Sally,   On another note...UNLV had an experience with 3 PIs who had submitted
proposals by FASTLANE and received no notification by email or otherwise that
additional information was required.  We found out only when making a check of
the Fastlane Proposal Status web page and noted that additional info was needed.
Just a thought that you might check your proposals after they are submitted just
in case......

Marsha Green
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
xxxxxx@ccmail.nevada.edu

"Sally Eckert-Tilotta (Sally Eckert-Tilotta)"
<xxxxxx@MAIL.UND.NODAK.EDU> on 04/16/99 09:27:42 AM

Please respond to Research Administration Discussion List <xxxxxx@hrinet.org>

To:   xxxxxx@hrinet.org
cc:    (bcc: Marsha Green/UNLV)
Subject:  Re: NSF page limit and references cited

I have always interpreted the page limits as you describe.  We have a pending
MRI proposal (BIO directorate).  The project description (Section C) is 15
pages, and the reference cited section (Sec. D) is 3 pages.  I just talked to
the PI, and he has heard nothing from NSF.  I would assume that if they were
going to reject based on format, they would have called by now.

The guide does point out that the reference section cannot be used to provide
supplemental material to bypass the page limit.  Is NSF saying that this is
their issue?

Please let us know what you find out on this.  I know I would like to know if
I'm misinterpreting the guide.

***************************************************
Sally Eckert-Tilotta, PhD, Assistant to the Director
Office of Research and Program Development
University of North Dakota
Grand Forks, ND  58202
email:  xxxxxx@mail.und.nodak.edu
tel:  701-777-2049
fax: 701-777-2504

>>> "Steven R. Hoagland, Ph.D." <xxxxxx@UAKRON.EDU> 04/16 10:45 AM >>>
In (re)reading NSF's GPG (99-2) as it pertains to proposal page
limitations and the references cited section, one interpretation is that
the 15 page limitation applies primarily to the Project Description -
Proposal Section C and does not apply to (or include in) the page count
the References Cited - Proposal Section D.

Also, the section on equipment proposals does not seem to add any value
to resolution.

The first question is:  Is this interpretation correct?  If so, the
second question is:  Has your office been contacted by any of the PIs
who submitted a proposal to the IMR program (NSF 99-24; 1/29/99
deadline) and who received a rejection notice based, in part, on the
page limitation issue?  Thirdly, are there any other important points to
be considered along these lines?

An issue arose here recently and we are attempting to assess its
validity and incidence.

TIA for your replies and insights.

Steve Hoagland

======================================================================
 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")
======================================================================