Section 2. Proposal Development

Eligibility to Submit a Proposal

The Academic Affairs Division through Research and Sponsored Programs (RSP) has established that any individual holding an affiliation with a unit of the University may be a Principal Investigator (PI) and submit proposals. This includes:

• Faculty in Tenure Accruing Tracks
• Faculty in Non-Tenure Accruing Tracks
• Other University Faculty and Personnel including:

• Lecturers and instructors
• Administrative and Professional (A&P) Staff

New Investigators should hold a University of West Florida appointment at the time of application or expect to hold an appointment by the effective date of the award.

Proposal Development

Writing a Proposal

Careful development and rigorous writing of a detailed research proposal are necessary for success in the highly competitive research funding environment at most sponsoring agencies. Members of national review panels state repeatedly that it is no longer good enough to write a solid proposal. It has to be a "great" proposal. Applicants must be prepared to sell their ideas with professional finesse.

Campus faculty expertise as well as agency advice should be used by proposal writers during the conceptual planning as well as during the proposal writing stage. Please coordinate with RSP's Pre-Award Services to facilitate any such contacts.

The Pre-Award staff may assist in reviewing applications for requirements, development of a detail budget (see Section 3), gathering support information and materials, and providing referrals to other UWF researchers and agency personnel who may be of assistance.

Careful Targeting of Proposals

While it is possible, and sometimes advisable, to submit one proposal simultaneously to various agencies, applicants should carefully review individual agency program objectives and submit a proposal only if these objectives are in accord with their own research direction. RSP's Pre-Award Services may supply information to aid applicants in the careful identification of appropriate funding agencies.

If, after reading agency funding materials, the applicant is uncertain if the proposal is appropriate for the agency, it is important to contact agency staff directly to discuss the project and application requirements.

Consultants and Collaborators

A very common criticism from review panels is the use of procedures for which investigators have little or no experience according to their curriculum vitae or publication list. With the collaboration of experienced colleagues within the University, or with the assistance of outside consultants, the success of such studies is more realistic and reviewers will approve them more readily.

The University has a number of units with special expertise which may be of assistance in a particular area. Some of these are: Advanced Technology Center, Archaeology Institute, Haas Center for Business Research and Economic Development, Center for Environmental Diagnostics and Bioremediation (CEDB) and Wetlands Research Laboratory, Geographical Information Services Center, Institute for Statistics and Mathematical Modeling, UWF Marine Services Center (MSC), Florida Small Business Development Center Network (FSBDCN), and UWF Small Business Development Center (SBDC), and Teaching Center among others. If you need a referral or a special type of consultant or expertise, contact Research & Sponsored Programs for information on units which may be able to provide assistance.

Collaboration with other State University System (SUS) institutions which prepare proposals as part of a collaborative effort may also be possible. The RSP director and staff participate in many such discussions and efforts and may be able to provide information on possible external collaborations. Contact the Director of Research and Sponsored Programs (DRSP) for information on current or upcoming collaborative efforts which may be suitable for your research.

Review by Colleagues

Experienced research faculty on campus may also be helpful in providing an unofficial peer review for an applicant and may be drawn in to provide advice when their research expertise permits. Also, many established faculty assist agency staff as "field readers" and thus have experience as reviewers. Their reading of a draft proposal may well assist applicants to gain necessary perspective and help to test the clarity, completeness and persuasive power of the draft copy. The RSP staff may provide editorial reading and proofing of proposals at any stage of development.

Identification of Reviewers

Investigators are encouraged to contact agency program officers prior to submitting a proposal to determine if their proposed project falls within the agency’s funding requirements and priorities. Program officers will often review a white paper or executive summary and make some recommendations on ways to better align the proposed project with agency needs. As long as the contact is made prior to submission for a particular RFP/RA these program officers will normally agree to provide some feedback. Program officers will generally not discuss a project once it has been submitted for review unless they request clarification or modification.

