• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Introduction
 Table of Contents
 Basic strategy of proposal...
 Proposal preparation
 Budget preparation
 Contracts
 Additional required documentat...
 proposal processing
 Exhibits
 Appendix






Title: Proposal preparation and processing
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00056199/00001
 Material Information
Title: Proposal preparation and processing
Physical Description: 29, 44 p. : ill. ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Phillips, Katharina
University of Florida -- Division of Sponsored Research
Publisher: University of Florida, Division of Sponsored Research
Place of Publication: Gainesville Fla.
Publication Date: [1984]
 Subjects
Subject: Research grants -- Handbooks, manuals, etc -- Florida -- Gainesville   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
handbook   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Statement of Responsibility: prepared by Katharina Phillips
General Note: Cover title.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00056199
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved, Board of Trustees of the University of Florida
Resource Identifier: aleph - 000570797
oclc - 13748064
notis - ACZ7779

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Introduction
        Introduction 1
        Introduction 2
    Table of Contents
        Page i
        Page ii
    Basic strategy of proposal preparation
        Page 1
        Careful targeting of programs
            Page 1
        Consultants and collaborators
            Page 1
        Review by colleagues
            Page 1
        Identification of reviews
            Page 2
        Follow-up
            Page 2
    Proposal preparation
        Page 2
        Standard sections of research application to the federal government
            Page 2
            Page 3
            Page 4
            Page 5
        Evaluation criteria and shortcomings of training proposals to the federal government
            Page 6
        Proposals to foundations, corporations or associations
            Page 7
            Page 8
        Checklist: Proposal preparation
            Page 9
    Budget preparation
        Page 10
        General comments
            Page 10
        Direct costs
            Page 10
            Page 11
            Page 12
            Page 13
            Page 14
        Checklist for direct cost items
            Page 15
            Page 16
        Indirect cost rates
            Page 17
            Page 18
    Contracts
        Page 19
        Standard contract format
            Page 19
        Short form research contracts
            Page 20
        UF standard subcontract format
            Page 21
    Additional required documentation
        Page 21
        Submitted with the proposal
            Page 21
            Page 22
        Recorded on campus
            Page 23
        Animal care and welfare
            Page 23
        Space and facilities
            Page 23
        Recombinant: DNA/RNA
            Page 24
        Radioactive materials safety
            Page 24
        Potentially proprietary: Patent/copyright
            Page 24
    proposal processing
        Page 24
        Frequently used institutional data
            Page 24
            Page 25
        Institutional review and signature - Copying and mailing
            Page 26
        Copying and mailing
            Page 27
        Institutional deadlines
            Page 28
        Liaison with University of Florida alumni and development foundation
            Page 29
        Multiple submission
            Page 29
        Checklist for proposal processing
            Page 29
    Exhibits
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
    Appendix
        Page A
        Glossary of grant and contract terminology
            Page A 1
            Page A 2
            Page A 3
            Page A 4
            Page A 5
            Page A 6
            Page A 7
            Page A 8
            Page A 9
            Page A 10
            Page A 11
            Page A 12
            Page A 13
            Page A 14
        Letter to faculty
            Page A 15
            Page A 16
            Page A 17
            Page A 18
            Page A 19
            Page A 20
            Page A 21
Full Text
!26;.


Proposal Preparation
and
Processing







University of Florida


6 ), oo)":










PROPOSAL PREPARATION AND PROCESSING


INTRODUCTION

This manual has been prepared by the Division of Sponsored Re-
search (DSR) to assist University of Florida faculty and their staff
with the technical aspects of proposal preparation, processing and
mailing. It provides step by step 'assistance and discusses the
services rendered to faculty by the Division, helping to solve the
problems an applicant encounters in applying for a grant or contract.

Two companion publications, University of Florida Research Policy
and Research Administration are also available.

These guidelines are designed to assist faculty in the prepara-
tion of proposals and to provide ease and consistency in the adminis-
tration of Sponsored Research. The information contained in them is a
combination of rules and regulations of the University, State Board of
Regents and major federal sponsors.

Copies of these manuals may be found in all departmental offices
and principal investigators are encouraged to obtain their personal
copies from the Division of Sponsored Research.

Since certain technical aspects of policies and procedures per-
taining to grant and contract preparation change over time, this manu-
al will be revised periodically, although most of its basic elements
will remain unchanged. Announcements about revisions will made in the
Faculty Newsletter For Your Information. Faculty and staff sug-
gestions for the improvement of these guides will be most welcome and
should be addressed to the Division of Sponsored Research.


(4/84)

























































This manual was prepared by Ms. Katharina Phillips, Grants Development
Coordinator, Division of Sponsored Research. For suggested additions
or changes, please call 392-1582.









University of Florida
Sponsored Programs Manual
Proposal Preparation and Processing

PAGE

I. Basic Strategy of Proposal Preparation 1

II. Proposal Preparation

A. Standard Sections of Research Applications to the
Federal Government 2
1. Title 3
2. Abstract 3
3. Description of Project/Objectives 3
4. Related Studies/Review of the Field 3
5. Methodology/Time Frame 4
6. Evaluation Design/Statistical Analysis 4
7. Personnel 4
8. Facilities/Special Resources 5
9. Dissemination 5
B. Evaluation Criteria and Shortcomings of
Training Proposals to the Federal Government 6
1. Criteria Used by Agencies 6
2. Shortcomings Found by Agencies 6
C. Proposals to Foundations, Corporations or
Associations 7
1. Foundation Proposals 7
2. Corporate Projects 9
3. Associations, Societies and Councils 9
D. Checklist: Proposal Preparation 9

III. Budget Preparation

A. General Comments 10
B. Direct Costs 10
1. Salaries and Wages 10
2. Fringe Benefits 12
3. Consultants 12
4. Equipment 13
5. Expendable Equipment and Supplies 13
6. Travel 13
7. Patient Care Costs 14
8. Publication Costs 14
9. Rearrangements and Alterations 14
10. Contractual or Third Party Costs 14
11. Training Costs 15
12. Other Direct Costs 15
13. Cost Sharing 15
C. Checklist for Direct Cost Items 15
D. Indirect Cost Rates 17






PAGE


IV. Contracts

A. Standard Contract Format 19
B. Short Form Research Contract 20
C. UF Standard Subcontract Format 21

V. Additional Required Documentation

A. Submitted with the Proposal 21
1. Human Subject Review 21
2. Civil Rights Assurances 22
3. Current and Pending Support 22
4. Ethnic Profile 22
5. Good Laboratory Practices 22
6. State Clearinghouse Review 22
7. UF Sponsored Project Approval Form (DSR-1) 23
B. Recorded on Campus 23
1. Animal Care and Welfare 23
2. Space and Facilities 23
3. Biohazards/Recombinant DNA/RNA 24
4. Radioactive Materials Safety 24
5. Potentially Proprietary: Patent/Copyright 24

VI. Proposal Processing

A. Frequently Used Institutional Data 24
1. PHS Account Number 24
2. Internal Revenue Service Number 25
3. Dun and Bradstreet Number 25
4. Congressional District 25
5. DHHS Compliance on Protection of Human
Subjects 25
6. DHHS Cost Sharing Agreement 25
7. DHHS Indirect Cost Agreement 25
8. Legal Authority to Accept Grants and
Contracts 25
9. Chairmen of University Committees 25
10. U.F. Internal Auditor 25
11. DHHS Audit Agency 25
12. EEO Compliance Report 26
13. University Business Officials in Contracts
and Grants Area 26
B. Institutional Review and Signature 26
C. Copying and Mailing 27
D. Institutional Deadlines 28
E. Liaison with University of Florida Alumni
and Development Foundation 29
F. Multiple Submissions 29
G. Checklist for Proposal Processing 29

Exhibits


Appendices









I. Basic Strategy of Proposal Preparation


The rigor of writing a detailed research proposal and the highly com-
petitive review and evaluation process at most sponsoring agencies, make
it mandatory for applicants to consider their strategy carefully, well in
advance of picking up pen and paper. 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 have to get ready
to sell their idea with professional finesse.

A. Careful Targeting of Programs

While it is possible, and often advisable to submit one proposal si-
multaneously to various agencies, the applicant should carefully re-
view individual agency program objectives and submit a proposal only
if these objectives are in accord with his/her own research direction.
The Program Information Office (256 Grinter Hall) maintains extensive
files to aid applicants in the careful identification of appropriate
funding agencies. Materials of interest include: agency multi-year
program plans, detailed program announcements, advisory council min-
utes and studies, and records of past funding history. If after read-
ing agency materials the applicant has any doubts or fears that the
proposal may be only marginally of interest to an agency, it is very
important to contact agency staff to discuss the project and to verify
the likelihood of funding for the proposed research area. Even if
faculty feel reassured about the research area, but have questions
pertaining to procedure or interpretation, contact is advisable. Re-
viewers' comments indicate criticism when proposals read like a shop-
ping list or "fishing expedition." They equally resent the "shotgun"
approach of indiscriminate proposal submission.

B. Consultants and Collaborators

A very common criticism heard from review panels is that faculty pro-
pose to use difficult techniques, for which they have little or no ex-
perience according to their curriculum vitae or publication list.
With the collaboration of experienced colleagues within the universi-
ty, or with the assistance of outside consultants, the success of such
studies is more realistic and reviewers will approve them more readi-
ly.

C. Review by Colleagues

Experienced research faculty on campus may also be helpful in provid-
ing an unofficial "peer" review for an applicant and should be drawn
in to provide advice whenever their research expertise permits. Many
established faculty assist agency staff as "field readers" and thus
have experience as scientists as well as reviewers. Their reading of
the draft proposal may well assist applicants to gain necessary per-
spective and help to test the clarity, completeness and persuasive
power of the draft copy.









I. Basic Strategy of Proposal Preparation


The rigor of writing a detailed research proposal and the highly com-
petitive review and evaluation process at most sponsoring agencies, make
it mandatory for applicants to consider their strategy carefully, well in
advance of picking up pen and paper. 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 have to get ready
to sell their idea with professional finesse.

A. Careful Targeting of Programs

While it is possible, and often advisable to submit one proposal si-
multaneously to various agencies, the applicant should carefully re-
view individual agency program objectives and submit a proposal only
if these objectives are in accord with his/her own research direction.
The Program Information Office (256 Grinter Hall) maintains extensive
files to aid applicants in the careful identification of appropriate
funding agencies. Materials of interest include: agency multi-year
program plans, detailed program announcements, advisory council min-
utes and studies, and records of past funding history. If after read-
ing agency materials the applicant has any doubts or fears that the
proposal may be only marginally of interest to an agency, it is very
important to contact agency staff to discuss the project and to verify
the likelihood of funding for the proposed research area. Even if
faculty feel reassured about the research area, but have questions
pertaining to procedure or interpretation, contact is advisable. Re-
viewers' comments indicate criticism when proposals read like a shop-
ping list or "fishing expedition." They equally resent the "shotgun"
approach of indiscriminate proposal submission.

B. Consultants and Collaborators

A very common criticism heard from review panels is that faculty pro-
pose to use difficult techniques, for which they have little or no ex-
perience according to their curriculum vitae or publication list.
With the collaboration of experienced colleagues within the universi-
ty, or with the assistance of outside consultants, the success of such
studies is more realistic and reviewers will approve them more readi-
ly.

C. Review by Colleagues

Experienced research faculty on campus may also be helpful in provid-
ing an unofficial "peer" review for an applicant and should be drawn
in to provide advice whenever their research expertise permits. Many
established faculty assist agency staff as "field readers" and thus
have experience as scientists as well as reviewers. Their reading of
the draft proposal may well assist applicants to gain necessary per-
spective and help to test the clarity, completeness and persuasive
power of the draft copy.









I. Basic Strategy of Proposal Preparation


The rigor of writing a detailed research proposal and the highly com-
petitive review and evaluation process at most sponsoring agencies, make
it mandatory for applicants to consider their strategy carefully, well in
advance of picking up pen and paper. 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 have to get ready
to sell their idea with professional finesse.

