_________________________________________________________________
SPONSORED PROGRAMS OPERATIONS GUIDE

     
Proposals or Requests for Support

Requests to prospective grantors or contractors may be of two types; informal approaches and formal proposals:

Preliminary Discussions. To ensure the most efficient and effective use of the University's resources, requests for matching funds, indirect cost reductions, and facility requirements must be reviewed early in the proposal planning process. An appropriate review cannot be conducted nor an informed decision made in haste to meet an external agency's deadline.

As early in the proposal writing stage as possible, the principal investigator or project director (PI/PD) should establish a dialogue with the appropriate institutional administrators to review the commitments needed for a specific project. Advanced knowledge of the extent to which the University is able to support a given project will benefit the PI/PD in addressing the scope of the project. Early discussions will provide the approving authority with the time needed to seriously review the request; and if necessary, to explore any alternatives which may be available to provide support to the proposed project.

To this end, the following procedure will be followed. PI's/PD's will submit a memorandum to the Vice President for Business Affairs, through their Division Director, Dean, the Director of Research Development, and the Associate Provost for Research as early in the planning stages of the proposal process as possible outing the basic proposal, the amount of funds requested from the funding agency, the type of support being requested from the University, the timeframes during which funds will be needed, any cost sharing requirements mandated by the funding agency, Division and College commitments toward the matching requirements, the level of indirect costs planned for the proposal, any agency mandated indirect cost restrictions, and any facility requirements.

Informal Approaches. These may be in the form of preliminary discussions or proposals by faculty members with representatives of a prospective sponsor without internal administrative review or approval. Their purpose is primarily to determine the eligibility of the program for support, and whether the proposal would be likely to receive serious consideration if offered as a formal request of support. All preliminary proposals will contain no more than a single, lump sum cost estimate, no cost sharing statement and no faculty or other University signature. The University will not authorize any commitment on the basis of the sponsor's acceptance of a preliminary proposal.

Formal Proposals. Proposals to be submitted as official University requests to prospective grantors or contractors must have appropriate review and approval at the administrative levels of division head and dean, respectively. After review and approval at the preceding administrative levels, the proposal will be forwarded to the Office of Research Development for review and approval by the Associate Vice President for Research.

Submission of Approved Proposals. Only proposals approved at each review level and executed by the Associate Vice President for Research will be considered eligible for submission to a sponsor by the principal investigator or project director. Complete copies of the proposal will be provided to the Office of Research Development at the time of submission.

Review and Approval Necessary Prior to Proposal Submission. Administrators and staff members at various levels have certain responsibilities and obligations in the preparation and submission of proposals (including preliminary documents) and supplemental funding requests.

Each proposal must be reviewed and approved by the administrators under whose responsibility the project lies. Reviewing, approving, authorizing, and executing officials are as follows:

Project Director or Principal Investigator. Develops the proposal and prepares the budget, develops project plans consistent with the mission of the submitting division or unit, completes proposal processing form, transmits the proposal to the division head, and makes all necessary copies of the proposal necessary for submission to the funding agency.

Division Head. Reviews the proposal for consistency with the division's mission, availability and commitment of departmental support services and resources, including time, space, and finances; ensures all faculty and departmental obligations, as defined in the proposal, will be met; indicates concurrence with the proposal by signing the proposal processing form; and transmits the proposal to the college dean.

Dean. Reviews the proposal for consistency with college mission, availability and commitment of college support services and resources, including time, space, and finances; ensures all division or college obligations, as defined in the proposal, will be met; indicates concurrence by signing the proposal processing form; and transmits the proposal to the Office of Research Development.

Office of Research Development.  Ascertains all necessary approval signatures have been obtained; reviews the proposal for consistency with established policies toward property rights, publications, compliance with policies involving human subjects, laboratory animals, biosafety, or national security issues; ensures issues such as indirect costs, cost sharing, matching, new positions, and space are addressed; coordinates cross-field issues with responsible colleges, and maintains a database of proposal processing information; reviews for compliance with all applicable University fiscal and administrative policies; reviews for compliance with all applicable federal compliance standards or request for proposal (RFP) requirement exceptions; approves budget, obtains approval for indirect cost waivers, necessary University cost sharing, new positions or additional space; ensures all division, college, or academic obligations, as defined in the proposal, will be met by resources already available within the academic budget; and maintains official copy of proposal pending award and acts as official point of contact for inquiries from the funding agency, and submits recommendations for approval to the Vice President for Business Affairs as required by University policy.

