|
Center for Program/Project Management Research (CPMR) Research Announcement |
— Questions & Answers —
Question:
I am an employee of the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory (SAO) and an Associate of the Harvard College Observatory, and am writing to ask if I am eligible to submit a proposal as Principal Investigator in response to Solicitation 1-RA 04-01. Section V of the RA states that "USRA anticipates all awards will be to U.S. university-based Principal Investigators." SAO is not a university, however is a member of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and an organization principally devoted to scientific research. I would be grateful if you could let me know if USRA would consider an SAO-based PI eligible to submit a proposal as PI under this Solicitation.
Answer:
Some SAO staff members are US Government Civil Servants, paid through the US Treasury. Provided you a not a Civil Servant, we would be pleased to receive your proposal.
Question:
I have received an inquiry regarding the possibility of my participating in a proposal to the CPMR Research Announcement. I will turn it down if USRA plans to have me on the peer review panel for evaluating the proposals. Please let me know whether or not I will serve as a peer reviewer.
Answer:
CPMR has recently established a policy such that no listed individual on a proposal will be selected to serve as a reviewer. In selection of reviewers, we will take into account potential institutional conflicts of interest on a case-by-case basis.
Question:
I have a question regarding overhead. Our normal university overhead charged to proposals is about 58% but this can be modified depending upon the funding agencies policy with respect to overhead support. I did not see any mention of a policy with respect to overhead. Do you have one for this RFP? Thanks for you help.Answer:
In the interests of encouraging proposals from the widest possible set of PIs and institutions, CPMR has chosen not to impose an indirect cost or rate ceiling as a requirement on this research announcement. However, cost factors are indeed one of the evaluation criterion identified in Section VI I. Although not a requirement, CPMR is hopeful that many proposals will demonstrate evidence of financial leverage, through matching funds and/or overhead concessions, thus increasing the likely productive outcome of any CPMR award. Evidence of such financial leverage will count favorably in the overall review.
Question:
The research announcement indicates that the maximum length of the technical proposal is 12 pages. To cover the background and relevant literature, we need to have an extensive list of references. Does the reference list have to be included in the 12 pages limitation? Similarly, you asked to include letters of commitment from participants outside of the PI's institution. Are they also part of the 12 pages limitation? (Should these letters be quoted, or included in full?).Answer:
On both, commitment letters and references, they must stay within the technical proposal page limitations. The letters of commitment are the responsibility of the PI. Perhaps it would be useful if the proposal could include a list of letters of commitments, rather than the letters themselves. USRA would then have the opportunity to ask for copies of the letters for proposals that are selected for funding, at a later date, as condition of the grant.
Regarding references, proposals might include a subset, perhaps between 5 and 10, of the most important/relevant references. It is also common practice for the proposer to indicate total numbers of publications, without providing a full CV.
With this approach, a proposer would only have to sacrifice 1 page or so of the 12 page limit for a list of letters of commitment and references and the information would certainly be useful for the peer review.
Proposers should be aware that, while the cost proposal does not have a page limitation, reviewers will not see this part of the proposal. Therefore, inclusion of technical information or appendices in the cost proposal will not affect the technical review.
Depending on the results of this R/A, we may adjust the technical page limits and requirements in subsequent rounds, but for now we must stick with the original requirements.
Question:
In regards to the current Phase 1 Research Announcement, my contracts/procurement office has requested a name and phone number for a point contact in the procurement and in the technical area. May I have this information?Answer:
For the Procurement Area:
Mrs. Michelle Giller
mgiller@hq.usra.edu
301-596-6161
For the Technical Area:
Mr. David Holdridge
dhold@seabrook.usra.edu
301-805-8396
Question:
The discussion on page 11 of the RA (last paragraph of section V) is a bit confusing on the extent education and public outreach activities are desired. In particular, do you mean to imply that proposals dedicated (or at least dominated) by education / public outreach activities "will also be welcome"?
Answer:
The short answer to your question is "no." The research announcement seeks proposals to conduct research projects, not to conduct E&PO activities related to P/PM. That said, however, we would prefer to fund a research activity that involves students or will be somehow made visible to one or more outside communities — rather than an equally good research study that would be conducted by the researchers within a closed environment.
Question:
1. With regard to teaming- is the expectation that teams will include academics from more than one university; is teaming expected with industry
and NASA on a formal basis or informally (e.g., letter of commitment to participate to share program/project management knowledge); and in possible teaming with foreign institutions- what is the intent (to compare foreign examples with US examples in this area or to examine management related to international cooperation?)
2. With regard to the proposal is it logical to develop a broad perspective for phase 1 (cross-cutting a number of research objectives) that will lead into a more focused perspective for phase 2?
3. Is the focus of the research solely on what works vs. what does not (this implies that program/project management failures should be not be assessed).
Answer:
1. While 'teaming' is not required, innovative teaming arrangements and partnerships are encouraged - both with academia, as well as with industry and government. Teaming with foreign entities would also be encouraged, for the simple purpose of attracting the best possible set of proposals and approaches to P/PM issues.
2. Yes, investigation of an area (under Phase I funding) that could potentially lead to Phase II funding could certainly be a goal, but a broad, cross-cutting approach across multiple objectives would be only one approach to this.
3. The goal/objective of the Phase I research (and of CPMR in general) is not to compare what works with what does not work, but rather to systematically review and evaluate program/project management process and approaches with respect to addressing the themes and challenges identified in the Research Announcement. To identify 'what works with what doesn't' would be a gross simplification of a complex subject.
Question:
The full research announcement was very helpful. As I assemble the proposal, I still need clarification regarding if there are any restrictions regarding non-U.S. citizens working on the project, either as a co-PI or a graduate research assistant. Could you provide any guidance on this specific point?Answer:
USRA envisages the work under these funded sub-awards to be in the public domain, and not subject to any US Government security clearances. Also, as the work is management rather than technical in orientation, we do not believe it would be subject to ITAR regulations. Therefore, we do not have any restrictions on non-US nationals working on the project. The only restriction may be if your foreign students require access to government facilities. Then you would need a government sponsor to get them on site.
Question:
Based on what I have read of the announcement it doesn't not appear that any institutional endorsements are required for submission (signature of an official authorized to legally bind the institution) ....Is this correct?Answer:
USRA does need institutional signatures and/or endorsements as part of electronic proposal submission. We do not accept printed or paper submissions as part of the proposal. Signatures may be digitized or scanned for inclusion if desired/required by the proposing institution. However, if and when your institution is selected for award, we would contact the PI asking for printed and signed formal endorsements from the responsible institutional authority.
Question:
What are the allowable travel, lodging, and food and beverage expenses for Phase I of the subject?Answer:
You should budget for two trips to the CPMR meetings -- in July and December, at minimum for the PI, for approximately two days each. Otherwise, the travel is up to each group. Allowability is subject to your own procedures, consistant with US Government regulations.
Question:
Does the due date of "on or before 12:00 midnight March 15th refer to early Friday morning or late (11:59 pm) Friday evening?Answer:
The instructions state: "Proposals submitted in response to this solicitation must arrive electronically at the CPMR on or before 12:00 midnight on March 15, 2004 to be considered in this cycle." This is intended to mean, proposals must arrive at the e-mail address prior to 12:01 a.m. EDT, Tuesday March 16th.