A. Careful Targeting of Programs

While it is possible, and often advisable to submit one proposal si-
multaneously to various agencies, the applicant should carefully re-
view individual agency program objectives and submit a proposal only
if these objectives are in accord with his/her own research direction.
The Program Information Office (256 Grinter Hall) maintains extensive
files to aid applicants in the careful identification of appropriate
funding agencies. Materials of interest include: agency multi-year
program plans, detailed program announcements, advisory council min-
utes and studies, and records of past funding history. If after read-
ing agency materials the applicant has any doubts or fears that the
proposal may be only marginally of interest to an agency, it is very
important to contact agency staff to discuss the project and to verify
the likelihood of funding for the proposed research area. Even if
faculty feel reassured about the research area, but have questions
pertaining to procedure or interpretation, contact is advisable. Re-
viewers' comments indicate criticism when proposals read like a shop-
ping list or "fishing expedition." They equally resent the "shotgun"
approach of indiscriminate proposal submission.

B. Consultants and Collaborators

A very common criticism heard from review panels is that faculty pro-
pose to use difficult techniques, for which they have little or no ex-
perience according to their curriculum vitae or publication list.
With the collaboration of experienced colleagues within the universi-
ty, or with the assistance of outside consultants, the success of such
studies is more realistic and reviewers will approve them more readi-
ly.

C. Review by Colleagues

Experienced research faculty on campus may also be helpful in provid-
ing an unofficial "peer" review for an applicant and should be drawn
in to provide advice whenever their research expertise permits. Many
established faculty assist agency staff as "field readers" and thus
have experience as scientists as well as reviewers. Their reading of
the draft proposal may well assist applicants to gain necessary per-
spective and help to test the clarity, completeness and persuasive
power of the draft copy.









I. Basic Strategy of Proposal Preparation


The rigor of writing a detailed research proposal and the highly com-
petitive review and evaluation process at most sponsoring agencies, make
it mandatory for applicants to consider their strategy carefully, well in
advance of picking up pen and paper. 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 have to get ready
to sell their idea with professional finesse.

A. Careful Targeting of Programs

While it is possible, and often advisable to submit one proposal si-
multaneously to various agencies, the applicant should carefully re-
view individual agency program objectives and submit a proposal only
if these objectives are in accord with his/her own research direction.
The Program Information Office (256 Grinter Hall) maintains extensive
files to aid applicants in the careful identification of appropriate
funding agencies. Materials of interest include: agency multi-year
program plans, detailed program announcements, advisory council min-
utes and studies, and records of past funding history. If after read-
ing agency materials the applicant has any doubts or fears that the
proposal may be only marginally of interest to an agency, it is very
important to contact agency staff to discuss the project and to verify
the likelihood of funding for the proposed research area. Even if
faculty feel reassured about the research area, but have questions
pertaining to procedure or interpretation, contact is advisable. Re-
viewers' comments indicate criticism when proposals read like a shop-
ping list or "fishing expedition." They equally resent the "shotgun"
approach of indiscriminate proposal submission.

B. Consultants and Collaborators

A very common criticism heard from review panels is that faculty pro-
pose to use difficult techniques, for which they have little or no ex-
perience according to their curriculum vitae or publication list.
With the collaboration of experienced colleagues within the universi-
ty, or with the assistance of outside consultants, the success of such
studies is more realistic and reviewers will approve them more readi-
ly.

C. Review by Colleagues

Experienced research faculty on campus may also be helpful in provid-
ing an unofficial "peer" review for an applicant and should be drawn
in to provide advice whenever their research expertise permits. Many
established faculty assist agency staff as "field readers" and thus
have experience as scientists as well as reviewers. Their reading of
the draft proposal may well assist applicants to gain necessary per-
spective and help to test the clarity, completeness and persuasive
power of the draft copy.









D. Identification of Reviewers


Many agencies publish rosters of review committee members. Faculty
are advised to check the National Institutes of Health Public Advisory
Groups, and pertinent publications from other agencies. The composi-
tion of a review section may well lead a faculty applicant to amplify
certain sections of his/her proposal. Faculty applicants may want to
submit a cover letter with their proposal, suggesting additional or
alternate reviewers, in cases when they believe that lack of represen-
tative 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.

E. Follow-up

A final comment is offered about the option faculty have to follow up
on their proposal after it has been received by the agency. Reviewers
indicate that it is possible to submit additional "pilot" data, pref-
erably no later than one month before the study section meets. Such
mailing could include further preliminary data, new publications, even
revisions in strategy due to research findings which were gathered
since the proposal was originally drawn up. Such action underlines
the applicant's seriousness regarding his/her proposal, and could pos-
sibly forestall reviewers' critique during agency review. Although
agencies do not like to be inundated with trivial mailings, they will
respect and accept pertinent research materials.

In summary, 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. DSR, EIES and IFAS are pleased to facilitate
any such contacts.

II. Proposal Preparation

Specific requirements regarding content and format differ so markedly and
change so frequently among sponsoring agencies that it would be pointless
to detail them all here. The Program Information and the Proposal Pro-
cessing Section in DSR are happy to supply up-to-date information to all
colleges in the University. For a glossary of grant and contract termi-
nology see Appendix A. The following remarks focus on essential charac-
teristics that are not subject to change.

A. Standard Sections of Research Applications to the Federal Government

A research proposal is expected to include an abstract, a detailed de-
scription of the proposed research, including goals and objectives,
significance of the proposed research including an overview and eval-
uation of related research, a detailed methodology section, a state-
ment of facilities and special resources that will be used, the biog-
raphies (c.v.'s) of persons who will participate in the project, a
specific line item budget and a budget explanation.









D. Identification of Reviewers


Many agencies publish rosters of review committee members. Faculty
are advised to check the National Institutes of Health Public Advisory
Groups, and pertinent publications from other agencies. The composi-
tion of a review section may well lead a faculty applicant to amplify
certain sections of his/her proposal. Faculty applicants may want to
submit a cover letter with their proposal, suggesting additional or
alternate reviewers, in cases when they believe that lack of represen-
tative 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.

E. Follow-up

A final comment is offered about the option faculty have to follow up
on their proposal after it has been received by the agency. Reviewers
indicate that it is possible to submit additional "pilot" data, pref-
erably no later than one month before the study section meets. Such
mailing could include further preliminary data, new publications, even
revisions in strategy due to research findings which were gathered
since the proposal was originally drawn up. Such action underlines
the applicant's seriousness regarding his/her proposal, and could pos-
sibly forestall reviewers' critique during agency review. Although
agencies do not like to be inundated with trivial mailings, they will
respect and accept pertinent research materials.

In summary, 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. DSR, EIES and IFAS are pleased to facilitate
any such contacts.

II. Proposal Preparation

Specific requirements regarding content and format differ so markedly and
change so frequently among sponsoring agencies that it would be pointless
to detail them all here. The Program Information and the Proposal Pro-
cessing Section in DSR are happy to supply up-to-date information to all
colleges in the University. For a glossary of grant and contract termi-
nology see Appendix A. The following remarks focus on essential charac-
teristics that are not subject to change.

A. Standard Sections of Research Applications to the Federal Government

A research proposal is expected to include an abstract, a detailed de-
scription of the proposed research, including goals and objectives,
significance of the proposed research including an overview and eval-
uation of related research, a detailed methodology section, a state-
ment of facilities and special resources that will be used, the biog-
raphies (c.v.'s) of persons who will participate in the project, a
specific line item budget and a budget explanation.









D. Identification of Reviewers


Many agencies publish rosters of review committee members. Faculty
are advised to check the National Institutes of Health Public Advisory
Groups, and pertinent publications from other agencies. The composi-
tion of a review section may well lead a faculty applicant to amplify
certain sections of his/her proposal. Faculty applicants may want to
submit a cover letter with their proposal, suggesting additional or
alternate reviewers, in cases when they believe that lack of represen-
tative 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.

E. Follow-up

A final comment is offered about the option faculty have to follow up
on their proposal after it has been received by the agency. Reviewers
indicate that it is possible to submit additional "pilot" data, pref-
erably no later than one month before the study section meets. Such
mailing could include further preliminary data, new publications, even
revisions in strategy due to research findings which were gathered
since the proposal was originally drawn up. Such action underlines
the applicant's seriousness regarding his/her proposal, and could pos-
sibly forestall reviewers' critique during agency review. Although
agencies do not like to be inundated with trivial mailings, they will
respect and accept pertinent research materials.

In summary, 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. DSR, EIES and IFAS are pleased to facilitate
any such contacts.

II. Proposal Preparation

Specific requirements regarding content and format differ so markedly and
change so frequently among sponsoring agencies that it would be pointless
to detail them all here. The Program Information and the Proposal Pro-
cessing Section in DSR are happy to supply up-to-date information to all
colleges in the University. For a glossary of grant and contract termi-
nology see Appendix A. The following remarks focus on essential charac-
teristics that are not subject to change.

A. Standard Sections of Research Applications to the Federal Government

A research proposal is expected to include an abstract, a detailed de-
scription of the proposed research, including goals and objectives,
significance of the proposed research including an overview and eval-
uation of related research, a detailed methodology section, a state-
ment of facilities and special resources that will be used, the biog-
raphies (c.v.'s) of persons who will participate in the project, a
specific line item budget and a budget explanation.









D. Identification of Reviewers


Many agencies publish rosters of review committee members. Faculty
are advised to check the National Institutes of Health Public Advisory
Groups, and pertinent publications from other agencies. The composi-
tion of a review section may well lead a faculty applicant to amplify
certain sections of his/her proposal. Faculty applicants may want to
submit a cover letter with their proposal, suggesting additional or
alternate reviewers, in cases when they believe that lack of represen-
tative 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.

E. Follow-up

A final comment is offered about the option faculty have to follow up
on their proposal after it has been received by the agency. Reviewers
indicate that it is possible to submit additional "pilot" data, pref-
erably no later than one month before the study section meets. Such
mailing could include further preliminary data, new publications, even
revisions in strategy due to research findings which were gathered
since the proposal was originally drawn up. Such action underlines
the applicant's seriousness regarding his/her proposal, and could pos-
sibly forestall reviewers' critique during agency review. Although
agencies do not like to be inundated with trivial mailings, they will
respect and accept pertinent research materials.

In summary, 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. DSR, EIES and IFAS are pleased to facilitate
any such contacts.

II. Proposal Preparation

Specific requirements regarding content and format differ so markedly and
change so frequently among sponsoring agencies that it would be pointless
to detail them all here. The Program Information and the Proposal Pro-
cessing Section in DSR are happy to supply up-to-date information to all
colleges in the University. For a glossary of grant and contract termi-
nology see Appendix A. The following remarks focus on essential charac-
teristics that are not subject to change.

A. Standard Sections of Research Applications to the Federal Government

A research proposal is expected to include an abstract, a detailed de-
scription of the proposed research, including goals and objectives,
significance of the proposed research including an overview and eval-
uation of related research, a detailed methodology section, a state-
ment of facilities and special resources that will be used, the biog-
raphies (c.v.'s) of persons who will participate in the project, a
specific line item budget and a budget explanation.











1. Title


Titles should be concise, clear and precise. Excessive length may
result in ambiguities should parts be abbreviated during process-
ing at the agency. News releases often rely on the title to ref-
erence research, and precision will help to avoid misinterpreta-
tion of a study.

2. Abstract

The abstract describes the major objectives of the proposed re-
search and the research strategy to meet these objectives. The
abstract should be about 200 words in length. 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 appropri-
ate study section 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 the reviewer
will read as he/she prepares for the panel discussion. After
funding is secured, the abstract may be used for entry in national
data banks and its key words 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. This does not imply
that the abstract can be written hurriedly. NIH Study Section re-
viewers advise that faculty should spend time on the abstract. A
good abstract will strike a careful balance between simple and
technical language and highlight key concepts for which the re-
viewers should look in the main body of the proposal.

