1

Research Administration Advisory Council (RAAC)

Committee-at-Large Tuesday, July 21, 2015, 3:00 – 4:30 pm

College of Engineering Robert H. Lurie Engineering Center

1221 Beal Ave. (map attached)

GM Conference Room, 4th floor

MINUTES

Introductions of Members and Guests: (Daryl Weinert) Thank you to Linda Forsyth for hosting us today. Presentation: RAAC Process Subcommittee (Anita English) (See attached PowerPoint) Last update was February 2015. New committee members have joined recently: Beth Brant, John Cristiano, Tony Nielsen and Terri Maxwell. Organization of the Process Subcommittee—see attachment. The Subcommittee reports to RAAC EC and then to RAAC Committee-at- Large. Project Updates: The “Award Process” Champions continue to meet. The long-term goal is to bring transparency to the post award management tool. We are waiting on ITS resources to move forward. Craig provided an update on the Roles and Responsibilities Task Force. The task force has had five meetings so far. They have identified the roles and responsibilities specifically from initiation to submission of proposal. See the handouts for an example of the charter and the matrix. One of the first decisions of the task force was to collapse the distinction between department and school, due to decentralization across campus. This tool will be used to establish expectations. Please review matrix and give feedback or questions to Heather or Craig and they will bring those to the task force. Daryl asked Craig if he could tell us about what would this be used for once this is established and agreed upon? Craig replied the utility is we can point to the matrix and see clearly who is responsible for something. This is the current state. Future iterations may present an opportunity to change responsibilities. Daryl commented that we are not necessarily ending here. We can use this to examine who is doing what. Robin Rasor asked is this meant to be only Pre-Award? Craig replied yes, but there are more stages to tackle in the future. Anita resumed presenting about the subcommittee progress. Unit defined batch administration of personnel changes in eRPM: This will address personnel changes within a unit. More to come on this topic.

2

Review of budget templates for potential incorporation in eRPM: We are looking at a Click designed product. This tool would primarily address SF 424 projects. Transparency of PAF side of eRPM: Make PAFs more visible and transparent to all. Plan to submit their plan to RAAC EC in September. Defined Close Out Process: Definition between Sponsored Programs and units. This task force has met once. Right now we are compiling a list of issues and challenges to see where improvements can be made. Daryl asked if you have talked to Kathy DeWitt and others for their thoughts, as they have been examining this process? Anita replied yes, Kathy is also on the task force. RAAC Process will continue responding to changes in electronic systems. The Subcommittee goal for the next 6 months is:

to finish the first phase of Roles & Responsibilities to continue the PAF transparency conversation to look at budget templates for incorporation in eRPM to finish work on the financial close out process

The ongoing goals for the Subcommittee are examining the award process, unit-driven way to batch changes PRAs in eRPM, and defining the close out process. Update: Newcomers RA Training (Amanda Coulter) Mindy LaRocca has given various updates over the last year and a half. The primary focus is getting New Research Administrators Training up and running. “Newcomers” refers to anyone who has been on the job for less than a year at U-M. There will be eight facets to New RA Training based on the lifecycle of a sponsored project We are currently designing the learning. We’ve engaged Learning and Professional Development (LPD, formerly HRD) to act as instructional designers to design the training. The project team includes Amanda Coulter, Kristin Storey and Ron Sober from LPD, Raquel de Paula Silvius (Project Manager through Finance Project Management Office) and Laura Coddington as Technical Writer, also from Finance. The plan is to roll out the first phase starting in October. Phase one will consist of four units, which will have pre- and post-class activities, including the use of the Canvas Program to accomplish the assignments:

Overview Understanding Funding Developing a Proposal Routing & Submitting a Proposal

