This Chapter explains the basic questions and steps that need to be addressed in order to submit a research proposal. This Chapter also covers information of a general nature regarding the research process and how to navigate it effectively. Specific information is provided to assist in:
In addition to brief explanations included in this section, various Key Terms commonly used in sponsored research programs at GW are defined in Appendix C, List of Defined Terms and Acronyms.
3.1.1. Gift Funds for Research
Support for research may also be available in the form of a gift. A “Gift” is an award for which nothing is required in return other than the most general summary of overall accomplishments. There are no deliverables or standard reporting requirements.
The University will accept gifts that promote the University’s goal as an independent academic institution that is dedicated to furthering human well-being. A letter from the individual or organization supplying the gift should accompany the check stating that the check is to be considered a gift and if it is for some special category of research that should be mentioned as well. Gifts are handled by GW’s Office of Corporate and Foundation Relations within the University Advancement Division. For further information regarding the University’s policy on gifts, see the Gift Acceptance Policy, http://my.gwu.edu/files/policies/GiftAcceptancePolicyFINAL.pdf, and the Gift Processing Policy, http://my.gwu.edu/files/policies/GiftProcessingPolicyFINAL.pdf.
3.1.2. Types of Solicitations for Research Proposals
Sponsors provide funding opportunities to universities because they recognize that academic investigators can provide the requisite expertise that will allow them to achieve the sponsor’s goals. The critical element for the Principal Investigator to remember in seeking sponsored research funding is that funding decisions are made to support the sponsor’s mission, and successful proposals for funding must recognize that mission.
How do sponsors let potential recipients know they have money available? There are a number of methods by which sponsors make program information available, many of which are discussed below. A frequent method, particularly for federal sponsors, is by issuing solicitations. Sponsors use a number of different vehicles to solicit proposals. For federal programs, the solicitation type is often linked to the award type (grant, contract, cooperative agreement). Although these terms are occasionally used interchangeably, each one has a specific meaning.
There are different types of Research proposals that are submitted in response to the different types of solicitations and the status of the research program including: New Proposals, Renewal/Non-competing Continuations, Competing Continuations, Revised Budget, Research, Supplements, Transfers, No-Cost Extensions, Fellowship, Financial Aid, or other sponsored research proposals.
Proposals can be categorized in a number of different ways based on purpose, type of award,, solicited vs. unsolicited, and so forth as defined in Appendix C. Additionally, at GW, proposals are categorized for internal processing purposes as proposals requiring Managing Director approval and those requiring approval by the Chief Research Officer.
3.1.4. Awards and Contracts:An “Award” means financial assistance that provides support or stimulation to accomplish a public purpose. Awards are typically either a grant or a cooperative agreement.
A “Contract” is an agreement the law will enforce. For federal sponsors, contracts are entered into and administered under procurement laws and regulations. A contract means a procurement contract under an award or subaward and a procurement subcontract under a recipient’s or subrecipient’s contract.
3.1.5. Types of Sponsored Projects
3.1.5.1. Grants, Cooperative Agreements and Contracts: Grants, Cooperative Agreements and Contracts are the three different types of awards or agreements generally issued to Universities. A Grant is a type of assistance award and a legal instrument which permits an executive agency of the Federal government to transfer money, property, services or other things of value to a grantee when no substantial involvement is anticipated between the agency and the recipient during the performance of the contemplated activity. A Cooperative Agreement is a type of federal assistance; essentially, a variation of a discretionary grant, which is awarded by the Department when it anticipates having substantial involvement with the grantee during the performance of a funded project. Substantial agency involvement may be necessary when an activity: is technically or managerially complex; requires extensive or close coordination with other federally supported work; or helps assure suitability or acceptability of certain aspects of the supported activity. Examples of projects which might be suitable for cooperative agreements are systemic reform efforts, research centers, policy studies, large curriculum projects, multi-user facilities, projects which involve complex subcontracting, construction or operations of major in-house university facilities and major instrumentation development. Both Grants and Cooperative Agreements fall under Assistance Awards which involve the support or stimulation of scientific and engineering research, science and engineering education or other related activities.
