LPL Research Proposal Information Guide

UA Research Administration

• Sponsored Projects Services (SPS), (sponsor@arizona.edu)
• UA Institutional Information Page (incl. inst addresses, DUNS#, Tax ID#, etc.)
• Research Compliance Services
• Conflict of Interest
• Export Control
• UAccess Research (UAR): UAccess (click on Research, login w/ NetID credentials)

• UA Comprehensive Proposal Development Guide: detailed guidance from Sponsored Projects Services on preparing, routing, and submitting proposals for sponsored funding.

• RII New Investigator Checklist

   

• Build a Budget: UA SPS guidance on preparing a sponsored project budget.
• Capital equipment (incl info on Purchased Equipment & Fabricated Equipment)
• Facilities & Administrative Rates: F&A/IDC rate agreement information and link to current F&A rate agreement
• State of Arizona Meals/Lodging Cost Index: for domestic and international travel on sponsored funds, including current lodging and per diem rates by location and time of year
• UA Motor Pool Rates (NetID required)
• Postdoctoral Mentoring Plans (UA RII)
• Subrecipient Commitment Form (SPS)

  LPL Research Administration (RA)

• LPL Research Support site

  Proposal Development & Support

LPL RA general proposal communications (can be used for RFPs!): proposals@lpl.arizona.edu 

• Lunar & Planetary Laboratory Proposal Support Request form
• LPL DAPR ROSES Proposal Checklist (PDF)

• LPL Non-DAPR ROSES Proposal Checklist (PDF)

  Research Administration Team (proposals, preaward)

• Jonna Alley (jalley@arizona.edu), Research Development Administrator
• Marcela Robison (mrobison7@arizona.edu), Grant & Contract Administrator (proposal development)

 Postaward Management & Support

• LPL resources for funded grants & contracts

      Research Administration Team (postaward)

• Glinda Davidson (gbd@arizona.edu), Manager, Grants & Contracts

• Marsha Bolton (mbolton@arizona.edu), Grant & Contract Administrator (postaward, Cayuse manager)

   

• LPL laboratories and facilities
• K-ALFAA (Kuiper-Arizona Laboratory for Astromaterials Analysis) lab: overview of available instruments & rates for use/budgeting

Other Useful Links

• NASA NSPIRES (see NASA Proposals ToolKit page for more information on NASA proposals)
  • Solicitations
  • Guidebook for Proposers (PDF)
  • ROSES-24 Summary of Solicitation (PDF)
  • ROSES Proposal Checklist (PDF)
• ScienCV tool for creating and maintaining CVs, required by NSF and other federal agencies (EXCEPT NASA)

Research, Innovation, & Impact serves as the leadership and support office for sponsored activities at the UA. Two offices under RII with which we work regularly are Sponsored Projects Services (SPS) and Research Compliance Services (RCS).

 Sponsored Projects Services (SPS) 

Before submitting a proposal to any sponsor, the proposal materials, particularly the detailed budget and budget narrative/justification, need to be routed, reviewed, and approved by an Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR), from the UA’s central research administration office called Sponsored Projects Services (SPS).

While the PI is responsible for the scientific and technical aspects of a proposal, the AOR’s signature on a proposal submission indicates that a UA AOR has reviewed the proposal for accuracy and compliance and approves/certifies the costs budgeted for the proposed investigation.

If a proposal will be submitted via a sponsor’s electronic submission system (e.g. NSPIRES, STGMS, research.gov), SPS will also be the office to review and submit the electronic proposal on behalf of the Principal Investigator (PI) and UA.

 Office of Research and Outside Interests (OROI)/Conflict of Interest (part of RCS)

In terms of research compliance, the main RCS office LPL works with is OROI; the office which handles conflict of interest matters. UA employees and project investigators should be aware of the Conflict of Interest Commitment Policy. Outside obligations, financial interests, or other employment may be considered a conflict of interest or commitment.

An interest exists if an employee is in a position to influence a business transaction in which the University is involved. The Arizona Conflict of Interest statute requires the employee to disclose in writing any substantial interest the employee or their close relatives may have in dealing with the University.