3

Phase two will include Award Set Up, Managing a Project, Close Out, Compliance and a Capstone project. Amanda hopes that by the first week of August they will have a name and a logo to establish an identity for the training. They will begin marketing in August, sending out applications, selecting and training trainers, finalize the development and produce three videos. Finally, roll out first class in mid-October. This course will require application and selection, not simply registration. Volunteers were solicited for the design. We have three design teams and an advisory group. The three design teams are Overview, Understanding Funding, Developing a Proposal and the advisory group. Applications will be sent out in August, with a multi-faceted campaign. Cathy Handyside asked how many people would be selected? Amanda expected somewhere between 20 and 30. Linda Forsyth noted that we have had no training for some time, there are many in this role that have not had training. Amanda commented that they just talked about this last week. We are starting with a limit of one year, but we have not decided that the modules couldn’t be used as stand alone units. Robin asked if there is a section on compliance and intellectual property? Amanda replied yes we would cover everything at a surface level and some things more in depth. Daryl commented that there is more than just a gap from RAIN not being offered. RAIN was intended for newcomers. We have never had newcomers training. We do intend to refresh RAIN as well. To Linda’s point we do have to struggle with this. We will figure it out. This first offering is a pilot. When we offer it again, we will probably offer it several times a year. One of the exciting things is the videos we want to produce. There will be three. One will be an overview of the Research Enterprise at U-M. We will be approaching Jack Hu, David Lampe and others to speak about how research at U-M impacts the University, state, etc. The second will be what is the value of research administration at U-M? And the third will be an introduction to central offices video, intended to orient people to the offices and people they will be working with. Compliance is multi-faceted and will involve many offices—and will feature speakers and facts. Amanda noted that all of this discussion is getting to the fact that there are topics that keep coming up, but we have to pick the right ones for this Newcomers Training. What is critical to a Newcomer to make them successful in their job? Cathy commented that it seems that there is the possibility of doing videos for topics that fall outside of the classes, for instance updates to the RA community. Daryl agreed noting that eventually we would add just in time training tools and job aids. Would like to be able to walk someone through a job when they need it. Amanda discussed next steps for 2016. We want to be able to publish the videos and tools and job aids on our website, too. We are using the RACSI matrix to orient RAs to what is your job and what is someone else’s job? This will be a resource and tool for them to take away. Amanda also shared that some topics that continue to come up are understanding funding, what is a gift vs. a grant, sponsor codes will come in multiple times, including in developing a proposal.

4

Chartfields and shortcodes will be addressed. Cathy noted there were lots of things we could have included as we identified 204 objectives, but we narrowed it down to what is needed for year one. There’s only so much people can understand and be competent in in year one. Robin commented that even just knowing whom to call is valuable! Linda asked about the application process. Will the applications be sent to everybody? Or use HR system to identify those with one year or less experience? She was concerned that if it goes out broadly we will get a lot of people that fall in the gap between those with less than one years experience and those that have never had any training but have more experience. Amanda noted that this is a good point. The Advisory Group hasn’t met yet. We hope to have a meeting soon and the first task will be the application and the application process. We anticipate a lot of pent up demand. Daryl commented that it is his personal opinion that we have to be careful we are designing this as a first year training. That doesn’t mean it would meet the needs of those with more experience. We need to be steadfast about this audience. Scott Stanfill commented that he doesn’t know what you are planning but when he first started in finance at UM there was a seminar series that people came and talked about what they did in their shop. He always remembers that he felt completely comfortable calling any one of them if something came up. That’s the type of thing that he would recommend. Amanda noted that participants will get a little of that, as the instructors may be resources—and thru videos. Call or email Amanda if you have suggestions. Daryl thanked Amanda for keeping the focus on why we are doing this—improving Research Administration, the speed with which people get up to speed and competent in their jobs, reducing the need for rework. The group has been very thoughtful in designing this. This is really exciting stuff. ITS Update: (Cathy Handyside) There will be an August system update slated for 8/22/15. This update will have the most impact on units. There will be two unit-facing changes. One will be to Grants.gov submissions. There will also be a small change to outgoing DUAs that will accommodate the Honest Broker Office capture for people in clinical settings. Copy PAF Info to Grants.gov—SF 424: Today this copies information and transfers data into your SF424 application—we populate standard UM information currently. As of August 22 the activity will look and operate differently. The information will not copy the standard data into the form. You will have to select which forms to move data to. As you run the activity it will tell you which ones are done as you go. There will be additional training because this is such a big change. Training is being revised. There will be communication via newsletters and on eResearch. We will cover this at the October RAN meeting, as well. Daryl asked why we are doing this? Cathy replied that the technology from the vendor is no longer being supported. The new technology is sturdier and easier to support.

