1 / 12

GIM 1 Revised refreshed . updated . Streamlined ***Continued from May 8 th ***

MRAM . June 12th, 2014. GIM 1 Revised refreshed . updated . Streamlined ***Continued from May 8 th ***. Overview on GIM 1 Topic. Last time: Discussed purpose for GIM1 Listed Proposal types to which we apply Review Criteria Covered Criteria in detail Today:

tieve
Télécharger la présentation

GIM 1 Revised refreshed . updated . Streamlined ***Continued from May 8 th ***

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. MRAM . June 12th, 2014 GIM 1 Revisedrefreshed . updated . Streamlined***Continued from May 8th***

  2. Overview on GIM 1 Topic • Last time: • Discussed purpose for GIM1 • Listed Proposal types to which we apply Review Criteria • Covered Criteria in detail • Today: • Requirements to trigger our review • OSP Procedures • First look at data

  3. An eGC1 for a competing proposal is ready for review by OSP when it: • Meets GIM 19 deadlines (e.g. 7/3 day) • Has a proposal attached • Is in the status of “IN OSP” (e.g. not in “Routing” or “Withdrawn” status)

  4. Standard OSP Procedures • We use the seven (7) criteria for review of competing proposals. • Comments by OSP are sent to the PI and Department Contacts after initial review: • Required changes – must take place prior to submission to the sponsor • Recommended changes – are recommended by OSP based on its review to enhance compliance or responsiveness

  5. Re-Review • If a proposal is reviewed and changes are requested, the proposal will be re-reviewed when it is routed back to OSP, but this is limited to: • Programmatic additions comply with formatting • OSP Reviewer Comments were addressed We encourage campus to acknowledge all changes (required and recommended) in the order they were presented in our Review.

  6. Example of Campus Response • OSP – Failure to received Limited Submission Committee approval will preclude submission of the application. Please attach the Committee’s approval to the eGC1. • Campus – Please see letter now attached • OSP – Use of special characters in the File Name is known to cause Errors upon submission via Grants.gov, per SF424 Guide. Please rename. • Campus – The attachment has been renamed and uploaded • OSP – Cost-share is prohibited by the sponsor per the funding announcement, however, the budget/budget justification reflects effort on the part of ___ without a commensurate request for salary. Please revise the budget to remove the cost-share commitment. • Campus – We have included a salary request for ___’s effort • OSP - Missing Letter of Intent , signed by the authorized official, from Yale. A letter from Yale’s PI does not suffice. • Campus – letter is now included (we were waiting on Yale)

  7. Timeline OSP Review comments are provided or an OSP touchback to PI/dept is provided in 2 business days E.g. Arrives “In OSP” on Monday; response from OSP by end of business Wednesday, e.g.: • Full review with OSP Reviewer Comments • I am in the middle of reviewing your Proposal; I will provide reviewer comments momentarily • I have been assigned your proposal for review because I am on coverage for __. I will be providing my Review Comments shortly.

  8. Submission to Sponsor • Dept/PI must give OSP access to proposal in sponsor system, if applicable (e.g.Fastlane) • OSP will upload* copy of submitted version to eGC1; this is the system of record. *Sometimes we need the full submitted copy from PI/dept, if sponsor system precludes access to final submitted version by anyone other than PI.

  9. How are we doing? • OSP is committed to continuous assessment of this procedure. • We will be reviewing a report on monthly basis, to analyze specifically: • Was the competing proposal attached to the eGC1 by the PI/dept? • When did OSP first review the competing proposal (or provide a “touchback”response to PI/dept)? • If there were review comments, were review comments provided in the Required/Recommended format? • Did PI/Deptrespond accordingly? • Why look at this data? • Do we need to communicate requirements better? • Do we need to shift workload? • Are there unforeseen issues with certain sponsors/systems that impact the quality of review or time within which we do a review? • Are there additional process changes to consider?

  10. “First look” at data from this calendar year through May 31st (including data prior to implementation of GIM 1) Competing Proposal eGC1s (e.g. New, Resubmission, Competing Renewal, Competing Supplement, Competing Revision, Transfer to UW)

  11. Helpful hints for upcoming NIH Deadlines • Grants.gov doesn’t like non-standard characters in fields. • Do not “cut and paste” content into Grants.gov fields; type it in – G.g. thinks a space is a non-standard character. • Avoid scanning documents to convert to PDF. Instead convert word doc to PDF using PDF software. • Resubmissions: SF424, field 4.a. – must contain ONLY the institution code (IC) and six digit number assigned by NIH from last submission. Do not include the entire grant number assigned from last submission.

  12. Thank you Resources: GIM 1: http://www.washington.edu/research/osp/gim/gim1.html Prepare Proposal Webpages (OSP website): http://www.washington.edu/research/index.php?page=prepareProposal

More Related