I agree with Charlie.

We have a "5 day rule" and I would say compliance is about 30%.  However, I
would say that we do get budgets and other administrative portions earlier
than we used to.

We have the FULL SUPPORT of our Dean which is extremely helpful.  If a
grant goes out that is "not 100%" and doesn't get funded, then we could
always pull our "5 day rule" jargon on the faculty member stating
non-compliance.  We won't guarantee a grant will go out if we don't get it
at least by Noon of the send by date.  We also will not stay after hours to
send out a grant.

As far as  reading RFA guidelines, follow guidelines during proposal
preparation, etc. -- we do have an individual here who can help them with
writing, etc., but I don't think the service is used as often as it should be.

Have a good weekend all!

Domenica

At 05:03 PM 3/8/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>Show me the intrepid soul who sets and strictly enforces a 10 day internal
>deadline and I will make my pilgrimage to that Campostela of sponsored
>projects office to praise and learn from this warrior, this visionary,
>this bodhisattva!
>
>However, for a strict internal deadline to work you need Presidents and
>Deans willing to take off the gloves, and they won't do that unless the
>faculty is behind the idea, and the faculty won't be behind the idea
>unless they are convinced that all this extra time to "review" increases
>their chances of funding.  So, if all you propose to do is the usual
>budget and regulatory compliance kind of review, you aren't going to
>convince the faculty.
>
>Do all grant applicants at your institution read RFA guidelines, follow
>guidelines during proposal preparation, write well, solicit critiques by
>experts in their specific area, solicit critiques by other scholars
>outside their specific area, budget time well enough so that these
>critiques can actually be used to change the proposal, proofread, and have
>numerous other grantsmanship skills and common sense?
>
>No?  Then these are the kinds of things that you might promise (if not
>actually provide) in arguing for strict early internal deadlines.  The
>full argument will require some elegant math to convince the
>administration how improving the quality of 500 assistant professor
>submitted proposals over a 5 year period will result in enough $$ to more
>than compensate for the 5 full professor proposals who quit and take their
>grants elsewhere because you refused to sign their late proposals.
>
>Charlie Hathaway
>
>
>At 04:30 PM 3/7/02 -0500, you wrote:
> >Hello All.
> >UMass would like to pick your collective brains...   Like many of you, I
> am sure, we
> >are stuggling with limited resources and growing demand for our
> services.  One area
> >that we are exploring is a firm internal receipt deadline for proposals
> to our
> >sponsored research office.  I would appreciate knowing how many of you
> set a firm
> >deadline for your faculty to submit proposals to your office for review
> & submission
> >to the sponsor.
> >
> >If you do set an internal deadline, what is it?  Do you have a separate
> policy for
> >NSF Fastlane or other electronic proposals?  If you have a firm
> deadline, do you not
> >accept proposals from faculty members if they don't give you the
> requisite lead
> >time, or do you have an exception handling policy?  If so, what is it?
> >
> >Also, what level of review do you provide on your proposals:  institutional
> >compliance, sponsor compliance, or both?  Is the level of review you
> give a proposal
> >related in any way to the amount of time your faculty gives your office
> to review it
> >before it is due to the sponsor?
> >
> >Are there other "value added" services you provide, such as copying and
> mailing?
> >Again, are these related to how long you are given to review & process a
> proposal
> >before it is due to a sponsor?
> >
> >If others would like me to share the information I receive, just drop me
> an email &
> >I'll be happy to do so....  Thanks so much for your help and information!
> >-jennifer
> >--
> >Jennifer Donais, CRA
> >Assistant Director
> >Office of Grant & Contract Administration
> >University of Massachusetts
> >Amherst, MA 01003
> >(413) 545-5888 FAX (413) 577-1595
> >http://www.umass.edu/research/ogca
> >
> >"If everything seems to be going well, you have obviously overlooked
> something."
> >
> >
> >======================================================================
> > 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")
> >======================================================================
> >
> >
>
>
>======================================================================
>  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")
>======================================================================

Domenica G. Pappas, CRA
Associate Director
Office of Sponsored Research and Programs
Illinois Institute of Technology
3300 S. Federal Street
Main Building, Room 301H
Chicago, IL 60616-3793

Phone:  (312) 567-3035
Fax:            (312) 567-6980
Email:          xxxxxx@iit.edu

web:            www.iit.edu

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