These awards or agreements may be issued directly to the University, a prime award or agreement, or they may be issued through another institution or entity in the form of a Subaward. Grants and Cooperative Agreements are forms of financial assistance in which the grantor provides financial assistance to a grantee on the basis of a written proposal that sets forth the work to be done and provides an estimate of the costs
A “Contract” is an exchange of promises that gives rise to legally enforceable rights and duties. Funding is provided in exchange for a particular product (services, reports, or materials) required by the sponsor (procurement). A legally binding contract has three major elements: offer (what is going to be done, i.e. the statement of work), acceptance (a formal acceptance, including specific names of responsible parties) and consideration in the form of payment (the amount agreed upon for the specific outcomes as defined in the SOW). In the case of a research contract, the sponsor agrees to finance the award to allow the PI to conduct and complete the research on behalf of the University under written terms and conditions.
Flexibility within the project is generally constrained when the prime award is a contract, the scope of work may not be altered without prior approval and spending must correspond to the approved budget. Funds awarded are often attached to a specific milestones or an outcome and can be withheld for failure to deliver. Publication may be deferred or may require prior review of sponsor before release. A non-disclosure agreement and/or confidentiality agreement may be required if the sponsor’s proprietary data or knowledge is disclosed. Ownership of intellectual property is generally negotiated upfront and may require a separate agreement at the time of award. Payment may be based on actual cost incurred or on a fixed schedule based on the acceptance of deliverables. It is important as investigators to understand what type of vehicle will be awarded during proposal submission time. In some instances, the solicitation itself will indicate whether a grant, cooperative agreement or contract will be issued if awarded.
There are two basic types of funding approaches that may be applied to these three types of awards or agreements:
(1) Fixed price: Fixed price agreements are awarded at a specified set amount. Fixed price agreements place more risk on the University for research and development type work as the possibility of cost over runs may occur. Performance must be completed even if the funds are inadequate. Fixed price agreements should only be used when the scope of work can be budgeted and completed with a high degree of accuracy. The University may keep any funds remaining at the completion of the program, which are accumulated and distributed to the applicable Department for use in absorbing unfunded costs related to sponsored programs and related purposes. If the award did not cover full indirect costs, than an allowance for unrecovered indirects would be taken from remaining funds before distribution of any excess to the Department. Additionally, if such remaining funds will exceed ten percent of the estimated program costs, a further review may be conducted by GCAS to determine if funds should be reimbursed or otherwise reapplied.
(2) Cost reimbursement: the University is reimbursed for actual costs incurred up to a specified ceiling amount. If it appears that the program will exceed the agreed-upon price, the sponsor may stop work or may provide additional funds.
A specific type of agreement commonly used in the Medical Center is a Pharmaceutical Award for a Clinical Trial. A pharmaceutical clinical trial is a specific type of contract under which the Principal Investigator conducts a study to test the safety, efficacy or other properties of a certain drug or medical device. Such a contract is typically fixed-price in which the University is compensated for its effort on a per-patient or case basis in accordance with a detailed protocol. Such agreements and contracts are subject to additional rules and regulations and require additional and somewhat different approvals from other types of proposals as further explained in Chapter VII. Research Supplements, Section 22, Clinical Research and Medical Billing.
3.1.5.2 Subaward: A “Subaward” means an award of financial assistance in the form of money, or property in lieu of money, made under an award by a recipient to an eligible subrecipient or by a subrecipient to a lower tier subrecipient. The term includes financial assistance when provided by any legal agreement, even if the agreement is called a contract, but does not include procurement of goods and services (service agreements or consultants). Subawards terminology is primarily associated with grants and cooperative agreements, and it is used as a generic term in this Handbook. In general, Subawards allow companies or organizations to bring in outside expertise or experience that will be beneficial to the project and to help carry out collaboratively a portion of the scope of work described in the proposal and assigned under the subsequent award.. Applicable terms and conditions of the prime award are incorporated into the subaward to the subrecipient.
A subrecipeint has its performance measured against its portion of the scope of work of GW’s program. A subrecipient has responsibility for programmatic decision making. A subrecipient has responsibility for adherence to the applicable compliance requirements as specified in the subaward document. The subrecipient uses the funds to carry out a portion of the scope of work of GW’s program as compared to providing goods or services for GW’s program. The subrecipient’s principal investigator/project director may be a co-author on publications or may seek patent protection for inventions.
