UOP Proposal Process

Continued funding refers to cases when agencies have awarded funds for a multi-year project, but require funding requests annually. These annual requests require full review by the budget office. These multi-year proposals do not require a new proposal number, but should reference the original proposal number. The following are necessary:

Budget, Budget Justification, Statement of Work, Budget Office Review
Sponsored Agreement’s Award Change/Continuation Form

Limited Submission Proposals

Some proposal solicitations limit submissions to one per institution. The budget and planning offices will notify programs of such proposals and will ask for a response from those wishing to submit. They will coordinate the effort to decide who will be submitting and whether or not a colloaborative effort may arise out of it.

UCAR will constitute the UCAR Education and Outreach Council to further promote communication, information sharing, and collaboration. The council will be composed of an Executive Board and members drawn from the leaders in education and outreach from across the institution. The council will meet regularly to share information about achievements of individual programs, funding opportunities, opportunities for collaboration, and other topics of interest to the membership and to raise issues upon which a consensus needs to be developed.

Letter of Intent

Some proposals require a letter of intent which the agencies use to gauge the number and the quality of institutions expecting to submit. An Advance Notice must be created for letters of intent and programs should notify the budget office. The budget office will submit NSF letters on Fastlane. No budget review is necessary but the budget office requires a full copy of the entire package. The full proposal will subsequently use the same advance notice number.

Advance Notice for Letter of Intent

An Advance Notice must be created for the Letter of Intent. Fill in the fields as best you can and estimate the budget amount. In the abstract field, list the dates for when the letter of intent and the full proposal are due. There is no need to answer the URC questions at this point. The Advance Notice will not be approved until the full proposal is submitted. At this time the Advance Notice should be updated.

No-Cost Extensions

No cost extensions (requests for a change in the end date of a period of performance) need to be requested through the UCAR Contracts Office 90 days ahead of end date. This does not require a new proposal, but should reference the original proposal number and clearly state the amount of additional time requested.

Sponsored Agreement’s Award Change/Continuation Form
Budget Office Review

No-Cost Proposals and MOU's

It is considered to be a no cost proposal when you propose as part of a proposal and will not be receiving any funds. No cost proposals will follow the same review process as other proposals. Memorandums of Understanding, (MOU’s), require that you create a new proposal number. MOU’s are typically not reviewed or approved by the Budget Office but in some cases Jack Fellows may be asked to review them. Please be sure to provide the Budget Office with a copy of the MOU.

Preliminary Proposal

Some program solicitations require or request submission of a preliminary proposal in advance of submission of a full proposal. The two predominant reasons for requiring submission of a preliminary proposal are to:

reduce the proposers' unnecessary effort in proposal preparation when the chance of success is very small. This is particularly true of exploratory initiatives where the community senses that a major new direction is being identified, or competitions that will result in a small number of actual awards; and
increase the overall quality of the full submission.

Preliminary Proposal Review

Preliminary proposals will follow the same review process as other proposals. Please submit the following to the Budget Office:

Preliminary Budget
Budget Justification
Statement of Work
Draft Proposal Review Checklist
Be sure to submit a complete copy of the submitted preliminary proposal to the Budget Office

If you are invited to submit a full proposal you will reference the same proposal number as the preliminary proposal. The full proposal will follow the same review process as a new proposal.

Advance Notice for Preliminary Proposal

Please create an advance notice for any preliminary proposals. You will use this same proposal number if you are invited to submit a full proposal. The advance notice will not be officially approved until the full proposal has been submitted.

Supplemental Funding

Supplemental Proposals refer to situations where additional funding is requested for a current effort. This does not require a new proposal number, but should reference the original proposal number and clearly state the amount of additional funding requested. A budget is required and the budget and project description must go through the standard review process. A proposal checklist referencing the original proposal number is required for the review process. Please note on the checklist that the enclosed budget is for supplemental funding. The following are necessary:

Budget, Budget Justification, Statement of Work, Proposal Checklist, Budget Office Review

Reprogramming

Reprogramming is defined as a deviation from a sponsor-approved budget, which has been incorporated by reference into, and become enforceable under, an award. Recipients may be required to request prior approvals for budget deviations, in accordance with an award's terms and conditions.

Because reprogramming is dependent on award type and the specific terms and conditions incorporated into the award, situations will vary. When preparing reprogramming budgets, either the original rates or the current year rates can be used. However, since the rates have changed, it would be more appropriate to use the current year rates. Budget Office review and approval is required for Reprogramming requests.

Procedural guidance and more information can be found here on the finance page.