Many agencies publish rosters of review committee members. Investigators are advised to check the agency’s website. The RSP Web site provides links to many of the agency’s home pages for reference. The composition of a review section may well lead faculty applicants to amplify certain sections of their proposal. Faculty applicants may want to submit a cover letter or use agency forms with their proposal, suggesting additional or alternate reviewers, in cases when they believe that lack of representative expertise might hamper the chances of their proposal's success. Applicants should also remember to draft their abstract carefully, including key words to target it directly to the study section of their choice.

Follow-up

Some agencies or sponsors will allow faculty to follow up after their proposals have been received by the agency. Reviewers indicate that it is possible to submit additional "pilot" data, preferably no later than one month before the study section meets. This could include further preliminary data, new publications, even revisions in strategy due to research findings which were gathered after the proposal was originally drawn up. Such actions emphasize the applicant's seriousness regarding the proposal, and could possibly reduce or eliminate negative critiques during agency review. Agencies do not like to be inundated with trivial mailings; however, they may accept pertinent research materials.

Check with your proposal’s contact person identified in the RFP, RA, or guidelines to determine if this follow up before a funding determination is made is appropriate and how to best convey this information to the reviewers.

Agencies will almost always provide reviewer comments after a funding recommendation has been made. If this information is not included as a matter of policy in notifications of an agency’s recommendation not to fund a project, the agency will normally provide this information upon request. Agency review comments should be carefully reviewed for guidance in how to prepare a resubmission of the proposal for a new round of consideration. Program officers will sometimes be willing to discuss these reviews in depth and provide additional feedback if requested.

Criteria Reviewers Use to Evaluate Proposals

The criteria used by one government agency to evaluate training proposals may serve as a useful guide in general. The criteria are:

1. the degree to which the proposed program delineates an important need in the field;
2. evidence of a well-coordinated program which has promise of meeting identified needs;
3. the degree to which participants will be exposed to new approaches, techniques and new instructional materials;
4. the extent to which the participants will actually be involved in innovative and creative experiences;
5. the program's focus on a discipline or a group of related disciplines.
6. the consistency and clarity of statement or procedure for selecting participants consistent with the purposes of the program;
7. the level of professional competence and leadership of the program director and of the professional staff who will assist with the program;
8. the time available to the professional staff to prepare for and to conduct the program;
9. the extent to which the institution will make available adequate classrooms, laboratories, library, instructional materials and equipment;
10. prediction that the program will result in the improvement of instruction; and
11. completeness of proposal and budget.

The RFP/RA should be scrutinized carefully for other specific criteria which may apply to a particular announcement. The more directly the proposal addresses these criteria the better. If the agency’s announcement incorporates an outline or list of criteria, it is often helpful to follow this guideline in describing a proposed project to make the linkage apparent to reviewers without inference.

Some Common Shortcomings Found by Reviewers

• The program does not meet the requirements of the program from which funds are sought or does not advance the goals of that program.
• The cost of the program is unreasonable in terms of comparable programs.
• The institution appears to lack the necessary resources in either faculty personnel or physical equipment, or both, to conduct the program.
• The proposal lacks clearness, coherence, or completeness.
• No solid basis for pre-selection of participants.
• No description of program staff or personnel.
• Unrealistic time estimates.
• No arrangements made for follow-through to make the investment beneficial for the institution to justify its selection for a grant.
• No provision for sustainability or continuation of the program after the award if applicable.
• The technique proposed not judged to be the best method.
• No provision for self-evaluation of the program.
• The proposal does not follow guidelines for form, method of submission, required forms or certifications, etc.

Contracts, Grants, and Cooperative Agreements

A proposal may be funded by several different means: a contract, grant, purchase order for services, or cooperative agreement. The type of funding instrument used is determined by the source of the idea for the project, the level of involvement between the sponsor and the recipient, the degree of flexibility in carrying out the project, and the practice of the funding agency. Both grants and cooperative agreements tend to fund investigator-initiated projects, but the latter anticipates substantial involvement of the sponsor while the former does not. Unlike contracts, grants and cooperative agreements typically have short, standardized award documents.

Purchase orders or acknowledgement of acceptance of proposed scope of work and terms are a different version of a contract. Projects funded via this method are also short, standardized award documents. These types of projects are of a limited duration (less than one fiscal year) and of a limited amount of funds (less than $25,000). Exceptions to these limitations requires approval of the University Office of General Counsel and must be sought in advance of acceptance of the documentation.