Under this generic term, “Subaward,” there may be specific types of Subawards, including “Subgrant,” a subaward when the prime agreement is issued as a grant, a subagreement, a subaward when the prime award is a cooperative agreement, or a “Subcontract,” a subaward under a prime contract. “Subaward” is the preferred terminology with “Subcontract” being used more precisely to refer to Subawards issued under Prime Contracts. It is important to understand that regardless of the specific name dictated in the subaward (i.e., subgrant, subagreement or subcontract), the work is collaborative in nature and does not constitute the procurement of goods or services.
3.1.5.3 Contracts/Subcontracts: The federal government may issue contracts for research and development or for the procurement of goods and services. Such contracts are generally issued on Standard Form 33. Under contracts, the scope of work requires close contact between the parties and the terms and conditions are more stringent. The Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) apply on federal programs when prime awards are issued as contracts and the terms and conditions must be passed through and incorporated in each subrecipients’ award. If a subcontract exceeding $550K is to be issued under a federal government contract prime award, GW must be in compliance with Public Law 87-653, Truth in Negotiations Act. The Act requires that cost or pricing data and certification for any subcontract expected to exceed $550K be obtained from subrecipients. The subrecipient is required to submit cost or pricing data prior to the execution of the award by both parties unless one of the following exceptions apply: (1) Prices are based on adequate price competion; (2) the prices are set by law or regulation; (3) a commercial item is being acquired; (4) a waiver for cost or pricing data by the government has been granted under the prime award; (5) modifying a contract or subaward for commercial items. Additionally, the University follows a detailed process for reviewing subrecipient performance to verify fiscal responsibility and ability to perform under the Subaward/Subcontract. For discussion regarding the University’s policy regarding subrecipients, including annual GCAS review requirements of subrecipient audit reports, see Sections 8.1.6, Proposing Subawards as well as http://my.gwu.edu/files/policies/SubrecipientPolicyFINAL.pdf.
3.1.6. International Contracts and Subcontracts
Research requiring international involvement in terms of the location of the research program or the parties involved in supporting the research at either the prime or subcontract levels brings a whole additional level of complexity. Special approvals are required prior to engaging in sponsored programs conducted in a country subject to a State Department Travel Advisory. In addition to difficulties of distance, access, language and culture, there are issues resulting from differing laws, regulatory structures, customs and business practices. Among other things, there are restrictions on sharing information subject to Export Control as well as restrictions on payments to non-US persons. Such international research activities require careful review and approval as further described in Section 23, International Contracts and Subcontracts. For further information, please also refer to the Export Control Policy, http://my.gwu.edu/files/policies/ExportControlFINAL.pdf, and the Policy covering payments to non-US citizens, http://my.gwu.edu/files/policies/DisbursementbyCashiersCheckPolicy.pdf.
3.1.7 Other Forms of Agreements used with Public and Private Sponsors
3.1.7.1. Purchase Order: A “Purchase Order” or “PO” is the document used to purchase goods and services. It is similar to a contract, though usually for smaller undertakings. Investigators, Departmental Administrators, Grant Management Coordinators and others may process purchase requisitions for goods and services which, once approved by the applicable Research Services Coordinator, are processed by the Supply Chain Organization into Purchase orders. For further information, see the SCO website (http://www.gwu.edu/~supchn/buying.htm)
3.1.7.2 Material Transfer Agreement: A Material Transfer Agreement (MTA) is a contract that governs the transfer of tangible research materials between two organizations, when the recipient intends to use it for his or her own research purposes. The MTA defines the rights of the provider and the recipient with respect to the materials and any derivatives. Biological materials, such as reagents, cell lines, plasmids, and vectors, are the most frequently transferred materials, but MTAs may also be used for other types of materials, such as chemical compounds and even some types of software.
Three types of MTAs are most common at academic institutions: transfer between academic or research institutions, transfer from academia to industry, and transfer from industry to academia. Each call for different terms and conditions.