3. Description of Project

In this section the investigator is expected to present a descrip-
tion of the proposed project and to explain the general goal and
its various specific objectives. At the same time, the need for
the project must be justified and its significance should emerge
clearly and convincingly. Studies where the significance lies in
opening up a new approach to the field by use of sophisticated
techniques of inquiry may be considered the most promising.
Agencies expect to have objectives stated clearly and specifical-
ly, and investigators often use brief statements in numerical
ranking of priority. Investigators are reminded of the difference
between the overall goal which may be stated in general terms and
specific intermediate or enabling objectives.

4. Related Studies/Review of the Field

The discussion of previous work in the field demonstrates the in-
vestigator's knowledge and evaluation of the state of the art in
their specialization, the extent of their preparation for the
proposed study and the novelty and individuality of their ap-
proach. For these reasons, this section has to be much more than
a bibliography. It is important to demonstrate clearly that the









investigator is aware of other work in the area. Careful se-
lection of sources must be made, discussing only those in detail
which are significant to the proposed research. Both NIH as well
as NSF Study Section reviews indicate that pilot data (preliminary
results) "are a must these days." In reviewing applications for
New Investigator Research Awards (NIRA's), reviewers acknowledge
the fact that few publications are yet available on which the
strength of an investigator can be assessed. Instead, the maturi-
ty and analytical richness of the review of the field is used to
gauge the new investigator's sharpness of intellect and potential
for success. Established investigators are expected to an even
larger extent to demonstrate their command of the field in this
section.

5. Methodology and Time Frame

In this section, the investigator will describe the proposed re-
search 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 un-
derstanding by the reviewers without going to excessive lengths.
It is equally important to describe how potential problems will be
dealt with. A mature discussion of anticipated difficulties and
ways of handling them will impress reviewers more than attempts to
whitewash or deny them. Investigators may decide to reference
specific techniques or provide detail in appendices if necessary.
The overall length of time required to conduct the research proj-
ect must be projected with care, to allow for data collection,
analysis and interpretation. Unrealistic projection may lead to
criticism and so may omission of a time line altogether. Besides,
investigators need to remember to allow up to nine months after
the application submission date for processing, review and eval-
uation of the proposal at the federal agency. Depending on that
factor, the investigator may propose more accurately which phase
of ongoing research the funding will support.

6. Evaluation Design/Statistical Analysis

Many projects require an evaluation of results, especially studies
in education and social science fields. 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 eval-
uation 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 meth-
ods.

7. Personnel

If possible, all professional and technical, as well as academic
personnel who will participate in the research should be









identified by name and by title/category of employment. The fol-
lowing categories are often needed.

a. Project Director (or Co-Directors)

b. Faculty Associates (generally members of the faculty holding
academic rank of Assistant Professor and above)

c. Postdoctoral Associate

d. Research Assistants (graduate students engaged in research or
research training under the proposed grant)

e. Professional Assistants (computer programmers, design engi-
neers, laboratory assistants, technicians, etc.)

f. Other (secretarial, clerical, shop, undergraduate students,
etc.)

g. Consultants (generally, these are from outside the University.
For exceptions, see Research Policy Manual, Section II,F.)

A curriculum vitae is needed only for the major researchers. How-
ever, it is advisable to highlight specific research experience,
related publications and other important biographical information
with regard to the 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 c.v.

8. Facilities/Special Resources

Applicants should take care to describe facilities which will be
used in the proposed research. The application may call for sta-
tistics about the size of the university and a profile of facul-
ty/students or university wide facilities such as the library,
computer centers, specialized centers. If unique facilities exist
with regard to the proposed research, it is important to emphasize
this in the proposal.- In addition to their individual college re-
source personnel, applicants may call on the DSR office for assis-
tance, or request the current UF Factbook from the Office of Aca-
demic Affairs.

9. Dissemination

In order to assure wide impact of funds invested in research, dem-
onstration or development project, many agencies emphasize the
need for well planned dissemination of results. Most investiga-
tors hope to publish research findings in refereed national
journals. If other strategies seem useful, they should be listed
in the dissemination section of the proposal. Examples are con-
ferences, training workshops, special newsletters, manuals,









production of audio-visual material or any other means of sharing
research data with the scientific, technological community.

B. Evaluation Criteria and Shortcomings of Training Proposals to the Fed-
eral Government

1. Criteria Used by Agencies

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

a. The degree to which the proposed program delineates an impor-
tant need in the field.

b. Evidence of a well-coordinated program which has promise of
meeting identified needs.

c. The degree to which participants will be exposed to new ap-
proaches, techniques, and new instructional materials.

d. The extent to which the participants will actually be involved
in innovative and creative experiences.

e. The program's focus on a discipline or a group of related dis-
ciplines.

f. The consistency and clarity of statement or procedure for se-
lecting participants consistent with the purposes of the pro-
gram.

g. The level of professional competence and leadership of the
program director and of the professional staff who will assist
him/her.

h. The time available to the professional staff to prepare for
and to conduct the program.

i. The extent to which the institution will make available ade-
quate classrooms, laboratories, library, instructional mate-
rials and equipment.

j. Prediction that the program will result in the improvement of
instruction.

k. Completeness of proposal and budget.

2. Shortcomings Found by Agencies

Shortcomings generally found in these proposals are outlined by
the same agency.









a. The program does not meet the requirements of the government
program from which funds are sought or does not advance the
goals of that program.

b. The cost of the program is unreasonable in terms of comparable
programs.

c. The institution appears to lack the necessary resources in ei-
ther faculty personnel or physical equipment, or both, to con-
duct the program.

d. The proposal lacks clearness, coherence, or completeness.

e. No solid basis for pre-selection of participants.

f. No description of program staff or personnel.

g. Insufficient resources at the institution to justify its se-
lection for a grant.

h. Unrealistic time estimates.

i. No arrangements made for the follow-through to make the in-
vestment beneficial for the institution and the participants.

j. The technique proposed not judged to be the best method.

k. No provision for self-evaluation of the program.

C. Proposals to Foundations, Corporations or Associations

1. Foundation Proposals

Faculty are encouraged to make use of the Resource Library in the
Division of Sponsored Research before approaching a Foundation,
unless they have already established personal contact with one of
its offices. DSR staff have background information on Foun-
dations, their giving pattern, their assets and currently active
staff. A collection of annual reports is also available. Faculty
are also advised to consult with the University of Florida Devel-
opment and Alumni Fouhdation (392-1691).

Foundations generally do not use printed application forms and
their instructions to prospective applicants are often vague.
Faculty are advised to open the dialogue with a brief letter of
inquiry to state their project area and to ascertain whether the
Foundation is interested in it. Depending on the situation, the
Foundation may respond by instructing a faculty member to submit a
more detailed, formal proposal. Initial proposals should be writ-
ten 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 Foundation's








interests, length of time during which support is needed, amount
needed, overview of budget and proposed staff.

An example of instructions provided by the Exxon Foundation fol-
lows.

a. Name of the organization or institution; name, title, of-
fice address and telephone number of the chief executive
officer.

b. Name of the head of the unit in which the project is to be
conducted.

c. Name, title, office address and telephone number of the
person to be in charge of the project. (All correspon-
dence about the project will be directed to this person
unless otherwise requested by the organization.)

d. Brief descriptive title of the project.

e. Total amount of the grant requested from the Foundation.

f. A statement of the aims of the proposed project and an ex-
planation of the needs or problems it is intended to ad-
dress.

g. A description of related work by others to solve the above
problems or meet the above needs and an explanation of how
the proposed project expands upon or complements those ef-
forts.

h. A full and precise description of the proposed project or
activity, covering both what is to be done and how it is
to be done.

i. An explanation of how the effectiveness of the project or
activity will be measured.

j. An explanation of which groups will benefit from the proj-
ect and how the results of the project will be communicat-
ed to those groups.

k. Name, title, and qualifications of each person participat-
ing in the project.

1. A detailed budget giving a breakdown of project costs and
listing separately the amounts to be contributed by the
organization or institution, the amounts to be covered by
the requested grant, and the amounts to be covered by oth-
er funding sources, if any. In the case of ongoing proj-
ects or activities, proposals should also include a histo-
ry of previous funding.









m. A statement of the expected duration of the project or ac-
tivity and, in the case of long-term or continuing ef-
forts, an explanation of how the project or activity would
be continued upon expiration of the requested grant.

n. The name, title, and original signature (on one copy) of
an individual authorized to commit the organization or in-
stitution to participate in the project.

2. Corporate Projects

Since most corporate support is related to product development and
testing, investigators will concentrate on technical specifica-
tions and the proposed budget, assuming that need for the project
does not have to be demonstrated and corporate interest is as-
sured. The Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) and
the Engineering and Industrial Experiment Stations (EIES) have de-
veloped short form contracts which may be used in obtaining fund-
ing. Examples are available upon request from these colleges. If
a corporation is to be approached not via its Research and Devel-
opment Branch, but rather via its Educational Support Branch, fac-
ulty should use the same application process as with a Foundation.

3. Associations, Societies and Councils

Most voluntary organizations such as the American Cancer Society,
the American Philosophical Society, the Fulbright Senior Research
Program or the Sigma Xi Society have preprinted application forms.
The Program Information Office maintains extensive files on
non-federal funding sources. Staff is ready to provide background
information such as application instructions, lists of previous
awardees, names of contact personnel and mailing addresses. Most
applications will be short and their style should not be as tech-
nical as a federal application. While federal projects are re-
viewed entirely by a panel of experts in the field, non-federal
groups often use a heterogeneous group of civic leaders, profes-
sional experts and organizational staff for their review.

D. Checklist: Proposal Preparation

1. Does the project fall within the agency's scope?

2. Have agency regulations and guidelines been followed?

3. Have objectives been clearly stated?

4. Is the significance/need for the project well argued, based on a
current assessment of the problem?

5. Is the budget request reasonable in view of the complexity and
scope of the project?

6. Has the evaluation mechanism of the agency been taken into consid-
eration?








7. Is the proposal well-organized and does it flow logically from one
section to the next?

8. Is the information presented in clear layout, so that the review-
ers can immediately pick out the most relevant sections?

9. Does the proposal establish the investigator's scholarly compe-
tence, without hyperbole or understatement?

10. Is the material presented in the required format?

11. Has enough time been allowed for administrative review.

12. Is the budget correct and well justified? Does it correlate to
the project narrative?

III. Budget Preparation

A. General Comments

Although budgets are cost estimates applied to future research needs,
they must be prepared with great care and provide a detailed breakdown
of each proposed cost category. The estimates may be based on past
experience, present costs with an added inflation factor, all accord-
ing to the best knowledge of the investigator. Budgets should be pre-
pared for the entire project period, i.e. for all years of the pro-
posed research, and should provide a breakdown of costs for each
budget period year. Allowance for inflation during future years
should be made for all direct cost categories. If an agency requires
cost sharing, the investigator must determine how the required amount
will be provided and in which cost categories it will be covered.
Different colleges have developed their individual policy regarding
the categories in which cost sharing is acceptable and regarding the
degree of required internal documentation. Such a breakdown is not
necessary for those agencies where the University has institutional
cost sharing agreements, as in the case of the Department of Health
and Human Services (5%) and the National Science Foundation (1%).

Most agencies provide their own specific budget forms. Exhibit 1
gives a suggested format to be used for federal or non-federal
agencies that do not provide a set form.

B. Direct Costs

1. Salaries and Wages

The salaries of tenured and non-tenured faculty members and career
service personnel directly associated with the university consti-
tute appropriate direct cost in proportion to the time each ex-
pects to spend on the project. Other personnel services purchased
on an hourly basis may also be charged.

Among the various budget components, the salaries and wages cat-
egory is one of the most crucial. Agency staff will want to know








7. Is the proposal well-organized and does it flow logically from one
section to the next?

8. Is the information presented in clear layout, so that the review-
ers can immediately pick out the most relevant sections?