To start routing a UAR proposal, there is a specific question concerning whether the proposed project will involve any conflict. When a conflict does exist, a researcher should follow the instructions on the UA COI website to complete a COI disclosure form. There are a variety of forms to choose from depending on an individual's role on a project. The prompts should be followed to ensure the appropriate form is selected, whether it be a new disclosure form or a modification to an existing disclosure form.

UAccess Research (UAR) & the Routing Process 

Institutional approvals are obtained by routing an electronic proposal record through a system called UAccess Research (UAR). The proposal will route to the appropriate individuals, departments, and offices, before arriving at its final stop at Sponsored Projects Services. The routing order is shown below.

Note: UAR proposal cannot move onto the next approval level until all approvals from the previous level have been obtained.

Once UAR proposal starts routing, it’ll immediately route to the PI’s UAR Action List and go to the following individuals and offices/departments, in order, depending on relevant parties to the proposal:

PI, Co-I(s), Key Personnel, Dept Approver(s)   College Approver(s)   Conflict of Interest office (OROI/COI)   SPS Preaward
 

Generally, there are a number of proposal elements included in the final proposal submission to a sponsor, but in most cases, not all of those elements is required for UAR routing. It’s important to understand what is and is not required to initiate routing in order to prioritize your proposal timeline accordingly. (More on that below)

Below is a list of required materials to initiate the internal proposal routing process through the UAR system.

This list is NOT comprehensive of all proposal documents required by the sponsor; only the minimum requirements for UAR routing, and SPS review and approval.

• Statement of Work (SOW), project summary, OR abstract
  • This should be generated/provided by the PI
  • A project summary is the minimum requirement.
    • Copy/paste of the Project Summary in NSPIRES is perfect
• Detailed Budget
  • This will be generated by the LPL RA based on the budget assumptions provided by the PI.
  • Budgets are required to be routed in Excel format.
  • Includes cost detail broken into the following categories: labor/effort, salary, ERE, operations/ODCs (materials, supplies, tuition, lab & analytical expenses, etc), travel, capital equipment, subcontracts (non-UA Co-Is), and IDC
  • For proposals which require a redacted/anonymized budget narrative, this will be generated by the LPL RA after the detailed budget narrative is reviewed and pre-approved by SPS.
• Detailed Budget Justification/Budget Narrative
  • This will be generated by the LPL RA based on the detailed budget and input from the PI.
  • The intent of this document is to provide an explanatory text to accompany the detailed budget; providing a project-specific justification for all budgeted costs.
  • For proposals which require a redacted/anonymized budget narrative, this will be generated by the LPL RA after the detailed budget narrative is reviewed and pre-approved by SPS.
• Capital equipment quote(s) (if applicable)
  • Equipment with a unit cost of $5,000 or more requires a supporting quote detailing the cost, description, and vendor information
• Subcontract proposal(s) (if applicable)
  • If there are Co-Is included in a proposal at a non-UA institution, we would budget them as a subcontractor in our proposal budget. To facilitate the incorporation of any Co-I/non-UA budget materials, we need to request a subcontract proposal from the Co-I institution. We recommend sending an RFP document to detail the list of requested items in the appropriate format to ensure timely submission.
  • Subcontracts included in a UA-led proposal, we will need at least the following documents to route with our UA proposal documents:
    • Co-I-specific SOW
    • Co-I institution's detailed budget
    • Detailed budget narrative/justification
      • (NASA proposals) Redacted (and anonymized, if DAPR) budget and budget narrative should also be included
    • Capital equipment quote(s), if applicable
    • Co-I institution's F&A Rate Agreement, or any supporting documentation to justify any indirect cost rate, employee benefits rate, or fees included in the budget
• Documents requiring a University of Arizona AOR signature, if applicable
  • E.g. cover letters, letters of intent, subrecipient commitment form 
• Supplementary documentation to support proposal documents, if applicable
  • E.g. Salary verification memos, offer letter for pending hire, correspondence related to proposal preparation guidance (i.e. Program Officer guidance for unique cases such as grant or PI transfers), etc.
• Program solicitation/AO/RFP
  • Provide a copy of the sponsor's solicitation or RFP details
  • If we are not the lead PI institution on a proposal, we should include the prime sponsor's solicitation guidance, in addition to any formal guidance or RFP from the lead/PI institution

Sponsored projects will review the documents for accuracy, completeness, and for compliance with sponsor guidelines. SPS does NOT review the technical aspects of the proposal.