To encourage the process of sharing research tools between scientists at academic (or not-for-profit) institutions, the National Institutes of Health and the Association of University Technology Managers developed standard language to simplify material transfers, issued as the Uniform Biological Material Transfer Agreement (UBMTA). The UBMTA is used for many transfers between academic institutions. The UBMTA includes two sample letters: the Implementing Letter Agreement and the Simple Letter Agreement. The first is used for transfer of materials that are the subject of a patent or patent application or that have been or are likely to be commercially licensed. The Simple Letter Agreement is used for all other transfers.
Researchers often use materials provided by industry. For transfer of materials from industry, the campus is usually required to use the agreement written by the company providing the materials. An industrial MTA usually carries more restrictions than the UBMTA.
Industrial MTAs often contain language that conflicts with basic academic rights or that places unnecessary restrictions on investigators. Companies may ask to own all rights to inventions arising from use of the material or ask for exclusive rights to future inventions. For these reasons, it is important to coordinate through the Research Services Coordinator in advance of execution of an MTA.
MTAs are subject to review and approval through the applicable Research Services Coordinator within the OCRO.
3.1.7.3. Confidentiality Agreement: A “Confidentiality Agreement,” also known as a “Non-Disclosure Agreement” is a contract designed to protect intellectual property and proprietary interests by imposing restrictions and protections on information to be disclosed by the parties. In cases where it is the University that is receiving the confidential information, the Contracts Managers review the Confidentiality Agreements provided, which almost always need modifications. This process averages a week and once finalized the Managing Director, Research Support and Analysis approves for GWU.
3..1.7.4. Intergovernmental Personnel Assignment: “Intergovernmental Personnel Assignments” or “IPAs” are agreements initiated pursuant to the Intergovernmental Personnel Act of 1970 for temporary assignment of personnel between the Federal Government, State and local governments, institutions of higher education, and other organizations. IPA’s are funded for reimbursement of salary and benefits only, indirect costs are not charged to IPA’s. The Federal agency may pay or reimburse the employee for travel expenses and per diem associated with the relocation (including movement or temporary/non- temporary storage of household goods and personal effects in connection with the assignment), temporary quarters and per diem during the period of the assignment, and business travel related to the assignment. With the exception of business travel related to the assignment, payment or reimbursement of the other expenses listed in this paragraph may not be allowed unless or until the employee agrees in writing to complete the entire period of the assignment or one year, whichever is shorter, unless reassigned for reasons beyond the employee's control that are acceptable to the Federal agency concerned. If the employee violates the agreement, the money spent by the United States for these expenses is recoverable from the employee as a debt due the United States unless the head of the Federal agency concerned waives the requirement.
The period of an assignment under an IPA may not exceed two years unless the head of the Federal agency extends the assignment for not more than two additional years Because such arrangements involve commitments and potential liabilities, IPAs are subject to review and approval through the applicable Research Services Coordinator within the OCRO.
3.1.7.5. . Independent Contractor Agreements: GW will enter into an Individual Independent Contractor Agreement with individuals and a Commercial Independent Contractor Agreement with companies to provide specialized services in a particular discipline. Formerly called Consulting Agreements and Service Agreements, this individual or company is responsible for the work they are paid to perform and the results of that work.
ICs are not employees of the University and may not use GW resources to perform their services. ICs are ancillary to the actual research being performed under a sponsored project but are necessary to meet the overall objectives of the sponsored project.
An IC should be proposed in the budget and fully justified in the budget justification to the sponsor during the routing process of the Principal Investigator’s proposal to the prime awarding agency. If the decision has been made to enter into an ICA after the primary award has been received, the terms and conditions of the award must be checked by the PI and the RSC in order to determine if entering into an Agreement is allowable. Prior sponsor approval may be required.
To enter into an Independent Contractor Agreement, please visit the following link to obtain the appropriate forms: http://www.gwu.edu/~research/preforms.htm
3.1.7.6. Consultant Agreement: A “Consultant Agreement” generally provides for access to the expertise and/or input of an individual. Consultant agreements are used to reimburse individuals who serve on advisory boards, for example. They are issued only to individuals, not employees of GW. Consultants may not use the resources of GW to perform their obligations under the agreement. If a single or sole is contemplated when choosing the consultant, the form http://www.gwu.edu/~supchn/SelectionofSourceForm.pdf must be submitted to the Research Services Coordination prior to execution of the consulting agreement.
