Grants.gov and PureEdge file sizes cdersch 06 Apr 2005 14:26 EST
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") ======================================================================