected for funding, the institution will have the opportunity to withdraw the application prior to negotiation of the award. I hope that this clarifies our position. Please feel free to contact me for any additional questions or concerns. Craig D. Lebo 301-619-2036 ================================== Someone mentioned last week that COGR might stand up to this situation. I believe that someone (else, from COGR) said that it will. I think that NCURA and SRA should act as well. Spring regional meetings are taking place. Why not get this on our agendas? Jim -- James R. Brett, Ph.D., Director Office of University Research California State University, Long Beach 562-985-4833 fax 985-8665 http://www.csulb.edu/~research ====================================================================== Instructions on how to use the RESADM-L Mailing List, including subscription information and a web-searchable archive, are available via our web site at http://www.hrinet.org (click on "Listserv Lists") ======================================================================