Guidelines

Budget Footnotes

If using NSF approved rates:
Note: FY20XX benefit rates and indirect rates were used to calculate this budget. The employee benefit rate for FY20XX has been approved by NSF. It includes direct charges for non-work time of vacation, sick leave, holidays and other paid leave, as wells as standard staff benefits. The reduced benefit rate applies to casual employees who do not receive the full benefit package.
The UOP On-Site and Off-Site Indirect rates for FY20XX have been approved by NSF. Indirect Costs are applied to all Modified Total Direct Costs (MTDC), which currently exclude equipment and participant support costs. The rate is charged only on the first $25,000 of each subcontract per fiscal year. The Off-Site indirect rate applies only to salaries and benefits of off-site employees.
All future rates are proposed rates until approved by NSF.
The UCAR management fee is a fixed fee. This fee is computed on the Total Modified Direct Costs plus Indirect Costs.
If using proposed rates:
Note: FY20XX benefit rates and indirect rates were used to calculate this budget. The employee benefit rate for FY20XX is proposed and has not been approved by NSF. It includes direct charges for non-work time of vacation, sick leave, holidays and other paid leave, as wells as standard staff benefits. The reduced benefit rate applies to casual employees who do not receive the full benefit package.
The UOP On-Site and Off-Site Indirect rates for FY20XX are proposed and have not been approved by NSF. Indirect Costs are applied to all Modified Total Direct Costs (MTDC), which currently exclude equipment and participant support costs. The rate is charged only on the first $25,000 of each subcontract per fiscal year. The Off-Site indirect rate applies only to salaries and benefits of off-site employees.
The UCAR management fee is a fixed fee. This fee is computed on the Total Modified Direct Costs plus Indirect Costs.

Budget Justification

Proposal submissions usually require a budget justification. The justification explains the line-items in the budget and justifies the funds requested. An explanation of requested funds should include information on how the figures were calculated, and specific information about how the funds will be spent and why. For travel, for example, the sponsor may require that the justification lists the number of trips, travelers per trip, the estimated per diem, hotel, and flight rates, transportation costs, and the number of days on travel. The budget justification should include information about the rates used to calculate overhead and benefits. Our standard budget footnotes may be used for wording. In addition, some sponsors require a copy of our Rate Approval Letter, or our Rate Submission (if rates are still proposed). Be specific and detailed where possible, while being mindful of any page limits imposed by the sponsor. Be sure to correctly match the amounts listed in the justification with those in the budget itself, especially if there have been several budget versions.

Collaborative Proposals

Collaborative proposals go through the same review process as non-collaborative proposals. A collaborative proposal is one in which investigators from two or more organizations wish to collaborate on a unified research project. Collaborative arrangements may include:

Closely related and coordinated activities at another organization
A joint activity by several organizations or consortia
Group proposals from multiple organizations

All collaborative proposals must clearly describe the following in the proposal:

Roles to be played by the other organizations
Specify the managerial arrangements, and
Explain the advantages of the multi-organizational effort

Collaborative proposals may be submitted in one of two ways:

As a single proposal in which a single award is being requested and subawards are administered by the lead organization.
Simultaneous submission of proposals by different organizations with each organization requesting a separate award.

This can be done by linking proposals in Fastlane or in Grants.gov by having each institution submit an identical statement of work but separate budgets.

Unfunded Collaborations

A letter from a collaborating institution describing and documenting their involvement is often required by sponsors if such an institution will not receive any funds as part of the proposal. Be aware that sponsor requirements for documentation of collaborative participation will vary. Please be sure to carefully read the solicitation for instructions on documenting collaborative participation.

Collaborator Letters

Letters of Collaboration are required by the URC as part of a proposal with university collaboration if the following applies:

The proposal is non-core and over $100k
A collaborating university is not going to receive compensation as part of this proposal. (Please note that this may also be a sponsor requirement)

The documentation from any unfunded university collaborator needs to be on university letterhead or sent via e-mail from a university e-mail address. We suggest that you have the collaborator address the following in the letter:

That this collaborator does agree to collaborate
The name, title, and program of the PI they are collaborating with.
The title of the project
How the proposed project is integral to their own research
Describe any student or post-doc participation and document their names when possible.

Please send copies of collaborator letters to the B&P office if you have them for the budget review process. Be sure to include them when sending a final copy of your proposal to the B&P office.

Sample Collaborator Letter #1

Dear (PI Name),

I acknowledge my role as a Collaborator on the proposal titled “________________” that you are submitting in response to the _______ announcement. As we have discussed, your proposed effort would compliment my ___________________________________. I do not require funding under this proposal, as we will receive adequate funding through _____________________. My benefit from participation this proposal will come from _______________________________.

