All grant proposals to external (outside of OSU) sponsors are to be submitted through the CPH Office of Research unless other arrangements have been approved (e.g., another arrangement has been documented in a memorandum of understanding signed by the Dean). Proposals to internal opportunities do not require submission through the CPH Office of Research or the OSU Office of Sponsored Programs (OSP); however, the principal investigator (PI) can opt to ask their CPH Office of Research grant manager (GM) for assistance with the submission. Even if the PI decides to submit an internal proposal without their GM’s assistance, the PI still notifies their GM of any internal proposals, and any resulting awards, to ensure that they are included in our college metrics and communication materials.
Notification of Intent to Submit a Proposal
The CPH Office of Research maintains a proposal worklist to track all proposals (external and internal; lead and subawards) led by CPH PIs. The PI notifies their GM as soon as they begin to consider submitting a proposal and at least 8 weeks before the published due date (Table 1). It is better to provide early notification, rather than delay in notifying, even if the plans for submission are not certain. The PI provides the funding opportunity announcement (FOA) (e.g., request for applications or program announcement) with the notification. Occasionally, FOAs are released with short lead times and the decision to submit a proposal is made close to a deadline; the Office of Research will do their best to accommodate these. However, late notifications may result in the inability to accommodate the proposal submission and may require its delay until the next standard due date. If there is not another standard due date, the Office of Research will try to accommodate the proposal but cannot guarantee this.
The timeline strikes a balance between flexibility for the PI and sufficient time for the GM and SPOs to ensure quality review and submission. The Director of the CPH Office of Research will consider requests for exceptions to the timeline on a case-by-case basis by assessing the team’s workload and whether the proposal can be accommodated without jeopardizing other proposals in the worklist that have followed the timeline deadlines. Among the exceptions to the timeline, submissions from untenured faculty and those responding to new FOAs that did not provide 8 weeks of lead time will be prioritized over others. If a PI shows a repeated pattern of late notification and missing timeline deadlines, the Director of the Office of Research will inform the PI’s supervisor and Associate Dean of Research (ADR) and request that they meet with the PI to resolve this.
|
Action item |
Party respon-sible |
Required vs. recommended |
Due relative to the published due date |
Rationale or other comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Notify the GM of a planned lead or subcontract proposal and provide the FOA information |
PI |
Required |
As early as possible; due 8 weeks prior |
Lead: Allows the GM to plan and the Director to adjust workloads to prioritize proposals among the team Subcontract: Ensures that the GM has enough time to seek additional details from the lead institution regarding requirements for the subcontract package |
|
Share research goals for the grant with the ADR, chair, and mentors |
PI |
Recommended |
As early as possible; due 8 weeks prior |
Allows for feedback; provides guidance on possible collaborations or other relationships |
|
Meet with the GM to review FOA and key proposal needs or elements and make a checklist of documents |
PI and GM |
Required |
As early as possible; due 6 weeks prior |
Ensures PI and GM are aware of all pieces that need to come together |
|
Initial research office contact with subcontract institutions |
GM |
Required |
As early as possible; due 4 weeks prior |
Collaborators are given 2 weeks to prepare the subaward documents. The subcontract package of documents is due one week before the published deadline so the GM has time to review. Note: This deadline may need to be earlier for some subcontract institutions |
|
Share draft of full proposal for review by internal (faculty or ADR) or external reviewers |
PI |
Recommended |
As early as possible; due 4 weeks prior |
Schedule timeline for formal review in advance with reviewers; allow time to incorporate feedback |
|
Budget draft |
PI and GM |
Required |
As early as possible; due 4 weeks prior |
Identify any gaps or possible issues |
|
Biosketches solicited |
GM |
Required |
As early as possible; due 4 weeks prior |
Collaborators are given two weeks (after solicitation) to prepare their biosketch. These are due two weeks before the published deadline to allow the GM time to review for compliant format and the PI time to review and, if needed, edit the personal statements. |
|
Letters of Support solicited |
PI |
Proposal dependent |
As early as possible; due 4 weeks prior |
Note that letters of support may not be allowable or required for all proposal submissions |
|
Budget draft revisions & budget justification drafted |
PI and GM |
Required |
3 weeks prior |
|
|
Budget & budget justification – final version |
PI and GM |
Required |
2 weeks prior |
The SPO must review the final budget and justification before the PA005 is routed |
|
ePA-005 routed |
GM |
Required |
10 business days prior |
|
|
All final technical documents (e.g., Project Narrative, Facilities, Equipment, Abstract, Human Subjects, Vertebrate Animals, Specific Aims, Research Strategy, Literature Cited) and any non-technical ancillary documents |
PI |
Required |
10 business days prior @ 8 am |
Allow GM time to review documents, identify any issues, and, if ready, begin to assemble package for submission. If issues arise, PIs have sufficient time to adjust documents as needed. |
|
Upload of final documents to proposal submission platform (Cayuse, other) |
GM |
Required |
7 business days prior |
|
|
Final review of uploaded proposal |
PI and GM |
Required |
7 business days prior |
Allow time for correction of any compliance errors with formatting or FOA requirements. PIs have a final chance to ensure all information is communicated clearly and is error-free. |
|
Submission to SPO for review and submission |
GM |
Required |
5 business days prior |
Allow time for correction of any compliance errors with formatting or FOA requirements |
|
In accordance with standard NIH grant proposal deadlines ADR = Associate Dean of Research; FOA = Funding Opportunity Announcement; GM = Grants Manager; PI = Principal Investigator; SPO = Sponsored Program Officer |
||||
Principal Investigator (PI) Status
Tenure track faculty automatically have PI status. Students, staff, and non-tenure track faculty who want PI status to submit a grant proposal for external funding are to contact the Director of the CPH Office of Research for information and to coordinate the request. Additional information on PI Status Eligibility is available on the OSU Office of Research site.