5

Outgoing DUAs will be updated to ask will clinical health data be shared outside the U-M? This is a new question. All DUAs will route to ORSP after unit review. ORSP will determine if HBO review is required for HIPPA review.

Sponsored Programs Update: (Debbie Talley) The IDC rate is 55% effective 8/1. The NSF audit is underway. If we’ve asked for information from your unit and we’ve provided it to the auditors, that does not mean we will not be coming back to you for more information. The auditors will have follow up questions on over 50% of what we submit to them. Thank you to all for your help. This is a very involved audit. ORSP Update: (Daryl Weinert and Craig Reynolds) Daryl thanked Craig, Bryan and Constance Colthorp for conducting the Uniform Guidance (UG) information and training sessions. It seems like they went quite well. Constance commented that a taped session is live on the ORSP website now. We will announce this in the next RAP. UG is effective August 1. Craig commented that it seems to be going swimmingly. Daryl commented that DOD connectivity requests have gone out to PIs recently. Daryl asked for patience please with the ORSP private sponsor team. One PR is on maternity leave and Lori Burke will be leaving for a position in the private sector as of July 31. So, we will be down two people for some time. If you have any ideas of people who might be interested in an Assistant PR position, please point out the posting. Closing and Future Meetings: (Daryl Weinert) The next RAAC meeting is September 15, at NCRC. The meeting was adjourned at 4:02pm Minutes submitted by Lisa Kiel RAAC Committee-At-Large Meeting Dates

***NO MEETING IN AUGUST***

Tuesday, September 15, 2015 (Mindy LaRocca / Amanda Coulter, RAAC Training Update @ Med

School NCRC bldg.)

Tuesday, October 20, 2015 (Pat Turnbull, RAAC Communications Update @ TBD)

RAAC Executive Committee Meeting Dates (meetings held in Conference Room 1025, Wolverine Tower)

***NO MEETING IN AUGUST***

Tuesday, September 8, 2015, 3:30 – 5:00 pm

Tuesday, October 13, 2015, 3:30 – 5:00 pm

Update to RAAC

Process

Subcommittee

July 2015

February 2015

Bach, Carole ISR

Brant, Beth Dental School

Cristiano, John UM-Dearborn

English, Anita Medical School

Ford, Stephanie College of Engineering

Herrick, Teresa Ross Business School

Maxwell, Terri ORSP

Nielsen, Tony ORSP

Offhaus, Heather Medical School

Pappas, Carolyn ITS

Thomson, Anne LSA

VanSickle, Bryan Sponsored Programs

Sturt, Yvonne ORSP & Sponsored Prog

Members

Process Group

Task Forces

Focus Groups

Work Groups

RA

AC

-at-La

rge

RAAC

Exec

Comm

Organization

Each section is intended to be a high-level

view into where things currently are

Please feel free to reach out to the Process

chair (Heather) or any of the Champions

listed for the projects with

Questions

Concerns

Ideas

Anything!

Project Updates

Award Process (Overall) Champion: Carole / Bryan / Craig / Cathy

Status: Compiled list of all topics - Unit Perspective

Activities:

• Champions continue to meet

• Waiting for details on the resources (ITS) to work on the project

Why we like it: Even though it is a project for the “long haul” is has the potential for huge impact, even in breaking up the list to smaller bites and priorities

What is frustrating: The project did not receive as much pilot funding as hoped. Not making large strides until there are more dedicated resources

Update

Roles and Responsibilities/Risks

in Research Admin Process

Champion: Heather/Craig

Status: Identified members of group / Contacting

Activities: Created a work group of volunteers that met 5 times

to create the RASCI grid for pre-award activities.

