Grants Resources & Education

Going for the Perfectly Routed Proposal: The Grants Office's Top 10
These resources hold the presentation materials from the training session held in April 2013. The session highlighted the most common problems (and solutions!) that the Medical School Grants Office comes across during administrative review, things to keep in mind when putting a proposal together, and some best practices. Attendees left with a better understanding of what happens during the Grants Office review and how to prevent common issues. The session was geared towards all experience levels, from the newest hire to the seasoned research administrator.

• The Perfectly Routed Proposal - The PDF of the PowerPoint presentation from the session.
• Frequently Required Proposal Information - A link to the standard information that is needed for Face/Cover Pages when preparing proposals, provided by ORSP.
• FCOI Disclosures for Proposals - The campus FAQ site provides detailed information about the Financial Conflict of Interest (FCOI) regulations.
• Checklist for Routing the Administrative Shell - This page presents the items that are reviewed by the Medical School when an Administrative Shell is routed for review and approval.
• Comments in eRPM - This best practice describes how comments that are left in eRPM need to be concise but thorough for all potential viewers.
• Counting Pages - This best practice details a quick and easy method for ensuring you are not over the allowed page limit.
• Administrative Shell Changes After Routing - This document describes the procedure that should be followed when changes are made in eRPM after a proposal has been routed.
• Proposal Finalization Checklist - This checklist provides you with key items to check before finalizing a proposal (reflective of issues commonly found prior to submission).
• Ready to Finalize? - This best practice explains the process of creating and reviewing the 'final' PDF prior to finalizing or submitting a NIH proposal.
• Service Policy on Submitting PHS Proposals - Our service policy on submitting PHS system-to-system electronic proposals.
• Review of Proposals in Commons - This document clarifies the NIH 2-day window following proposal submission and ability to reject / resubmit a proposal.

The Administrative Shell of the NIH Research Grant
This page contains the presentation materials from the training session held in May 2013. This session walked through the common information and expectations of putting together the administrative shell pages for an NIH research grant application (R01, or similar) -- covering issues from the first question of Application Type on the cover page to the Multiple PI Plan on the last, and almost everything in between. A significant portion of the time was spent on budget/justification rules and institutional expectations, as well as highlighting the last things you should double check before saying "Submit!"

• The Administrative Shell of a NIH Research Grant - The PDF of the PowerPoint Presentation from the session.
• Sample SF424 Application - A PDF of the SF424 application (administrative shell components).
• Biosketch - Guidance on how to prepare a biosketch.
• Sample Biosketch - A link to the Sample Biosketch provided by the NIH in Word format.
• Differences Between the Biosketch and Other Support - A link to the Grant Services & Analysis webpage that describes the differences between the two documents.
• Budget Justification - Guidance, by budget type, on preparing the budget justification.
• Consortium/Contractual Arrangements - Guidance on what to obtain when including subcontract sites in an application.
• Letter of Commitment to Establish a Subcontract Agreement - A link to the form that should be filled out by the subcontract sites when preparing an application.  This form includes the required FCOI questions.
• Facilities & Other Resources - Guidance on what to include in the Facilities & Other Resources document.
• Multiple PI Leadership Plan - Guidance on what to include in the Multiple PI Leadership Plan
• NIH SF424 Application Instructions - A link to the SF424 Application Instructions provided by the NIH.

Budgeting a Clinical Trial - A PDF of slides from a 2012 training session on how to budget a clinical trial.

This video explains the distinction between direct and indirect costs in sponsored research, providing practical examples. It aims to enhance understanding of how both types of costs play a vital role in sustaining and supporting research.

This video familiarizes faculty and staff with key cost principles that shape budgeting and spending on sponsored projects. Its goal is to help faculty understand how these principles apply to proposing and managing expenditures.

Communication & Response Times with ORSP

The Medical School has been asked to provide guidance for best communicating with ORSP, as it may be needed in order to support the research endeavors of our faculty as effectively as possible. ORSP has published information about their target response time goals and handling of various requests. This “Communications & Response Time with ORSP” document provides additional information from the Grant Services & Analysis Office in order to outline how to best contact ORSP, when to follow up, and, if needed, how to escalate issues. These same steps, especially requesting and documenting in the system, may be used with any of the central offices that complete work in eRPM. 

Remember that RAAC Communications helped put together a Best Practices document that you should review and have familiarity! 

Project Team Request ORSP Action: Use this activity to place requests into ORSP whenever possible on an existing file. This will place work in their system work queue. Emails, Posted Comments, and even phone calls may not be seen.

Post a Comment: Use this for documenting communication with ORSP in the eRPM system. If you leave voice messages or send side emails (though not recommended!), project teams have the option to in the eRPM system and check the box to send the communication to No One. Doing this will easily show the history of contacts attempted over time. We recommend posting in real time to No One if you leave a telephone message, send an email, etc. Including a snippet of the subject and an update on the issue with each posted comment. This is the best, and possibly only, way that the Medical School will be effective in helping resolve lagging situations. 