9. Does the proposal establish the investigator's scholarly compe-
tence, without hyperbole or understatement?

10. Is the material presented in the required format?

11. Has enough time been allowed for administrative review.

12. Is the budget correct and well justified? Does it correlate to
the project narrative?

III. Budget Preparation

A. General Comments

Although budgets are cost estimates applied to future research needs,
they must be prepared with great care and provide a detailed breakdown
of each proposed cost category. The estimates may be based on past
experience, present costs with an added inflation factor, all accord-
ing to the best knowledge of the investigator. Budgets should be pre-
pared for the entire project period, i.e. for all years of the pro-
posed research, and should provide a breakdown of costs for each
budget period year. Allowance for inflation during future years
should be made for all direct cost categories. If an agency requires
cost sharing, the investigator must determine how the required amount
will be provided and in which cost categories it will be covered.
Different colleges have developed their individual policy regarding
the categories in which cost sharing is acceptable and regarding the
degree of required internal documentation. Such a breakdown is not
necessary for those agencies where the University has institutional
cost sharing agreements, as in the case of the Department of Health
and Human Services (5%) and the National Science Foundation (1%).

Most agencies provide their own specific budget forms. Exhibit 1
gives a suggested format to be used for federal or non-federal
agencies that do not provide a set form.

B. Direct Costs

1. Salaries and Wages

The salaries of tenured and non-tenured faculty members and career
service personnel directly associated with the university consti-
tute appropriate direct cost in proportion to the time each ex-
pects to spend on the project. Other personnel services purchased
on an hourly basis may also be charged.

Among the various budget components, the salaries and wages cat-
egory is one of the most crucial. Agency staff will want to know








7. Is the proposal well-organized and does it flow logically from one
section to the next?

8. Is the information presented in clear layout, so that the review-
ers can immediately pick out the most relevant sections?

9. Does the proposal establish the investigator's scholarly compe-
tence, without hyperbole or understatement?

10. Is the material presented in the required format?

11. Has enough time been allowed for administrative review.

12. Is the budget correct and well justified? Does it correlate to
the project narrative?

III. Budget Preparation

A. General Comments

Although budgets are cost estimates applied to future research needs,
they must be prepared with great care and provide a detailed breakdown
of each proposed cost category. The estimates may be based on past
experience, present costs with an added inflation factor, all accord-
ing to the best knowledge of the investigator. Budgets should be pre-
pared for the entire project period, i.e. for all years of the pro-
posed research, and should provide a breakdown of costs for each
budget period year. Allowance for inflation during future years
should be made for all direct cost categories. If an agency requires
cost sharing, the investigator must determine how the required amount
will be provided and in which cost categories it will be covered.
Different colleges have developed their individual policy regarding
the categories in which cost sharing is acceptable and regarding the
degree of required internal documentation. Such a breakdown is not
necessary for those agencies where the University has institutional
cost sharing agreements, as in the case of the Department of Health
and Human Services (5%) and the National Science Foundation (1%).

Most agencies provide their own specific budget forms. Exhibit 1
gives a suggested format to be used for federal or non-federal
agencies that do not provide a set form.

B. Direct Costs

1. Salaries and Wages

The salaries of tenured and non-tenured faculty members and career
service personnel directly associated with the university consti-
tute appropriate direct cost in proportion to the time each ex-
pects to spend on the project. Other personnel services purchased
on an hourly basis may also be charged.

Among the various budget components, the salaries and wages cat-
egory is one of the most crucial. Agency staff will want to know









the title of each position, the name and employment level of the
person filling the position, possibly even a job description if
the position is to be advertised. The reviewers also request to
know the salary base per annum, the type of appointment (nine or
twelve months) and the percent of effort to be spent on the proj-
ect by each participant. This may be expressed either as a per-
centage or in terms of man months for academic and career service
personnel, and in terms of hours for other personal services.

The University of Florida has two broad employment categories:
Salaries and Other Personal Services (OPS). Salaried appointments
(generally those lasting the duration of the project) include full
and support faculty, Career Service, and Administrative and Pro-
fessional (A & P). OPS appointments include certain faculty and
support staff appointments not exceeding six months in full time
equivalence, graduate assistants, post doctoral appointees, and
student assistants (see exhibit 3 for graduate student pay rates).
Only salaried faculty with regular University appointments can be
principal investigators on a proposal. Others need a sponsor, or
require special permission (see exhibit 2 for verification of who
can be a P.I.).

Salaries and wages should accurately reflect the current compen-
sation level of employees. However, in view of the length of the
federal review process and the duration of the project, salary in-
creases should be built into the budget. If an employee earns
$20,000 in January at submission time of the project, but is ex-
pected to earn $25,000 in October, when the project is about to
begin, the budget must accommodate that increase. If an inves-
tigator fails to anticipate such needs, he or she will find a
shortage of funds when the award comes through. This situation in
turn would require either a budget revision within approved cost
categories or a supplementary request to the funding agency, which
may not be approved. Finally, investigators appointed on the aca-
demic year base are reminded that summer salaries should be pro-
jected at the rate of one ninth of their academic year salary for
each month, but that the National Science Foundation only approves
two summer months per year.

No faculty or staff member, regardless of his/her base of appoint-
ment may get reimbursed for more than 100% effort in any given
time period, without special justification and permission. Dual
compensation is a system whereby faculty can be approved for more
than 100% effort. This approval must be obtained from the Office
of the Vice President for Academic Affairs. Overload payment is
paid by the Division of Continuing Education to faculty who par-
ticipate in continuing education activities such as short courses,
summer workshops or brief conferences. In such cases where over-
load is unavoidable, special permission must be obtained from the
Division of Continuing Education.

Grant funds may not be used to augment the total salary or rate of
pay of UF faculty or staff. Grant funds are replacement funds,
releasing a percent of time of the regular employee for work on









the project. Salaries charged against grant funds must follow a
scale that is consistent with the policy and regular practices of
the University of Florida. Faculty may obtain guidance on pay
levels, job categories or employment policy by calling the Person-
nel Office at 2-1213, IFAS, EIES or DSR Proposal Processing Sec-
tion.

2. Fringe Benefits

The total benefit package provided by the University of Florida
includes the fringe benefits plus the health insurance payments.
Presently, fringe benefits are expressed as a composite percentage
rate of salaries. Faculty and career service employees are enti-
tled to these benefits. Grant budgets should request reimburse-
ment for fringe benefits according to the percent of effort which
the employee will spend on the project. The rate comprises the
following components:

Workman's Compensation
Unemployment Compensation
Social Security Benefits
State Retirement

Fringe benefit costs are billed at the actual rate, and accrue on
a biweekly basis. Any residual funds in the fringe benefits cost
category usually go towards covering life insurance contributions,
or, in the absence of such coverage by the employee, remaining
funds may be used to cover other cost categories as needed.

OPS employees are only entitled to workman's compensation and un-
employment compensation, which result in a percentage rate to be
requested on the budget. Both the salary base and the respective
fringe benefits rate should be stated on the budget form itself or
in the budget explanation.

The University of Florida contributes also to their employees'
health insurance. The State of Florida Employees Group Health
Self Insurance Plan is available as individual or family coverage.
For current rates please refer to the latest DSR Fact Sheet.

3. Consultants

Consultant or lecturer charges for travel, lodging, per diem and
professional fees may be included in the budget as a single direct
cost item. Federal employees may not be paid from grant funds,
nor can University of Florida faculty get dual compensation in
this way. If a university faculty member is needed as a consul-
tant on a research project, it is necessary to appoint the col-
league on the project account or request that the services be
provided as professional courtesy in the form of cost sharing.
Many federal agencies will limit reimbursement for consultants to
reimbursement according to GS 18 level. On the whole, the use of
paid consultants must be justified carefully. The budget explana-
tion should state the time period of his/her service.









Investigators are advised to explain in the narrative that the
specific expertise either does not exist on campus or is not easi-
ly available.

4. Equipment

Permanent equipment, according to A-21 Cost Principles for Educa-
tional Institutions, is defined as personal property having an ac-
quisition cost of $500 or more'and a useful life expectancy in ex-
cess of two years. Items of permanent equipment must be listed in
the budget with specific acquisition cost and the justification of
need must be provided in the budget explanation. Some agencies
require price reference and detailed stock numbers from cata-
logues, especially for contractual agreements. Government
agencies will normally not approve purchase of general office
equipment or furnishings, such as calculators, typewriters, desks,
chairs, copy machines or air conditioners, even if these items are
to be used in a laboratory. Many agencies will even make approval
of equipment for scientific purposes dependent on whether it may
or may not be readily available at the University. Therefore, it
must be emphasized again that this cost category needs careful
justification. If freight and installation charges are to be
billed on the same invoice as the piece of equipment, these
charges should be included in the acquisition cost. However,
maintenance contracts should be listed in the "other" direct cost
category, because they are expense items and not part of the
equipment costs.

5. Expendable Equipment and Supplies

Even though expendable equipment and supplies are estimations, it
is advisable to have on hand a breakdown on these items by general
classification, as substantial amounts are usually challenged by
agency reviewers.

6. Travel

In the budget justification sections, the purpose, destination and
time span for domestic travel must be explained as carefully as
the relationship of the trip to the progress of the project. Air
travel will normally Cover only economy class jet round trip. For
State of Florida travel rates, see the Handbook on Business Proce-
dures (Chapter 4) or the UF Fact Sheet.

Out of state travel should be requested on the basis of actual ex-
penses for lodging, meals and round trip jet economy air fare.
Some agencies may have set fixed maximum per diem limits.

Reimbursement for any trip which includes both in and out-of-state
travel should be requested on the basis of as close an estimate as
possible, so that faculty do not come up short of funds.

Foreign travel requests must specify the destination, and the De-
partment of State's foreign per diem rates should be used. It is









frequently no longer possible for federal agencies to cover travel
for conference attendance, unless there is active involvement of
the faculty in the program to be presented, and/or unless the
meeting has direct relevance to the research project. Faculty
should consult a travel agency for air fares. Only American flag
carriers may be used. Foreign per diem rates are available from
the DSR.

7. Patient Care Costs

If reimbursement is requested for in-patients participating in the
research, the negotiated hospitalization fee must be stated, along
with the required number of patient days. Outpatient charges may
also include transportation, and an escort, if required.

8. Publication Costs

Faculty may budget the anticipated costs of publishing the results
of research, the cost for reprints, page charges and illustration
costs if necessary. However, on federal grants, this budget cat-
egory may not include charges for publication of books, monographs
or pamphlets which will need special agency approval. This would
also eliminate costs for promotion, distribution and general
handling of materials. Costs for typing, editing, graphs, illus-
trations, reprints and all other costs prior to printing are not
considered publication costs, and may therefore be covered in the
"other cost" category.

9. Rearrangements and Alterations

Any alteration or renovation project must have formal approval
from the agency before funds can be obligated. The Physical Plant
Division will assist faculty in obtaining cost estimates.

10. Contractual or Third Party Costs

When subcontracts are planned, the total required dollar amount
must include the direct as well as the indirect costs of the sub-
contracting party. These will appear as a direct cost in the UF
budget, subject to the assessment of UF indirect costs on con-
tracts up to $25,000 each. All individual line items of the sub-
contract must be detailed on a separate budget page. The need for
contracting part of the proposed research must be justified in the
narrative. In addition, the subcontractor should indicate in
writing his/her intent, capability and willingness to provide ser-
vices. Depending on whether the subcontractor is a university or
a commercial company, the documentation may be presented in the
form of a letter of intent, or a work statement. Proposed subcon-
tracts should be discussed with one of the Deans in DSR or IFAS
and EIES while the proposal is still in the preparation stage.
When an award is made, a DSR Dean will develop and execute the
subcontract on behalf of the University. Faculty are reminded
that they may not enter into written agreements such as










subcontracts. Faculty should also avoid possible conflicts of in-
terest in this cost category. (See Research Policy Manual, II,
G.)

