Re: Last-Minute Proposals (Again)

Show/hide message thread

Re: Last-Minute Proposals (Again) William Sharp (08 Oct 2017 10:10 EST)

Re: Last-Minute Proposals (Again) Hathaway, Charles (08 Oct 2017 11:34 EST)

Re: Last-Minute Proposals (Again) Maryellen O'Brien (09 Oct 2017 12:55 EST)

Re: Last-Minute Proposals (Again) Gretchen Davis Richey (09 Oct 2017 15:33 EST)

Re: Last-Minute Proposals (Again) Maryellen O'Brien 09 Oct 2017 12:55 EST

Dear all,

I always find the responses to the “proposal deadline” inquiries valuable and enlightening. In reviewing responses to this thread and older ones, I have a few questions:

1. Are you preparing the proposal, i.e. the nitty gritty of data entering and collecting the files and uploading to form kits/electronic systems/sponsor sites? Basically, doing the application kit, budget, etc. for the PI?
2. Are you reviewing the final proposal and performing the authorized submission action?
3. Under what conditions, if any, do you refuse to submit a proposal? Who makes that call?

I have five people to do both with a volume of over 700 proposals/year. I’m in a decentralized environment, so in my college office we build their budgets, edit justifications, prepare the forms in electronic systems of varying kinds, collect all the other files, check it all over and finally submit. There is not pre-award departmental support. We have an easy, online “notification to submit” form. Within 72 hours we provide email timelines, checklists, templates, samples, “warning” email advisories closer to the deadline, etc. and still we’re lucky if we can submit a day ahead of the deadline.

I’m not complaining, just curious. Thanks in advance for the feedback. Please respond to the list. If there enough responses, I’ll compile and share it in a table.

Maryellen O’Brien
Director of Grants and Contracts
College of Agricultural Sciences
The Pennsylvania State University
State College, PA 16801
814-865-3135
xxxxxx@psu.edu

If you plan on submitting a proposal please use the following link to provide our office with the information we need to get your plans on our calendar and in workflow. Please try to provide at least 3 weeks notice.
http://agsci.psu.edu/grants/pre-award/proposal-university-park/submit-intent-to-prepare-a-proposal

On 10/8/17, 12:37 PM, "Research Administration List on behalf of Hathaway, Charles" <xxxxxx@lists.healthresearch.org on behalf of xxxxxx@NYMC.EDU> wrote:

I like Bill's checklist idea. I usually employ a variation of it: serious email to the PI about "issues of institutional importance" AND how we can (say "will" if you really would) withdraw a submitted application if certain requirements are not met.

But let's face it. We should all share with the PI a primary interest in ensuring that a proposal receives a positive review. And that can happen only if #1- the proposal is submitted successfully (e.g. mandatory application requirements met and electronic short circuits avoided) and #2- the proposal impresses agency reviewers enough to fund it.

#1- Late applications can make successful submission problematic. And it requires grants office staff to work harder, longer, and with more stress. For some PIs, this extra work for the bureaucrats is justifiable because it doesn't compare with what they have gone through for the 6 weeks preceding. I would argue that if there is a true partnership with PIs then the team effort should involve some pain on all sides. I think most PIs really do understand the increased burden and appreciate the extra effort. And those that are fatally stung by unfixable errors in NIH applications at 4:45 PM on deadline day do not forget this particular form of pain.

#2- We can argue about whether content and presentation in a grant proposal are the responsibility of central administration. Most of us are not prepared to critique the scholarly content and may not have time to check for inconsistencies and hideous grammar and spelling. And with late proposals we may not be able to find those non-fatal formatting or content flaws in administrative components. But I strongly encourage everyone to improve your partnership with PIs by expanding your pre-submission reviews to include at least some attention to grantsmanship. You may not find an alpha that should be a beta but if you provide that nth set of proofreading eyes then you really become an asset to the investigator. PIs don't pay your salary but if you want them to value your efforts, telling them about a misspelling on the Aims page carries a lot more weight than demanding signed paperwork from potential sub-recipients.

Charlie

************************************

Charles B. Hathaway, Ph.D.

Assistant Dean for Research Administration

Director, Office of Research Administration

School of Medicine

New York Medical College

40 Sunshine Cottage Road, GN-B28

Valhalla, NY 10595-1524

914.594.2600

xxxxxx@nymc.edu<mailto:xxxxxx@nymc.edu>

________________________________
From: Research Administration List [xxxxxx@lists.healthresearch.org] on behalf of William Sharp [xxxxxx@GMAIL.COM]
Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2017 11:10 AM
To: xxxxxx@lists.healthresearch.org
Subject: Re: [RESADM-L] Last-Minute Proposals (Again)

How to deal with last-minute submissions comes up on this list fairly regularly and usually generates quite a few responses, which would make me believe that it is a topic very near and dear to many on here.

If senior leadership is never, or hardly ever, going to keep a last minute proposal from being submitted, even if the proposal has not had a chance to be properly vetted prior to institutional signature/submission, my suggestion for "Plan B" (or Plan C or D or Z) was to require completion of an institutional checklist SIGNED BY THE PI which at least confirms that in the PI's view those listed issues of institutional importance will be met, and then of course that PI checklist will include as many of those key items the institution can think of that need to be addressed. In such scenarios, though far from ideal, at least the sponsored projects office is not pushed into a position of saying "No, you cannot submit," but instead, "Yes, we can submit (mumbling under our breath 'since our bosses give us no other choice'), but would you please fill out and electronically sign the attached form in order to do so?" Sort of along the same lines as a form one must fill out in order to see one's doctor. You are not saying "no" to them per se, but at least by securing the signed checklist you gain some backup for the institution that requirements have been and will be met and letting the PI shoulder some of the responsibility. Additionally, such checklists serve to help educate PIs by reminding them of some of the institutional requirements they should be paying attention to.

