Template Image

Researcher's Handbook

Section 2

Proposal Development

Eligibility to Submit a Proposal for External Funding

  1. University Policy has established that any individual who holds one of the following positions and has signed the Patents and Copyright Agreement can be a Principal Investigator and submit proposals for external funding:

    1. Faculty in Tenure Accruing Tracks

      Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Professor

      Assistant Curator, Associate Curator, Curator

      Assistant Librarian, Associate Librarian, Librarian

      Graduate Research Professor

      Distinguished Service Professor

      Distinguished Research Curator

      Emeritus Professor

      Eminent Scholar

    2. Faculty in Non-Tenure Accruing Tracks

      Assistant Scientist, Associate Scientist, Scientist

      Assistant Scholar, Associate Scholar, Scholar

      Assistant Engineer, Associate Engineer, Engineer

      Assistant Research Professor, Associate Research

      Professor, Research Professor

      Assistant Extension Scientist, Associate Extension

      Scientist, Extension Scientist

      Clinical Assistant Professor, Clinical Associate

      Professor, Clinical Professor

    3. Other University Faculty and Personnel
      Instructor/P.K. Yonge Developmental Research School (PKY),

      Assistant Professor/PKY, Associate Professor/PKY,

      Professor/PKY

      IFAS County Extension Faculty

      Lecturer, Senior Lecturer, and Master Lecturer

      Chief of Police

  2. Individuals in the following categories are not eligible to be principal investigators unless they have a person in one of the above positions serving as co-principal investigator and have written approval from Office of Research:

    1. Visiting Faculty

      Assistant In, Associate In, Senior Associate In

      Adjunct Faculty

      Research Associates

      Courtesy Faculty

      Postdoctoral Employees

      OPS Faculty

      Graduate Students

      Non-Faculty

    2. To receive DSR approval allowing an ineligible employee be a Principal Investigator of a Sponsored Project, the Department Chair needs to submit a written request to the Director or Associate Director of DSR. This may done at the time of proposal submission or prior to. The request should be specific to a project and contain information about the qualifications and capabilities of the individual that would allow the person to perform the duties of a Principal Investigator. Also include in the request and on the associated DSR-1, if applicable, the name of the individual with PI eligibility that will act as Co-PI on the project and assume the PI role in case the approved PI cannot fulfill the responsibilities. DSR in unique circumstances can approve an ineligible Principal Investigator on a permanent basis if appropriate and which can be removed at any time. The request would need to be written appropriately.

  3. New Investigators must have completed their required degree and hold a university appointment at the time of application or expect to hold an appointment by the effective date of the award.

Multiple Principal Investigator Projects

In October of 2007 the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) announced a final government-wide policy aimed at giving credit where it's due in an era of increasing scientific collaboration and small and large-team research.

The OSTP Policy states that all federal research agencies will recognize Multiple Principal Investigators (PIs) on research projects (grants and contracts).

This policy does not replace the use of a single Principal Investigator when that is most appropriate for the project.

OSTP emphasizes that the applicant institution has sole discretion when it comes to naming multiple PIs for a proposed research project but only when those individuals share the major authority and responsibility for leading and directing the project, intellectually and logistically.

OSTP instructed each federal research agency to post its own plan for implementing the policy, beginning Jan. 1, 2008.

UF and Multiple PI Projects

  1. Responsibility of Multiple PI's

    The decision to utilize the Multiple PI option is the responsibility of the investigators and should be determined based on the scientific goals of the project. Each multiple PI will have equal responsibility for leading and directing the project; each is equally accountable for the proper conduct of the program including fiscal oversight and submission of all required reports.

  2. At the time of Proposal Submissions

    For all UF applications that propose a Multiple PI Project, the following criteria must be met prior to submission:

    1. All proposed UF PIs must have PI status as defined in UF's PI Eligibility Policy.
    2. All proposed non-UF PIs must have PI status as defined by their home institution. UF will treat non-UF PIs and their home institutions as sub recipients, until other mechanisms are offered by federal agencies like linked awards.
    3. All UF proposals must indentify a UF PI as the Contact PI. The Contact PI will be responsible for relaying communications between all of the PIs, University Officials and the Sponsor, where appropriate.
    4. The allocation of funds for each PI should be detailed in the grant application.
    5. Review and approval by the appropriate Department Chair(s) and Dean(s) for each PI must be secured prior to submission.
    6. All other normal proposal information is still required, for example subrecipient proposal, conflict of interest forms, cost sharing documentation.
  3. At the time of Award

    When a Multiple PI Project is funded, the following will occur:

    1. For each UF PI a separate project will be established by NOA for their allocation of funds (directs and indirects).
    2. If separate allocation of funds were not detailed in the grant application the Contact PI must provide this information to DSR prior to release of the NOAs.
    3. For non-UF PIs a subcontract will be issued to their home institution in support of the scope of work and funding allocation.
    4. All other normal award information is still required, for example IRB and or IACUC approvals.
  4. NIH Implements Multiple PI Option

    The NIH has implemented and continues to refine policies and procedures to formally allow more than one Principal Investigator (PI) on individual research awards.