11. Training Costs

This category may include fees, tuition, trainee travel costs and
stipends (including dependency allowance). While the budget cost
category reflects the total required cost, faculty should still
provide individualized breakdown of costs for each trainee on a
separate page, to allow agency reviewers an independent assessment
of the level, scope and need for the training activity.

12. Other Direct Costs

Items in this category include charges for long distance tele-
phone, xeroxing, reference books and materials, postage, etc. For
a complete listing see the budget checklist (next section in this
manual). A cost item particular to the State of Florida is the
Career Service Personnel Assessment Fee, assessed for each full
time career service employee, or prorated according to time spent
on the project. EIES pays this charge out of a central account;
all other Colleges in the University of Florida request the reim-
bursement from individual sponsors. This charge represents a rec-
ognized direct cost and DSR will provide proof of authorization
upon request if this State-imposed fee is challenged by a funding
agency (see exhibit.4).

13. Cost Sharing

Under federal statutes no sponsored grant or cooperative agreement
may be supported 100% by Federal dollars, but each must involve a
small amount shared by the recipient organization. The University
of Florida has an institutional cost sharing agreement with the
Department of Health and Human Services, and with the National
Science Foundation, which allows the University to average its
cost sharing contribution among all projects. Cost sharing in ex-
cess of stated agency requirements should be avoided. Many facul-
ty feel that their proposals stand a better chance of funding in
proportion to increased University cost sharing. However, agency
reviewers indicate that the strength of the proposal idea and the
cost effectiveness of the budget are the most important qualifica-
tions for success. Unnecessary voluntary cost sharing leads to a
lowering of the negotiated indirect cost rate, which means that
the university not only subsidizes the project itself, but is un-
able to recover all of its operational expenses.

C. Checklist for Direct Cost Items

This checklist provides guidance to faculty to list possible project
costs according to accepted federal cost categories. Faculty are en-
couraged to group costs accordingly to facilitate federal review.
State of Florida definitions differ from federal ones in some cost
categories, for example in the definition of "equipment," $100 versus










$500. This means that, after the award has been accepted, the federal
budget categories are "translated" into the Florida system by means of
a budget worksheet.

Salaries and Wages

Academic Personnel including research associates
Technicians
Research Assistants
Secretaries
OPS
In-house Consultants

Fringe Benefits

On Salaries and Wages, including temporary labor

Consultant Services

Consultant or Lecture Fee
Travel for Consultant
Lodging for Consultant
Statistical Center Service Fee

Equipment

Equipment plus Installation if included on invoice
Freight if included on invoice

Supplies

Chemicals and Glassware
Animals and Animal Supplies
Printing Service
Books, Reprints, Scientific Journals
Photo Duplication, Medical Illustrations, Xerox
Office Supplies

Travel

Domestic
Foreign

Patient Care

Inpatient Charges
Outpatient Charges
Patient Travel

Rearrangements and Alterations









Other Costs

Telephone and telegraph-if special long distance needs are
demonstrated
Faculty Recruitment Travel
Field Trips
Participant Travel (to and from institute or conference)
Equipment Maintenance and Repair
Facilities Rental
Laundry
Compensation Other than Salaries and Wages
Data Processing
Postage
Freight
Computer Services
Publications
Sub-contract Costs
Conference Registration

Indirect Costs

See following section

Cost Sharing (if required)

May include a portion of salaries and wages, fringe benefits and
associated indirect costs.

On Training Grants Only

Trainee Payroll
Trainee Stipends
Trainee Dependency Allowance
Trainee Travel
Trainee Travel Domestic
Trainee Travel Foreign
Trainee Tuition

D. Indirect Cost Rates

Indirect costs are negotiated annually, according to the principles of
the U.S. Office of Management and Budget Circular A-21. Calculations
are based on historic costs for the previous fiscal year. They repre-
sent the operational layout of the University in support of ongoing
research activities, not total operational costs. For a detailed de-
scription of indirect costs, see Research Policy Manual, II, J.

Indirect cost rates, effective between July 1 and June 30 annually,
are negotiated between the University of Florida and the Department of
Health and Human Services (DHHS), acting on behalf of the federal gov-
ernment and its agencies.

UF indirect cost rates have been negotiated on a modified total direct
cost base (MTDC) which excludes such costs as stipends, fellowships,








tuition, equipment costing $500 or more and that portion of a subcon-
tract in excess of $25,000. All proposals involving research, train-
ing and education service agreements must carry the appropriate
indirect cost rate. For current indirect cost rates please refer to
the latest UF fact sheet.

Ongoing multiyear projects which have approval for fixed budgets are
required to show the new rates when the continuation request is sub-
mitted. However, it is DSR policy not to assess more than the abso-
lute number of dollars originally allocated for indirect costs at the
old rate. UF will cost-share the difference until the end of the
grant. Negotiation dates for university indirect cost rates fluctuate
each year. As soon as the University receives notice of the date of
negotiation and of the percentages allowed for various rates, princi-
pal investigators must begin to use the new rates on proposals, al-
though their effective date is not until July 1 each year. Frequent-
ly, proposals that were submitted at the old rate need budget re-
vision. If the revision is submitted before negotiation notice has
been received, DSR will allow the old rate to continue and cost share
the difference, but EIES requires its faculty to use the new rate.
Any proposal submitted at the old rate, which needs revision after ne-
gotiation was completed, must use the new rate on the budget revision.

When a proposal is submitted which has on and off-campus research, two
budgets should be developed designating the direct costs for the on
and off-campus portion, to which the indirect cost rates will be ap-
plied respectively. Institutional review will rely on the investiga-
tors to make accurate estimates for the on and off-campus portion.

State Agencies

A number of state agencies do not accept DHHS negotiated rates for in-
direct costs but set their own policies. In situations where a state
agency does not accept the DHHS negotiated rate, the DSR must approve
the agency's indirect cost rate before the award can be accepted. DSR
should be involved in any pre-awarded negotiation of indirect cost
rates. For further guidance concerning this significant issue, please
contact DSR at 392-1582 or IFAS and EIES respectively.

State Grants Using Federal Flow-Through Dollars

A restricted indirect cost rate of 20% of MTDC was negotiated between
the DHHS and UF effective July 1, 1983, through June 30, 1984. This
restricted rate applies only to proposals submitted to State of
Florida agencies (excluding state universities) who are awarding fed-
eral funds they have received.

Corporations, Foundations and Other Sponsors

Whenever possible, faculty should attempt to recover full indirect
costs at the federally negotiated rate. Where full indirect cost
rates are not acceptable to the sponsor, a reduced rate may be
proposed by the colleges, to be submitted to the sponsor with the au-
thorized signature approval of DSR. The UF Dean of Research has final












authority for concurrence or decision making in this matter. It is
DSR policy to recover at least 15% of total, not of modified total,
direct costs.

When Foundations state their indirect cost policy, these guidelines
are accepted by DSR even if they do not allow any indirect cost. When
no expressly written policy is available, recovery at 15% TDC should
be requested.

IV. Contracts

A. Standard Contract Format

Contracts are defined as "negotiated procurements," while grants are a
form of "assistance." In the case of federal government agencies, the
issuance of a formal contract must be preceded by the advertisement of
the Request for Proposal (RFP), Request for Application (RFA), or Re-
quest for Quotation (RFQ) in the Commerce Business Daily. The Program
Information Section in DSR screens the Commerce Business Daily on a
continuing basis and distributes announcements to interested faculty.
Faculty who wish to be placed on the Faculty Research Interest File
should contact Program Information at 2-4804 or 2-4805.

The major components of an RFP are:

a) statement of required work
b) desired performance schedule
c) available government property
d) applicable contract provisions (clauses)
e) evaluation criteria

Faculty are advised to pay careful attention to the contract speci-
fications throughout the planning and writing stages. It is equally
important to verify the type of contract (fixed price, cash reimburse-
ment, cost plus fixed fee, cost sharing, incremental funding) before
deciding whether the conditions are favorable enough to make the com-
petition worthwhile. If the suggested budgetary terms based on the
independent government cost estimate appear restrictive but faculty
feel competitive in the area, they should not hesitate to submit a
larger budget, as long as it reflects a realistic estimate of quality
service according to agency specifications. Contract officers at the
agency will reassess the reasonable budget level expectancy during the
review stages, before the competitive range is determined.

In preparing the standard governmental contract, faculty will present
their documentation in two distinct parts: the technical proposal and
the business proposal.

The technical proposal contains three components: the standard title
page, or cover sheet, the major work description (scope of work) and
the curricula.vitae or other relevant appendices.

The business proposal should contain the summary data sheet and the
contract pricing proposal (budget), followed by the representations












authority for concurrence or decision making in this matter. It is
DSR policy to recover at least 15% of total, not of modified total,
direct costs.

When Foundations state their indirect cost policy, these guidelines
are accepted by DSR even if they do not allow any indirect cost. When
no expressly written policy is available, recovery at 15% TDC should
be requested.

IV. Contracts

A. Standard Contract Format

Contracts are defined as "negotiated procurements," while grants are a
form of "assistance." In the case of federal government agencies, the
issuance of a formal contract must be preceded by the advertisement of
the Request for Proposal (RFP), Request for Application (RFA), or Re-
quest for Quotation (RFQ) in the Commerce Business Daily. The Program
Information Section in DSR screens the Commerce Business Daily on a
continuing basis and distributes announcements to interested faculty.
Faculty who wish to be placed on the Faculty Research Interest File
should contact Program Information at 2-4804 or 2-4805.

The major components of an RFP are:

a) statement of required work
b) desired performance schedule
c) available government property
d) applicable contract provisions (clauses)
e) evaluation criteria

Faculty are advised to pay careful attention to the contract speci-
fications throughout the planning and writing stages. It is equally
important to verify the type of contract (fixed price, cash reimburse-
ment, cost plus fixed fee, cost sharing, incremental funding) before
deciding whether the conditions are favorable enough to make the com-
petition worthwhile. If the suggested budgetary terms based on the
independent government cost estimate appear restrictive but faculty
feel competitive in the area, they should not hesitate to submit a
larger budget, as long as it reflects a realistic estimate of quality
service according to agency specifications. Contract officers at the
agency will reassess the reasonable budget level expectancy during the
review stages, before the competitive range is determined.

In preparing the standard governmental contract, faculty will present
their documentation in two distinct parts: the technical proposal and
the business proposal.

The technical proposal contains three components: the standard title
page, or cover sheet, the major work description (scope of work) and
the curricula.vitae or other relevant appendices.

The business proposal should contain the summary data sheet and the
contract pricing proposal (budget), followed by the representations












and certifications. The concise format of the contract pricing pro-
posal page is deceptive (exhibit 5). Faculty should break down cost
elements such as materials, supplies, special equipment or travel on
the supporting Schedule E, exhibit A, provided by the agency. Failure
to do so results in delays, as contract staff have to verify cost ele-
ments with DSR, EIES and IFAS staff during the review period.

Contract clauses do not become an issue at the application stage in
standard contract procedures. Much later, after negotiation and ac-
ceptance of the proposal by the agency, the contracting officer will
develop the actual legally binding contract material, including budget
and work statement. At that point, DSR will review the clauses
proposed by the agency and verify their acceptability with the faculty
applicant. Standard Representations, Certifications and Acknowledge-
ments, though not contractually binding documents, are usually submit-
ted at the application stage; and in no case can a federal contract be
negotiated without the agency having received these assurances. Some
of the information concerns the university as an institution and this
information can be provided by DSR staff in the Proposal Processing
Section. Other data must be given by the applicant, for example the
percentage of foreign content in the project, or whether proprietary
data are involved. Agencies have developed slightly different formats
for the Representation and Certification pages, but the questions are
mostly the same.