Refer to the Templates section for downloading available sponsor- and UA/LPL-developed templates that may be helpful in your proposal development.

See Principal Investigator, Project Director, Co-Investigator (PI, PD, Co-I) Eligibility chart on Research, Innovation & Impact (RII).

Serving in the role of Principal Investigator/Project Director/Co-Investigator on an activity is a privilege granted to certain people associated with the University of Arizona. With the oversight responsibility implicit in the University's engagement in the activity, including acceptance of outside funds for a project, the University must be in a position of authority over the PI/PD/Co-I’s actions. Therefore, an individual's participation in University of Arizona research is dependent upon that individual's relationship with the institution.  Research, Innovation & Impact (RII) has set out guidelines that must be met for the consideration of granting status as a PI/PD/Co-I to any individual. 

Participation as a Principal Investigator/Project Director/Co-Investigator for the University of Arizona must have a minimum employment requirement of 0.50 FTE and belong to an eligible employment category. Reach out to your college for clarification on guidance for eligibility.

Every proposal in UAR requires award credit and F&A revenue to be distributed (by %) between all Key Personnel; the PI will be asked how they would like this credit split.

The definition of award credit is an allocated percentage of academic or intellectual credit to investigators and their respective department/college. These amounts are used in University publications on externally funded activity. Award Credit may be influenced by factors like intellectual ideas and merit and/or pre-proposal work or anticipated post-award activity.

F&A Revenue refers to Facilities and Administrative Revenue (otherwise known as “indirect costs”). The University charges an F&A rate of 53.50% on all externally funded, on-campus grants. Once those grants are awarded and spending occurs, the associated F&A for those expenses is collected by the University and distributed quarterly to colleges and then to departments. The F&A splits we enter in the UAccess Research Proposal Document (or UAR) will dictate how F&A revenue for a grant will be disbursed. F&A Revenue distribution may be influenced by factors like: Proposed budget authority for each investigator; Institutional space to complete the award; Units that will provide post-award administrative support.

Both of these splits should not be confused with an investigator’s level of effort on the grant. That is a separate and different number. See SPS site for more information on award credit and F&A splits.

In LPL, you will work with the department’s Research Administration (RA) team shown above to prepare your detailed budget, budget narrative, and other proposal materials required for institutional routing in the UA’s research administration system, UAccess Research (UAR). An LPL RA will also assist with the electronic submission of finalized proposal materials.

It’s preferred to have the LPL RA prepare the budget documents as they will have current templates that are most likely to be compliant with the latest requirements, in addition to having access to the current rate information for salaries, benefits, tuition, etc.

For every proposal, the LPL RA needs to prioritize the budget development, UAR routing, and SPS budget pre-approval steps before any work is done in the sponsor’s electronic system, or before proposal documents are generated for proposal elements other than those required for UAR routing (e.g. redacted budget and budget narrative, Table of Work Effort). Be mindful that even the smallest of budget changes affect several proposal elements, therefore final pdf budget and budget narrative pages (including redacted or redacted & anonymized versions) will not be generated until SPS pre-approval of the detailed budget and budget narrative has been received.

For proposals submitted to a sponsor’s web-based system (e.g. NSPIRES, research.gov, STGMS), the LPL RA will populate the system’s budget table(s) with the detailed budget costs as approved by SPS.

If a proposal will be submitted via means other than directly to a sponsor’s submission web-based system (e.g. email to lead PI institution), the PI and/or an LPL RA or Business Manager can submit the proposal materials once SPS/AOR approval is obtained.

We want our proposals given the most competitive chance. Planning a timeline for the proposal development and submission process is one way to help prioritize multiple proposal elements to ensure successful submission.

  Prioritizing the appropriate proposal elements 

In proposal development, different documents and elements are needed at various stages. To make the most of your efforts, create a timeline that prioritizes elements required for UAR routing and SPS review before those needed in the final sponsor proposal package. 

