Grants.gov: How is your Institution Preparing for Electronic Grants Submissions an update

1
Grants.govHow is your Institution Preparing
for Electronic Grants Submissions an update
A tranquil sea, or the calm before the storm
2
Panelists

• Barbara SiegelChief Operating Officer, Director
  Office of Sponsored ProgramsWhitehead Institute
• Brian OConnoreRA AdministratorDana-Farber
  Cancer Institute
• Mark DanielInterim Vice President for Research
  OperationsDana-Farber Cancer Institute
• Scott McNealDirector of Research Applications
  GroupPartners Healthcare
• Stephen DowdyAssistant DirectorMassachusetts
  Institute of Technology

3
The Law(s) of the Land

• Privacy Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-579) and
  Amendmentsestablishes the foundation of federal
  policy for protecting and sharing personal
  information
• Government Performance Results Act of 1993
  (Public Law 103-62)strives to improve federal
  program effectiveness by focusing on measurable
  results and service quality
• Information Technology Management Reform Act
  (Clinger-Cohen Act) of 1996 (Public Law
  104-106)calls for sound investment through
  capital planning that is tied to agency missions
  and strategic goals
• Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1998
  (Public Law 105-220)ensures accessibility for
  all users
• Federal Financial Assistance Management
  Improvement Act of 1999 (Public Law
  106-107)requires streamlining of grants
• E-Government Act of 2002 (Public Law
  107-347)furthers the President's Management
  Agenda that promotes electronic Government
  services
• Federal Information Security Management Act of
  2002 (Title III of Public Law 107-347)mandates
  attention to security in all agency applications
  and accountability to OMB and Congress

4
Roadmap to E-Government Transformation

• Realize Government-wide Transformation
• Optimizing utilization of E-Gov solutions
• Measuring results
• Improving delivery of services
• Achieving cost savings

• Further Adoption and Utilization
• Graduation of E-Gov Initiatives
• Agency implementation and migration plans
• Agency adoption of E-Gov, LoB, and SmartBuy
  Initiatives

• Establish Foundation
• Public Law 106-107
• Presidents Management Agenda
• E-Gov Act
• Federal Enterprise Architecture

5
FY06 Goals
Federal grant outlays are estimated to be
449.3 billion in FY06 and 459.0 billion in
FY07. - Fiscal Year 2007 Presidents Budget

• This year, Federal agencies are required to make
  at least 75 of discretionary grant opportunities
  available for electronic submission through
  Grants.gov
• This utilization goal increases to 100 in FY07
• The goal is to increase citizen access to Federal
  grant opportunity application packages through a
  single site as well as provide the grantee the
  option to submit applications electronically

6
Agency Targets
7
Current Status
8
Submissions Received
9
Application Packages Posted
10
Organizing for Success or Divide and
Conquer

• Wisconsin Grants.Gov Task Force
• Representatives from across campus
• Determine how UW-Madison will manage Grants.gov
  submissions in the short term (within 12 months)
• Determine what long term solutions will be most
  effective for UW-Madison to manage Grants.gov
  submissions
• Discuss technical options and establish
  timelines for implementation
• Develop training and education timelines for
  Grants.gov
• Establish campus deadline for routing procedures
• Develop a Communication Plan to keep campus
  informed of developments at Grants.gov and
  changes in procedures across campus
• Recommends actions that need to be taken

• Stanford Grants.Gov Advisory Group
• Representatives from across campus
• Meets bi-weekly for 90 minutes
• Determines campus strategy and approach to
  successfully implement Grants.Gov PureEdge forms
• Pre-Award Systems Group (SeRA) is dealing with
  S2S
• Implements recommendations from the action plans
  of three workgroups
• Technical
• Policy and Process
• Communications and Training

11
Internal Proposal Deadlines

• U of Chicago
• 3 business days (for complete review)
• Complete (ready-to-submit) copy by noon on the
  business day before due date for electronic
  submissions
• UCSF 10 business days
• University of Rochester 5 business days
• Stanford 5 business days
• Princeton 2 business days
• Michigan 7 business days (admin shell) 4
  business days (application file)