    This multiple Principal Investigator (PI) model will supplement, and not replace, the traditional single Principal Investigator (PI) model.

    The decision to utilize the multiple PI option is the responsibility of the investigators and should be determined based on the scientific goals of the project.

    Each multiple PI will have equal responsibility for leading and directing the project; each is equally accountable for the proper conduct of the program including fiscal oversight and submission of all required reports.

    For proposals utilizing the multiple PI option, NIH guidelines require that the Research Plan include a separate Leadership Plan. The Leadership Plan must detail the governance and organizational structure of the leadership team and the research project, communication plans, process for making decisions on scientific direction, and procedures for resolving conflicts. The purpose of the Leadership Plan is to facilitate and enhance scientific productivity and protect the project in the case of disagreements. Peer review of the Leadership Plan will affect the application's priority score.

    In addition, one PI must be designated as the primary point of contact (Contact PI), serving as a liaison between NIH and the rest of the leadership team. There cannot, however, be a 'lead PI' within the multiple PI model. All PIs are equally responsible for their projects; there is no PI hierarchy. According to NIH, "Inclusion of a 'weak' or inappropriate PI will reflect negatively on both the 'Approach' and 'Investigators' review criteria."

    If planning a NIH Multiple PI project please visit NIH's excellent Multiple PI Guidance Web Site.

    NIAID also has an excellent tutorial on Multiple PI Projects.

    Examples of the required Project Leadership Plans for Multiple PI Grant Applications.

  5. Federal Agencies Implementation Guidance

    OSTP instructed each federal research agency to post its own plan for implementing the policy, beginning Jan. 1, 2008.

Writing a Proposal

Careful development and rigorous writing of a detailed research proposal are necessary for success in the highly competitive research funding environment at most sponsoring agencies. Members of national review panels state repeatedly that it is no longer good enough to write a solid proposal. It has to be a "great" proposal. Applicants must be prepared to sell their ideas with professional finesse.

Campus faculty expertise as well as agency advice should be used by proposal writers during the conceptual planning as well as during the proposal writing stage. Please coordinate with the appropriate office (DSR's Proposal Processing Office, 207 Grinter, 392-9267; Office of Engineering Research, 319 Weil, 392-9447; IFAS Sponsored Programs Office, G040 McCarty, 392-2357) to facilitate any such contacts.

Visit DSR's Proposal Development webpage to find out about various proposal writing resources.

Careful Targeting of Proposals

While it is possible, and sometimes advisable, to submit one proposal simultaneously to various agencies, applicants should carefully review individual agency program objectives and submit a proposal only if these objectives are in accord with their own research direction. The Research Support Unit maintains extensive files to aid applicants in the careful identification of appropriate funding agencies.

If, after reading agency funding materials, the applicant is uncertain if the proposal is appropriate for the agency, it is important to contact agency staff directly to discuss the project and application requirements.

Consultants and Collaborators

A very common criticism from review panels is the use of procedures for which investigator's have little or no experience according to their curriculum vitae or publication list. With the collaboration of experienced colleagues within the University, or with the assistance of outside consultants, the success of such studies is more realistic and reviewers will approve them more readily.

Review by Colleagues

Experienced research faculty on campus may also be helpful in providing an unofficial peer review for an applicant and should be drawn in to provide advice when their research expertise permits. Also, many established faculty assist agency staff as "field readers" and thus have experience as reviewers. Their reading of a draft proposal may well assist applicants to gain necessary perspective and help to test the clarity, completeness and persuasive power of the draft copy.

Identification of Reviewers

Many agencies publish rosters of review committee members. Faculty are advised to check the Office of Research web site, the Research Support Unit, or review pertinent publications from other agencies. The composition of a review section may well lead faculty applicants to amplify certain sections of their proposal. Faculty applicants may want to submit a cover letter with their proposal, suggesting additional or alternate reviewers, in cases when they believe that lack of representative expertise might hamper the chances of their proposal's success. Applicants should also remember to draft their abstract carefully, including key words to target it directly to the study section of their choice.

