More to the point, sans politics, consider that each agency has a back end system with which they manage the application information. Some have a front end system with which they receive the application data. FastLane is the front and back end system for NSF. If each agency were to use FastLane as a front end, then they would have to get rid of their own back end system for data management and install the FastLane back end. Grants.gov allows each agency to keep its back end system and just receive the data from the Grants.gov data stream. Thus the agencies need do very little system development. There would be vast amounts of money spent if each agency had to convert its own system to the NSF system. Each agency is not now "coming up with its own electronic submissions system." Rather Grants.gov is (will be) the grants submission system for all agencies. This is why it is very important for us that Grants.gov is done right. A small "blip" in the total government budget, but a big expense for us if this does not work as we need it. I will not be able to make it to FDP for health reasons, so I hope someone will bring up all the comments that have been shared among us for the past few weeks. It is fruitless to argue for a different system (such as FastLane) now. Efforts should focus on getting Grants.gov to be what we want. The director of the Grants.gov project will be at the FDP meeting, I hope the attendees do not give her a pass on all the problems mentioned Bob Robert Beattie University of Michigan xxxxxx@umich.edu On May 17, 2005, at 4:43 PM, Charlie Hathaway wrote: > "Huge waste"? Waste is relative. The entire NIH annual budget is > being spent every 3-4 months in Iraq. Grants.gov et al is a blip. > > > At 04:09 PM 5/17/2005, you wrote: >> Does anyone wonder why all Federal Agencies have not just adopted the >> Fastlane process...how much money are they wasting on trying to have >> each agency come up with its own electronic submission process? This >> is huge waste of taxpayer money...I thought the Bush Administration >> was trying to get rid of waste in government...or is it only waste >> when its spent on poor people? >> Young,Elaine M wrote: >> >>> Everyone should send their experiences to COGR. >>> >>> >>> Elaine Young, PhD >>> Assistant Program Director for Research Development >>> College of Medicine, University of Florida >>> Room G1-004A >>> P.O. Box 100215 >>> Gainesville, Florida 32610-0215 >>> (352) 273-5088 >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Research Administration List [mailto:xxxxxx@HRINET.ORG] On >>> Behalf Of Susan Anderson Rivaleau >>> Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 2:48 PM >>> To: xxxxxx@HRINET.ORG >>> Subject: [RESADM-L] grants.gov/USDepartment of Education >>> >>> Hi, dear colleagues, >>> >>> We had a very frustrating experience Monday (5/9) in trying to >>> submit a >>> US Department of Education proposal electronically via grants.gov. >>> I am >>> wondering if others encountered similar problems with that USDEd >>> program >>> (Opportunity Number ED-GRANTS-032305-002) or any others in that >>> timeframe. (Feel free to skip to the last paragraph if you wish!) >>> >>> Aware of the issues others have written about, I made sure to >>> register >>> early, including receiving confirmation that I had passed the >>> "security >>> clearance," and we thought we were set to submit. Although I am a >>> newly >>> authorized official for our institution, our office had been >>> registered, >>> my registration was acknowledged and my director received a message >>> from >>> grants.gov that she was the only person authorized to approve me as >>> an >>> AOR, and by April 25 we understood that she had done what she needed >>> to >>> do to approve me. >>> After working with the PI throughout the day on May 9 (the USDEd due >>> date), I hit the submit button with more than half an hour to spare >>> -- >>> but could not get the submission to go through. After finally >>> getting >>> someone on the telephone from grants.gov, who walked me through a >>> final >>> step that I had not known was applicable to me individually (through >>> the >>> business section of the registration module, I was told I had to >>> authorize myself to be the authorized official, despite what we had >>> earlier been told). Then I was to be fully able to submit -- but >>> still >>> the submission would not go through. By this time the 4:30 deadline >>> had >>> passed, but we didn't give up. The USDEd web site was down every >>> time I >>> checked that day (and had been most times I tried to check it over >>> the >>> previous two weeks), so I was unable to see who might be program >>> contacts other than the Education Program Specialist listed on the >>> proposal package. Since I could not look her up on the web site to >>> phone her and only had an email address for her, on the same domain >>> as >>> the inaccessible agency web site, I tried emailing her. By this time >>> more than an hour had passed since the deadline, but in the email >>> message I requested authorization to submit the proposal on paper >>> rather >>> than electronically, due to the series of problems we were >>> encountering; >>> I commented that I would be surprised if we were the only people >>> experiencing similar issues. Becuase we had spent so much time and >>> energy trying to use the grants.gov submission system, The PI and I >>> were >>> worn out, and he didn't feel he could get the elements of the >>> proposal >>> ready to mail out until the next day, so we waited to hear. >>> Tuesday morning I received a message from the Program Specialist, who >>> reported that she had spoken with the chief administrator. Their >>> position was that since the program did not require electronic >>> submission of this proposal, they could only accept a paper >>> submission >>> if it were postmarked by midnight Monday, the deadline. Of course we >>> had missed that deadline. But we wouldn't have missed it had we >>> known >>> the scope of the difficulties we would encounter with teh electronic >>> submission process. >>> >>> It seems to me that it is unreasonable to expect folks to use a >>> method >>> of submission that seems so unreliable or too complex for intelligent >>> people to use. I am a former Federal Grants Specialist, so I >>> understand >>> the issue of fairness to all applicants. Not having used the >>> grants.gov >>> submission module before, I could not have anticipated the level of >>> difficulty that we would experience, and could not make a reasonable >>> recommendation to our faculty member about method of filing. I am >>> also >>> far from a techno-phobe. The lesson I take from this is to make sure >>> future submissions are made on paper and not to even bother with the >>> electronic process -- but I know that option is being phased out. >>> Maybe >>> there should be a grace period for grants.gov first-timers (look at >>> all >>> the anxiety out there among RESADM posters on the subject!)... >>> Before >>> we make any further attempts on behalf of our faculty member to plead >>> for acceptance of his proposal, can anyone offer any suggestions? >>> Thanks, >>> Susan >>> >>> -- >>> Susan Anderson >>> Assistant Director >>> Office of Research & Grants Administration >>> 66 George Street >>> Charleston, South Carolina 29424 >>> 843-953-4973 (voice) >>> 843-953-6577 (fax) >>> xxxxxx@CofC.edu >>> http://www.orga.cofc.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") >>> ===================================================================== >>> = >>> >>> >>> ===================================================================== >>> = >>> 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") >>> ===================================================================== >>> = >>> >> >> -- >> Linda Brown, Associate Director >> Maryland Institute for Policy Analysis and Research >> University of Maryland, Baltimore County >> 1000 Hilltop Circle >> Baltimore, Maryland 21250 >> Public Policy Building, room 425 >> (410) 455-1083 phone >> (410) 455-1184 fax >> xxxxxx@umbc.edu >> http://www.umbc.edu/mipar >> >> >> ====================================================================== >> 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") > ====================================================================== ====================================================================== 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") ======================================================================