What is the potential: Defining processes, clarifying roles, and

empowering where the risk lies.

Attachments: Project Charter for the work group to review and current RASCI chart for comment

Update

Roles and Responsibilities/Risks

in Research Admin Process

What we are asking you to do:

• Review the introduction and the chart and provide any

feedback to the Champions (Heather or Craig)

• Start thinking about how your unit may need to interpret the

Unit column and any guidance you might want to share as

this document “goes public” (target RAN fall meeting)

What we are going to do:

• Finish the vetting process

• Start considering what the next segment of R&R to tackle

• Ask you for volunteers for that work group

Next Steps

Unit-defined batch administrative

personnel changes in eRPM

Champion: Carolyn

Status: Group has met

Activities: The work group met and talked through various types of approaches to the issue and think through the current actions performed by ITS.

Next steps: The group is writing up some options for implementation. The group landed that it is not most effective to have the unit make the change, but for there to be a very specific set of questions to answer in order to allow ITS to make the changes more effectively. Remaining clarification is needed around who is allowed to request the change (v. access to implement)

Update

Review of budget templates for

potential incorporation in eRPM

Champion: Beth Brant

Status: Taskforce – Formed

Activities: The group has met and reviewed initial

functionality. They are discussing implementation options as well

as process rules that may need to be in effect.

Next steps: The group will review and recommend questions

to be addressed and implementation options. The target date

for availability would be January 2016 for SF424 applications.

Attachments: The group Project Charter is attached for review.

Update

Consideration of transparency –

PAF side of eRPM

Champion: Anne Thomson

Status: Focus Group feedback gathered, Process group

is ready to turn over to Executive Committee.

Potential: It could open some search capability and

functions currently not present due to the viewing rules.

Next steps: RAAC EC tasked Process with framing the issues,

pros and cons. Anne has gathered the information from several

schools /college / units based on your willingness at the last Update to RAAC. It will go to RAAC EC at the next meeting

(September)

Update

Defined Close Out Process

Champion: Anita English

Status: Work group formed – met once

Potential: Help offer greater communication and understanding between units and Sponsored Programs. SP also has a keen interest in improving the process.

Activity: Project Charter has been written and reviewed with the work group. A scope that is narrowly defined as the SPO close out process was chosen as a first segment.

Next steps: Group will work through fall defining unit needs and then be joined by members of SPO to try and identify synergies. 2016 – new areas of scope with new volunteers.

Attachments: The group Project Charter is attached for review.

Update

RAAC Process will continue responding:

To changes to electronic systems as

proposed/handled for implementation by ITS

With comment on ORSP / Sponsored Program

initiatives

“On Call”

Finish Roles & Responsibilities first phase

PAF Transparency Conversation Budget templates for incorporation in eRPM

Ongoing Award Process

Unit-driven way to batch change PRAs in eRPM

Defining the close out process

Start

Someday Process around Progress Reports (lack of Champion so far…)

Next 6 Months

Thank You! See you in six months….

 

Project Charter Roles and Responsibilities Task Force RAAC Process Subcommittee    

A. Project Description The purpose of this task force is to develop a recommendation for a ‘Roles and Responsibilities Matrix’ that identifies high level activities by responsibility and is sensitive to risks and who bears these risks across campus functions. All Roles and Responsibilities Matrices created will serve as a basis and guideline for campus expectations related to sponsored projects.    The initial group will focus only on research proposal preparation through proposal submission acceptance by the sponsor.  