A few practical examples of what this may mean:

• Remember that the S/T/M section for an NSPIRES proposal isn't essential for SPS review, but the budget and budget narrative is. Therefore, prioritize finalizing the budget details before dedicating all attention to the S/T/M text.
• Similarly, the Current & Pending is not required for the initial SPS review. Begin by focusing on the budget development and routing requirements before pivoting to the proposal elements not required for UAR routing.

• Another aspect to consider is the redacted or anonymized and redacted budget documents, often required by NASA proposals subject to DAPR. Changes in the detailed budget may necessitate adjustments in the redacted files; thus, the redacted budget files will not be generated until SPS has pre-approved the routed, detailed budget documents.

   

The table below offers an overview of the documents or components required at different stages of the proposal development process:

To guarantee proposal submission, the following internal deadlines must be followed and factored into the overall proposal timeline. If the internal deadlines are not met, PI assumes the risk of the proposal not being submitted.

If UA is not the lead PI institution on a proposal, our (UA) due date would be considered the date our Co-I/subcontractor proposal materials are due to the lead/PI institution - NOT the prime sponsor's due date.

(e.g. UA is Co-I on an APL-led NASA proposal. NASA deadline is Aug 31, but APL requests our Co-I proposal by Aug 20. Our Sponsor Due Date would be considered Aug 20.)

  SPS Three-Day Deadline Policy 

The Sponsored Projects Services (SPS) Three-Day Deadline applies to any proposals or proposal-related items which require UA approval, submission, and/or signature from an Authorized Organizational Representation (AOR).

All proposals routed through UAR should be provided to SPS in final form** 3 full business days prior to the funding-agency deadline. 

Requests for indirect cost waivers should be submitted to SPS with the attached signed form 5 business days prior to the proposal agency deadline for paper proposals, 8 business days for electronic submissions.

If a proposal is not compliant with the SPS 3-day deadline policy, proposal submission cannot be guaranteed.

The following table will give an idea of when a proposal should be finalized for SPS submission based on the 3-day deadline policy:

Adhering to the timeline above allows adequate time to prepare the budget materials required for routing, and helps us maintain compliance with internal proposal deadlines, which are dependent on the sponsor’s deadline. It also shows respect for the RA’s time and effort, in addition to the time and effort of your fellow investigators who are submitting proposals that also require attention and support.

If you would like a Red Team review of an R&A proposal, please follow these LPL guidelines:

At least 6 weeks before the proposal due date: Contact the Director’s Office, and let Mark Marley (marley@lpl.arizona.edu) know that you want a Red Team review. Please include the name of the proposal, a very brief summary or abstract, and a list of suggested reviewers. We will set up a UA Box account into which your proposal and the reviews can be deposited. You will be notified about how to access the Box, and at least three reviewers will be enlisted.

At least 4 weeks before the proposal due date: upload a copy of at least the Scientific, Technical and Management section of the proposal to the Box. If more is uploaded (such as the Budget Explanation), more will be reviewed.

At least 2 weeks before the proposal due date: The reviews will be uploaded to the Box, and the review team chair will provide a debriefing.

If you receive a Red Team review, you are agreeing to serve on other Red Teams. However, Red Team reviewers will not be restricted to those who have had Red Team reviews—most Red Teams will include at least one person who is not faculty on the Team.

Ensure your credentials are active and correct in the sponsor’s online proposal/grants system if one will be used. If we will not be the lead PI institution on a proposal, active registration in the online systems is typically still required for Co-Is, or investigators funded via a subaward/subcontract.

• NASA proposals are submitted via their proposal review and evaluation system called NSPIRES
• NSF uses the research.gov system (formerly Fastlane)
• StSci uses the STGMS system
• For proposals being submitted to internal UA RII opportunities, they have started using the Arizona Cultivate system, which is accessed via your UA NetID credentials.

Submit LPL RA Proposal Support Request Form 

To notify the LPL RA of an upcoming proposal, the LPL PI should submit an LPL Proposal Support Request form OR send an email to proposals@lpl.arizona.edu.

The LPL Proposal Support Request webform is automatically sent to the LPL RA team upon submission. You should expect one of them to follow up via email within 2 business days of form submission to confirm the materials received and communicate the next steps.