     
Identification of Funding Sources

The Office of Research Development can assist in identification of funding sources in several ways:

Funding Agency Information. Informational files are maintained for more than 150 federal and state government agencies, foundations, and corporations which provide funds to support university projects.

Funding Reference Library. The funding resource library includes current copies of major government program catalogs, foundation directories, Federal agency telephone directories, and government procurement publications, including the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, The Directory of Major Texas Foundations, Federal Register, Commerce Business Daily.

Computerized Funding Searches. Computerized database searches of more than 2,300 government and non-government funding programs are conducted upon request for faculty and staff. The Research Development Office maintains a large database of current and recent funding programs and funding announcements. Daily Review of Funding Notices. Every day, Research Development staff review announcements of availability of funds received from government agencies, foundations and other funding organizations, as well as official government procurement publications.

Faculty Funding Interests Survey. All faculty and staff are regularly queried about areas of funding in which they have an interest. Each year they are advised of the interests they have identified and given the opportunity to make revisions.

Grant Alerts. Every working day, time-sensitive information, often with deadlines for submission of proposals in less than one month, is received from funding organizations. These funding opportunities are matched with faculty and staff using a computerized database of their areas of funding interests. Then computerized memos, briefly abstracting the funding information, are sent to the identified faculty and staff. Copies of funding announcements are usually not sent because of the extra processing time and expense which would be required.

Depository of New Funding Information. All new funding information is placed in a special review area where faculty and staff can read the materials at their convenience. For example, a faculty member can quickly follow up on a potential funding program brought to his or her attention through a special funding memo.

Agency, Foundation, and Corporate Contacts. Research Development staff visit and call federal and State agencies, foundations, and corporations to explore their interests in funding projects at UTSA.

Federal agencies, state agencies, and private industries are key sponsors of research at the University of Texas at San Antonio. A summary of these and associated program activities are described below:

Federal Agencies. Historically, federal agencies have been the major source of research funds at most universities. Federal funds represent a substantial amount of the competitive research funds received at UTSA.

There are over 1,100 federal agencies, commissions, boards, etc., funding a wide variety of research interests at universities. The information flow may be somewhat difficult since the rules regarding research competition, requests for proposals, program announcements, etc. are extremely variable within the different agencies. It is important to remember, therefore, the research process requirements among the agencies are also likely to be quite different. The Office of Research Development can assist individual faculty members in the identification of processes as well as identification of responsible offices for particular research areas.

State Agencies. There are three basic ways most state agencies become involved in research. The state agency receives federal funds and then redistributes the funds; the state agency receives a grant or contract and sub-contracts out a portion of the funds; and the state agency directly issues research programs to help carry out its responsibilities. Since requests for proposals and program announcements may not get broad distribution at the state level, contacts within the state agencies are often critical to funding success.

Industry. Industry will usually support research at universities for three main reasons; philanthropic and tax-deductible needs; sub-contracts to help complete work for another organization; and specific research to address a need.

Since industry often seeks our senior faculty with well-known reputations, "teaming" with a senior faculty member may be a good strategy for junior faculty members. Personal contacts are a very important factor in industrial research initiatives.

Professional Associations. Many professional associations provide support for research, and it is often quite prestigious to receive their support. Generally, individuals must be a member of the association to be eligible, and often the level of support is small.

Private Foundations. There are approximately 30,000 private foundations in the United States, and they can be divided into five broad categories.

General Purpose Foundations. Examples include larger, better known foundations such as the Ford Foundation or Mellon Foundation. Seventy percent of all foundation funds are from general purpose foundations.

Special Purpose Foundations. Most are small and usually support specific fields of interest or limit support to certain geographical areas. Qualification is an essential prerequisite for achieving support for research.

Corporate or Company Foundation. Generally funds are closely linked with the community where the company is located or through connections with graduates of UTSA.

Community Foundations. Generally small awards which often do not involve universities.

Family Foundations. Usually established as part of the personal interests of the donor. Can be an outstanding opportunity if faculty or college interest coincides with the foundation because most have a history of repeat funding to favored recipients.

