Limited-Submit ARRA Solicitations
The Office of the Vice President for Research (OVPR) has put in place an expedited internal limited submission review process for NIH and NSF solicitations funded under the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) when those solicitations limit the number of applications that can be submitted by an institution.
ARRA requires that the money be spent quickly by federal agencies, and this has served to significantly compress the solicitation process into a very tight time frame. In the case of NIH and NSF solicitations (linked to herein) receiving ARRA funding for equipment, instrumentation, facilities, and core facilities, the open period for these limited submission grants has been significantly reduced from the date of announcement of the opportunity to the application due date.
These ARRA solicitations place limits on the number of proposals that can be submitted by one institution, thereby requiring and accelerated application process. To accommodate the urgency of the ARRA funding requirements, OVPR has put in place this expedited process of internal review of limited submission opportunities by a VPR faculty review panel.
Working with the Provost and Texas A&M University's College Deans, OVPR has structured this process (within the compressed time frame imposed by ARRA) in a way that best ensures that the internal review process allows faculty sufficient time to advance a high quality and well-argued Letter of Intent (LOI) through their college dean for review and recommendations, and then on to the VPR faculty committee that will select applications allowed to go forward to the funding agency.
Limited-Submit ARRA Solicitations
NIH Extramural Research Facilities Improvement Program (C06) - Deadline has passed
NIH Developing and Improving Institutional Animal Resources (G20) - Deadline has passed
NIH Supporting New Faculty Recruitment to Enhance Research Resources through Biomedical Research Core Centers (P30) - Deadline has passed
NIH Core Facility Renovation, Repair, and Improvement (G20) - Deadline has passed
NSF Academic Research Infrastructure Program: Recovery and Reinvestment (ARI-R²) - Deadline has passed
NSF Major Research Instrumentation Program (MRI-R²) - Deadline has passed
National Security Science and Engineering Faculty Fellowship (NSSEFF)
NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) Construction Grant Program - Deadline has passed
Addenda Related to Internal Review Process
Addendum to VPR Limited Submission for NIH C06: Extramural Research Facilities Improvement Program
Tabular listings of active and pending grants, equipment, cost estimates, and related information placed in a table do not count towards the 2-page limit of the LOI submitted to VPR as part of the internal limited submission process.
Addendum to VPR Limited Submission for NIH P30: Supporting New Faculty Recruitment to Enhance Research Resources through Biomedical Research Core Centers
OPD confirmed with NIH (4/14) that NIGMS does not place a limit on the number of P30 applications that may come from an institution; therefore, P30 applications to NIGMS are exempt from the VPR internal limited submission process.
Addendum to VPR Limited Submission for NSF MRI-R2: Major Research Instrumentation Program - Cost Sharing
In regards to the MRI-R2 proposals, NSF has chosen to use the Top 100 federal obligations (i.e. awards, contracts, etc.) in 2007 for determining the levels of cost sharing required rather than the "PhD-granting institution" criterion of the regular MRI program. It is our understanding that this number for obligations comes from the FICE codes on the various federal agency databases. Needless to say, the dependency on data entries and coding at the federal level without some reconciliation with the institutions leaves much room for error. We have heard that other universities have expressed concern as well.
Reporting for Texas A&M presents an even greater challenge, since we are required to combine activities for Texas A&M University, TTI, Research Foundation, AgriLife, TEES and System contracts led by Texas A&M faculty in order to report for the University as an academic institution. As could be predicted, Texas A&M does not appear on the list of the Top 100 institutions receiving federal obligations in 2007. According to NSF, they have us at #115 with total 2007 federal obligations of $52.7M and Rockefeller University being above us at #100 with $73.6M of federal obligations.
According to NSF reports, Texas A&M ranked 43rd in federal expenditures ($228M) and 115th in federal obligations ($52.7M). UT ranked 26th in federal research expenditures ($289M) and 54th in federal obligations ($153.6M). There may be some reasons why there is a legitimate gap between expenditures and obligations but it does not appear that the obligations instrument is an effective tool for making these decisions.
We believe that the number and ranking for Texas A&M are incorrect. However, it will take some time and data that we do not yet have from the feds in order to reconcile the NSF obligation report. Until we do, we have to assume that this report is in error and require the 30% cost sharing in good faith with the federal government. We do not want to jeopardize our top 100 status by taking advantage of a possible error made by NSF in reporting.
We will continue to work with NSF to correct such errors.