As for my involvement, I agree to work with you on

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________

I expect (number) of grad students, (names of grad students), and (number) of post-docs, (names of post-docs) to participate in this joint research effort.

We believe that the efforts in this proposed project will mutually benefit both institutions.

Sincerely,
(Collaborator Name)

Sample Collaborator Letter #2

Dear (PI Name),

I will be pleased to collaborate with you on your “_________________” proposal. We are proposing to __________________________. Your proposed activities will be crucial to the operation of our activities. My students and I (student names) will work with you on ____________________________________. I think that together we can successfully ____________________________________. I look forward to this collaborative effort.

Sincerely,
(Collaborator Name)

Sample Collaborator Letter #3

Dear (PI Name),

I acknowledge that I am a part of the investigation titled “___________________________,” that is being submitted to the _________ announcement, and that I intend to carry out all the responsibilities identified for me in this proposal.
My involvement in this proposal will complement my _________________ research and activities in which my group and I are investing a significant amount of work and resources. For example, ___________________________________________________. In addition to myself there are also (number) graduate students and/or post-docs currently working on _______________.

This proposal to ________ is of the utmost importance for the success of the mission and of the research and development work carried out by my group and myself.

Sincerely,
(Collaborator Name)

Inter-Entity Collaboration

When submitting a proposal that involves collaborators with other UCAR entities (NCAR or E&O), the following guidelines should be observed:
1.
a. If a UOP Program is the proposal lead, budget and level of activity of the collaborating entity must be reviewed and approved by the collaborating division/program's director, administrator, and Budget Office.
b. The UOP Program will submit an advance notice for the proposed effort. The budget and proposal must be reviewed by the UOP budget office.
c. If the collaborating entity's level of effort is not significant (for example less than 10% of a single staff person's time or 10% of the cumulative time of all staff to be charged in given fiscal year), a single budget may be submitted with all activity bearing the UOP over head rate. NCAR or E&O staff may charge to a UOP account key.
d. Even if the collaboration is not significant, if preferable each collaborating entity may submit a separate budgets bearing each entity's overhead rate. In this case, the collaborating entity must also submit a separate advance notice so that funding can be received directly.
e. If the collaborating entity's level of effort is significant, separate budgets and separate advance notices may be considered. Each entity will receive its funding directly and charge it's own account key.
f. If, even at a significant level of joint participation, it is desirable to submit only one budget and have a single entity overhead, such things as a joint appointment should be considered. (See UCAR Policy XXX).

2. If NCAR or E&O is the proposal lead:
a. The UOP program may submit it's own budget and advance notice, or may be included in the other entity's budget and charge it's account key if the level of participation is not significant. A budget and the proposed activity must have approval of the UOP Program Director and be reviewed by the UOP Budget Office.
b. If the collaboration is significant (see definition above), separate budgets and advance notices may be considered. If a single budget is desirable, a joint appointment should be considered. Again, appropriate program director and administrator approval must be obtained before participation and Budget Office review is required.

Co-Sponsorship

Cosponsorship is the term that NSF uses to describe the value of resources funded from NCAR's NSF Base Funding that is contributing to the performance of mutually beneficial research sponsored by another organization. It differs from cost-sharing because federal regulations prevent federal funds from being used as cost-share. Because of this distinction, it is vital that NCAR/UCAR proposals not suggest that the organization will share in the costs of a project. Note that cosponsorship ONLY applies to NCAR's NSF Base Funds and that employees that are not paid through NCAR Base Funds cannot show cosponsorship of their time on proposals.

Be specific about cosponsorship of facilities and describe whether the amount of cosponsorship has already been allocated for the purpose described in the proposal. Incremental facility use, specific to the proposal, will be charged to the funding agency, unless the proposed activity directly supports an ATM area of interest and ATM approves full or partial cosponsorship.

Cost Sharing

Some proposal solicitations may include a requirement for cost sharing. OMB (Office of Management and Budget) Circular A-110 defines "Cost Sharing" as "that portion of project or program costs not borne by the Federal Government." It goes on to state that contributions will be accepted as cost sharing or matching when such contributions meet the following criteria
(see Attachment C for details):

they are verifiable,
not included as contributions on other projects,
allowable,
and NOT PAID FOR BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