    
Features of Grant Proposals

This topic discusses the principal components of a grant proposal. While these components are not required for every grant application, they reflect the types of information requested in a typical grant application or proposal. The grant proposal is a single document, and its components should be interrelated so the document "flows" from beginning to end. Because grant proposals generally are long, the reviewer is likely to be impressed with the substance of the proposal if it can be easily read and reviewed. The major questions that must be answered in a grant proposal are similar to those that must be answered in a news story: who, what, where, when, why, and how. Added to these questions are two others: how long and how well.

In its revised Circular No. A-102 issued in March 1988, the Office of Management and Budget instructed federal agencies to request from applicants information on various aspects of the proposed project. These include objectives; expected results or benefits; approach; geographic location; key personnel (in certain cases); and program accomplishments and reasons for major program changes in the case of extension requests.

Specific suggestions for developing features of each component of a grant proposal are:

The Cover Letter. A grantee should include a cover letter with the application. The cover letter can simply be a letter of transmittal or it can restate the major features of the proposal. It also can serve as an indication the proposal was well planned and the applicant allotted time to develop a cogent thoughtful letter of introduction.

Introduction. The introduction or abstract should be a summary of the proposal and should highlight the major aspects of the objectives and methodology discussed in depth in other sections of the proposal. Some federal grantor agencies require an abstract of the proposal. In this case, the prospective grantee may want to avoid submitting a long and possibly repetitive cover letter.

Table of Contents. A table of contents should be provided if a proposal has many chapters or subdivisions. If there is substantial supporting documentation (e.g., appendices, letter of support) it is useful to identify the documentation in a table of contents.

Needs Assessment. The needs assessment is a discussion of the existing situation and a statement of problems needing resolution. It may address all the needs of a specific area and then narrow its scope to the specific needs to be addressed by the grant proposal. In this way, the relationship between the critical needs and the entire situation can be shown.

The needs assessment should address the scope and significance of the need and should be supported by documentation, which is a critical aspect of the needs assessment. Documentation should be drawn from sources external to the prospective grantee organization. Examples of documentation include: data; authoritative studies; surveys; comparison of national problems to specific local problems; and endorsements or statements of potential beneficiaries or authoritative individuals on the functional field involved.

Long-term Objectives. This section of the proposal describes broad policy and program goals aimed at meeting the needs identified above. However, long-term organizational objectives which have no relevance to the specific funding request should probably not be included. It is useful to show the specific activities proposed for funding have a relationship to a broader set of activities, thus demonstrating a well-planned approach.

Short-term Objectives. Short-term objectives are priority activities intended to be accomplished during the program period for which the application is submitted. They should identify the beneficiary and should be clear, concise, specific, reasonable, practical, attainable or realistic, measurable and performance-related (in terms of quantity and quality). Short-term objectives are often confused with methodology. In many cases, a prospective grantee states the objective of a specific proposal is to establish a program or facility for its own benefit. An objective is the end result; a methodology is the means to achieve the end result.

Methodology. The methodology section (often called the program design) addresses the question of how objectives will be met. The methodology includes: procedures; timetables; rationale for choosing a particular method; significance to the outcome and potential problems; recognizes the state-of-the-art in a given functional area; and addresses the specific situation and needs of the program under consideration.

Overview of the Organization. This component of the proposal establishes the qualifications of the organization seeking the funds. It may include a statement of legal basis, a prior record of achievement, indication of cooperative relationships with other organizations, and other resources available. The organization component of the proposal shows the organization seeking funds has the capacity to use the suggested methodology to achieve the proposed objectives. A subcategory within organization is staff. This section states the organization is legally responsible for the project but individuals who work for the organization will actually carry out the proposal. Skills, education, work experience, and association memberships of staff should be identified. It should also be addressed whether there is existing staff to carry out the project and whether there would be any need for additional training.

Monitoring System. This component shows what kind of capability exists to monitor program progress and accountability throughout the grant period. It discusses organizational capability and program reporting aspects and shows how the applicant can measure progress in achieving objectives.

