The below resources and information are provided as a guide for faculty, staff, and students in the preparation of external proposals.
When developing proposal materials, consider your audience: it is not only the scientific review committee at the funding agency but your Chair/Director, Dean, Office of Research Administration, the research administrators at the sponsoring agency, Maryland's various post-award offices (including travel, purchasing, Sponsored Projects Accounting and Compliance), and eventually an auditor.
What Gets Routed
Accompanying each proposal should be a memo outlining any anomalies in the solicitation or proposal, any unusual form or signature requirements, submission requirements, etc. Anything one might put in an email to the Chair/Director, Dean's Office, or ORA regarding the proposal's content or submission should instead go into this routing memo and be uploaded in Kuali Research (KR). This document is for internal University use only and will not be shared with the sponsor.
Proposals should be uploaded into KR, certified, and submitted for routing no later than six (6) business days prior to the sponsor's due date. The items which must be finalized at the time of routing are:
- routing memo
- budget and budget narrative
- subaward documentation (including budget, budget narrative, letter of commitment signed by an institutional authorized official)
- cost sharing documentation (including identifying the source of funds)
- indirect cost waivers
- significant project designation requests
NOTE: Scientific content need not be finalized to route a proposal within the University.
The routing process allows for several layers of scientific and administrative review throughout the university. Each office that reviews a proposal focuses on different items. A Chair/Director will likely focus on the project description and scientific merit of a proposal, but also look to see if any departmental/center resources are being promised. The Director of Administrative Services in a department may look at the budget and budget narrative to ensure they match and reflect the scope of work. The Dean's Office reviews proposals (specifically budgets, budget narratives, subaward documentation, cost sharing documentation, indirect cost waivers, etc.) to ensure compliance with the State and University rules and regulations regarding allowable and reasonable costs. Finally, ORA reviews proposals to ensure all of the above have been reviewed and adjusted where necessary, but also that the proposal conforms to sponsor guidelines and specifications of the RFP/solicitation. The earlier a proposal can be routed through this system, the deeper a review each step in the process can give to a proposal. As the volume of proposals sponsors receive increases and their tolerance for administrative errors decreases, this routing and review process becomes increasingly more valuable to an investigator.
Principal investigators and Co-investigators must complete a certification on every proposal submitted on which they are named. The certification is 9-11 questions relating to research conduct and oversight which only the investigators can answer as responsible stewards of the research. As such, this certification cannot be delegated to another individual. First-time investigators take on average about two to four minutes to certify. The certification can be completed using the browser of your choice on any computer or mobile device. Certification can be completed at any time during the proposal development process. For more information on how to certify a KR proposal and what the certifications mean with links to relevant policies please visit the BSOS KR Resources webpage.
Each proposal must designate a split of the credit to investigators and departments. Currently, credit split drives indirect cost return (aka DRIF return). Credit splits can be determined by any reasonable method. The two most common methods are via direct cost dollars and via time or scientific contribution of the faculty named on a proposal. Some on-campus Institutes and Centers may have internal guidelines for determining credit split based on the amount of administrative work involved in the proposal and subsequent award.