B. The Short Form Research Contract

The Department of Defense is using a Short Form Research Contract
(SFRC) for unsolicited research proposals from educational insti-
tutions. The contract provides for:

1. Use of a one page contract document, through incorporation by
reference of the proposal and general provisions;

2. Consolidation of all applicable contract clauses and pro-
visions for educational institutions;

3. Unilateral awards when the proposal receives favorable
technical evaluation.

By allowing applicant institutions to submit a contract, rather than a
proposal, and by streamlining clauses and incorporation of provisions
by reference, the entire process, including the award, is expedited.
When the document returns to campus, signed by the DOD, the contract
is in effect, and a university account may be opened without delay.

The University of Florida has developed a package with the essential
contract pages, plus instructions on how to prepare the short form re-
search contract. The SFRC package is presented in its entirety as Ap-
pendix B.










C. UF Standard Subcontract Format

After receipt of the prime award, the subcontract is prepared in DSR.
The agreement is signed by authorized officials at the subcontracting
institution, and by DSR authorized personnel on behalf of the Presi-
dent. Documents may not be executed between the principal investiga-
tor and his/her counterpart who will perform the work.

Sections to be included in the subcontract are:

period of performance
name and title of contract administrator
name and title of project director
allocation of funds
reporting procedures
regulatory data (except private sponsors)
limitation of liability
termination

Attachments should provide the following:

budget
time schedule (optional)
clauses, information required by prime award
prime award (optional)

Samples of subcontracts are available from DSR upon request.

V. Additional Required Documentation

A. Submitted With The Proposal

1. Human Subjects Review

All projects involving human subjects in research must be submit-
ted to one of the two local Institutional Review Boards (IRB).
Documented approval is an essential part of a proposal, and must
be sent to the agency. Faculty should contact the respective UF
Institutional Review Board well in advance of the program dead-
line. When DSR receives the letter from the IRB indicating that
approval has been granted, federal form 596 can be prepared by DSR
staff (exhibit 9). This form is used by DHHS, NSF and ED. It
will be signed by an authorized official in DSR and added to the
application package. If there is a discrepancy between the title
of the proposal and the title of the project approved by the IRB,
faculty need to supply DSR with a notarized certification of iden-
tity (see exhibit 7). Under extenuating circumstances, the facul-
ty applicant has a maximum of 60 days to obtain approval after the
program deadline has passed. In this case DSR includes with the
original submission an indication that review is in progress, and
the final 596 form is submitted as soon as possible. Without this
approval, the proposal will not be admitted for agency review.
(See also Research Policy Manual, III. C.)










C. UF Standard Subcontract Format

After receipt of the prime award, the subcontract is prepared in DSR.
The agreement is signed by authorized officials at the subcontracting
institution, and by DSR authorized personnel on behalf of the Presi-
dent. Documents may not be executed between the principal investiga-
tor and his/her counterpart who will perform the work.

Sections to be included in the subcontract are:

period of performance
name and title of contract administrator
name and title of project director
allocation of funds
reporting procedures
regulatory data (except private sponsors)
limitation of liability
termination

Attachments should provide the following:

budget
time schedule (optional)
clauses, information required by prime award
prime award (optional)

Samples of subcontracts are available from DSR upon request.

V. Additional Required Documentation

A. Submitted With The Proposal

1. Human Subjects Review

All projects involving human subjects in research must be submit-
ted to one of the two local Institutional Review Boards (IRB).
Documented approval is an essential part of a proposal, and must
be sent to the agency. Faculty should contact the respective UF
Institutional Review Board well in advance of the program dead-
line. When DSR receives the letter from the IRB indicating that
approval has been granted, federal form 596 can be prepared by DSR
staff (exhibit 9). This form is used by DHHS, NSF and ED. It
will be signed by an authorized official in DSR and added to the
application package. If there is a discrepancy between the title
of the proposal and the title of the project approved by the IRB,
faculty need to supply DSR with a notarized certification of iden-
tity (see exhibit 7). Under extenuating circumstances, the facul-
ty applicant has a maximum of 60 days to obtain approval after the
program deadline has passed. In this case DSR includes with the
original submission an indication that review is in progress, and
the final 596 form is submitted as soon as possible. Without this
approval, the proposal will not be admitted for agency review.
(See also Research Policy Manual, III. C.)










C. UF Standard Subcontract Format

After receipt of the prime award, the subcontract is prepared in DSR.
The agreement is signed by authorized officials at the subcontracting
institution, and by DSR authorized personnel on behalf of the Presi-
dent. Documents may not be executed between the principal investiga-
tor and his/her counterpart who will perform the work.

Sections to be included in the subcontract are:

period of performance
name and title of contract administrator
name and title of project director
allocation of funds
reporting procedures
regulatory data (except private sponsors)
limitation of liability
termination

Attachments should provide the following:

budget
time schedule (optional)
clauses, information required by prime award
prime award (optional)

Samples of subcontracts are available from DSR upon request.

V. Additional Required Documentation

A. Submitted With The Proposal

1. Human Subjects Review

All projects involving human subjects in research must be submit-
ted to one of the two local Institutional Review Boards (IRB).
Documented approval is an essential part of a proposal, and must
be sent to the agency. Faculty should contact the respective UF
Institutional Review Board well in advance of the program dead-
line. When DSR receives the letter from the IRB indicating that
approval has been granted, federal form 596 can be prepared by DSR
staff (exhibit 9). This form is used by DHHS, NSF and ED. It
will be signed by an authorized official in DSR and added to the
application package. If there is a discrepancy between the title
of the proposal and the title of the project approved by the IRB,
faculty need to supply DSR with a notarized certification of iden-
tity (see exhibit 7). Under extenuating circumstances, the facul-
ty applicant has a maximum of 60 days to obtain approval after the
program deadline has passed. In this case DSR includes with the
original submission an indication that review is in progress, and
the final 596 form is submitted as soon as possible. Without this
approval, the proposal will not be admitted for agency review.
(See also Research Policy Manual, III. C.)







2. Civil Rights Assurances


The University of Florida has assured the government of compliance
with Title VI, Civil Rights Act, Title IX of the Educational
Amendments, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and Equal Op-
portunity Employment Regulations. Although these general assur-
ances are being kept updated by the Office of Academic Affairs,
several agencies require submission of individualized forms,
reconfirming compliance. When such forms are included in an ap-
plication package, the staff in the DSR will complete the forms on
behalf of the principal investigator.

3. Current and Pending Support

During review of a project, federal agency staff has to ascertain
that there is presently no active support for the project, nor
pending applications which would result in dual funding during the
proposed project period. Some agencies have developed specific
layout which they encourage the investigator to use in providing
this information. An example is the National Science Foundation.
Faculty are reminded to address this issue in their proposal. It
is necessary to state the funding agency, the title of the proj-
ect, the total requested amount, the project period and whether
the applicant is principal investigator or co-investigator on the
project.

4. Ethnic Profile

Most major agencies now require that the investigator provide in-
formation about his/her ethnic origin for statistical purposes.
Applications to the National Science Foundation must include form
NSF 1153.

5. Good Laboratory Practices

Regulations promulgated by the Food and Drug Administration pre-
scribe good laboratory practices for conducting non-clinical
studies in support of applications for research or marketing per-
mits. If contracts refer to compliance with this Act, the inves-
tigator should contact DSR, which will assist in convening college
based quality assurance units to monitor individual research proj-
ects and will help in drafting the respective descriptive section
for the proposal.

6. State Clearinghouse Review

When a federal program mandates State Clearinghouse review, copies
of form 424, the budget and the technical abstract must be submit-
ted to the State Clearinghouse for comment. Programs generally
categorized as research or training are exempt from review. DSR
will provide specific State and Federal guidelines to faculty upon
request.









7. UF Sponsored Projects Approval Form (DSR 1)


Before a research proposal can be submitted by the University of
Florida for review by a funding agency, the proposal must have re-
ceived the support of the appropriate University officials--
department chair, dean or director, vice president (if necessary)
and DSR. To obtain these signatures the principal investigator
should attach a "Sponsored Projects Approval Form" (DSR 1) to the
proposal. Only the most recent edition of this form should be
used; copies may be obtained from DSR or departmental offices.
Prior to routing the proposal for signatures, the faculty member
should use the checklist attached to the form to make sure the
proposal is complete in all respects. (Exhibit 6)

When routing a proposal that involves participation by more than
one college, signatures from respective officials in the collab-
orating department/college must be added at the level of inves-
tigator, chairman, Dean and Vice President.

Proposals submitted through University Research Centers require
the additional signatures of the Center Director and the appropri-
ate Dean or Vice President. The signature of the Vice President
of Academic Affairs is no longer required on research center pro-
posals. These Centers are not to be confused with College or In-
stitute Centers.

The principal investigator must initial the DSR signature page to
certify that the necessary approvals of the department chairmen of
the faculty members involved in the proposal have been obtained.

Revised budgets, no-cost extensions, letters requesting withdrawal
of a pending application or other changes on awarded grants also
require the endorsement of the above officials.

B. Recorded on Campus

1. Animal Care and Welfare

The All University Committee on the Care and Use of Laboratory
Animals is charged, among other duties and responsibilities, with
assuring compliance by the University of Florida with National In-
stitutes of Health policy and all federal, state and local rules
and regulations concerning care, treatment and use of laboratory
animals. When a proposal is being processed by DSR, a standard
campus questionnaire is being mailed by DSR staff to the faculty
applicant, with the request to complete the information on use of
animals, and to forward it to the campus committee (exhibit 8, see
also Research Policy Manual, III, F).

2. Space and Facilities

All contracts or grants relating to educational training or re-
search and/or those including clinical practice by members of the
academic staff of any college in the J. Hillis Miller Health Cen-









7. UF Sponsored Projects Approval Form (DSR 1)


Before a research proposal can be submitted by the University of
Florida for review by a funding agency, the proposal must have re-
ceived the support of the appropriate University officials--
department chair, dean or director, vice president (if necessary)
and DSR. To obtain these signatures the principal investigator
should attach a "Sponsored Projects Approval Form" (DSR 1) to the
proposal. Only the most recent edition of this form should be
used; copies may be obtained from DSR or departmental offices.
Prior to routing the proposal for signatures, the faculty member
should use the checklist attached to the form to make sure the
proposal is complete in all respects. (Exhibit 6)

When routing a proposal that involves participation by more than
one college, signatures from respective officials in the collab-
orating department/college must be added at the level of inves-
tigator, chairman, Dean and Vice President.

Proposals submitted through University Research Centers require
the additional signatures of the Center Director and the appropri-
ate Dean or Vice President. The signature of the Vice President
of Academic Affairs is no longer required on research center pro-
posals. These Centers are not to be confused with College or In-
stitute Centers.

The principal investigator must initial the DSR signature page to
certify that the necessary approvals of the department chairmen of
the faculty members involved in the proposal have been obtained.

Revised budgets, no-cost extensions, letters requesting withdrawal
of a pending application or other changes on awarded grants also
require the endorsement of the above officials.

B. Recorded on Campus

1. Animal Care and Welfare

The All University Committee on the Care and Use of Laboratory
Animals is charged, among other duties and responsibilities, with
assuring compliance by the University of Florida with National In-
stitutes of Health policy and all federal, state and local rules
and regulations concerning care, treatment and use of laboratory
animals. When a proposal is being processed by DSR, a standard
campus questionnaire is being mailed by DSR staff to the faculty
applicant, with the request to complete the information on use of
animals, and to forward it to the campus committee (exhibit 8, see
also Research Policy Manual, III, F).

2. Space and Facilities

All contracts or grants relating to educational training or re-
search and/or those including clinical practice by members of the
academic staff of any college in the J. Hillis Miller Health Cen-









7. UF Sponsored Projects Approval Form (DSR 1)


Before a research proposal can be submitted by the University of
Florida for review by a funding agency, the proposal must have re-
ceived the support of the appropriate University officials--
department chair, dean or director, vice president (if necessary)
and DSR. To obtain these signatures the principal investigator
should attach a "Sponsored Projects Approval Form" (DSR 1) to the
proposal. Only the most recent edition of this form should be
used; copies may be obtained from DSR or departmental offices.
Prior to routing the proposal for signatures, the faculty member
should use the checklist attached to the form to make sure the
proposal is complete in all respects. (Exhibit 6)

When routing a proposal that involves participation by more than
one college, signatures from respective officials in the collab-
orating department/college must be added at the level of inves-
tigator, chairman, Dean and Vice President.