B. Project Scope Includes:  

● Determining the overall responsibility centers for major proposal preparation and submission activities, beginning at inception of idea through proposal submission acceptance by the sponsor 

● Developing a matrix for articulating interested parties and responsibility centers throughout the process 

● Keeping the scope to the first pass to determine where the major responsibilities will lie ● Assessing risks attendant to each responsibility  

 Does not Include: 

● Other aspects of sponsored project lifecycle, at this time ● Defining and cataloging responsibilities for specific tasks related to the process, but 

provides a framework for where they might be later documented  Risks in Project: 

● Representation is a large cross­section of campus, but not exhaustive ● Assumption that the volunteer contributions from individuals will represent a unit voice, 

but may need verification 

1 

 

  

C. Target Completion Date ● Early June, 2015 

  D. Deliverables 

● Roles and Responsibilities Matrix document to the RAAC Process Subcommittee ● Any needed explanatory text or methodology descriptions 

  E. Subsequent Actions 

● RAAC Process will review and provide feedback to Task Force ● RAAC Process will present to RAAC Executive Committee, which may also provide 

feedback ● Further steps to acceptance/adoption to be defined by RAAC Executive Committee 

 

F. Task Force Members Task Force members were provided by the RAAC Membership at Large to represent individual units.  In the event that a person listed is unable to participate, the RAAC Member will be approached about whether another person would be added.   

Role  Name  Unique name  School/College/Institute/Office 

Co­Chair  Heather Offhaus  hmills  Medical School 

Co­Chair  Craig Reynolds  creyno  ORSP 

Project Manager  

Yvonne Sturt  ysturt  ORSP/ Sponsored Programs 

Member  Linda Casto  lcasto  College of Engineering, Chem Engine 

Member  Kristi Rork  kwalters  College of Engineering, Indust & Operations Engine 

Member   Jane Sierra   jmsierra  Medical School 

Member  John Cristiano  jjayc  Dearborn 

Member  Susan Vandersluis  svanders  Life Sciences Institute 

Member  Jocelyn Webber  jwebbe  School of Information 

2 

 

Member  Heather Hazzard  hhazzard  School of Natural Resources and Environment 

Member  Carole Bach  bachcm  Institute of Social Research 

Member  Tom Zdeba  tzdeba  ORSP, Private Sponsors Team 

Member  Terri Maxwell  tmax  ORSP, Government Sponsors Team 

Member  Maureen Martin  martinms  Foundation Relations 

 

G. Meeting Schedule ● 2nd Thursday of the month, 3:30 – 5:00 pm 

Location: Conference Room 1025, first floor Wolverine Tower  

And  

4th Tuesday of the month, 3:30 – 5:00 pm Location:  Conference Room 3140, NCRC Bldg 520 

  

3 

 

 

Project Charter Click­designed Budget Templates for Incorporation in eRPM Design Team 

RAAC Process Subcommittee    

A. Project Description The purpose of this design team is to incorporate Click­designed (optional) budget templates in eRPM to create budgets (for any project) and auto­populate SF424 budget pages, as appropriate.      

B. Project Scope Includes:  

● Review of vendor delivered functionality to determine fit with UM needs ● Identifying system/use requirements  ● Identify policy and process issues  ● Implementation recommendations ● Minor modifications to meet UM business needs 

 Does not Include: 

● Vendor­provided functionality will not support the full spectrum of budget formats required by all external sponsors therefore the initial group will focus only on use of Click­designed budget templates for use with the SF424 pages 

● Extensive modifications to vendor functionality of click­designed vendor product  Risks in Project: 

● Limited cross­sectional campus representation   ● Assumption that the volunteer contributions from individuals will represent a unit voice, 

but may need verification    

C. Target Completion Date ● January, 2016 

1 

 

   

D. Deliverables ● Development of implementation recommendations to the RAAC Process Subcommittee 

including a full change management plan to introduce the new functionality  

E. Subsequent Actions ● RAAC Process will review and provide feedback to Design Team ● RAAC Process will present to RAAC Executive Committee, which may also provide 

feedback ● Further steps to acceptance/adoption to be defined by RAAC Executive Committee 

F. Design Team Members *Design Team members were provided by the RAAC Membership at Large to represent individual units.  In the event that a person listed is unable to participate, the RAAC Member will be approached about whether another person would be added.   