The CPH Office of Research facilitates the PI affiliations that are required for the grant submission systems, including creating an eRA Commons ID for NIH submissions and a profile for Cayuse (i.e., the system used for many federal grant submissions).
CPH Office of Research Support
PIs are assigned a GM in the CPH Office of Research. The GM supports the PI by providing timelines, checklists, and guidance on the FOA to prepare for proposal submissions, adhering to the required timeline (Table 1). The GM periodically reminds the PI of upcoming deadlines based on the timeline; the PI is responsible for meeting those deadlines. If the PI does not meet the deadlines, the Office of Research may not be able to accommodate the proposal submission.
If requested and available, the GM provides examples of documents. With the PI’s input, the GM creates the budget. Once the PI finalizes the budget, the GM drafts the budget justification shell. The GM collects the biosketches and any required subaward documents from the collaborators. The GM reviews all documents to ensure adherence to sponsor-specific formatting requirements, such as margins, font size, and page limits. The GM uploads the final documents, completes the online forms, and coordinates the release of the final submission to the SPO in OSP for review and submittal. Note that the grants team cannot assist with writing or editing proposals or sections of proposals.
If a CPH investigator is seeking to participate as a subaward entity for a proposal led by an institution external to Ohio State, the investigator provides the GM with a contact at the other institution. The GM reaches out to the other institution to obtain the list of the required OSU documents and their due dates. The GM then facilitates the creation of the subaward package with the OSU researcher and the SPO. The SPO submits the subaward package to the other institution via email.
ePA-005
If CPH is the submitting unit, the GM creates and routes the Authorization to Seek Off-Campus Funds form (ePA-005) and communicates with the PI and other OSU grants offices involved to gather all the data necessary to complete the form. The fully approved ePA-005 serves as OSP’s authorization to submit the proposal; it is the driving mechanism to give the PI credit for a submission and provides the distribution breakdown of the Indirect Costs (IDC) Recovery generated by the project, if awarded, to the various cost centers involved in the submission. (IDC is sometimes referred to as Facilities and Administration [F&A] or overhead.) IDC Recovery is the revenue returned to the college units based on the expenditure allocation percentage listed on the ePA-005 for the cost center in the college.
Award allocation determines the dollar value of the proposal allocated to each cost center listed in the ePA-005. This dollar value is used in proposal reports generated by OSP to evaluate the productiveness of research enterprise across departments, colleges, and individual investigators.
Expenditure allocation determines the allocation of IDC Recovery to the cost centers listed in the ePA-005 once an award is funded. The percentage listed for each cost center represents the proportion of that cost center's resources and facilities used in the project. In addition, the expenditure allocation is used to determine the split of financial responsibility for any overruns or disallowed costs on an awarded proposal.
Note: Currently, OSU does not have a standardized method for calculating award and expenditure allocations. Each college or unit has their own method of calculating allocations. In the case of uncertainty about how another unit has calculated the Award and Expenditure Allocations, the PI confers with the Director of the CPH Office of Research.
CPH calculates Award and Expenditure Allocations based on how much of the proposed budget belongs to each investigator listed on the budget, accounting for any relevant requirements from MOUs, joint appointments, and Discovery Theme designations of the investigators involved. Once the budget is split between the investigators, the amount is then divided by the Direct Costs line on the budget to provide the percentage for each investigator.
The PI reviews the entire ePA-005 form before approving, paying close attention to the award and expenditure allocations and whether the appropriate cost centers associated with the approving investigator are listed. Many investigators have joint appointments with multiple cost centers, have a MOU that outlines research allocations, or have their research activities tracked as Discovery Theme Faculty.
CPH Office of Research Director also reviews the ePA-005 form and requests corrections as needed for all CPH investigators before approving at the college level. If a PI is uncertain about anything on the form, the PI delays in approving the form until they consult with the Director of the CPH Office of Research.
Office of Sponsored Programs Review and Submission
OSP requests that the GM send the final proposal to the SPO to review at least 5 business days before the published deadline (Table 1). The SPO often has multiple proposals for the same deadline and may serve units other than CPH. After reviewing, the SPO may request corrections to the submission. Once the proposal no longer needs corrections, the SPO submits the proposal on behalf of the PI. If the proposal is sent to the SPO to review less than 5 business days from the submission deadline, the SPO will provide the PI with an email disclaimer that they were not provided full time to review and that only the budgetary information will be reviewed. In this case, the SPO will ask the PI to decide whether they want the proposal to be submitted without a full, proper review or whether they want to delay submission to the next standard due date. After submission of an NIH grant application into eRA Commons, the SPO and PI confirm that no errors or warnings appear that need to be addressed.
Policy Against Accepting Tobacco Money for Research
The Ohio State University College of Public Health will not accept funds directly from the tobacco industry. Further, any auxiliary, joint or adjunct faculty member that accepts such funding will immediately forfeit their faculty appointment in the College of Public Health. Read the full policy