Proposals submitted through University Research Centers require
the additional signatures of the Center Director and the appropri-
ate Dean or Vice President. The signature of the Vice President
of Academic Affairs is no longer required on research center pro-
posals. These Centers are not to be confused with College or In-
stitute Centers.

The principal investigator must initial the DSR signature page to
certify that the necessary approvals of the department chairmen of
the faculty members involved in the proposal have been obtained.

Revised budgets, no-cost extensions, letters requesting withdrawal
of a pending application or other changes on awarded grants also
require the endorsement of the above officials.

B. Recorded on Campus

1. Animal Care and Welfare

The All University Committee on the Care and Use of Laboratory
Animals is charged, among other duties and responsibilities, with
assuring compliance by the University of Florida with National In-
stitutes of Health policy and all federal, state and local rules
and regulations concerning care, treatment and use of laboratory
animals. When a proposal is being processed by DSR, a standard
campus questionnaire is being mailed by DSR staff to the faculty
applicant, with the request to complete the information on use of
animals, and to forward it to the campus committee (exhibit 8, see
also Research Policy Manual, III, F).

2. Space and Facilities

All contracts or grants relating to educational training or re-
search and/or those including clinical practice by members of the
academic staff of any college in the J. Hillis Miller Health Cen-








ter must be processed with a letter, indicating that no additional
space is necessary to conduct the proposed activities. This let-
ter is required by the Vice President for Health Affairs. It does
not need to be included in application material forwarded to DSR
and the agency. IFAS has similar space documentation and faculty
are requested to contact the IFAS grants office for information.

3. Recombinant DNA/RNA

If a project involves recombinant DNA research, the principal in-
vestigator must indicate this on the Sponsored Projects Approval
Form (DSR 1). It is the investigator's responsibility to obtain
approval for the study from the University Biohazards Committee
before submitting the material to DSR and the funding agency.
(See also Research Policy Manual, III, D). The same committee has
set up a comprehensive Biohazards Monitoring Program for the UF
campus. Faculty whose research focuses on any such human
pathogens, oncogenic viruses or animal cell cultures must contact
the committee, and indicate this fact on form DSR 1 when submit-
ting their proposal.

4. Radioactive Materials Safety

When ionizing radiation is involved in proposal research, the pro-
curement, storage, utilization and safety has to be cleared with
the Radiation Safety Office. DSR expects faculty to comply with
these general university requirements as they are routing their
proposals through the Division for approval.

5. Potentially Proprietary: Patent/Copyright

Faculty who think that a project contains potentially proprietary
material are referred to Research Policy Manual (III, A and B) and
are encouraged to contact the Patent and Copyrights Officer in DSR
at 2-1582.

VI. Proposal Processing

A. Frequently Used Institutional Data

The face page, or cover page, of most application kits is used to re-
cord institutional data which the funding agency requires for adminis-
trative and statistical purposes. The following are frequently used
data, listed for the convenience of faculty or staff.

1. PHS Account Number: 1-596001874

Contracts and Grants add suffix -C7
Engineering add suffix -C8
IFAS add suffix -H4








ter must be processed with a letter, indicating that no additional
space is necessary to conduct the proposed activities. This let-
ter is required by the Vice President for Health Affairs. It does
not need to be included in application material forwarded to DSR
and the agency. IFAS has similar space documentation and faculty
are requested to contact the IFAS grants office for information.

3. Recombinant DNA/RNA

If a project involves recombinant DNA research, the principal in-
vestigator must indicate this on the Sponsored Projects Approval
Form (DSR 1). It is the investigator's responsibility to obtain
approval for the study from the University Biohazards Committee
before submitting the material to DSR and the funding agency.
(See also Research Policy Manual, III, D). The same committee has
set up a comprehensive Biohazards Monitoring Program for the UF
campus. Faculty whose research focuses on any such human
pathogens, oncogenic viruses or animal cell cultures must contact
the committee, and indicate this fact on form DSR 1 when submit-
ting their proposal.

4. Radioactive Materials Safety

When ionizing radiation is involved in proposal research, the pro-
curement, storage, utilization and safety has to be cleared with
the Radiation Safety Office. DSR expects faculty to comply with
these general university requirements as they are routing their
proposals through the Division for approval.

5. Potentially Proprietary: Patent/Copyright

Faculty who think that a project contains potentially proprietary
material are referred to Research Policy Manual (III, A and B) and
are encouraged to contact the Patent and Copyrights Officer in DSR
at 2-1582.

VI. Proposal Processing

A. Frequently Used Institutional Data

The face page, or cover page, of most application kits is used to re-
cord institutional data which the funding agency requires for adminis-
trative and statistical purposes. The following are frequently used
data, listed for the convenience of faculty or staff.

1. PHS Account Number: 1-596001874

Contracts and Grants add suffix -C7
Engineering add suffix -C8
IFAS add suffix -H4








ter must be processed with a letter, indicating that no additional
space is necessary to conduct the proposed activities. This let-
ter is required by the Vice President for Health Affairs. It does
not need to be included in application material forwarded to DSR
and the agency. IFAS has similar space documentation and faculty
are requested to contact the IFAS grants office for information.

3. Recombinant DNA/RNA

If a project involves recombinant DNA research, the principal in-
vestigator must indicate this on the Sponsored Projects Approval
Form (DSR 1). It is the investigator's responsibility to obtain
approval for the study from the University Biohazards Committee
before submitting the material to DSR and the funding agency.
(See also Research Policy Manual, III, D). The same committee has
set up a comprehensive Biohazards Monitoring Program for the UF
campus. Faculty whose research focuses on any such human
pathogens, oncogenic viruses or animal cell cultures must contact
the committee, and indicate this fact on form DSR 1 when submit-
ting their proposal.

4. Radioactive Materials Safety

When ionizing radiation is involved in proposal research, the pro-
curement, storage, utilization and safety has to be cleared with
the Radiation Safety Office. DSR expects faculty to comply with
these general university requirements as they are routing their
proposals through the Division for approval.

5. Potentially Proprietary: Patent/Copyright

Faculty who think that a project contains potentially proprietary
material are referred to Research Policy Manual (III, A and B) and
are encouraged to contact the Patent and Copyrights Officer in DSR
at 2-1582.

VI. Proposal Processing

A. Frequently Used Institutional Data

The face page, or cover page, of most application kits is used to re-
cord institutional data which the funding agency requires for adminis-
trative and statistical purposes. The following are frequently used
data, listed for the convenience of faculty or staff.

1. PHS Account Number: 1-596001874

Contracts and Grants add suffix -C7
Engineering add suffix -C8
IFAS add suffix -H4








ter must be processed with a letter, indicating that no additional
space is necessary to conduct the proposed activities. This let-
ter is required by the Vice President for Health Affairs. It does
not need to be included in application material forwarded to DSR
and the agency. IFAS has similar space documentation and faculty
are requested to contact the IFAS grants office for information.

3. Recombinant DNA/RNA

If a project involves recombinant DNA research, the principal in-
vestigator must indicate this on the Sponsored Projects Approval
Form (DSR 1). It is the investigator's responsibility to obtain
approval for the study from the University Biohazards Committee
before submitting the material to DSR and the funding agency.
(See also Research Policy Manual, III, D). The same committee has
set up a comprehensive Biohazards Monitoring Program for the UF
campus. Faculty whose research focuses on any such human
pathogens, oncogenic viruses or animal cell cultures must contact
the committee, and indicate this fact on form DSR 1 when submit-
ting their proposal.

4. Radioactive Materials Safety

When ionizing radiation is involved in proposal research, the pro-
curement, storage, utilization and safety has to be cleared with
the Radiation Safety Office. DSR expects faculty to comply with
these general university requirements as they are routing their
proposals through the Division for approval.

5. Potentially Proprietary: Patent/Copyright

Faculty who think that a project contains potentially proprietary
material are referred to Research Policy Manual (III, A and B) and
are encouraged to contact the Patent and Copyrights Officer in DSR
at 2-1582.

VI. Proposal Processing

A. Frequently Used Institutional Data

The face page, or cover page, of most application kits is used to re-
cord institutional data which the funding agency requires for adminis-
trative and statistical purposes. The following are frequently used
data, listed for the convenience of faculty or staff.

1. PHS Account Number: 1-596001874

Contracts and Grants add suffix -C7
Engineering add suffix -C8
IFAS add suffix -H4








ter must be processed with a letter, indicating that no additional
space is necessary to conduct the proposed activities. This let-
ter is required by the Vice President for Health Affairs. It does
not need to be included in application material forwarded to DSR
and the agency. IFAS has similar space documentation and faculty
are requested to contact the IFAS grants office for information.

3. Recombinant DNA/RNA

If a project involves recombinant DNA research, the principal in-
vestigator must indicate this on the Sponsored Projects Approval
Form (DSR 1). It is the investigator's responsibility to obtain
approval for the study from the University Biohazards Committee
before submitting the material to DSR and the funding agency.
(See also Research Policy Manual, III, D). The same committee has
set up a comprehensive Biohazards Monitoring Program for the UF
campus. Faculty whose research focuses on any such human
pathogens, oncogenic viruses or animal cell cultures must contact
the committee, and indicate this fact on form DSR 1 when submit-
ting their proposal.

4. Radioactive Materials Safety

When ionizing radiation is involved in proposal research, the pro-
curement, storage, utilization and safety has to be cleared with
the Radiation Safety Office. DSR expects faculty to comply with
these general university requirements as they are routing their
proposals through the Division for approval.

5. Potentially Proprietary: Patent/Copyright

Faculty who think that a project contains potentially proprietary
material are referred to Research Policy Manual (III, A and B) and
are encouraged to contact the Patent and Copyrights Officer in DSR
at 2-1582.

VI. Proposal Processing

A. Frequently Used Institutional Data

The face page, or cover page, of most application kits is used to re-
cord institutional data which the funding agency requires for adminis-
trative and statistical purposes. The following are frequently used
data, listed for the convenience of faculty or staff.

1. PHS Account Number: 1-596001874

Contracts and Grants add suffix -C7
Engineering add suffix -C8
IFAS add suffix -H4









2. Internal Revenue Service Number

Federal 59-73-0209K
State 02-00010-06-11

3. Dun and Bradstreet Number

Duns: 004426771
Lake Alfred, IFAS: 040874745

4. Congressional District: #6 (Gainesville area)

5. DHHS Compliance on Protection of Human Subjects: M1266
Health Center: 01NR
General: 02XM

6. DHHS Cost Sharing Agreement dated 3/1/66

7. DHHS Indirect Cost Agreement dated 6/8/83

8. Legal authority to accept grants and contracts, refer to Florida
Statute 240.241.

9. Chairmen of University Committees: (may be subject to change)

Human Subjects Review: Dr. B. J. Wilder (Health
Center)
Human Subjects Review: Dr. C. M. Levy (all other
areas)
Laboratory Animals: Dr. R. Halliwell
Biohazards: Mr. Phil Collis
Radiation Protection: Mr. Harvey Norton
Computer Center: Mr. Ron Schoenau
Recombinant DNA/RNA: Mr. Phil Collis

10. UF Internal Auditor

Mr. Charles Hurst
333 Tigert Hall
2-1391

11. DHHS Audit Agency

Monticello Square Building
Room 110
1016 Thomasville Road
Tallahassee, FL 32303
904/224-6435










12. EEO Compliance Report (Equal Opportunity), last filed
October 1981 with:

U.S. Department of Labor
Office of Federal Contracts
Compliance Program
4057 Carmichael Avenue
Suite 231
Jacksonville, FL 32207

13. University Business Officials in the Contracts and Grants Area:

Contracts and Grants Office

Mr. William E. Elmore
Vice President for Administrative Affairs
128 Grinter Hall
University of Florida
904/392-1336

EIES

Mr. Jim Brunson
Associate Director, EIES
300 Weil Hall
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611
904/392-0948

IFAS

Mr. David R. Bryant
Manager, IFAS Administrative Services
2039 McCarty Hall
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611
904/392-1733

B. Institutional Review and Signature

Certain administrators in DSR Research have been authorized by the UF
President to enter into research and training agreements with external
funding agencies for the University of Florida. The original, com-
plete copies of proposals should be submitted to DSR, accompanied by
the Sponsored Projects Approval Form (DSR 1). DSR staff will review
the proposal for fiscal accuracy, compliance with UF policy and agency
guidelines and completeness of all required sections. Staff also re-
views form DSR 1 to see that all necessary endorsements have been ob-
tained.