Evaluation Criteria. This section discusses how the prospective grantee would show it accomplished what it is proposing to do using its methodology. The criteria measure the quantity and quality of service, the efficiency and effectiveness of organizational delivery of service, and compare program results with program objectives. Grantor agencies will not only be interested in the evaluation criteria but also the techniques to be used in applying the criteria and the cost of the evaluation to the grant. Further, it may be important for the evaluation to be done by an independent group external to the organization to ensure no organizational bias is present.

Future of the Program After the Grant. For grants requiring establishing new facilities or services, it is often useful for the applicant to include information about how the facility or services will be operated or continued once the grant funding has been reduced or eliminated. This shows the applicant has considered this possibility and has made appropriate plans.

Appendixes. Appendixes should be used to include technical material, supporting documentation and endorsements. Lengthy materials might impair the readability of the proposal if it were included in the text.

Characteristics of the Successful Proposal. A grant proposal is somewhat similar to a personal resume. It is often the only information which a reviewer has to judge the capabilities of an individual organization. For this reason, it must be as close to perfect as possible and avoid using approaches that will either cause concern or indicate disorganization of the grantee. When developing a proposal, it might be helpful to use role reversal to view the proposal from a federal grantor agency perspective. No federal agency wants to distribute funds unwisely and will be alert to flashy approaches. Additional characteristics of a grant proposal are:

Concise. Avoid extraneous material.

Visually Easy to Read. The proposal should have short paragraphs and headings that separate different features. It should be typed in a legible typeface. The use of graphs, charts and lists can be effective.

Properly and Professionally Written. Grammar, spelling, sentence structure, punctuation and word choice must be correct. It may be helpful if someone other than the preparer reads the proposal. If possible, have two people — one who is familiar with the subject and one who is not — review the proposal.

Using jargon is a difficult issue faced in developing a grant proposal. Federal officials often look for such words, but they can be overused. Such "buzz words" should be used in moderation. The writing should be professional and should use jargon only where it is useful to demonstrate understanding of the subject.

Another concern of grantees is writing style. A more formal approach is probably best (i.e., do not use first-person pronouns such as "I" or "We"). Use the active verb form when appropriate (i.e., "will include" rather than "will be included").

Grantees should also take a positive approach to achieving objectives but should be careful to use qualifiers to avoid being committed to objectives or needs that are difficult to meet.

Complete. This aspect of grant proposal writing is probably the single most difficult one to ensure. Grantees often attempt to develop a proposal on a strict deadline and fail to allow time for review either within or outside their organization. This may result in missing key requirements that must be met before the proposal is submitted. It is also important that all local reviews, such as those performed under Executive Order 12372, have been completed.

Grantees should be aware of the delivery requirement for the grant proposal and how many copies should be included. Delivery requirements are not consistent among grant programs. Many grant applicants have been disappointed because they did not meet the deadline or include necessary material with the final application. Federal agencies conduct an initial review to determine whether the program application is complete, and whether it meets the deadline. It is easy to reject an application and reduce the competition by eliminating an application because it was late or incomplete.

    
Standardized University Information

The following table should be consulted before completing applications which require standardized answers to certain questions:

     
Classified Information

Federal Agreements. The University, under the terms of certain contracts with the Department of Defense, is required to enter into a security agreement with that agency. This agreement, together with the individual projects, establishes the rules and regulations for handling and dispersal of information resulting from these classified projects. The Department of Defense additionally is responsible for the administration of the Industrial Security Program for many federal agencies including the following:

• National Aeronautics and Space Administration
• Federal Aviation Administration
• Department of Commerce
• General Services Administration
• National Science Foundation
• Department of Treasury
• Department of Agriculture
• Environmental Protection Agency
• Department of State
• Department of Transportation
• Department of Justice

Principal investigators/project directors contemplating contracts that would involve the handling of classified material should alert the Office of Research Development during the proposal review stage to permit the implementation of the University's facility clearance requirements.

Industrial Sponsor Proprietary Data. Certain sponsors, e.g., private companies or corporations, may find it necessary to divulge proprietary information to University personnel, the confidentiality of which must be protected through a written agreement. Such agreements may restrict to a minimum number of personnel, on "a need to know" basis, information regarding the daily project performance and results. The aspects of such an arrangement must be carefully considered by reviewing officials, since a breach of this confidentiality could result in legal proceedings being taken against the University.