12
Institutional Grants.Gov Sites

• Stanford
• http//ora.stanford.edu/ora/osr/proposal_developme
  nt/sera_project/grants_gov.asp
• Michigan
• http//www.research.umich.edu/era/grants_gov/
• Maryland
• http//www.umresearch.umd.edu/ORAA/era/systems.htm
  l6
• Training materials
• http//www.umresearch.umd.edu/ORAA/era/grantsgov_d
  ocs/ggovtrain.pdf
• Chicago
• http//researchadmin.uchicago.edu/proposals/era.sh
  tmlgrantsgov
• New deadline policy
• http//researchadmin.uchicago.edu/guidelines/300/3
  10.shtml
• Wisconsin (link for Mac)
• http//apple.doit.wisc.edu/grants.gov/

13
Dana-Farber Cancer InstituteUpdate

• Mark Daniel
• Interim Vice President, Research Operations
• mark_daniel_at_dfci.harvard.edu
• Brian OConnoreRA Administrator
• brian_oconnor_at_dfci.harvard.edu

14
DFCI Current State

• DFCI Grants.gov Steering Committee using Task
  Force recommendations to formulate Institute
  guidelines
• Communication, Training and Support for
  Grants.gov and NIH eRA Commons is continuing
• Institute reviewing alternatives for electronic
  submission to Grants.gov

15
Grants.gov Steering - Task Force Outcomes

• Subcommittees were created to address 4 major
  areas
• Communication and Training
• Account/System Setup with Federal Granting
  Agencies
• Submission Process
• Technology Needs

16
Communication and Training

• Utilizing Global E-mail announcements to research
  community announcing significant process changes
• Published articles using department of
  Communications (Inside the Institute and DFCI
  Intranet). Another article to provide an update
  will be published in the summer.
• Presentations to Executive Committee for Research
  (All Department Chairs)
• Presentations to Department Administrators and
  monthly research administrators meetings

17
Communication and Training (Continued)

• DFCI grants.gov brochures will soon be circulated
• GC Monthly Training on Grants.gov SF424 forms
  and interim routing process
• Sample Completed SF424 Forms provided to GC
  Managers and Department Administrators to
  facilitate Quality Control during review process
• Additional Ad hoc training conducted specifically
  for departments/divisions

18
Grants.gov Account/System Setup

• Analysis of historical funding to target most
  commonly used federal agencies
• Determined the impact of Grants.gov as it related
  to these federal agencies
• Generated Reference documents that include
  critical information and links for these agencies
• Decision made to have one primary AOR process
  Grants.gov Submissions

19
Submission Process

• Analyzed impact of Grants.gov on current
  submission process
• Recommended new submissions process guidelines
  and timelines
• File naming conventions used
• Date (YYMMDD) _PI Last Name _Funding
  Mechanism
• Ex 070201_Smith_R01

20
Submission Process (Continued)

• Current Recommendations to meet submission
  deadline
• 60 Days prior, PI informs the department business
  office of intent to apply (may depend on FOA)
• One month prior, the application (not including
  science) should be ready for review
• 2 Weeks prior, PI must complete/send final
  science and submission process begins. This
  schedule allows for resubmission due to errors.

21
Technology Needs

• File Storage Capacity Currently not an issue
  but will monitor and re-evaluate annually
• Routing PureEdge Files E-mail storage limited
  so anticipate using Shared File Area (SFA) or
  alternative File Management solution. Currently
  evaluating software that can act as File
  Repository and incorporate Routing and Workflow

22
Technology Needs (Continued)

• Mac Citrix Solution Recommend that institute
  require all PureEdge applications be assembled on
  a PC.
• Institute pursuing Vendor based pre-award system
  solutions Vendors being evaluated InfoEd and
  Click Commerce
• Final decision not yet made so anticipate using
  PureEdge to meet the Feb. 1st R01 deadline
• Adobe Software Recommended Site license

23
Challenges

• Ensure proper timing for Training on New Forms
  and Tools
• Develop Super-Users in each Department
• Improve Institutional Awareness through
  Communication
• Implementation of new Pre-Award Grants System
• Does the role of central reviewer change?