Follow-up

Faculty may follow up after their proposals have been received by the agency. Reviewers indicate that it is possible to submit additional "pilot" data, preferably no later than one month before the study section meets. This could include further preliminary data, new publications, even revisions in strategy due to research findings which were gathered after the proposal was originally drawn up. Such actions emphasize the applicant's seriousness regarding the proposal, and could possibly reduce or eliminate negative critiques during agency review. Agencies do not like to be inundated with trivial mailings; however, they will accept pertinent research materials.

Criteria Reviewers Use to Evaluate Proposals

The criteria used by one government agency to evaluate training proposals may serve as a useful guide in general. The criteria are:

Common Shortcomings Found by Reviewers

Contracts, Grants, and Cooperative Agreements

A proposal may be funded by three different means: a contract, a grant, or a cooperative agreement. Which of these funding instruments is appropriate is determined by the source of the idea for the project, the level of involvement between the sponsor and the recipient, and the degree of flexibility in carrying out the project. Both grants and cooperative agreements tend to fund investigator-initiated projects, but the latter anticipates substantial involvement of the sponsor while the former does not. Unlike contracts, grants and cooperative agreements typically have short, standardized award documents.

Contracts can be thought of as a negotiated procurement. They generally originate from specific goals of a sponsoring agency as identified in a formal announcement. In the case of federal government agencies, the issuance of a formal contract may be preceded by the advertisement of a Request for Proposal (RFP), Request for Application (RFA), or Request for Quotation (RFQ). The Research Support Unit screens various publications on a continuing basis and distributes announcements to interested faculty.

The major components of an RFP are application instructions and forms, statement of required work, desired performance schedule, available government property, applicable contract provisions (clauses), and evaluation criteria. Agencies will require various representations, certifications, and acknowledgments, generally to be submitted at the application stage. These assurances apply to the institution, not the principal investigator.DSR's Proposal Processing Office (392-9267, 207 Grinter) will assist faculty with the preparation of these materials.

Federal contracts use detailed award instruments that are subject to Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR). Faculty are advised to pay attention to contract specifications including contract type (fixed price versus cost reimbursable) throughout the planning and writing stages. Some industry contracts may have FAR clauses as the industry partner may be flowing federal funds down through a contracting document. Also, industry contracts may incorporate complex intellectual property language which needs to be reviewed and negotiated to protect faculty and University interests.

When responding to a request for proposal, faculty usually submit their proposal documentation in two distinct parts: the technical proposal and the business proposal. The technical proposal generally contains a standard title page or cover sheet, the major work description (scope of work), curricula vitae and other relevant appendices. The business proposal may contain the Contract Pricing Proposal Cover Sheet or similar forms which are typically provided in the RFP kit. The business proposal also includes the itemized budget, sometimes a budget narrative, representations and certifications, and may require the Small Business/Small Disadvantaged Business subcontracting plan (which is prepared by DSR).

Contract clauses usually do not become an issue at the application stage in standard contract procedures. After review and acceptance of a proposal by an agency, the contracting officer develops the legally binding contract which includes the approved budget, work statement and period of performance. At that point, DSR will review the contract proposed by the agency and verify its acceptability with the PI. Information which concerns the University as an institution is provided by DSR's Proposal Processing staff, who typically complete the required representations, certifications, and assurances at the application stage. Other data must be provided by the applicant, such as the percentage of foreign content in the project or whether proprietary data are involved. A federal contract can be negotiated only after the agency has received all of the required information and assurances.

Typical Components of a Proposal

While specific requirements regarding content and format differ markedly and change frequently among sponsors, the following are general requirements that are not routinely subject to change.

Title

Titles should be concise, clear and precise. Excessive length may result in ambiguities should parts be abbreviated during processing at the agency. News releases often rely on the title to reference research, and precision will help to avoid misrepresentation of a study.

Abstract

The abstract describes the major objectives of the proposed research and the research strategy to meet these objectives. It serves a variety of purposes and should be prepared with great care. Agency staff often use the abstract in assigning the proposal to the appropriate study section for review. Reviewers use the abstract to gain an initial perspective of the key concept of the study and its significance, and again later as a reminder when the proposal comes up for discussion. If a proposal is not in a reviewer's area of specialization, the abstract may be the only part read to prepare for the panel discussion. After funding is secured, the abstract may be used for entry in national databases and its keywords are picked up for quotation indexes.