In general, the Medical School promotes the approach of “half the distance to the goal” for updates and follow-up. For example, if ORSP is striving for a 10 business day turnaround, asking for an update at intervals after that time expires and the subsequent 5 and 3 business days is appropriate. In the chart below (Blue Example), a PAF arrives at ORSP with a contract for redline on Day 1, requesting an update (if needed) on business days 11, 16, and 19 is appropriate. Likewise (Green Example), if there is a Request ORSP Action which has a target completion of 3 business days, following up on business day 4, 6, and 8 seems reasonable.

Recommended Escalations for Update Requests that have NO response:

• Earliest Ask – Include PR and Support Staff
• 2nd Ask – Include PR and Support Staff, your department lead research administrator, and the PR Assistant Managing PR
• 3rd Ask – Include PR and Support Staff, your department lead research administrator, the Medical School (msgrants), and the PR Assistant Managing PR and Managing Project Rep 

Asking the Medical School to Intervene: At the point you have exhausted the process above and would like the Medical School to intervene on your behalf, please be sure that the notes posted to the eRPM system are very clear, contain summarizing information, and were followed to the letter. Then contact us with a specific note asking us to intervene (you can do in eRPM if you check MSGrants as a recipient or send an email directly to MSGrants), it can be done right after the 3rd ask.

Helpful Hints

• Review the eRPM record to be sure that all attempts have been documented. It should be clear to anyone receiving the issue what the previous contact has been, without needing additional side information.
• Follow the stated ORSP request that you share the impact on the project if there is a lack of completion or response as of the third attempt to connect.
• Be reasonable! Not everything will make it all the time. Be sure that the ones that are important are the ones requested to be escalated. Likewise, know that the Medical School can’t escalate everything, and we also have to pick and choose among priorities....
• As a friendly reminder, “updates” do not mean that the issue will be fully resolved. Open dialogue to understand challenges with executing the request may be necessary. This follow-up and escalation schedule is most appropriate to set expectations about communication on the project.
• Share your experience – this is not something that can be tracked or measured in the system. 

Phone Calls 
Although connecting by phone is sometimes challenging, this is still a viable option. (Again, recommended to document messages left through Post A Comment to No One!). ORSP has indicated that even though remote, they are picking up their phone messages. If something is extremely time sensitive and you need to reach someone by phone, remember that the general ORSP contact phone number is available: 734-764-5500

A Basic Definition of Cost Sharing - A quick description of the institutional investment created when full costs are not requested or recovered by the sponsor.

The Difference Between Tracked (Quantified) and Not (Non-Quantified) Cost Sharing - Not all institutional investment (cost sharing) must be tracked. This video explains the difference in terms of what is represented to the sponsor.

Effort - Navigate Lunch and Learn - ORSP's Navigate: Lunch & Learn session from February 2018 covering effort reporting and certification. Faculty and staff are responsible for monitoring their activities to ensure that their effort is supported by fund sources appropriate to their activities, and for certifying their effort on an annual basis. But effort reporting and certification can be a confusing topic for faculty and research administrators alike. In this Lunch & Learn session, Heather Offhaus, Director of the Medical School Grants Review & Analysis Office, provided a basic overview of Effort and discussed its importance.

Effort Part 1 - The Three Mantras of Effort Reporting - An introduction to the basics of understanding effort & effort reporting. Three simple rules to why and when you track what.

Effort Part 2 - Talking with Faculty About Effort - Tips on discussing effort with those that must report and certify their effort.

The Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA) Mobility Program allows temporary work assignment of employees between UM and federal agencies by executing an IPA Assignment Agreement. The employee on assignment remains an employee of and continues to be paid by their respective employer for the duration of the time they are on the temporary work assignment. Reimbursement for employee expenses are negotiated between the two parties but at a minimum typically include salary and fringe benefits. For more guidance, visit Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA) Assignment Agreement Guidance.

The process of transferring grants between institutions can be difficult. Not only does the PI have preferences to express, but the institutions involved have to agree. And once the decision to transfer (or not!) is made, each individual grant may have different requirements, even when dealing with the same sponsor. It is important to communicate among all the “interested parties” – PI, institution, the funding agency’s Program Officer and Grants Management Specialist (or equivalents) – to ensure a timely and efficient process.

Considerations related to the process:

• Transfers may involve many parties, such as the PI, Research Administrator, Department Chair and/or Administrator, Dean’s Office, University Central Offices (ORSP, OTT), Sponsor’s Program Officer and Grants Management Specialist, and the other institution.
• The original grantee institution must be willing to transfer the grant to the new institution – grants are awarded to the institution, not the PI. As a result, before transferring a grant out of an institution the PI and/or Research Administrator will need to discuss their wishes with the Department Chair and/or Dean’s Office.
• The sponsor has the right to refuse the request coming from the institution.
• Forms and information required to transfer grants may change from one grant to another. Always contact the Program Officer and Grants Management Specialist each time for up-to-date instructions.
• When in the process of transferring grants into UM, consider requesting a Hardship Account. Transfers often take some time to process and establishing an account will allow appropriate charges to be associated with the P/G until the award arrives – saving time later!
• When transferring grants out of the UM, equipment, personnel, and other research-related items, for example lab notebooks, data sets, or intellectual property, may need to be specifically reviewed and authorized for transfer out as well.  Please see the resources below for more information.