24
Advantages

• GC used this as the impetus to reduce paper
  required in other application processes (eSNAP)
• More form based validation minimizes certain
  types of application errors
• S2S Integration with Grants.gov will reduce
  redundant data entry

25
Some Recent Grants.gov Experiences

• PIs have been supportive and interested in the
  process
• Fewer G.g submissions than expected (2)
• Printing hardcopies from .xfd file not ideal
• Initial SF424 errors were system based

26
Research Office Websitewww.researchoffice.dfci.ha
rvard.edu/ administration/

• Includes Grants.gov Content
• DFCI Preparedness
• Announcements and Committee Work
• Agendas and Minutes for all committee work
• Resources Page includes Tools, Software Links,
  Training Sessions
• Federal Agency Reference Materials
• Contact Info

27
DFCI Grants.gov Contacts

• Mark Daniel
• Interim Vice President Research Operations
• mark_daniel_at_dfci.harvard.edu
• Brian OConnor
• eRA Administrator, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute
• brian_oconnor_at_dfci.harvard.edu
• Matthew Meyer
• Director of Grants and Contracts
• matthew_meyer_at_dfci.harvard.edu

28
Partners HealthcareUpdate

• Scott McNealDirector of Research Applications
  GroupPartners Healthcare

29
Activities Update

• Update Last Meeting
• Working Groups
• PureEdge Submissions
• InfoEd Implementation
• Goals Ahead

30
Update from Last Meeting

• Organization formed three key working groups to
  manage the changes
• Operations/Communications
• Training
• Systems Implementation
• Made up of representatives from hospital
  departments, central administration, leadership
  and IS
• Project charters formed and weekly meetings
  established to facilitate process

31
Work Groups

• Operations/Communications
• Develop overall strategy for eSubmissions
• Prepare for PureEdge submissions
• System to System strategy
• Operational process reviews to identify impact
  areas
• Communication and outreach to educate on required
  changes

32
Work Groups

• Ops/Comm Outcomes
• Devised overall strategy with primary targeted
  focus in the short-term on PureEdge and the
  longer on new systems/process
• Completed instructive guide for completing the
  424RR
• Detailed process flows identifying steps between
  departments and central review modified for
  PureEdge submissions
• Mandated 15 day advance of deadline submission
  with final received no later than 5 days before
  to central office
• Developed new intranet site to manage
  communications and detail initiatives
• Identified applicants for the PureEdge submission
  deadlines for training/outreach

33
Challenges
34
Work Groups

• Training
• Key Areas of focus
• 424RR adoption from 398 with PureEdge
  forms/submissions processes
• Mandatory timelines for submissions with
  understanding as to why the requirement was
  necessary
• New System user training when available
• Outcomes
• Organized and implemented training plans and
  materials
• Weekly training schedules held with sessions
  facilitated by central and department
  administrators
• To date over 35 sessions with 400 people trained
• Develop FAQs for the intranet and capturing
  lessons-learned from each submission for future
  training sessions

35
Work Groups

• Systems Implementation
• Key Areas of focus
• Process to share PureEdge submissions across
  organizations due to large file size
• System evaluation/selection/implementation
• Outcomes
• Developed secure upload tool that allows PureEdge
  versions to be received into a central review
  queue
• Allow for the tracking and prioritization of
  proposals received
• Initial plans to devise a submission shadow
  operations were cancelled when the upload times
  decreased to seconds

36
Work Groups

• Systems Implementation (cont.)
• Outcomes
• Package evaluation resulted in selection of
  InfoEds Proposal Development and Proposal
  Tracking Modules
• Contract negotiation finalized and implementation
  underway
• Site visit to UCLA occurred to better prepare and
  project plan for the implementation
• Decision made to migrate from existing internal
  system to InfoEd
• Currently in the 2nd month of implementation and
  about 80 configured to begin simple scenario
  testing

37
PureEdge Submissions

• Breakdown of activity
• 215 applications submitted for the NIH deadlines
  since December - down from the same time period
  a year ago
• Average upload time is under 5 seconds
• 98 of all applications were received 15 days in
  advance as mandated
• Error rates on applications average 25 with the
  largest increase occurring with the June 1
  deadline and all involve NIH validations

38
InfoEd Implementation

• Process change to include all proposal types
• Mandatory adoption across the community for
  submissions to be received by the
  grants/contracts offices
• Initial pilot goal for submitting October 1st
  opportunities for targeted departments
• Data migration from existing system
• Configuration of non-NIH forms for other
  submissions
• Implementation of workflow and electronic
  signature models

39
Goals Ahead

• Improved information management around the full
  lifecycle of the application process
• Timeline from starting an application to
  submission
• Turn around times across the organization, at
  each step in the process etc.
• Resource planning and allocation
• Improved data integrity and reporting
  capabilities
• Tighter integration with eIRB, IACUC and
  post-award management available to departments,
  labs and PIs
• Utilization of an enterprise document management
  infrastructure
• Less burdensome submission process for
  Investigator community

