Prior to Grants.gov, the University of Michigan Proposal Service
Policy stated that we will provide "full service" if given at least
two complete working days prior to required send time. This meant
that we would give a careful review, check budget (in other words,
find the errors that frequently occur),  get necessary signatures,
make copies, and send.  Later than 2 days then we would give a
cursory check, get signatures, and return to PI for copying and
mailing (we would provide a fedex prepaid label).  There were some
variations for electronic submission, in particular for FastLane.
See full policy here:
http://www.research.umich.edu/proposals/processing/
processing.html#deadlines

In general we were very liberal in accepting applications.  Our goal
is to get the proposal to the sponsor.

For Grants.gov we now require an administrative shell in paper, 7
days prior to the deadline.  The shell consists of printed 424,
budget and justification, abstract, and our internal routing form.
We want the final version of the full PureEdge file uploaded to our
server 4 days prior to the deadline.  We want time for at least 2
submissions for each application.

This is all explained here
http://www.research.umich.edu/era/grantsgov/grantsgovsteps.pdf

We submitted 50 R03 and R21 applications for June 1 and about 30 for
July 1.  90% + met our timing requirements.  None missed the
deadline.  Only one had to be submitted on the last day.  We expect
150 R01's in Feb. in addition to about the same previous number of
the other types.

The two step review process has worked well.  The administrative
staff of units  can do the items needed for the "shell" and route
these for approvals.  The PI's get some extra time to finish the
scientific content.  The latter, can, of course, never get enough
time. We would not refuse a proposal coming after our internal
deadline, but process the early ones first and then those that are
rejected prior to late ones.   We still have the goal of getting the
applications to the sponsor but we need some time insurance.  So I
sometimes tell faculty that they can get one more data point or do
one more draft but then risk missing the hard electronic deadline of
Grants.gov.  It's their choice.

Bob
------------------------------
Robert Beattie
UMich Grants.gov Liaison
xxxxxx@umich.edu   (734) 936-1283
Learn more about Grants.gov @ UMICH
http://www.research.umich.edu/era/grants_gov/

On Jul 11, 2006, at 2:25 PM, Shepard, Andy wrote:

Dear Fellow Administrators,

UNH is interested in hearing back from institutions about changes in
electronic proposal review time frames since Grants.Gov has been
implemented. We know some organizations are now requesting proposals
15 days before a deadline and we would like learn what others are
doing. What was the turn around time pre G.G and turn around post G.G.

When you respond please include a rough estimate of your NIH funding
(proposal or award volume, # of applications or awards) for
comparison purposes as we work on this thorny issue.

Regards, Andy

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~
Andy Shepard
Office of Sponsored Research
University of New Hampshire
Durham, NH 0384-3585
Phone: (603) 862-2436
Fax: (603) 862-3564
http://www.unh.edu/osr/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~

====================================================================== I
nstructions 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")
======================================================================