This was my major concern as well. The fact the companies were soliciting PIs instead of contacting the Grants Office. Almost telling them if they dont do it this way it can't be done. It does not allow you a chance to assess the system if you are rushed to make a decision. Lucretia Hollingshed Michael Kusiak wrote: > Let me expand on what Pam had say about this. > > Whether or not an institution decides to use a service provider to > transmit proposal data to grants.gov seems to be a function of > proposal volume at your institution and your expectations of what a > grant proposal submission system can do for you. > > Grants.gov relies on a form-based system. As you complete sections > of a proposal, you are not saving the proposal on a server (think of > how when you are creating a proposal in NSF Fastlane). Given our > institutional complexity at Berkeley, it concerns me that we would > not have a standardized routing system that effectively tracks and > manages the components of a proposal. Since you do not have a > routing mechanism, if you are emailing documents among PIs, > departmental research administrators and your central research > office, your local network might not support the size of the > documents (you could get a lot of "bounce-backs"). > > Keep in mind the helpfulness of the business validation rules that > are built in to the programs offered by the service providers. When > creating a proposal in one of these programs, potential errors > (formatting errors and the like that might lead to your proposal > being rejected once the proposal hits NIH's servers) are identified > before submission of an application takes place. This has been a > helpful feature in the eCGAP proposals that we have submitted to > NIH. My understanding is that a service provider;s validation > capabilities are just not as robust as what you can expect from > grants.gov. Keep in mind that grants.gov is meant to eventually > serve every single type of grant application for all Federal grant- > making agencies. > > Without getting into a fight about which is better, Windows or Mac, > currently grants.gov does not offer a PureEdge viewer for Mac - > users. Although there is a requirement that R01s be submitted via > grants.gov as of October 2006, a Mac-based PureEdge viewer is not > expected until November 2006. The PC-emulator route for Macs is not > a credible solution (that has been grants.gov's current > recommendation for Mac users). Something that is being implemented > this month I believe is a Citrix-based solution to get Mac-based > proposal to grants.gov. Here is a link to NIH that talks about this: > http://era.nih.gov/ElectronicReceipt/faq_software.htm > > eCGAP is the program at NIH, through an SBIR grant process, that > funded the development of System-to-System solutions for NIH > applications submission. Vendors like Cayuse (the folks marketing > GrantSlam) were recipients of SBIR funds to develop the eCGAP > solutions. I believe their work started before grants.gov initiative > became law in 2002. They relate to the grants.gov initiative is that > they have developed this more "refined" proposal systems that are > being re-tooled to be able to submit via grants.gov. If you have > submitted NIH applications electronically up to this point, you have > been submitting directly to NIH via the NIH Commons. > > I think a good way to describe the service providers is something > akin to a tax preparation program (like TurboTax). They help you > manage your data more efficiently so that you can more easily submit > grant applications. > > A good way to understand grants.gov is like a post office. All that > grants.gov is doing is stamping and sending your proposal to the > correct Federal agency. The grant development and "business > validation" tools provided in grants.gov are a very minimal level of > support, and I think that many larger institutional users who have > higher volumes of proposals across a lot of departments might be > challenged by using the "free" solution. > > We have submitted three proposals under the current eCGAP system > using healthproposal.net. What was stressful about using the system > was the "fear of the unknown" factor. After we submitted the first > proposal, I realized that our concerns were more about process > management (i.e. who will be creating the PDFs for uploading) than > technical in nature. In fact, submitting an NIH application > electronically that normally would require hundreds of pages of paper > plus a visit to FedEx reduced a lot of stress and the potential for > human error. > > I have not been happy with how the eCGAP vendors have directly sent > emails to PIs soliciting them to try the respective submission > systems. This has created somewhat of a panic mentality among some > in the PI community. > > Also apropos this conversation, at some point all