40

• Contact Information
• Scott McNeal
• Director, Research Enterprise Applications
• Partners Healthcare System
• smcneal_at_partners.org

41
Grants.govUpdate

• Stephen Dowdy Assistant DirectorMassachusetts
  Institute of Technology

42
System-to-system

• No need for PureEdge
• Need to keep up with agency-specifics
• Departments want the forms their way
• File naming conventions
• Lacking terminal status fromsome agencies
• New Web services for form-within-a-form problem

43
Grants.gov Usage Highlights

• 40,000 Submissions Since October 1, 2005
• Registered Users Exceeds 45,000
• Recent Citrix Results

44
Program Update

• System Issues/Architecture
• Functionality
• Invalid characters in attachments
• Stuck submissions from invalid PureEdge
• Invalid RR Subaward budgets
• Web Site Redesign
• Redesign approved and work in progress
• Support will accompany implementation (Mid-July)
• RR/Mandatory V2

45
June 2006Mandatory/RR Form Upgrade

• April 1 to May 31, 2006  Transition Period
• April 1 upgraded forms tech info on ATWeb
• Legacy forms will also be on ATWeb
• May 31 templates created with the current forms
• Will be deleted.

46
June 2006Mandatory/RR Form Upgrade
June 15, 2006  Production Deployment June
15 upgraded SF-424M RR families to production
Agencies may create templates/publish packages
using new forms. Current form versions will not
be available for publishing Packages published
prior to June 1 will continue to process as
normal until the close date and applicable grace
periods have expired. Identify published
opportunities with close date gt 09/30/06. These
packages use current SF-424 M/RR forms agencies
must close out and republish using upgraded
forms
47
PDF Software

• Adobe http//www.adobe.com/products/acrobatstd/m
  ain.html Print driver that will work with any
  application. (For PC or Mac)
• BLC Technologies http//www.gohtm.com/
  Web-based converter. Vendor e-mails PDF back to
  you. (For PC or Mac)
• Blue Squirrel http//www.bluesquirrel.com/produc
  ts/Click2PDF/ Print driver that will work with
  any application. (For PC)
• Create Adobe PDF Online https//createpdf.adobe.
  com/index.pl/ Web-based converter. Vendor
  e-mails PDF back to you. (For PC or Mac)
• CutePDF http//www.cutepdf.com Print driver
  that will work with any application. (For PC)
• Go2PDF http//www.go2pdf.com Print driver that
  will work with any application. (For PC)
• PdfF995 http//site4.pdf995.com/ Print driver
  that will work with any application. (For PC)
• PDFcreator http//docupub.com/ Web-based
  converter. View PDF or e-mails PDF to you (For PC
  or Mac)
• Win2PDF http//www.win2pdf.com/ Print driver
  that will work with any application. (For PC)
• Zeon Corporation http//www.pdfwizard.com/
  Print driver that will work with any application.
  (For PC)

48
NIH Application Guidehttp//grants.nih.gov/grants
/funding/424/SF424_RR_Guide_General.dochttp//era
.nih.gov/ElectronicReceipt/index.htm
49
Type of Application

• Old Type New Type
• 1. New 1. New
• 2. Competing Continuation 5. Renewals
• 3. Non-competing Continuation 3. Continuation
• 4. Supplement 4. Revision
• 5. Renewal 5. Renewal
• 6. Revision 6. Resubmission
• 7. Pre-Proposal 1. New
• 8. Accomplishment-based Renewal 5. Renewal

50
Type of Application

• New - An application that is being submitted to
  an agency for the first time.
• Resubmission - An application that has been
  previously submitted, but was not funded, and is
  being resubmitted for new consideration.
• Renewal - An application requesting additional
  funding for a period subsequent to that provided
  by a current award. A renewal application
  competes with all other applications and must be
  developed as fully as though the applicant is
  applying for the first time.
• Continuation - A non-competing application for an
  additional funding/budget period within a
  previously approved project period. (Do not use
  for NSF and NIH)
• Revision - An application that proposes a change
  in - 1) the Federal Government's financial
  obligations or contingent liability from an
  existing obligation or, 2) any other change in
  the terms and conditions of the existing award.
• Increase Award
• Decrease Award
• Increase Duration
• Decrease Duration
• Other Identify

51
Common NIH Errors
52
Questions?