Contracts can be thought of as a negotiated procurement. They generally originate from specific goals of a sponsoring agency as identified in a formal announcement. In the case of federal government agencies, the issuance of a formal contract may be preceded by the advertisement of a RFPs, Request for Applications (RFA), or Request for Quotations (RFQ). Federal government agencies are required to make all announcements of funding opportunities via the official website, Grants.gov. RSP will assist faculty in registering for this service and facilitates investigators registration in the SMARTS/GENIUS database so that announcements will be directed specifically to a potential investigator as an e-mail notification.

The major components of an RFP are: (1) application instructions and forms, (2) statement of required work, (3) desired performance schedule, (4) available government property, (5) applicable contract provisions (clauses), and (5) evaluation criteria. Agencies will require various representations, certifications, and acknowledgments, generally to be submitted at the application stage. These assurances apply to the institution, not the principal investigator. RSP's Pre-Award Services at (850) 474-2825 will assist faculty with the preparation of these materials.

Federal contracts use detailed award instruments that are subject to Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR). Researchers are advised to pay attention to contract specifications including contract type (fixed price versus cost reimbursable) throughout the planning and writing stages. Some industry contracts may have FAR clauses, as the industry partner may be flowing federal funds down through a contracting document. Also, industry contracts may incorporate complex intellectual property language which needs to be reviewed and negotiated to protect faculty and University interests.

Cost Reimbursable or Fixed Price Contracts / Grants / Cooperative Agreements

Contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements are issued in two budget/payment methods: (1) cost reimbursable or (2) fixed price (rate or unit) performance.

If a project has been funded on a cost reimbursement basis, the actual expenditures incurred are received via electronic fund transfer (draw downs) or payment for an invoice.  Funds not expended under the authorized budget are not received by the University and unexpended budget authority expires at the end of the performance period.  Federally-funded projects are almost always allocated on a cost-reimbursable basis and unexpended funds are required to be deobligated or returned to the agency upon close-out.

Fixed price (rate or unit) contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements are based on payments for performance or deliverables.  Budgets reflecting actual anticipated costs to complete work required provide the basis for the quotation or bid to the potential sponsor.  Funds authorized are to be used to perform the work required up to the authorized not-to-exceed approved funding amount.  This should result in most of the funds quoted for the work being expended by the completion of the performance period. 

 The criteria for agencies entering into such agreements may be summarized as follows:

1. Performance-based deliverables with thresholds for satisfactory performance for reimbursement and/or criteria for withholding payment or mediating performance if not satisfactory and accepted for payment.
2.  Payments are scheduled for periodic distributions (monthly, quarterly, semi-annual, etc.) with scheduled payment amounts identified.  These may be prorated amounts of the total contract amount with a final payment withheld until all deliverables agreed upon during the period of performance had been met.
3. Payment for any particular period is approved only upon satisfactory performance described as performance deliverables and standards which are “measurable, objective, and quantifiable”.
4. Contracts generally have a provision for periodic post-award contract monitoring by the agency staff/contract manager which will allow for identification of deficiencies, remediation requirements, and evaluation of outcomes.

Given these criteria, the University will accept such contracts that include measures of performance and deliverable.  Upon close-out (including determination that all appropriate charges related to the performance have been met by direct cost allocation), if prudent and efficient management has allowed the PI to complete the deliverables for less than the agreed upon price/unit/fee, the residuals (unexpended funds) will be retained by the University.  If the balance remaining is 20% or less of the awarded amount, then the project can be closed to a Seed accounts as outlined in Section 12, Closing Out a Project.  However, if the balance is in excess of the guidelines above, the PI is required to submit a memo justifying the large balance. The Associate Vice President for Research will determine if the justification is adequate to meet audit considerations.