Role  Name  Unique name 

School/College/Institute/Office 

Chair  Elizabeth Brant  ebrant  School of Dentistry 

Member  Patrick Lagua  jeangrey  School of Dentistry 

Member  Mary Malec  mmalec  Medical School 

Member  Jennifer Huntington  jlhuntin  Ross School of Business 

Member  Nicholas Prieur  nprieur  Institute for Social Research 

Member  Kimberly Mann  kimrmann  College of Engineering 

Member   Emily Baxter   ekbaxter  ORSP, Private Sponsors Team 

Member  Colleen Vogler  clv  ORSP, Federal Team 

Member  Cathy Handyside  chandys  ITS 

Member  Carolyn Pappas  cpappas  ITS 

Member  Vasudha Ramani  vramani  ITS 

Member  Mike Randolph  mikeran  ITS 

2 

 

*To mitigate risk of limited campus representation additional outreach focus groups will be held to ensure adequate cross­campus representation and input. 

G. Meeting Schedule ­ TBD 

3 

 

 

Project Charter Establishing a Defined Financial Close­out Process RAAC Process Subcommittee    

 

A. Project Description and Scope The purpose of this work group is to review the current financial closeout process that occurs between Sponsored Programs and units.  The work group will outline the current process to include a list of responsibilities, compile a list of challenges to the current process, make recommendations to address challenges, and report to the RAAC Process Committee.  

B. Stakeholders ● Sponsored Programs ● SAPOCs ● Principal Investigators ● Unit Administration  

 

C. Target Completion Date ● October 31, 2015 

 

D. Background ● Units were surveyed in 2014 to identify research administration challenges ●  A list of unit responses was compiled ● RAAC Process Committee decided to move this issue forward for review 

 

1 

 

E. Deliverables ● Outline of current process ● List of challenges for parties encountered in current process ● List of recommendations for improving process and addressing challenges ● Report to RAAC process committee 

E. Subsequent Actions ● RAAC Process will review and may provide feedback to work group ● If requested, work group will respond to RAAC Process Committee ● RAAC Process may/will forward recommendations to RAAC Executive Committee ● RAAC Executive Committee will determine final step(s) 

F. Task Force Members Task Force members were provided by the RAAC Membership at Large to represent individual units.  In the event that a person listed is unable to participate, the RAAC Member will be approached about whether another person would be added.   

Role  Name  Unique name  School/College/Institute/Office 

Chair  Anita English  aenglish  Medical School – OBGYN 

Member  Megan Diffin  megdif  Medical School – Peds & Comm Diseases 

Member  Meenu Baxendale  meenub  School of Natural Resources & Environment 

Member  Kristie Beckon  bkristie  Sponsored Programs 

Member  Nichole Burnside  washingn  Institute for Social Research 

Member  Rhonda Jent  rsweet  College of Engineering ­ ChemE 

Member  Charles Mattison  charmatt  College of Engineering – EECS 

Member  Anna Taylor  annat  School of Dentistry 

Member  Kathy DeWitt  dewitt  Office of Research and Sponsored Prjoects 

Member  tbd    Sponsored Programs 

2 

 

G. Meeting Schedule  

Date  Time  Venue 

July 9, 2015  2 pm  NCRC, Bldg 400, Rm 485 (east side) 

July 30, 2015  2 pm  WOTO, Rm 5002 (Sponsored Programs) 

August 13, 2015  2 pm  NCRC, Bldg 16, Rm ACR2 (west side) 

August 28, 2015  2 pm  WOTO, Rm 1025 (ORSP Conf Rm) 

September 2015 ­ tbd  2 pm  NCRC ­ tbd 

September 2015 ­ tbd  2 pm  WOTO ­ tbd 

October 2015 ­ tbd  2 pm  NCRC ­ tbd 

October 2015 ­ tbd  2 pm  WOTO ­ tbd 

   

3 

 