Again, I would emphasize that I am portraying this suggestion as a fallback scheme only, but made in recognition that many sponsored programs offices are not empowered, in practice, to "enforce" even very reasonable internal deadlines.

Bill Sharp, Ph.D. (Retired!)
xxxxxx@gmail.com

------ Original Message ------
From: "Gretchen Davis Richey" <xxxxxx@uw.edu<mailto:xxxxxx@uw.edu>>
To: xxxxxx@lists.healthresearch.org<mailto:xxxxxx@lists.healthresearch.org>
Sent: 10/6/2017 5:32:29 PM
Subject: Re: [RESADM-L] Last-Minute Proposals (Again)

Hi Pam-

Our Shared Services team has best practices to support on-time proposals that meet all sponsor and institutional requirements. Rather than a letter or message, it is more of an approach and campaign. Here are the highlights:

The PI should submit our Intake form by 20 business days before the sponsor deadline. We provide the PI a checklist with items and due dates (same as Nancy), and then we partner and project manage the PIs to get the proposal package ready to submit. We find that leading indicators for success are:

· having a face to face meeting with the PI

· responsive communication

· doing some of the heavy lifting (send templates, provide instructions, give examples as needed)

· completing the administrative sections early so the PI can focus just on finalizing the science

· communicating with the PIs from the perspective they care about.

The last bullet is about telling PIs and their research teams the risks of submitting late and sharing actual stories of horror but saying them in a straightforward way – don’t use high drama to try to influence them. We find the words “unfortunately”, “in my/our experience”, “increased risk” to be a helpful tools.

For example:
Unfortunately, when multiple changes are made at the last minute it increases the risk of errors because there is not time to QC the final proposal package before the deadline. Then give an example.

We email our faculty groups several times per year reminding them of the 20 day best practice. For popular deadlines (NIH October 5th) we calculate the 20 day date(Sept 7th) and put that in the email. We tell them they can email us and let us know about a proposal in advance and we put their future proposal on our Parking Lot – then 30 days in advance we email them back and encourage them to complete the Intake form if they still want to submit for that deadline.

When a submission doesn’t go well, we do a deep dive and debrief into the steps taken or missed, the decisions taken and communications sent, and then we think out of the box for how we could do better. And we identify if our faculty or department partners could have done better also. We don’t apologize if it is not our fault, but we are always part of the solution and we always ask our partners what they need from us. Rarely is there a situation in which we couldn’t improve.

We share the good, the bad and the ugly with our faculty and administrative oversight committees. I am not sure if this trickles down, but it does continue to reinforce our best practices. Sometimes all it does is highlight the complexity of this work (which you all know) and this provides more insight to the PI about the amount of time it takes to support their proposals.

All of this doesn’t mean that we don’t have last minute proposals, but they are the exception, not the rule!

The UW Office of Sponsored Programs has an internal deadline policy<https://www.washington.edu/research/policies/gim-19-internal-deadlines-for-proposals-to-external-entities/> of 5pm 3 business days before the deadline. So we are working towards this deadline, not the sponsor deadline.

This email was long, but I hope it was helpful.

Best,
Gretchen Davis Richey, Manager
ABC Shared Services
School of Medicine, Box 354946
University of Washington
1100 NE 45th St, Suite 405, Seattle WA 98105
xxxxxx@uw.edu<mailto:xxxxxx@uw.edu>
Direct line: 206.221.5146
ABC Main Desk: 206.685.2508 or xxxxxx@uw.edu<mailto:xxxxxx@uw.edu>
www.abc.washington.edu<http://www.abc.washington.edu/>

[SOM_Admin.Bus]

From: Research Administration List [mailto:xxxxxx@lists.healthresearch.org<mailto:xxxxxx@lists.healthresearch.org>] On Behalf Of Nancy Markum
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2017 12:56 PM
To: xxxxxx@lists.healthresearch.org<mailto:xxxxxx@lists.healthresearch.org>
Subject: Re: [RESADM-L] Last-Minute Proposals (Again)

The method we use is a checklist (in excel) of items needed and due dates. When a PI is planning on submitting a proposal we will prepare a checklist for them. It also comes in handy for tracking the review of items.
Hope this helps.

Nancy Markum
Research Award Administrator
Research Service Center – College of Sciences
BSE – Room 3.114C
The University of Texas at San Antonio
One UTSA Circle
San Antonio, TX 78249-1644
Phone: (210) 458-8787

From: Research Administration List [mailto:xxxxxx@lists.healthresearch.org] On Behalf Of Vargas, Pamela A
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2017 2:43 PM
To: xxxxxx@lists.healthresearch.org<mailto:xxxxxx@lists.healthresearch.org>
Subject: [RESADM-L] Last-Minute Proposals (Again)

Hi, everyone!

Does anyone out there have a good example of a letter/message to try to get PIs to submit their proposals to us in a more timely fashion? I am looking for something friendly, customer-service oriented, but firm. I am hoping that someone has something a bit more unique and modern than my past attempts.

We’re looking at the usual admonitions about not allowing enough time to correct errors, do proper reviews, etc., but I am hoping that someone has had some success in this age-old concern and will be willing to share, and to maybe find something that uses a somewhat different approach. New ideas are always welcome!!!

Thanks,

Pam

Pamela A. (Krauser) Vargas
Director
Research and Grant Development
Southeast Missouri State University
One University Plaza
MS 4400
Cape Girardeau, MO 63701
Phone: 573.651.2196

= = = = = =

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.healthresearch.org (click on the "RESADM-L" link under "Sponsored Programs").