3.2.1. Sponsors
There are basically five different types of sponsors for research, training, and service programs: federal agencies; state and local agencies; foundations; non-profit organizations including other academic institutions; and business and industry. Although OCRO is responsible for programs that can be identified as sponsored programs regardless of funding source, proposals to be submitted to foundations may be coordinated through the applicable Research Services Coordinator with the Advancement Office.
3.2.1.1. Federal Government Sponsors: The key concepts to consider are:
3.2.1.2. District of Columbia, State and Local Governments: Like their federal counterparts, state and city agencies generally have a mission, usually more restrictive than the mission of a federal agency. Since state and local governments seek to benefit the people in their state or municipality, there are fewer basic research dollars and perhaps more funding for training and community programs.
3.2.1.3. Foundations: Foundations operate on the basis of charters, which are a matter of public record. They, too, have defining missions. Typically, foundations support "action" or "service-oriented" or applied activities, as opposed to just basic research. Foundation awards, however, generally have fewer restrictions than awards from government agencies. Within the foundation category, there are several distinct types:
3.2.1.4. Non-Profit Organizations: Included in the category of “Non-Profit Organizations” are several kinds of sponsors:
3.2.1.5. Business and Industry (corporate sources): Projects sponsored by corporate sponsors are generally related to the sponsor's product or sphere of activity, or to assist people in the community in which the sponsor is based (may be through a corporate foundation). Pharmaceutical companies comprise a particular class of corporate sponsors. Rather than make grants, corporations are more likely to issue contracts for specialized services or to use the consultant mechanism to obtain specific services they need.
3.3. SPONSOR STRUCTURE AND PRACTICE
3.3.1. Sponsor Staffing
Many sponsors, especially federal and large foundations, have separate program staff and grants and contracts staff. An exception to this at the federal level is the US Department of Education, which has combined program and grants staff.
3.3.2. Program Staff:
Sponsor Program Staff generally have expertise in the program area. Principal Investigator inquiries about upcoming deadlines, appropriate programs, interpretation of guidelines, and program focus may be directed to program staff members.
3.3.3. Grants and Contracts Staff:
Program Grants and Contracts Staff have expertise in grant and contract terms and conditions. For governmental sponsors as well as most other sponsors, only the authorized grants and contracts official with institutional authority to bind the sponsor may provide authoritative guidance regarding terms and conditions, and related budgeting and programmatic issues. It is always best to have any such guidance, approvals or commitments in writing prior to relying on it, especially if it has significant budget or programmatic implications.
3.3.4. Policies and Procedures:
To determine these important sponsor characteristics, examine the sponsor's Web site and written materials, including policy manuals, application materials, staff directories, annual reports, etc. Many of these documents are available on the Web.
3.3.5. Proposal Review Process
3.3.5.1. Evaluating the Evaluator: A sponsor's proposal review process determines how a proposal will be evaluated for funding and provides an approximate idea of the length of time between proposal submission and notification of decision.
Where possible, it is helpful to identify the evaluation criteria, the type of review normally employed, and any options related to the review process.
(1) Evaluation criteria - are the Evaluation criteria specified?
(2) Review criteria - how does the reviewer judge a proposal? Most federal proposal guidelines include the criteria by which the proposal will be reviewed. For example, the Department of Education guidelines often include a copy of the rating sheet (along with the kind of weight given to each section) that reviewers use to give the priority scores. It is helpful to organize a proposal in such a way that it is easy for reviewers to find each section of a proposal that matches specific criteria.
(3) Types of review/nature of the reviewers (external to the sponsor, such as academics or practitioners in the field, internal sponsor staff, both).
3.3.5.2. Internal Reviews: Internal reviews are generally faster and the program start date will be sooner. Some sponsors rely entirely upon internal reviews. Where possible, the Principal Investigator should develop a relationship with the program officer to get an understanding of what review criteria will be critical to success or failure.
3.3.5.3. Peer Review Process: NIH, NSF, and many other government agencies use a peer review process, under which faculty members or other experts in the field review a proposal. At NIH, the reviewers meet in panel, followed by consideration of the proposal by a designated Advisory Council. NSF uses review panels with no advisory council and program officers can modify the panel’s recommendation in certain circumstances. At NSF, program officers may have the jurisdiction to approve funding of programs below a certain dollar threshold without using external reviews. External reviews are usually performed by reviewers whose area of expertise may be more closely aligned to that of the Principal Investigator.