Legal Review

The University of West Florida has delegated approval to execute any documents which obligate the University to performance or compliance to the University Office of the General Counsel (OGC) via RSP. Awards, contracts, purchase orders or cooperative agreements are first reviewed by RSP pre-award staff member(s) and prepared for review and request for approval to sign by the OGC. Negotiations on changes required or modifications are coordinated with the PI prior to final acceptance. Documents approved by the OGC for signature are returned to RSP staff member and then executed by authorized University signatory officers as acceptance.

Authorized officers who may approve or execute such agreements on behalf of the University are the Provost of Academic Affairs and/or designees such as the Director of Research & Sponsored Programs. Signatures by any other individuals not approved in the UWF Signature Authorization Policy are not considered binding upon the institution.

Contract clauses usually do not become an issue at the application stage in standard proposal submission procedures. However, certain types of submissions which require teaming agreements, agreements for collaboration, institutional commitment to a foreign sponsor or collaborator, non-disclosure or confidentiality agreements, material transfer agreements, or which incorporate contract terms and conditions in the RFP/RA which upon award become legally binding upon the University, do require approval of the University Counsel prior to submission or prior to a formal acceptance of the award.

When responding to a request for proposal, investigators usually submit their proposal documentation in two distinct parts: the technical proposal and the business proposal. The technical proposal generally contains a standard title page or cover sheet, the major work description (scope of work), curricula vitae and other relevant appendices. The business proposal may contain the Contract Pricing Proposal Cover Sheet or similar forms which are typically provided in the RFP kit. The business proposal also includes the itemized budget, sometimes a budget narrative, representations and certifications, and may require a Small Business/Small Disadvantaged Business subcontracting plan.

After review and acceptance of a proposal by an agency, the contracting officer develops the legally binding contract which includes the approved budget, work statement and period of performance. At that point, RSP Pre-Award will review the contract proposed by the agency and verify its acceptability with the PI. Information which concerns the University as an institution is provided by RSP's Pre-Award Services staff who typically complete the required representations, certifications, and assurances at the application stage. Other data must be provided by the applicant, such as the percentage of foreign content in the project or whether proprietary data are involved. A federal contract can be negotiated only after the agency has received all of the required information and assurances.

Expedited Processing of Selected Documents

The Research Counsel met on February 13, 2004 and approved some changes pertaining to processing certain documents through OGC. Documents that involve minimal or no risk to the University will no longer require review by University Counsel. These documents are:

1. No-cost extensions on prime awards and subcontracts,
2. Renewal documents for multi-year awards with no or insignificant changes and minimal risk, and
3. Multiple subcontracts developed under a main subcontract template which was previously approved by legal counsel,
4. Sponsored Research Purchasing Exemptions.

All such documents should be delivered to RSP for processing under the procedures approved for expedited approval.

Typical Components of a Proposal

RFP/RA/RFQ Guidelines

The guiding document for the components of a Proposal (Preliminary, Concept/White Paper, or Full) is the agency’s RFP, RA, or RFQ. This document should always be reviewed as the first step in developing proposal materials. The format and requirements should be followed specifically in the order and form provided by the agency. It may appear that this requires duplication or replication of information in multiple sections or formats. If this is the case, the redundant information should be built into the documentation as requested. Agencies frequently disassemble proposals and different sections are reviewed by different reviewers or staff. Therefore, redundant information in the form outlined by the agency document should be followed without exception.

Preliminary Proposals/Concept/White Papers

Sponsors often have a requirement for a preliminary proposal or a concept/white paper to introduce the proposed project in a short format for consideration for an invitation to submit a full proposal. While some agencies do not always require preliminary proposals, if they are required an investigator will not be eligible for consideration of a full proposal if this requirement has not been submitted. Some agencies may accept full proposals only upon invitation. Others may not accept a full proposal if a preliminary proposal has not been submitted even if they do not restrict full proposals to those by invitation only. The investigator should carefully review the RFP/RA guidelines to determine the specific requirements for a funding opportunity.

Even if a preliminary proposal or concept/white paper is not required, this is an excellent way to prepare a document which can be submitted to an agency program officer for review and comment prior to preparation of a full proposal. A preliminary proposal or concept/white paper should be considered an abbreviated version of the full proposal. This document will usually focus more on the goals and objectives and proposed scope of work and the anticipated results or outcomes than on the background data and budgetary information. The document is usually limited to 3-5 pages or to a specific form such as a matrix that provides for information in an abbreviated form.