Cost sharing is most commonly required on proposals when the sponsor believes there may be tangible benefits to the award recipient(s). These are usually for infrastructure-building purposes, instrumentation/equipment/centers/facilities), or for awards where there is clear potential to make profit or generate income. Because federal funds may not be used for cost sharing, and because most of UCAR's funds are federal, cost sharing can be difficult. Most funds that can be used for cost sharing require the approval of the President of the Corporation. Also, any element of cost sharing is required by OMB Circular A-133 to be audited, so all cost sharing must be separately tracked. There are some ways in which cost sharing can be addressed, but it must be handled on a case by case basis to be sure all policy is followed. In order to insure that proposal requirements are met in ways allowable within UCAR, please do not address any cost sharing requirements without agreement from the UOP Budget Office.
All contributions, including cash and third party in-kind, shall be accepted as part of the recipient's cost sharing or matching when such contributions meet all of the following criteria:

Are verifiable from the recipient's records.
Are not included as contributions for any other federally-assisted project or program.
Are necessary and reasonable for proper and efficient accomplishment of project or program objectives.
Are allowable under the applicable cost principles.
Are not paid by the Federal Government under another award, except where authorized by Federal statute to be used for cost sharing or matching.
Are provided for in the approved budget when required by the Federal awarding agency.
Conform to other provisions of this Circular, as applicable.

As of June 1, 2007, New Guidance from NSF regarding 1% Statutory Cost Sharing:

Chapter II – Section C.2.g(xi), Cost Sharing, has been substantially revised to reflect the National Science
Board’s (NSB) decision to eliminate NSF program-specific cost sharing. In accordance with a new NSB policy, there
is no expectation by NSF that proposals submitted for funding will include cost sharing. In addition, there also has been a change to the previous statutory (1%) cost sharing requirement.The appropriations providing funds to NSF no longer contain language requiring statutory cost sharing of 1%.

Current and Pending Support (C&P)

A C&P is a statement of all of a scientist's current and pending support for ongoing proposals, even if no salary support is received from a project. Most agencies have differing requirements for included information on the C&P's. Please be sure to fully read the soliciation and the agency's proposal guide for details.

A sample of an NSF C&P template can be found here. Currently Grants.gov does not have a specific C&P form.

File Name Conventions

As most proposal correspondence is done via e-mail, it is very important to use clear file name conventions when sending anything to uopbp@ucar.edu. Please label all your documents, and the subject of the e-mail, like the following “proposal number_short title_ description (either a budget or budget justification or SOW)_version.”

For example:

2006-111_THREDDS_budget_ver2
2006-211_THREDDS_budjustif_Final

Interagency Transfers

For Federal Interagency Agreement Fund Transfers, NSF Administrative Cost recovery is applied at the current rate to total transfers. As a condition of NSF's entering into an interagency agreement or fund transfer, other Federal agencies must agree to the following conditions:
1. NSF will implement the agreement by a Scientific Program Order/Amendment issued to the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) under Cooperative Agreement No. ATM-9732665 or any successor agreement and NSF will not, itself, be directly responsible for the provision of the goods or services contemplated under UOP's proposal to the other Federal Agency.
2. NSF assumes no liability for any costs above the funds obligated against Program Orders.
3. NSF may recover administrative costs consistent with Foundation Policy.
For funds provided by Federal interagency agreement or fund transfer with NSF, the contact is:

Ms. Rochelle Ray
Grants Officer, Division of Grants and Agreements
National Science Foundation
4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 495
Arlington, VA 22230
Telephone (703) 292-8212, FAX (703) 290-4827

If a proposal was written with the expectation of being funded by interagency transfer, the total funds requested includes funds to cover NSF's administrative costs, based on NSF's current rate, related to undertaking this activity. The following language should be included in the interagency transfer documentation: "This agreement includes funds to cover NSF's administrative costs related to undertaking this activity. Please refer to the proposal number on all correspondence with NSF."
For funds provided by direct agreement with UCAR, contractual arrangements should be made with:

Ms. Gina L. Taberski
Direct Agreements Coordinator
UCAR Contracts Office
P.O. Box 3000
Boulder, CO. 80307-3000
Phone: (303)497-2132
Fax: (303)497-8501

Please refer to the UCAR proposal number on all correspondence with UCAR.

Sponsored Agreements Signature Process

THIS PERTAINS ONLY TO THE PORTION OF THE UOP PROPOSAL REVIEW PROCESS THAT INVOLVES OBTAINING AN AUTHORIZING SIGNATURE FROM SPONSORED AGREEMENTS ON AGENCY [BUDGET] FORMS.
Program sends the budget, budget justification, and Statement of Work (SOW) to the UOP Budget Office electronically. This should be sent to uopbp@ucar.edu. The Excel workbook for the proposal should include both the Excel budget and the agency budget form on separate tabs, or can be separate files. Filename and subject of email must include the UCAR proposal number (see example below).