3.3.5.4. Reviewer comments: With many agencies using peer review, researchers get formal written feedback, which is extremely useful in revising the proposal for resubmission or submission to another sponsor. Feedback may describe why the reviewers did not rate the proposal highly and give suggestions for how to improve the proposal the next time around. Resubmissions are not uncommon, since few investigators get funded the first time around.
3.3.5.5. Selecting the Reviewer: Some sponsors allow Principal Investigator input into the selection of reviewers, both for inclusion and exclusion. If this is an option, consider using it.
3.3.5.6. Foundations and Corporations: Foundations and corporations rarely provide feedback, nor do they have an appeals process.
4.1 NON-SPONSORED RESEARCH FUNDING – Research Funding available directly from GW and other Non-Sponsored Sources
Before taking up Sponsored Research Projects, the primary subject matter of this Handbook, a brief introduction is provided to GW-funded research and Gifts. Non-sponsored research activities tend to have fewer procedural requirements imposed on them because the external requirements of a sponsor are not present; it is important to understand that significant internal policies and procedures still apply. Among other things, any compliance-related requirements applicable to human subjects, lab animals, lab safety, environmental hazards and the like must be met, and general requirements for integrity applicable to any type of research still apply along with any specific requirements of the particular non-sponsored program funding the research.
4.1.1. GW Support for Research
The George Washington University provides a number of internal mechanisms to support the research endeavors of its faculty.
4.1.1.1 University Facilitating Fund and Dilthey Faculty FellowshipsGeneral Information:
The University Facilitating Fund and Dilthey Fellowships are internal sources of research funding available to University (non-medical) faculty on a competitive basis. The OCRO issues a request for proposals. All submissions are reviewed by the University Committee on Research, which ranks them based on the merits and design of the research, and on the clarity of the written proposal. Funds are primarily intended to support faculty scholarship to provide seed money for faculty that will help attract external funding in the future. Dilthey Fellowships support interdisciplinary work.
Both Dilthey Fellowships and the University Facilitating Fund awards may include up to two months of summer salary support at a maximum of $4,000 per month and money for research expenses essential to the completion of the program (e.g., student support, supplies, and travel).
4.1.1.2. University Facilitating Fund and Dilthey Faculty Fellowships:
Award Administration:
The UFF award and Dilthey Fellowships provide faculty funds that may be used for research expenses. Expenditures are administered by the Office of Chief Research Officer and must be spent by the following June 30. UFF and Dilthey funding may not be used for major pieces of equipment, support for publication or presentation of research that has already been completed or course development. Funds not expended at the conclusion of the program revert to the University general fund.
Future funding from the UCR is contingent upon the submission of required progress reports, due the October following the close of the fiscal year.
Award Statistics:
The UCR funds approximately 20 UFF and Dilthey Fellowships each year. Over the last five years the total amount of UFF and Dilthey funding has been approximately $179,000 per year.
4.1.2. Research Enhancement Awards: Background
The Research Enhancement Fund (REF) began in 1990 on the recommendation of the 1989 Coates-Lange Report on research. The REF has a dual purpose:
REF monies are awarded on a three-year cycle.
4.1.2.1. Proposal Evaluation: REF monies are administered by the Office of the Chief Research Officer (CRO) with advice from the Advisory Council on Research (ACR). A University-wide call for proposals is sent out every three years in February. All proposals must clearly describe the research or scholarly activity, including a statement of goals. Proposals that fall under category (1) need to show how the REF will help the existing research organization attain a higher level of activity, especially with respect to outside recognition, such as from increased external funding. For those proposals that fall under category (2), the ACR pays close attention to interdisciplinary research collaborations among faculty that have the potential of leading to significant outside funding and impact internal and external to the University.
After an initial evaluation, the top seven or eight proposals are presented at the April meeting of the ACR. Funding decisions are announced in May and funds become available July 1. In each of the last three cycles, six to eight proposals have received REF funding.