    
Assistance in Preparation

A University staff member wishing to initiate a proposal for a grant or contract should first seek guidance on the selection of the appropriate program or project from the Office of Research Development. This office will aid in the selection of programs and projects consistent with the overall aims and interests of the University and will provide assistance and direction in the preparation of specific proposals. The Office of Grants & Contracts Administration will also assist and coordinate business and financial aspects of proposal preparation and submission.

As a general rule, most funding agencies make awards only to organizations and not to individuals. As a result, the University of Texas at San Antonio requires any proposal prepared by the faculty or staff member be submitted by the institution. Thus, there is a need for institutional review, approval, and official authorization by someone legally empowered to make commitments on behalf of the University.

Guidelines and Application Forms. Current guidelines for most federal programs as well as standard application kits for organizations such as the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, National Endowment for the Arts, National Endowment for the Humanities, and Public Health Service are available. Guidelines and application kits for other agencies and foundations can be obtained upon request.

Conferences on Funding Opportunities. The Research Development Office organizes conferences which feature speakers and representatives of funding agencies and organizations. Informal discussion groups are included in the schedule with the formal presentations. This is an excellent opportunity for faculty and staff to develop their own contacts.

Grantsmanship Workshops. Faculty and staff conferences and workshops on all aspects of grantsmanship and proposal preparation are conducted.

Funds for Grant Development. The Grant Development Program provides funds and assistance to faculty and staff to develop project ideas and prepare grant proposals to be submitted to funding organizations. Grant Development Program funds may be used for a wide range of grant development activities. The long range goal of the Program is to develop and enhance the ability of faculty and staff to compete for external funding.

Interpreting Funding Regulations. Interpreting funding program guidelines, regulations and required forms, particularly those for federal programs, can be difficult. Assistance is provided in understanding what kinds of projects have high priority, what kinds of expenses are allowed, and what information is required.

Project Development. Assistance is provided in developing project ideas and design. Technical advice is provided on a wide range of topics, including experimental design, data analysis, and program evaluation.

Proposal Preparation. Strategic and technical advice is offered on how to develop a winning proposal. The Research Development staff assists with the preparation of a brief prospectus of proposed projects which can be used as part of a preliminary proposal to determine an agency's interest in a full proposal. Advice is provided on how to structure and organize a full proposal.

Multidisciplinary Proposals. Assistance in coordinating multidisciplinary and inter-college project proposals is provided.

Editorial Assistance. Editorial review and critique of proposals are provided.

Budget Preparation. Assistance in proposal budget design and preparation is provided. Assistance with the completion of required budget forms is provided.

UTSA Standing Committees. Guidance is provided on required reviews by relevant safety committees, including the Institutional Review Board for Human Subjects, Animal Care and Utilization Committee, Institutional Biosaftey Committee and Radiation Safety Committee.

Certifications and Assurances. Assistance and guidance with certifications, institutional assurances and endorsements is provided.

University Review. Required reviews by the Associate Vice President for Graduate Studies and Research, and the Vice President for Business Affairs are coordinated.

Proposal Transmittal. Letters of transmittal indicating University endorsement of grant and contract proposals are provided.

    
Contact with Potential Sponsors

It is important to obtain guidelines for research proposal submission from the potential funding agency. Discussions with the sponsor (recognize that legally some sponsors cannot release information) should elicit as much information as possible to support proposed research ideas. Sample questions include:

Is an individual or institutional "Statement of Capability" needed? Some sponsors use the Statement of Capability to screen out those not fully qualified and, therefore, limit the number of proposals to be evaluated.

Are pre-proposals or preliminary proposals acceptable? If yes, then this provides an excellent opportunity for better development of a proposal more likely to be funded. Pre-proposals may be sent to potential sponsors without University review as long as the pre-proposal shares technical ideas and seeks the ideas and thoughts of the sponsor; University commitments are not to be included; and no itemized budget is included; however, it is acceptable to discuss in general terms the broad needs of the project (i.e., graduate support, faculty time, equipment needs, etc.).

The Office of Research Development will provide, on request, printed guidelines for preliminary proposals.

Will the sponsors include UTSA and the respective faculty on their mailing lists?

Is it possible to get a copy of a funded proposal to serve as a guide?