Email list hosting service & mailing list manager


Re: Oh no! Another one! James R. Brett 28 Feb 2000 13:25 EST

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")
======================================================================