4.1.2.2. REF Administration: The REF provides funding primarily for salaries and major equipment. All REF spending is approved in advance by the Office of the Chief Research Officer (CRO). Recipients are required to submit annual progress reports to the ACR and a budget for the coming year. REF funding is not renewed during an REF cycle if there is not satisfactory progress in the research and if the goals outlined the proposal are not being met.
4.1.3. Cost Sharing In General
Cost sharing on grants and contracts is another form of funding provided by the University to assist Investigators in pursuing research opportunities.
4.1.4. Research Enhancement Incentive Awards
The Research Enhancement Incentive Award (REIA) program provides ancillary funds to help defray the costs associated with sponsored research and provide incentives for faculty to expand their sponsored research programs. The REIA program is open to all Principal Investigators in Academic Affairs. The amount of REIA returned to Investigators and academic units is determined annually through a formula based on the net expenditures incurred by faculty as well as consultation between the CRO and Deans. The REIA program is administered by the Office of the Chief Research Officer.
4.1.4.1. Transfer of REIA Funding: After considering expenditures in the preceding fiscal year, the Director, Research Finance and Administration transfers REIA funds to academic units, with appropriate notification of funding amounts for individual Investigators. Where the total REIA is less than $300, the total is allocated to the department to minimize bookkeeping. For those investigators who have left the University, the investigator's share of the REIA is allocated to the department or dean, as appropriate. REIA funds are deposited in departmental R fund centers. In this way, unspent REIA funds may carry over from year to year. The Principal Investigators work in conjunction with their chairs in using their allocations.
4.1.4.2. Use of REIA Funds: There are no specific restrictions on the use of REIA funds. Principal investigators, chairs, and deans may spend the money in any way they feel will enhance research capabilities. Expenditures must be consistent with University policies and procedures for R funds. REIA funds are often saved, especially by PIs and departments, to accumulate sufficient funds for larger purchases.
A number of sites provide researchers with e-mail alerts of funding opportunities tailored to the researcher's interests. Some of these sites require that the researcher's institution pay a fee for this service, others are free. OCRO either maintains or can provide references to a variety of services that are available to assist prospective Investigators in locating sources of funding. The OCRO Information Specialist is the point-of-contact for assistance in finding additional information about these services, and is available at 202-994-6255. These services are also listed in a more comprehensive manner in Appendix K, and they include the following.
4.2.1. Multi-Purpose Commercial DatabasesIn addition to a database of funding opportunities, these services have additional features, i.e., expertise database, links to useful publications, etc. There are a number of such services, which are only available by institutional subscription. The following services are available to the GW community.
4.2.1.1. Community of Science (COS): The COS Funding Opportunities Database contains over 20,000 funding opportunities -- federal, corporate, and foundation -- in all disciplines. Community of Science (COS) requires institutional membership; this site is available to GW researchers through the University's membership. The value of this alert service depends on the researcher's ability to define those key words that most accurately reflect his/her research interests. This is not always easy, since alert services may define terms differently than the researcher or an appropriate term may not be included in the selection list. COS provides instructions on how to establish search parameters for both an on-line search and for alerts. In addition, the COS Help Desk (410-563-2378, extension 302), staffed by librarians familiar with the COS keyword system, will assist researchers with conducting a productive search and with filtering funding alerts. The COS database is updated weekly.
4.2.1.2. The Illinois Researcher Information Service (IRIS): The Illinois Researcher Information Service (IRIS) database has been compiled at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign since 1979. It currently contains records on over 7,500 federal, corporate, and foundation funding opportunities in 25 subject areas that span the sciences, social sciences, arts, and humanities. GW's Office of Graduate Student Assistantships and Fellowships maintains a subscription available to the entire GW community; log-on through a GW computer only. IRIS also provides:
4.2.1.3. The FoundationCenter: The Foundation Center is an independent nonprofit information clearinghouse established in 1956 whose mission it is to foster public understanding of the foundation field by collecting, organizing, analyzing, and disseminating information on foundations, corporate giving, and related subjects. The audiences that call on the Center's resources include grantseekers, grantmakers, researchers, policymakers, the media, and the general public. The Center provides the most wide-ranging information on funding from corporate and private foundations, including information on funders, trends, and proposal preparation. The website permits use of Grantmaker Search for annotated links to private foundations by subject or geographic keyword. While there are charges for some Foundation Center resources, most may be used at no cost at the Foundation Center's local office (1627 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20006 (202) 331-1400)). Services include access to core Center publications plus a wide range of books, periodicals, and research documents, and classes on Foundation resources and proposal development. The FoundationCenter's RFP Bulletin provides a weekly listing of current foundation requests for proposals (RFPs). Subscribe via e-mail at Listserv@lists.fdncenter.org. No interest filter is available.