General Guidelines/Formats

While specific requirements regarding content and format differ markedly and change frequently among sponsors or RFP, RA, or RFQ, the following are general requirements that are routinely part of all submissions in some form. This list should be tailored or edited to follow specific agency guidelines specifically in regard to repeated requests for information that may seem redundant.

Title

Titles should be concise, clear and precise. Excessive length may result in ambiguities should parts be abbreviated during processing at the agency. News releases often rely on the title to reference research, and precision will help to avoid misrepresentation of a study. A goal might be to try and limit the first portion of a title to no more than 50 characters and to follow a colon with a more explanatory description if needed.

Abstract

The abstract describes the major objectives of the proposed research and the research strategy to meet these objectives. It serves a variety of purposes and should be prepared with great care. Agency staff often use the abstract in assigning the proposal to the appropriate study section(s) for review. Reviewers use the abstract to gain an initial perspective of the key concept of the study and its significance, and again later as a reminder when the proposal comes up for discussion. If a proposal is not in a reviewer's area of specialization, the abstract may be the only part read to prepare for the panel discussion. After funding is secured, the abstract may be used for entry in national databases and its keywords are picked up for quotation indexes.

It is advisable to write the abstract at the end, when all other sections of the proposal have been finalized. A good abstract will strike a balance between simple and technical language, and highlight key concepts for which the reviewers should look in the main body of the proposal. Many sponsors limit an abstract to no more than one page of single spaced text in a standard font size with no less than 1 inch margins. Even if no limit is placed on the abstract, this goal may be helpful in limiting information in the abstract to a concise statement.

Executive Summary

Whenever possible, it is advised to include an executive summary of the proposed research. This document reviews the sponsor’s goals, objectives, and criteria for use in reviewing the proposal and addresses briefly how the proposal relates to them. When allowed, this summary is another way to identify how a particular proposal, research design, and expected outcomes relate to a sponsor’s needs. The summary will be useful for those who are not specialists in the investigator’s discipline to understand the linkage between the proposed project and the sponsor’s criteria. If a separate executive summary is not allowed, it is useful to think of the abstract in these terms to strengthen the linkage of the proposal to these areas. The project description will address each element outlined below in detail but the summary is a short concise statement that may be easier for a reviewer who is not a specialist or the agency staff to understand. A sample form is available on the RSP website.

Description of Project

The investigator is expected to present a description of the proposed project and to explain the general goals and the specific objectives. At the same time, the need for the project must be justified and its significance should emerge clearly and convincingly. The overall goals may be stated in general terms, but specific objectives need to be clearly defined. Investigators often use brief statements in numerical ranking of priority to achieve this end.

Related Studies/Review of the Field

A discussion of previous work in the field demonstrates an investigator's knowledge and provides an evaluation of the "state of the art" in his/her specialization. It also shows the extent of preparation for the proposed study, and the novelty and individuality of the approach.  For these reasons, this section has to be more than a bibliography. It must demonstrate that the investigator is aware of other work in the discipline.  Careful selection of sources must be made and only those significant to the proposed research should be discussed in detail.

With regard to those who are new to research or academia, reviewers acknowledge the fact that few publications are available on which the strength of an investigator can be assessed. Therefore, the analytical richness of a review of the field is used to gauge the new investigator's sharpness of intellect and potential for success.  It should be noted that both NIH and NSF Study Section reviews indicate that pilot data (preliminary results) are "a must."

RSP has two programs to assist the beginning investigator in developing this background.  Both the Scholarly and Creative Activities Committee (SCAC) Small Grant and the Summer Research Support Programs are a means by which investigators may receive internal funding to prepare this aspect of a proposal. A request for funds for expenses or time to prepare and execute a pilot study is one way to accomplish this background to develop the information needed for a larger project proposal. The annual Requests for Proposals for these programs will be posted on the SCAC Web site.

