we (University of Washington, Tacoma campus) just went though a thought exercise of reminding ourselves why we reviewed and who was the best person to judge certain aspects. Anyone might talk to the PI about the proposal's quality but unless there were institutional issues it would go through. And, of course, we try to keep PI's aware of the support services offered so that submission can go smoothly and that a good proposal goes out. We do a very thorough budgetary review to assure that all university policies are followed. Here's our current list of what is getting reviewed and by whom at our institution Program Director or Supervisor of PI (reviews for intellectual merit, ethics, conflict of interest, time/space/resource utilization within the unit) Note: If multiple PI's and/or staff committed within an academic unit, all relevant program directors or supervisors must approve. Additional reviewers may be assigned (by the regular reviewers) at this point if resources/staff from other units are discussed in proposal. (e.g., non-unit space, library, computing) Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration (budgetary implications, such as compliance with UWT and UW budgetary and finance policies, cost-sharing, ongoing $$ commitments after project) Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs (intellectual/institutional merit, ethical, conflict of interest and other issues) Chancellor of UWT (general awareness, oversight) UW Office of Sponsored Programs (OSP) (liability for UW as a whole, conflict of interest, human and animal subjects approvals, appropriate UW and Federal policies adhered to, approves as the authorized institutional representative for the University of Washington.) Carol A. Hert, Ph.D. Research Consultant University of Washington, Tacoma Box 358430, 1900 Commerce St. Tacoma, WA 98402.3100 253-692-5874, fax 253-692-5643 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Charlie Hathaway" <xxxxxx@AECOM.YU.EDU> To: <xxxxxx@HRINET.ORG> Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 11:41 AM Subject: Re: [RESADM-L] Proposal Deadlines >I think the answers to your questions will depend entirely on how an >institution "reviews" a proposal. Do you just make sure the F&A is >calculated correctly? Or do you assess the appropriateness of the study >design in Specific Aim #3? Or is your review more like one of the 1000 >variations in between? > > Wayne Gretsky once said (something like) "You will always miss all of the > shots you don't take". So where do you draw the line when it comes to > submitting or not submitting a grant proposal? From a PI, Chair, SPO > director, CFO, and Dean, you will probably get 8 different answers. > > Charlie > > > > > > At 01:19 PM 3/27/2006, you wrote: >>We are in the process of firming up/updating our proposal submission >>guidelines. >> >>Heretofore (great word) our policy has been geared towards the capacity of >>each individual, i.e. those faculty who can show up at the last minute but >>need no help and have fully developed proposals were allowed to proceed. >>As you might expect, many have less capacity and/or need greater >>assistance. >> >>Recently we experienced two proposals that were not yet ready for prime >>time. In one case, the dean indicated that she wanted it to go. I told her >>that we should reach consensus on this but, if she really wanted it to go, >>I would ensure such. I have no expectation that it will be funded. In the >>other case, I withdrew the (NSF) proposal the day following submission. I >>had informed the PI of my desire to stop the submission. He indicated that >>he could fix it and I deferred, however the proposal did not have a >>thorough final review. Upon review the day following submission, I found >>the fatal flaws and withdrew the proposal. >> >>So***..several questions: >> >>1. Who holds final go/no-go decision making authority at your institution? >>2. What deadlines do you have to ensure that a full and proper review is >>done by your sponsored programs office? >>3. What approvals/authorization do you require from the dean/department to >>submit? >>4. How do you handle proposals that should not be submitted? >> >>Cheers. >> >>Larry >> >> >> >> >>Larry Waxler, Director >>Office of Sponsored Programs >>University of Southern Maine >>P.O. Box 9300 >>Portland, ME 04104-9300 >>Telephone: 207-780-4413 >>Telefax: 207-780-4927 >> >> >>====================================================================== >> 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") ======================================================================
