1. MRAM. June 12th, 2014

2.  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.  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GIM 19 deadlines (e.g. 7/3 day)  Has a proposal attached  Is in the status of “IN OSP” (e.g. not in “Routing” or “Withdrawn” status)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.  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: o Required changes – must take place prior to submission to the sponsor o Recommended changes – are recommended by OSP based on its review to enhance compliance or responsiveness

5.  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: o Programmatic additions comply with formatting o 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. 1. 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 2. 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 3. 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 4. 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. 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.: o Full review with OSP Reviewer Comments o I am in the middle of reviewing your Proposal; I will provide reviewer comments momentarily o I have been assigned your proposal for review because I am on coverage for __. I will be providing my Review Comments shortly.

8.  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.  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/Dept respond 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. Competing Proposal eGC1s (e.g. New, Resubmission, Competing Renewal, Competing Supplement, Competing Revision, Transfer to UW) Review Provided, or “Touchback” provided within 2 business days 37% Submission, no Reviewer Comments40% Review Provided 3+ days after “IN OSP”20% eGC1 is ATF or ISCT and 3+ days3%

11.  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. Resources: GIM 1: http://www.washington.edu/research/osp/gim/gim1.html http://www.washington.edu/research/osp/gim/gim1.html Prepare Proposal Webpages (OSP website): http://www.washington.edu/research/index.php?page=pr epareProposal