Information regarding foundation-related publications and online materials follows.
- Foundation Center Library Services: provides free access to core Center publications plus a wide range of books, periodicals, and research documents relating to foundations and philanthropy.
- Free programs (register by calling the Washington office of the Center and pressing "0" or through the FC-DC web home page at http://www.fdncenter.org/washington/dc_calendar.html)
- Grant seeking Basics: introduction to FC resources and grants process
- Getting Started with FC Search: how to search FC's CD-ROM database (53,000 grant makers and 210,000 grants)
- Bibliotour: demonstration of the Literature of the Nonprofit Sector Online
- Proposal Writing Basics: how to prepare proposals to foundations.
4.2.1.4. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA): The CFDA lists all assistance (grants) programs available through the federal government: programs, programs, services, and activities that provide assistance or benefits to the public. For information on this, please see the online Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance at the CFDA website at http://12.46.245.173/cfda/cfda.html
4.2.1.5. Federal Business Opportunities (Commerce Business Daily (CBD)): Federal Business Opportunities (www.fedbizopps.gov) has been designated in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) as the single point of universal electronic public access on the Internet to government-wide Federal procurement opportunities that exceed $25,000. This listing includes notices of proposed government procurement actions over $25,000, contract awards, sales of government property, and other procurement information. For information on this, please see the Federal Business Opportunities website at www.fedbizopps.gov.4.2.1.6. The Federal Register (FR): The FR is the official daily publication for rules, proposed rules, and notices of federal agencies and organizations, including announcements of grant programs, as well as Executive Orders and other Presidential documents. This site provides a searchable database, The Grantsmanship Center/Daily Federal Register at http://www.tgci.com/
4.2.1.7. Portals to Federal Agencies: There are several sites that offer a comprehensive listing of links to federal agency web sites. One of the best can be found at the Federal Portal, an Internet grants management portal serving the grantee organization community.
4.2.1.8. Federal Agency Websites: A number of Major Federal Agencies provide research-related funding alert services at no charge, including:
For further information about federal, state, and private agencies, please visit our webpage at http://www.gwu.edu/~research/usefullinks.htm
4.2.1.8. Other References, Links, or Sources: References/Links to other tools and Web Pages and sources for locating funding sources include:
4.2.1.9. Opportunities for Junior Faculty: The following listings offer funding opportunities for Junior Faculty.
4.2.1.10. Information for Graduate Students: Funding opportunities for graduate student research, as well as financial aid advising, is provided by The Office of Graduate Student Assistantships and Fellowships, Rice Hall 602, http://www.gwu.edu/~fellows/fellows.html
4.2.1.11. Seeing What Works: While it is not always possible to see abstracts of proposals that have been funded, particularly with foundation and corporate sponsors, proposals resulting in awards from federal agencies are available under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). In most cases, copies of proposals can be obtained through a request to the Principal Investigator. Searching the list of abstracts of successful proposals is a good way to learn more about what a sponsor identifies as a good proposal.
Several federal agencies post abstracts on their web sites as information for other researchers. The following is a brief list of web sites offering access to funded proposals.
4.3. FUNDING SEARCH CHECKLIST
One of the most critical decisions made in the proposal process is selecting a potential sponsor. An otherwise well-conceived and well-written proposal may not be successful if it is submitted to the wrong potential sponsor.
The following Checklist offers some questions to consider in selecting sponsor(s). The answers to many of these questions are fairly easily determined for federal sponsors; more digging is required to get answers for foundation sponsors.
Click here to use the fillable pdf version of the Funding Search Checklist.
|
4.3.1. Funding/Sponsor Resources
The following are a few suggested resources to assist in addressing the Funding Search Checklist.