Resources

• Presentation (November 2014) on Transferring Grants between Institutions.
• RASC website - Best practice document on transfer of institution general considerations.
• Medical School's Post-Award Best Practices related to post award close out of transfer projects.
• UMMS Office of Research's Managing a Research Operation page.
• ORSP provided checklists for US Army Medical and NSF.

The video addresses why you might consider using advance (aka Hardship) accounts and the risk associated with them.

This video is a quick reminder about the importance of maintaining proper documentation.

Navigate: E-ssentials eLearning Modules - A collection of self-paced elearning modules covering a variety of topics related to research administration at U-M. Addressing common tasks, concepts, and business processes encountered throughout the Sponsored Project Lifecycle, Navigate: E-ssentials also provides resources and job aids to assist research administrators with the successful management of a sponsored project.

Office of Research Training Opportunities - Other units within the Medical School's Office of Research often provide training sessions on various topics. This link will provide information on other those opportunities.

Campus Training Opportunities - The Office of Research and Sponsored Projects (ORSP) on campus also offers training sessions on a variety of topics.

This video provides on overview of university supported tools and resources available to research administrators for managing Financial Status Reports (FSRs).

This video provides on overview of university supported tools and resources available to research administrators for Troubleshooting Closeouts (PG Inactivation).

If your proposal or award involves hospital participation, please contact “[email protected].” 

If you’re interested in learning more about resources available to support hospital units with grants and sponsored projects, please watch this YouTube introduction to Hospital Grant Support Services (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYmBwjJnRYo&t=10s).

Are you seeking a forum where you can share knowledge, build ‘RAPPoRT’ with & learn from other Michigan Medicine Research Administrators?
The RAPPoRT Discussion Group is an opportunity for Research Administrators to network, build collaborations with colleagues, and engage in discussion on pre & post-award research topics. No registration is required to attend. Discussion groups are held virtually, are informal, and attendees are welcome to bring their lunch.

Need additional time to talk or have a question on another research topic?
Open Door RAPPoRT, hosted by Jane Sierra & Brooke Dougherty Reyes immediately following the group discussion, offers pre & post-award administrators a one-on-one opportunity for additional discussion on any pre or post-award topic with either Jane or Brooke.

RAPPoRT Discussion Group & Open Door Series
(Research Admin Pre & Post Research Topics)
Schedule: First Monday of the month (*exceptions noted below)
12:00 PM – 1:00 PM: RAPPoRT Discussion Group
1:00 PM – 2:00 PM: Open Door RAPPoRT

Meeting announcements are sent to the Research Administrators – Michigan Medicine email group. Requests to join can be sent to [email protected].

* No January Meeting / September meeting held on the first Tuesday due to the holiday

The Pre-Award Proposal Guide provides an overview of Medical School Grant Services & Analysis requirements on a PAF and within a proposal. Information in the guide contains guidance on budgets, various types of agreements, and common situations, as well as sponsor-specific tips. This tool will be helpful for both brand-new and seasoned research administrators and is written with the assumption the reader has basic knowledge of eRPM.

The Post-Award Procedures Manual represents the consolidation of the Medical School post-award procedures and best practices. It is designed to serve the sponsored project post-award community, is based on utilizing Real-Time Financials modules, and is written with the assumption that the reader has a basic knowledge of post-award policies and University procedures.

Central Campus is keeping an FAQ list through their website.

Contact [email protected] immediately to schedule a 1-1 discussion. Because the discovery may impact multiple projects, a comprehensive plan for disclosure to all sponsors on all projects impacted will be necessary. The team at [email protected] can help navigate and create a plan for you and your team to follow.

External consulting or collaboration agreements (also called personal services agreements) that involve the design, conduct, or reporting of research need to be included as part of Other Support.  If the agreement is with a non-US entity, also include the agreement as supporting documentation.  If not in English, also provide an English-language copy of the agreement.  (Google Translate is fine.)
Examples of consulting work that likely involves the "design, conduct, or reporting of research" include:

• work that may result in publication in an academic journal,  
• designing a protocol,  
• data analysis,  
• serving on a steering committee for a clinical trial

It is sometimes hard to tell, especially if the company is part of a larger organization with home offices in another country.  If you are unsure if an outside agreement is with a foreign entity (and therefore would require submission of a copy of the agreement with your Other Support), U-M is advising that you may reference the subsidiary name and/or address listed in your agreement.

[email protected]

• Advice / Help on interactions with sponsors 
• Questions related to applications:  Biosketches, Foreign Components, Facilities 
• Awards:  JIT Materials & RPPRs: Other Support & Supporting documentation 
• Previously undisclosed Other Support 

Can pose question by email or request a one-on-one consultation. 

[email protected]

• General questions about outside interests/potential conflicts of interest & M-Inform disclosures 
• Ongoing one-on-one consultations

• Share a more in-depth description of requirements 
• Address general questions & concerns 

Would you like to request one? [email protected]

Watch the 2/17/22 Medical School Research Town Hall for a brief overview on Other Support.   

Or, view the presentation slides.