Methodology and Time Frame

In this section, the investigator will describe the proposed research methodology, organizing the material logically according to progressive steps of inquiry. Investigators must make a careful decision about how much detail will be needed to assure clear understanding by the reviewers without going to excessive lengths. It is equally important to describe how potential problems will be addressed.

The overall length of time required to conduct the research project must be projected with care to allow for data collection, analysis and interpretation. Unrealistic projection or omission of a period of performance may lead to reviewer criticism. Investigators need to allow for a reasonable time frame after the application submission date for processing, review and evaluation of the proposal at the sponsoring agency. For many federal sponsors, this period may be 6 months to a year. The request for proposal may provide this information. If not, the investigator should review the sponsor’s general guidelines, policies, and procedures for more detailed information. It is also possible to request this information from the program officer or agency staff person identified in the RFP. Considering this factor may enable the investigator to propose more accurately which phase of ongoing research the funding should support.

Evaluation Design and Statistical Analysis

Many projects require an evaluation of results. Evaluation may be planned both at critical points during the project period and/or after its conclusion. It may be designed to be carried out by participant staff or by outside consultants. The description of the evaluation design should be detailed and the applicant should make it clear how it is to be administered and how the resulting data will be analyzed. It is also important to indicate how the evaluation results will be used and/or how they will be disseminated. In biological, behavioral, chemical and physical sciences, research faculty should state their test evaluation and statistical methods. Many RFPs will specify that a percentage of the budget must be used for evaluation and dissemination of the results. Refer to both the overall criteria for the program and the budget narrative description to determine if use of project funds is encouraged for performance of this function.

Personnel

If possible, all professional, technical and academic personnel who will participate in the research should be identified by name and title or category of employment. The following categories are most often needed:

• Project Director and Co-Director(s), Principal Investigator and Co-Principal Investigator(s), Program Director
• Faculty Associates (generally members of the faculty holding academic rank of Assistant Professor and above)
• Postdoctoral Associates
• Research Associates/Assistants (i.e., graduate students engaged in research or research training under the proposed grant)
• Professional Associates/Assistants (e.g., computer programmers, design engineers, laboratory assistants, technicians)
• Other (e.g., secretarial, clerical, shop, undergraduate students)
• Consultants (generally, these are from outside the University)

A curriculum vita (“CV” or resume or biographical sketch) is required for each of the key personnel (major investigators or specialized personnel who have been substantially influential in developing or delivering the objectives and whose participation could not be easily duplicated or replaced). However, it is advisable to highlight specific research experience, related publications and other important biographical information with regard to professional personnel. This information should be presented in the text of the proposal or as part of the budget explanation. Reviewers have indicated that it is helpful to have specific research capabilities of the major researchers stated in the text, although these qualifications may also be listed on the CV. Many agencies limit the size and scope of a CV. Common limitations are no more than 2-3 pages or to publications and presentations within the last 3-5 years. Other items to consider including are: collaborations with internal and external faculty which has not been solidified as published research and instructional experience in the form of courses developed and taught and in graduate theses and/or dissertations supervised for students within and outside of UWF. Names and affiliation of such collaborators/ students are often required to provide a list of persons who may have a conflict of interest if considered as a potential reviewer of the proposal.

Facilities and Special Resources

Applicants will need to describe the facilities and resources that will be used in the proposed research. If unique facilities exist with regard to the proposed research it is important to emphasize this in the proposal. The application may require data on the size of the University, a profile of faculty and students, or details on university-wide facilities such as the library, computer centers, or specialized centers. In addition to their own college resource personnel, applicants may look up current information on the UWF Web site or call RSP's Pre-Award Services (850) 474-2825 or (850) 474-2827 for assistance.

Dissemination of Information

In order to assure wide impact of funds invested in research, demonstration or development projects, many agencies emphasize the need for well-planned dissemination of results. Most investigators hope to publish research findings in refereed journals. If other strategies seem useful they should be listed in the dissemination section of the proposal. Examples of dissemination are conferences, training workshops, special newsletters, manuals, production of audio-visual material or any other means of sharing research data with the scientific and technological community.