The UOP Budget Office reviews the proposal, resolves any discrepancies/errors with the program via email, phone, or person-to-person. If this step is done electronically, clear file-naming conventions must be used to avoid confusion on the various versions (see example below).

The UOP Budget Office emails the approval with the budget as an attachment (including the agency form) to the Program, with cc to Sponsored Agreements (SA). The final email may include instructions to SA on how the program wants the signature process to proceed.

Clear communication between the programs and the budget office for the chosen method of obtaining signature on the budget form for that particular proposal is important. This could vary, depending upon the situation. Suggested options for the SA signature process are:

1) Program black bags/sends hard copy of agency form to Sponsored Agreements for signature, with instructions re: in what format the signed [budget] form is to be returned:
-email .pdf
-electronic file dropped in a designated CIT directory
-hard copy: black bag or Inter-Office mail

Or

2) Sponsored Agreements uses copy attached to Budget Office email to sign and return via email (.pdf) or hard copy. For this option, instructions for SA would have to be included ahead of time, either from the Budget Office or from the program.

DOE Proposal Process

The preparation and submission of DOE proposals is the responsibility of the program. The responsibility for complying with the DOE proposal requirements and submittal deadlines lie on the shoulders of the programs.
The program will submit the proposed Statement of Work and budget to the UOP Office of B&P for review and approval. Upon approval, the B&P Office will e-mail approval confirmation to the program and copy Sponsored Agreements (SA). The package is then sent to SA by the program and SA will submit to DOE. The program will send copies of the final proposal to the standard internal distribution list.

Guidelines for Advance Notice

Advance Notice Guidelines - Full Version: PDF, Word Document

Advance Notice Guidelines - PI Version: PDF, Word Document

Letters of Support

Letters of support are submitted by any persons not included as a part of the proposal but would like to express their personal support for the proposed activities. Relevant persons can express their support in a letter or an email. Please make sure to include any provided letters of support in your proposal copies for the budget office.

Policies

Cost Sharing Attachment C

Human Subjects Research Policy

UCAR’s policy is to ensure appropriate standards are followed for the ethical treatment of humans that are the subject of research. The goals are to limit harm to participants in research and to protect the confidentiality and identity of individuals. Surveys, interviews and observations that involve human subjects constitute human subjects research. All UCAR researchers must comply with the regulations governing human subjects research. The federal law is set forth at 45 CFR Part 46 and the National Science Foundation’s regulation is listed at 45 CFR Part 690.
Research may constitute “human subjects research” when the researcher obtains data through intervention or interaction with a living individual or identifiable private information from a living individual. UCAR has established a Human Studies Committee (HSC) to review all proposals that may involve human subjects research.
The following information and procedures will assist researchers in following this policy:
Human Subjects Research Manual
HSC Members
HSC Procedures for review of proposals

PI Financial Disclosure Policy

Fees and Rates

UCAR Management Fee

A fee is charged on all non-NSF funds received by UCAR. The UCAR fee is 3% for government funders, non-profits, or universities, and 5% for all other funders. Fee is charged on the modified total direct cost plus indirect cost.

UCAR Management Fee for NOAA Grants or Cooperative Agreements

NSF Cost Recovery Fee

Please note that for FY07, the NSF Admin Cost Recovery on Interagency Transfers is 4.85%. Remember, NSF applies this rate to the total IA transfer. For UCAR budgets, where you are calculating this on the total to be transferred to UCAR, the number you should use in the calculation is 0.050972149, but as before, it is labeled: "NSF Administrative Cost Recovery @ 4.85% of Total IA Transfer"
Sample Fee Calculations

NOAA CPO Administrative Fee

Climate Program Office (CPO) Administrative Fee: Effective January 1, 2006, a 2.5% Administrative Fee will be assessed on non-CPO funded activities within the NOAA UCAR Cooperative Agreement, i.e., any organization putting funds on this agreement shall transfer to CPO 102.5% of the estimated costs for their activity. If only a total amount is specified, then the activity budget will be reduced for this fee.

The administrative fees collected will be used to support the CPO administrative staff involved in administering this agreement. The introduction of this assessment is necessary because CPO has experienced significant increases in administrative staff costs involved in financial and grants processing. For the past 15 years, all of these real costs in administrating the UCAR agreements have been borne by the CPO program funds. This action will more fairly assess administrative overhead costs from all funding sources (CPO and non-CPO) using these services. Any questions on this fee should be addressed to the CPO Program Officer, Ken Mooney (301-734-1242 or kenneth.mooney@noaa.gov).

UCAR Rate Chart

          2009 Rate Proposal Letter
        2008 Rate Proposal Letter
        2007 Rate Proposal Letter