PI

UNIT ADMIN

ORSP

FSP

OTHER

BEC Business Engagement Center

CFR Corporate and Foundation Relations

COI Conflict of Interest Committee

HRPP Human Research Protection Program

HR Human Resources

IBC Institutional Biosafety Committee

OSEH Occupational Safety and Environmental Health

OTT Office of Technology Transfer

UCUCA University Committee on the Use and Care of Animals

UMOR U-M Office of Research

R

A

S Support for those who are responsible or accountable

C Consulted as needed in order to complete the task (two-way communication)

I Informed that task is underway/completed (one-way communication)

Roles

This document is provided to help define the Roles & Responsibilities of those involved in

the identification, assembly, and submission of proposals related to sponsored projects. As

further areas are addressed, the document will be expanded.

The Unit Admin column encompasses any research administrator, unit administrator, or

higher level within the unit. Because many units across campus provide services in

different ways, it was not possible to delineate these roles in a uniform way across campus.

Individual units are encouraged to explore developing a companion list that best describes

their home unit and delivery of services in their context.

Principal Investigators, however, do have specific responsibilities that are assigned under

the Standard Practice Guide (SPG). Although often research administrators help perform

these tasks, the PI has been reflected as responsible.

If you are unfamiliar with the RASCI system, you may view a brief, online tutorial:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1U2gngDxFkc

Principal Investigator

Accountable for the correct and thorough completion of the task, typically delegating the work

to those responsible.

Responsibilities

Responsible for doing the work to achieve the task.

Finance-Sponsored Programs

Research Administrators, Department/School/College or Equivalent

Office of Research and Sponsored Projects

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

A B C D E F G

PI

UNIT

ADMIN ORSP FSP OTHER

RASCI

COMMENTS

GeneralIdentify and communicate required training courses

for PI to be eligible to receive funding I I I UMOR / A and R

Provide centralized funding opportunity resources

to the campus community

I I S UMOR / A and R

Foundation Relations

and Library are

possible resource

providersMaintain database of proposal submissions and

awards I S A/R I

Act as institutional authority as to acceptability of

sponsor requirements S/C S/C A/RUMOR / S

CFC and BEC / C

Proposal DevelopmentPrepare proposal that meets requirements outlined

in the application instructions, including applicable

rules and regulations.A/R R S/C

Prepare scholarly proposal A/R SRequest on-or-off-campus space needed in addition

to that already assigned to the PI A/R S/C

Request modifications or renovations to on-campus

or off-campus space if necessary A/R S/C

Prepare Proposal Approval Form (PAF) A R CMonitor PAF Progress as it routes through the

internal review process I A/R

Develop appropriate budget and budget justification

to accomplish the scope of work A R C

Requests matching funds according to University

policy A/R S/C C

Identify the appropriate Facilities & Administrative

cost rate S/I A/R C

Request a Facilities & Administrative cost waiver, if

appropriate A/R S/C

Identify and evaluate issues related to program

income S A/R C

Verify that budget items are in accordance with

Uniform Guidance (which also includes cost

accounting standards)S A/R C

Request and obtain budget, scope of work and

relevant documents from subcontractors and

consultantsA R

Work with Purchasing to develop Small

Business/Minority Subcontracting Plans as requiredA R Procurement = C

Obtain letters of support of collaborators A/R S

Compliance

Disclose conflicts of interest and commitment A/R S I COI / C

Disclose human subjects research A/R S I HRPP / C

II. Proposal Development and Budgeting

2

A B C D E F G

PI

UNIT

ADMIN ORSP FSP OTHER

RASCI

COMMENTS

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

Disclose animal research A/R S I UCUCA / C

Disclose use of radioactive materials in research A/R S IDisclose biological toxins and select agent use A/R S IDisclose hazardous materials use A/R S IDisclose human pluripotent stem cell use A/R S IDisclose export controls involvement A/R S I UMOR / C

Identify related intellectual property disclosures A/R S I OTT / C

Disclose related Unfunded Agreements A/R S IDisclose nanoscale particles/fabrication use A/R S I OSEH

