Â鶹´«Ă˝Ół»­

- The National Institutes of Health Grants Policy Statement (NIHGPS) is a single document that outlines the policy requirements and serves as the terms and conditions for NIH grant awards. This document is also designed to be useful to those interested in NIH grants by providing information about NIH—its organization, its staff, and its grants process.

 - Part I of the document covers NSF’s proposal preparation and submission guidelines, and Part II covers NSF’s award, administration and monitoring guidelines.

The most recent version of the NSF PAPPG was updated and implemented for all proposals submitted on or after May 20, 2024.

In December 2014, OMB together with Federal awarding agencies issued an interim final rule to implement the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (). This guidance and implementing regulations delivers on President Obama’s second term management agenda and his first term directives under , the , and the objectives laid out in  to better target financial risks and better direct resources to achieve evidence-based outcomes. The final guidance, originally published on December 26, 2013 () simultaneously improves performance, transparency, and oversight for Federal awards. 

The reforms that comprise the Uniform Guidance aim to reduce the administrative burden on award recipients and, at the same time, guard against the risk of waste and misuse of Federal funds. Among other things, the OMB's Uniform Guidance does the following:

• Removes previous guidance that is conflicting and establishes standard language;
• Directs the focus of audits on areas that have been identified as at risk for waste, fraud and abuse;
• Lays the groundwork for Federal agencies to standardize the processing of data;
• Clarifies and updates cost reporting guidelines for award recipients.

*The Guidance was drawn from OMB Circulars A–21, A–87, A–110, and A–122 (which have been placed in past OMB guidances); Circulars A–89, A–102, and A–133; and the guidance in Circular A–50 on Single Audit Act follow-up.

Proposal development is as follows for all federal and non-federal funding agencies. The first step in any proposal process is reading the guidelines on how the agency will accept and review proposals. They are usually provided by the funding agency and can be called one of the following: Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO), Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA), Request for Proposal (RFP), or Program Announcements. These guidelines are usually comprehensive with detailed information on the submission process. Here you may also find out if the award you are applying for fits the research you want to pursue. After the investigator has read the submission guidelines and has decided to move forward, the investigator will want to contact the Office of Sponsored Programs (OSP) and express their wish to apply. The OSP will also review the submission guidelines and work with the investigator in building a proposal to submit to the funding agency. Once all components of a proposal are finalized the submission process will be done through our online system called Cayuse 424. Cayuse 424 is a University-wide online system, for the development and submission of a sponsored project proposal. An investigator has to use this system even if using a separate portal. We use Cayuse for all proposals (for internal purposes). The system can be accessed via Â鶹´«Ă˝Ół»­â€™s InsideTrack Portal. Questions on how to register and use Cayuse 424 should be addressed with the OSP.

There are 3 different responses to a submitted proposal: Denied, Just In Time, or Approved. Denied proposals are self-explanatory however it may accompany a review of why the proposal was denied. This is important in case you wish to resubmit it in the future and address the concerns or comments the agency brought up. Some agencies may not provide a review and only the notice of denial. Just in time’s are proposals that the agency is interested in funding however they would like some clarifications/changes on the original proposal submitted. The OSP office can assist you through this process as well and resubmit the proposal per the agency’s instructions. Approved is self-explanatory but it opens the door to the post award process.

Albeit not part of the submission process, the OSP would like to briefly explain what happens when the award is funded. Once the award has been approved for funding it enters the post award stage. Everything mentioned above is considered pre-award. In post award, it is now about actually pursuing the goals that the investigator wished to meet from the submitted proposal. For the OSP office, this means we can assist you with the finances of the grant and answer any questions about Do’s and Don’ts. It is highly likely that reports are due to the funding agency in a specific timeframe. The investigator may need to submit these reports but if they are financial in nature then the OSP may do it. The post award stage will remain as so until the end of the award date. Once the award has ended all expenditures should have been posted and a final financial/technical report will be sent to the funding agency with the investigator’s findings. This would mark the end of the award lifecycle and the process is then repeated with the submission of a new proposal.

• NIH Proposal Checklist 2024

Below are the most essential links for preparing an NIH application. Should you have any questions concerning the NIH proposal submission process, contact the OSP.