It is advisable to write the abstract at the end, when all other sections of the proposal have been finalized. A good abstract will strike a good balance between simple and technical language, and highlight key concepts for which the reviewers should look in the main body of the proposal.

Description of Project

The investigator is expected to present a description of the proposed project and to explain the general goal and its various specific objectives. At the same time, the need for the project must be justified and its significance should emerge clearly and convincingly. The overall goal may be stated in general terms, but specific objectives need to be clearly defined. Investigators often use brief statements in numerical ranking of priority to achieve this end.

Related Studies/Review of the Field

A discussion of previous work in the field demonstrates an investigator's knowledge and provides an evaluation of the "state of the art" in his/her specialization. It also shows the extent of preparation for the proposed study, and the novelty and individuality of the approach. For these reasons, this section has to be more than a bibliography. It must demonstrate that the investigator is aware of other work in the discipline. Careful selection of sources must be made and only those significant to the proposed research should be discussed in detail.

With regard to those who are new to research or academia, reviewers acknowledge the fact that few publications are available on which the strength of an investigator can be assessed. Therefore, the analytical richness of a review of the field is used to gauge the new investigator's sharpness of intellect and potential for success. It should be noted that both NIH and NSF Study Section reviews indicate that pilot data (preliminary results) are "a must."

Methodology and Time Frame

In this section, the investigator will describe the proposed research methodology, organizing the material logically according to progressive steps of inquiry. Investigators must make a careful decision about how much detail will be needed to assure clear understanding by the reviewers without going to excessive lengths. It is equally important to describe how potential problems will be addressed.

The overall length of time required to conduct the research project must be projected with care to allow for data collection, analysis and interpretation. Unrealistic projection or omission of a period of performance may lead to reviewer criticism. Investigators need to allow for a reasonable time frame after the application submission date for processing, review and evaluation of the proposal at the sponsoring agency. Considering this factor may enable the investigator to propose more accurately which phase of ongoing research the funding should support.

Evaluation Design and Statistical Analysis

Many projects require an evaluation of results. Evaluation may be planned both at critical points during the project period and/or after its conclusion. It may be designed to be carried out by participant staff or by outside consultants. The description of the evaluation design should be detailed and the applicant should make it clear how it is to be administered and how the resulting data will be analyzed. It is also important to indicate how the evaluation results will be used and/or how they will be disseminated. In biological, behavioral, chemical and physical sciences, research faculty should state their test evaluation and statistical methods.

Personnel

If possible, all professional, technical and academic personnel who will participate in the research should be identified by name and title or category of employment. The following categories are most often needed:

  1. Project Director and Co-Director(s), Principal Investigator and Co-Principal Investigator(s), Program Director

  2. Faculty Associates (generally members of the faculty holding academic rank of Assistant Professor and above)

  3. Postdoctoral Associate

  4. Research Assistants (i.e., graduate students engaged in research or research training under the proposed grant)

  5. Professional Assistants (e.g., computer programmers, design engineers, laboratory assistants, technicians)

  6. Other (e.g., secretarial, clerical, shop, undergraduate students)

  7. Consultants (generally, these are from outside the University)

A CV, or curriculum vita (resume) is required for each of the major researchers. However, it is advisable to highlight specific research experience, related publications and other important biographical information with regard to professional personnel. This information should be presented in the text of the proposal or as part of the budget explanation. Reviewers have indicated that it is helpful to have specific research capabilities of the major researchers stated in the text, although these qualifications may also be listed on the CV.

Facilities and Special Resources

Applicants will need to describe the facilities and resources that will be used in the proposed research. If unique facilities exist with regard to the proposed research it is important to emphasize this in the proposal. The application may require data on the size of the University, a profile of faculty and students, or details on university-wide facilities such as the library, computer centers, or specialized centers. In addition to their own college resource personnel, applicants may look up current information on the Web at http://www.ufl.edu/ or call the Research Support Unit (392-4804) for assistance.

Dissemination of Information

In order to assure wide impact of funds invested in research, demonstration or development projects, many agencies emphasize the need for well-planned dissemination of results. Most investigators hope to publish research findings in refereed journals. If other strategies seem useful they should be listed in the dissemination section of the proposal. Examples of dissemination are conferences, training workshops, special newsletters, manuals, production of audio-visual material or any other means of sharing research data with the scientific and technological community.