Disclose any known restrictions on openness of

research A/R S I

Ensure applicant has completed required training

courses (PEERRS) A/R S I UMOR / S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

A B C D E F G

PI

UNIT

ADMIN ORSP* FSP OTHER RASCI COMMENTS

Proposal Review

Conduct department/school/college level

administrative review of proposal relative to

consistency with University unit objectives,

resource utilization or other concerns

I A/R C

Verify Sponsor ID and contact information S A/RVerify PAF signatures/approvals present and

correct R A/R

Verify PAF data is consistent with proposal R A/R

Coordinate internal review of limited

submissions I I/R I UMOR /

A/R

Ensure that the applicant is eligible and/or

approved to be a university principal

investigatorI R A

Confirmation of limited submission ability to

submit R I/R A

Approve request for additional space or

alterations to existing space A/R

Approve proposal budget and justification, if

applicable A/R R

Ensure budget items are in accordance with

Uniform Guidance and the cost accounting

standardsR A/R

Approve Dean or department funds to be

used for matching funds A/R

Approve UMOR funds to be used for matching

funds A/RUMOR /

C

Verify sponsor required cost sharing

commitments are met, documented, and

approvedR A/R

Review and approve requests for F&A rate

reductions or waivers A/R

Review the application for scientific accuracey A R

III. Proposal Review, Approval and Processing

2

A B C D E F G

PI

UNIT

ADMIN ORSP* FSP OTHER RASCI COMMENTS

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Review the application administrative

components of the proposal for accuracy

C A/R R/C

Per Craig Reynolds,

5/14/15: ORSP is

considering work on a

supplemental document

that outlines a checklist of

the items that are

reviewed in ORSP.

Current state: nature of

verification dependent on

time finalized proposal

received prior to deadline,

type of award instrument

(grant v. contract), and

ORSP team.

Review the application administrative

components of the proposal for completenessC R/C A/R

Proposal Finalization and Submission

Finalize PAF C A/R ICommunicate required revisions and

corrections for proposal submission, if

neededI I A/R

Make revisions and corrections to

administrative components of the proposal

after institution review, but prior to

submission

R/C A/R I

Make revisions and corrections to non-

administrative components of the proposalA/R R/C/I I

Provide unit-level information needed for

completion of sponsor-required certifications

and assurancesC A/R I

Verify compliance with and sign certifications

and assurances C/I C/I A/R

Write sponsor-required letters that make

representations on behalf of University (i.e.,

ORSP “Happy to Participate/Pleased to

Submit” template letters, letters indicating

institutional agreement with or taking

exception to sponsor award terms in a

Request for Proposal or sponsor Program

Announcement, etc.)

A/RBEC, CFR

/ R

2

A B C D E F G

PI

UNIT

ADMIN ORSP* FSP OTHER RASCI COMMENTS

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

Write (1) elective letters, (2) sponsor-required

letters that only make commitments on

behalf of unit, (3) letters that provide

supporting documentation, and (4) any other

letter not requiring an authorized University

signature (e.g., requests for NIH study section

assignment, cost sharing commitment letters

not requiring an institutional signature, letters

of support or recommendation)

A/R CBEC, CFR

/ R

Write (1) modified versions of ORSP template

letters, and (2) sponsor-required letters that

make commitments on behalf of unit (e.g.,

cost sharing) but require an authorized

University signature.

A/R CBEC, CFR

/ R

Sign as the Institutional Official on behalf of

the institution assuring institutional oversightA/R

FR, BEC =

R

Return signed documents to PI for submission

to Sponsor I I A/R

If ORSP is submitting the proposal, comply

with Sponsor submission method and

deadlineI I A/R

If project team is submitting the proposal,

comply with Sponsor submission method and

deadlineA/R R I

FR, BEC =

R

Log/post unit-submitted proposal into eRPM I A/R I

Log/post ORSP-submitted proposal into eRPM I I A/R

* Responsibility/accountability

conditional on proposals being