•  - These documents are a great visual resource for understanding many of the business rule checks NIH will run against your submitted application.
•  - Includes biosketches, training grant data tables, and additional supplemental forms. 
•  (Unsolicited Funding Opportunity Announcements) 

Below are some additional links to help researchers with proposal submissions.

• NSF Proposal Checklist 2024

Below are the essential links for completing an NSF proposal application. Should you have any questions about the NSF proposal submission process, contact the OSP. 

•  - Contains many resources and FAQs related to the proposal preparation process
•  - Detailed instructions for preparing and submitting a proposal in research.gov

Preparation of a budget is a crucial part of the proposal preparation process. Reviewers use the budget to evaluate the reasonableness of the amount requested to perform the work described in the entire proposal, so considerable thought should go into its preparation. Most sponsors provide detailed instructions and a specific format for budget preparation. The requested amount should not be so small as to preclude successful completion of the stated goals nor so large that the sponsor will not seriously consider funding the proposal.​ 

OSP will review the budget for compliance with the University and sponsor guidelines, and to ensure the appropriate indirect costs and fringe rates are requested.​ 

Budgets include direct costs and indirect (facilities and administrative (F&A) costs or overhead). Direct costs include such specific line items as salaries and fringe benefits, materials & supplies, travel, etc. Indirect costs are real costs that are associated with carrying out sponsored projects but are difficult to quantify with respect to any given project. For example, electricity, heat, maintenance, building depreciation, administrative expenses and library use are all F&A costs.  

F&A costs are paid as a fraction of direct costs, with the fraction negotiated by the University and the cognizant federal entity.​ 

R&R Budget template

Budget Justification 

The Budget Justification narrates the relationship of the proposed expense to the work been performed. Each category should be explained, in the order outlined in the budget document itself. Each sponsor may have a different page format, but what is important is that each proposed direct cost must be of direct benefit to the project. Reviewers should be able to understand the relationship between the cost item and how it relates to the conduct of the sponsored project. 

Budget Justification template and guide for NSF proposals

 - Please scroll down for the NIH templates 

Unallowable Costs on Proposals/Sponsored Projects  

Many funding agencies, including NIH and NSF, require that proposals include a data management and sharing plan (DMSP). Given the nuances in creating a plan to fit agency requirements, some researchers prefer to use a program such as the California Digital Library's  to create their plan.​

NIH's DMSP template can be found . 

NSF has different data management plan requirements depending on the directorate/division of which the funding award originates from and/or the funding announcement. Please review the specific requirements for NSF proposal submissions  and the funding announcement when drafting a data management plan.

Science Experts Network Curriculum Vitae (SciENcv) is a new electronic system that helps researchers assemble the professional information needed for participation in federally funded research. Beginning on October 23rd, 2023, NSF will no longer be accepting fillable forms for Biographical Sketch or Current & Pending Support. The new method of accepting these forms for future proposals will be through SciENcv on their . SciENcv gathers and compiles information on expertise, employment, education and professional accomplishments. Researchers can use SciENcv. to create and maintaining biosketches that are submitted with grant applications and annual reports. SciENcv allows researchers to describe and highlight their scientific contribution in their own words. SciENcv can help create profiles for not only NSF but also NIH. To help faculty members with this new process we are including two short videos to help them get started. 

the federal government’s guidance on the matter, groups subrecipients with award recipients. Like grant recipients, subrecipients measure performance against program objectives, comply with award requirements, use funds to carry out program activities, and makes programmatic decisions. Collaborating partners often receive subawards to carry out grant activities for the applicant. Subrecipients are an organization, not an individual (ex: Yale University).

Consultants are external individuals who provide specialized knowledge to a project. They provide expertise, but do not influence programmatic decisions (i.e.: they are not a PI). Consultants are hired by establishing a consultant agreement between Â鶹´«Ă˝Ół»­ and the individual consultant.

Contractors/Vendors provide goods and services “that are ancillary” to program operations. Contractors are not subject to compliance requirements of the grant. There is more distance in this relationship, often characterized as procurement.

• A statement of work (SOW)
• Detailed budget
• Budget justification
• Biosketch for each key personnel listed by the subrecipient
• Statement of Intent to Collaborate (SOI)