Other Types of Sponsor Agencies Proposal Guidelines

All of the provisions regarding sponsor applications or guidelines and formatting specifically to the agency’s requested form are applicable to the following other types of sponsor agencies. However, their guidelines sometimes differ significantly from a federal or government agency. The following descriptions are general overviews of areas for consideration.

Proposals to Corporations and Companies

Since most industry support is related to product development and testing, investigators will concentrate on technical specifications and the proposed budget. Research & Sponsored Programs has developed short form contracts, called Purchase Order or Agreement for Services which may be used as a funding instrument. Examples are available upon request from the RSP Office. Further, a Contract for Research Agreement is available in Appendix F of this manual.

If a company is to be approached in any branch other than its research division, faculty should consult with the Vice President for Development, Foundations, and Alumni Relations at the University of West Florida Foundation, Inc. (Foundation), (850) 474-2758 prior to making contact with the sponsor.

Proposals to Foundations

RSP's Pre-Award Services may assist in developing background information on foundations, their giving patterns, their assets and currently active staff. Links to various foundation resources are provided on the RSP Web site lists of Research Foundations and Private Foundations.

Faculty should consult with the corporate or foundation public relations or development unit identified by the sponsor unless the foundation has a clearly designated research division (e.g., the Ford Foundation). If this is the case, faculty may contact the foundation's Program Officer directly.

Foundations may not use specific application forms and their instructions to prospective applicants are sometimes vague. Faculty are advised to open the dialogue with a brief letter of inquiry clearly stating their project area. If the foundation is interested, they may respond by instructing a faculty member to submit a more detailed, formal proposal. Initial proposals should be written in lay language and be no more than 4-5 pages in length. The following issues should be addressed: significance of project, statement of problem, proposed solution and method of approach, expected outcome, relationship of the project to the sponsor's interests, length of time during which support is needed, amount needed, overview of budget and proposed staff. This proposal may be viewed as an expanded executive summary of proposed research as described above.

Proposals to Associations, Societies, and Councils

Most voluntary organizations have pre-printed application forms. RSP's Pre-Award Services may direct faculty to non-federal funding sources and provide application instructions, names of contact personnel, mailing addresses, etc. Most applications are short and their style should not be as technical as a federal application. While federal projects are reviewed entirely by a panel of experts in the field, non-federal groups often use a heterogeneous group of civic leaders, professional experts and organization staff for their reviews.

Frequently Used Institutional Data

The cover page of most application kits records institutional data for administrative and statistical purposes. Click here for information frequently requested by sponsors or contact RSP's Pre-Award Services at (850) 474-2825 or (850) 474-2827.

Assurances and Certifications

Special assurances and certifications required by the federal government and are provided by the University of West Florida RSP Pre-Award Services. The only individuals who may execute assurances/certifications for the University are those identified as authorized contracting officers (see Legal Review above). The following list includes but is not limited to the usual types of assurances/certifications. If identified as a committee for review, the applications should be submitted no later than 10 days before the deadline date so that appropriate review may be coordinated. listed below.

• Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, And Other Responsibility Matters—Primary Covered Transactions
• Certification Regarding Lobbying Activities
• Certification Regarding Drug-Free Workplace Requirements
• Conflict Of Interest/Financial Disclosure
• Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
• National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (P.L. 91-190)
• IRB/Human Subjects (requires Board Approval)
• IACUC/Animal Subjects (requires Committee Approval)
• Biohazards, DNA/RNA (requires Environmental Health & Safety Approval)
• Radiation Protection (requires radiation officer approval

UWF Insurance Coverage

UWF has the standard insurance coverage required for a state entity through the State of Florida Risk Management Trust Fund (SoF RMTF). New certificates of coverage are issued showing UWF enrollment every fiscal year with effective dates July 1st through June 30th. Federal projects often state in award documents that UWF is required to carry the standard limitations of the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) and other agencies often set higher limits than we are allowed to carry without special approval. UWF is exempt from the FAR minimum requirements by a provision which states that if you are part of a self-insurance program the limitations do not apply.

Appendix C of this manual provides information on the types of coverage required in FAR and the amounts UWF is enrolled for under the SoF RMTF coverage which the University is required to have as a State entity.