Proposals to Corporations and Companies

Since most industry support is related to product development and testing, investigators will concentrate on technical specifications and the proposed budget. The Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences has developed short form contracts, called Sponsored Program Agreements (SPA), which may be used as a funding instrument. Examples are available upon request from the IFAS Sponsored Programs Office (G022 McCarty Hall D, Ph# 352-392-2356). Further, a Revised Standard Corporate Research Agreement is available on-line at http://research.ufl.edu/research/formstable.html.

If a company is to be approached in any branch other than its research division, faculty should consult with the Vice President for Corporate and Foundation Relations at the University of Florida Foundation (392-7775; www.uff.ufl.edu) prior to making contact with the sponsor.

Proposals to Foundations

The Office of Research - Research Support Unit has background information on foundations, their giving patterns, their assets and currently active staff. A collection of annual reports is also available. In addition, links to various foundation resources are provided on the WWW at http://research.ufl.edu/research/funding.html.

Faculty should consult with the Assistant Vice President for Corporate and Foundation Relations at the University of Florida Foundation (392-7775; www.uff.ufl.edu) with a foundation unless the foundation has a clearly designated research division (e.g., the Ford Foundation). If this is the case, faculty may contact the foundation's Program Officer directly.

Foundations may not use specific application forms and their instructions to prospective applicants are sometimes vague. Faculty are advised to open the dialogue with a brief letter of inquiry clearly stating their project area. If the foundation is interested, they may respond by instructing a faculty member to submit a more detailed, formal proposal. Initial proposals should be written in lay language and be no more than 4-5 pages in length. The following issues should be addressed: significance of project, statement of problem, proposed solution and method of approach, expected outcome, relationship of the project to the sponsor's interests, length of time during which support is needed, amount needed, overview of budget and proposed staff.

Proposals to Associations, Societies and Councils

Most voluntary organizations have preprinted application forms. The Research Support Unit maintains extensive files on non-federal funding sources and provides application instructions, names of contact personnel, mailing addresses, etc. Most applications are short and their style should not be as technical as a federal application. While federal projects are reviewed entirely by a panel of experts in the field, non-federal groups often use a heterogeneous group of civic leaders, professional experts and organization staff for their reviews.

Frequently Used Institutional Data

The cover page of most application kits records institutional data for administrative and statistical purposes. Click here for information frequently requested by sponsors. The Proposal Processing office may be reached at 392-9267.

Additional Financial Contact Information

Office of Inspector General at UF:

Nur Erenguc
Inspector General
P.O. Box 113025
Gainesville, FL 32611-3025
(352) 392-1391

DHHS Office of Audit Services:

Office of Inspector General
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Room 3T41
Atlanta, GA 30303-8909
(404) 562-7800

EEO Compliance Report (Filed 1988):

U.S. Department of Labor
Office of Federal Contracts
Compliance Program
4057 Carmichael Ave., Suite 231
Jacksonville, FL 32207

Engineering/EIES Business Official:

Karen Kirkman
Business Manager (EIES Contracts & Grants)
P.O. Box 116500
545 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-6550
(352) 392-3941

Agriculture/IFAS Business Official:

Vernon Parmenter
Assistant Director for Fiscal Services
P.O. Box 110040
2039 McCarty Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-0040
(352) 392-1733

Business Official for Rest of Campus:

Kathy W. Jones
Associate Controller for Contracts & Grants
P.O. Box 113001
302 Tigert Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-5650
(352) 392-1235

Special assurances and certifications required by the federal government regarding the safety of human subjects, humane use of animals, biohazard safety precautions, etc., are provided by the University of Florida committees listed below. All research involving these items must be submitted to the appropriate committee(s) for approval.

Unit Contact Phone
IRB/Human Subjects (Health Center) Dr. Peter Iafrate (352) 846-1494
IRB/Human Subjects (Health Center/Jax) Dr. Ana Alvarez (904) 244-3155
IRB/Human Subjects (Others) Dr. Michael Levy (352) 392-0433
IACUC/Animal Subjects Dr. Gus Battles (352) 392-2978
Biohazards, DNA/RNA Mr. Phil Collis (352) 392-1591
Radiation Protection Mr. Don Monroe (352) 392-1594
NERDC (Computer Center) Dr. Dick Elnicki (352) 392-2061
Personnel Appointments Mr. Kris Pagenkopf (352) 392-1213

Primary Navigation

Sponsored Research

Research Support

Technology Licensing

Research Foundation

Communications