Federal grant- > making agencies will be switching to grants.gov submission (this > means, no more Fastlane for NSF submissions at some point). NSF has > been saying they will not require submission via grants.gov until the > quality of its submission system is sufficient for the agency. This > is another factor at why to take a look at this system-to-system > vendors; I don't think the plan is to make submitting via grants.gov > as comprehensive and relatively easy as a Fastlane submission. > > Lots of information, but there is a complex set of issues to be > considered at each institutions. I encourage folks to analyze their > respective institution's needs to determine the best solution. > > On Dec 7, 2005, at 8:05 AM, Plotkin, Pamela T. wrote: > > > Although I do not have direct experience with any of the service > > providers beyond what I have read on their websites, it may not be > > such > > a bad idea to rely on one or more service providers while > > Grants.gov is > > "working out the bugs". > > > > The service providers typically provide you with a much easier web- > > based > > platform to work from and they are the ones who transmit your > > information to Grants.gov. It is true that they are one more > > layer, but > > they will facilitate the process and may in fact be the most critical > > layer. If anyone has info suggesting otherwise please share! > > > > Our first Grants.gov proposal submission took us 4 hours from start to > > finish because we had "corrupt" files and had to retype. This problem > > is not unique to my office, other folks have had similar experiences. > > > > If you have the money to invest in a service provider, I think it is a > > wise decision to pursue this option until the whole Grants.gov process > > is smoother, particularly if your university has high volume. > > > > My 2 cents. > > > > Pam > > > > > > > > > > Pamela Plotkin, Ph.D. > > Assistant Vice President for Research and > > Director of Sponsored Programs > > East Tennessee State University > > Office of Research and Sponsored Programs > > Box 70565 > > Johnson City, TN 37614-1707 > > phone: 423-439-6000 > > fax: 423-439-6050 > > email: xxxxxx@mail.etsu.edu > > http://www.etsu.edu/research > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Research Administration List [mailto:xxxxxx@HRINET.ORG] On > > Behalf Of Mary Watson > > Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 10:07 AM > > To: xxxxxx@HRINET.ORG > > Subject: Re: [RESADM-L] Question about GrantSlam? > > > > Sounds like you are adding one more layer between you and the > > grantor - > > just > > one more instance for things to go wrong! I can't see the value. > > > > Mary H. Watson > > Director > > Grants and Contracts > > Valdosta State University > > Valdosta, GA 31698 > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Research Administration List [mailto:xxxxxx@HRINET.ORG] On > > Behalf Of > > Lucretia Hollingshed > > Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 9:33 AM > > To: xxxxxx@HRINET.ORG > > Subject: [RESADM-L] Question about GrantSlam? > > > > Good Morning, > > > > I wanted to ask you thoughts on GrantSlam. Any information you can > > give > > me would benefit me. > > > > Is there anyone who received requests from faculty to use GrantSlam as > > the submission system to grants.gov? Our faculty are insisting on > > using > > this program. Our position is grants.gov does not need a system to be > > an intermediate to grants.gov so why waste the effort to use it. > > If you > > have used GrantSlam for the initial pilots that were done last year > > eCGAP program is this necessary now? The literature I have read > > states > > that GrantSlam 8 is coming out later June 2006 that allows you to > > submit > > for grants.gov requirements. > > > > Any thoughts you have about GrantSlam would be appreciated. My > > thoughts > > are that GrantSlam is just a vendor and is trying to sell its services > > through the faculty. Are there any benefits to having GrantSlam > > versus > > using grants.gov alone. > > > > Lucretia Hollingshed > > Preaward Specialist > > Grants & Contracts Office > > Mercer University > > Macon, GA 31207 > > xxxxxx@mercer.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") > > ====================================================================== > > > > > > ====================================================================== > > 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") > > ====================================================================== > > Michael Kusiak > Contracts and Grants Analyst > Helen Wills Neuroscience Institute > University of California > 132 Barker Hall > Berkeley, CA 94720-3190 > > Phone: 510.643.6383 > Fax: 510.643.4966 > Email: xxxxxx@berkeley.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") ======================================================================
