I am working on a proposal now and experiencing these same issues Steve
identified.  When I spoke with the help desk yesterday, the person
confirmed that, unless one has saved on one's own hard drive the
attached files (Abstract, Proposal Narrative, Budget Narrative, Other
Attachments sections) there is no way either to view or to print those
sections of the proposal.  I asked how I could know, without having the
saved attachments on my hard drive, what version had actually been
uploaded, the person initially indicated that I would know because of
the file name. When I responded that different versions of a file can
have the same name if saved as such, she acknowledged that there is
really no way for the AOR to have certain knowledge.

My friends, the third party providers are dancing to the tune of those
paying them.  The systems have been created to meet the needs of the
funding agency, not the meeds of awardee or performing organizations.
There are compelling reasons to for institutional monitoring, and we all
have our "horror" stories, but let's raise them at this time.  Some
federal agencies (not NSF) and other sponsors, apparently, either fail
to understand that PIs are not allowed to submit proposals without some
degree of institutional oversight and control or choose to disregard the
institutional imperative. Thus, third party providers have not been
instructed to design systems that ensure institutional authorization
prior to electronic submission.

The Department of Education, for instance, has indicated that
institutional authorization will be apended by original signatures on
face page hard copies, mailed after the fact of electronic submission.
That may, indeed, be too late to review for accuracy in budgets,
acceptable cost share arrangements, etc.  Once a proposal has been
submitted, other factors take precedence over review, and result in
retreat to the age-old rationale that any necessary changes can be made
post-award.  What administration, in these times of limited resources,
is going to reject an award offering, even though acceptance  may
dictate major adjustments/accommodations?

At my university, review of the entire proposal by this office is
required prior to authorization of submission, regardless of who
actuallly presses the electronic button.  We cannot review what we
cannot see.  My own solution for the grants.gov dilemma is this:
 1)  The PI will prepare most of the forms, then forward the package
to me for review (yes, it is very large and required several sendings
before I received it).
 2)  The PI will not attach the Abstract, Proposal Narrative, Budget
Narrative or Other Attachments to the application but will send them as
PDFs or MSWord documents under separate email.
 3)  I will reviewing the other parts of the application and revise,
as necessary, to ensure that instititutional information is correctly
entered.
 4)  I will review the separate attachments for formatting
conformance and upload each one into the application, printing hard
copies to refer to AOR so that she knows, with certainty, what she is
actually submitting.

While this process may seem to generate a lot of extra work for
Sponsored Programs Adminsitration, I can only respond, "So what, thus
far, about electronic submissions has not produced extra work and
tracking efforts for SPA?"  The myriad institutional registrations and
designations, alone, have produced a ton of additional activity.

We all have PIs who want/need/expect to make revisions until the last
moment prior to submission.  The process I have outlined is the only way
I can envision that will enable the AOR to know, with certainty, that
what he/she is authorizing for subission is compliant with our own
University requirements and with those of the external funding agency.

If anyone has better or more efficient suggestions, I would certainly
appreciate hearing from you.

Carolyn Dersch, Assistant Director for Sponsored Projects
Office of University Research
California State University, Long Beach
xxxxxx@csulb.edu, 562-985-5330

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