This is an essential step, since those signatures document support of
the proposed research and agreement with proposed terms and conditions
by all parties on campus that will be involved with the project later
on. When everything is found to be in good order, the proposal is









signed by the institutional authorized official. In addition to new
contract or grant applications, other documents needing institutional
signature are:

Letters to Agencies

Any written request to a sponsor must be countersigned by an au-
thorized university official. Examples of such documents are: letters
to agencies requesting no-cost extensions (except OPAS), budget trans-
fers, changes in starting date, change of principal investigator,
change of percent effort committed to the project by the principal in-
vestigator, scope of work changes, transfer of a grant to a new insti-
tution or withdrawing a proposal when funding has been provided by an
alternate source (multiple submission cases).

Continuations, Renewals, Supplements, Preliminary Proposals

Continuations and supplements for existing grants need to be signed by
an authorized institutional official on the actual agency form and on
the DSR 1 signature page. Competitive renewals follow the same pro-
cessing as new applications. Preliminary type proposals are distin-
guished from verbal "inquiries" by the fact that they have a developed
work statement and a budget broken down into general cost groupings.
Preliminary proposals require sign-off because when budget cost state-
ments have been developed, it is helpful to assure that there is en-
dorsement at all appropriate levels.

Proposals to Non-Federal, Corporate or Foundation Sources

These applications are treated in the same fashion as the ones direct-
ed to the federal government.

Acceptance of Awards

Several federal agencies, and some Foundations require an official in-
stitutional signature to document acceptance of the award by the Uni-
versity of Florida.

C. Copying and Mailing

As a service to faculty, DSR provides duplication of grant or contract
material at no cost to the departments. DSR will also mail the appli-
cation packages to the respective funding agency.

First class mail may take up to one week to get to Washington, D.C.,
and faculty should schedule their proposal preparation and processing
time carefully to allow enough time for mailing. Federal Express pro-
vides overnight delivery of letters and packages by air. DSR can ar-
range for Federal Express pickup and will bill the investigators' de-
partmental account or IFAS Sponsored Programs Office for the expense.
Their pickup time is in the late afternoon. Federal Express does not
deliver on weekends, and the packages sent out on Friday evening will
be delivered on Monday.









If mail needs to be sent on a weekend, Air Courier may be used. This
company picks up packages from office or house location and flies to
selected destinations. Call 800/528-6077. Although Air Courier does
not provide a signed receipt document like Federal Express, it will
call the next day to confirm delivery and provide the name of the per-
son who accepted delivery.

A special courier service expedites mail between the Board of Regents
and the individual nine universities in the state system. Mail should
be designated Tallahassee Courier and sent to the Central Campus Mail
Room.

D. Institutional Deadlines

Faculty are urged to submit proposals well in advance of deadlines to
avoid peak processing times.

Beginning September 1, 1983, all proposals must be received in the Di-
vision of Sponsored Research (DSR) two (2) full working days before
established agency deadlines. This will allow DSR to provide a full
complement of services including review, signature, duplication, as-
sembling and mailing. Individual Colleges have made internal arrange-
ments to accommodate this processing period. All applicants are re-
minded that the agency deadline must be clearly indicated on the sig-
nature page (form DSR-1), including the date and type of deadline
(postmark or receipt).

EXAMPLES

Agency RECEIPT deadline of 10/1/83 =
DSR Receipt Deadline of 9/28/83, 4:30 p.m.

Agency POSTMARK Deadline of 10/1/83 =
DSR Receipt Deadline of 9/29/83, 4:30 p.m.

When exceptional circumstances cause a delay in proposal submission
beyond this deadline, DSR will review and bring the proposal to a
point of readiness as expeditiously as possible. However, for a given
deadline date, proposals received late in DSR will necessarily take
their place behind proposals received within the published guidelines.
This seems to be the only equitable way to assure that no timely pro-
posal is jeopardized. Faculty are assured that all proposals will be
mailed on time, but those received late may be sent without DSR re-
view.

Late proposals will be handled as follows: (1) when copies are
provided, DSR will mail; (2) when no copies are provided, DSR will
contact the appropriate office on campus after signature to pick up
the signed document.

DSR staff will continue to do everything possible to review and expe-
dite all appropriately prepared materials. Staff will continue to co-
operate fully when exceptional circumstances arise which delay the
timely submission of a proposal to DSR. In turn, faculty cooperation










in observing this deadline will enable DSR to complete the proposal
review process, which will help insure that sponsors receive all the
information that they need in proper form.

E. Liaison with University of Florida Foundation

The Office of Development and Alumni Affairs, University of Florida
Foundation, is responsible for all private fund raising to the Univer-
sity from any source including foundations, corporations, associations
and individuals. As such, it gathers information on, cultivates and
coordinates solicitation from private donors. In order to establish a
harmonious and cooperative effort between the Division of Sponsored
Research and the Office of Development and Alumni Affairs, DSR will
inform the UF Foundation about sponsored research proposals about to
be submitted to non-federal agencies. In turn, DSR is being kept in-
formed about ongoing UFF development activities on a regular basis.

F. Multiple Submissions

It is legitimate to submit the same research or training project si-
multaneously to different funding agencies, provided the individual
direction of each funding agency permits such action. The basic sci-
ence orientation of the National Science Foundation and the clinical
interest of the National Institutes of Health allow duplicate sub-
missions in a few select areas, but with discretion. There might also
be overlap between the Army and the Engineering Division of NSF, or
between some voluntary health organizations and private foundations.
Whenever faculty decide to send one project to two or more funding
sources, they should state this fact in their proposal. They must al-
so remember that should both agencies fund the project, a decision has
to be made as to which one is to be accepted. The same project may
not receive dual source funding, nor are faculty allowed to charge or
cost share more than 100% time to the sum total of their various proj-
ects. It is of course possible to split funding and obtain funds for
various aspects or phases of one project from a combined number of
sources.

G. Checklist for Proposal Processing

A list of reminders is attached in the form of a tear-off section on
DSR-1, the official University of Florida Sponsored Projects Approval
Form. Before submitting the proposal for final processing, faculty
should take a moment to assure themselves that all aspects of proposal
preparation and processing have been taken into account.










in observing this deadline will enable DSR to complete the proposal
review process, which will help insure that sponsors receive all the
information that they need in proper form.

E. Liaison with University of Florida Foundation

The Office of Development and Alumni Affairs, University of Florida
Foundation, is responsible for all private fund raising to the Univer-
sity from any source including foundations, corporations, associations
and individuals. As such, it gathers information on, cultivates and
coordinates solicitation from private donors. In order to establish a
harmonious and cooperative effort between the Division of Sponsored
Research and the Office of Development and Alumni Affairs, DSR will
inform the UF Foundation about sponsored research proposals about to
be submitted to non-federal agencies. In turn, DSR is being kept in-
formed about ongoing UFF development activities on a regular basis.

F. Multiple Submissions

It is legitimate to submit the same research or training project si-
multaneously to different funding agencies, provided the individual
direction of each funding agency permits such action. The basic sci-
ence orientation of the National Science Foundation and the clinical
interest of the National Institutes of Health allow duplicate sub-
missions in a few select areas, but with discretion. There might also
be overlap between the Army and the Engineering Division of NSF, or
between some voluntary health organizations and private foundations.
Whenever faculty decide to send one project to two or more funding
sources, they should state this fact in their proposal. They must al-
so remember that should both agencies fund the project, a decision has
to be made as to which one is to be accepted. The same project may
not receive dual source funding, nor are faculty allowed to charge or
cost share more than 100% time to the sum total of their various proj-
ects. It is of course possible to split funding and obtain funds for
various aspects or phases of one project from a combined number of
sources.

G. Checklist for Proposal Processing

A list of reminders is attached in the form of a tear-off section on
DSR-1, the official University of Florida Sponsored Projects Approval
Form. Before submitting the proposal for final processing, faculty
should take a moment to assure themselves that all aspects of proposal
preparation and processing have been taken into account.










in observing this deadline will enable DSR to complete the proposal
review process, which will help insure that sponsors receive all the
information that they need in proper form.

E. Liaison with University of Florida Foundation

The Office of Development and Alumni Affairs, University of Florida
Foundation, is responsible for all private fund raising to the Univer-
sity from any source including foundations, corporations, associations
and individuals. As such, it gathers information on, cultivates and
coordinates solicitation from private donors. In order to establish a
harmonious and cooperative effort between the Division of Sponsored
Research and the Office of Development and Alumni Affairs, DSR will
inform the UF Foundation about sponsored research proposals about to
be submitted to non-federal agencies. In turn, DSR is being kept in-
formed about ongoing UFF development activities on a regular basis.

F. Multiple Submissions

It is legitimate to submit the same research or training project si-
multaneously to different funding agencies, provided the individual
direction of each funding agency permits such action. The basic sci-
ence orientation of the National Science Foundation and the clinical
interest of the National Institutes of Health allow duplicate sub-
missions in a few select areas, but with discretion. There might also
be overlap between the Army and the Engineering Division of NSF, or
between some voluntary health organizations and private foundations.
Whenever faculty decide to send one project to two or more funding
sources, they should state this fact in their proposal. They must al-
so remember that should both agencies fund the project, a decision has
to be made as to which one is to be accepted. The same project may
not receive dual source funding, nor are faculty allowed to charge or
cost share more than 100% time to the sum total of their various proj-
ects. It is of course possible to split funding and obtain funds for
various aspects or phases of one project from a combined number of
sources.

G. Checklist for Proposal Processing

A list of reminders is attached in the form of a tear-off section on
DSR-1, the official University of Florida Sponsored Projects Approval
Form. Before submitting the proposal for final processing, faculty
should take a moment to assure themselves that all aspects of proposal
preparation and processing have been taken into account.




























EXHIBITS





Exhibit 1


BUDGET


Agency U of F

A. Salaries and Wages

1. John Brown, Principal Investigator $1,750
5% for 12 months

2. Jim Cooper, Co-Investigator $ 2,783
10% for 12 months

3. Research Associate 15,000
100% for 12 months

4. Secretary 700
20% for 6 months

B. Fringe Benefits
19% of Salary plus $1,656/year/FTE health insurance 1,144 499
on items Al, A2, and A4. 1% on item A3

TOTAL SALARIES AND FRINGE $19,627 ~2,4T9

C. Consultant
Dr. George Jones, University of Georgia $ 500

D. Permanent Equipment
Item 1 $ 500
Item 2 1,000 1,500

E. Expendable Materials and Supplies
xxxx 1,360

F. Travel
One trip for PI to scientific meeting
Washington, D. C.
Air Fare $400
Per Diem 150 (3 days @$50/day) 550

G. Other Direct Costs
Publication of Final Report $500
Computer Costs 750
Career Service Personnel
Assessment $12/quarter on
item A4 24 1,274

TOTAL DIRECT COSTS $24,811 $2,249

H. Indirect Costs
50% Modified Total Direct Costs $12,405 $1,125

TOTAL COSTS $37,216 $3,374


(4/84)





Exhibit 2


ELIGIBILITY TO SUBMIT A PROPOSAL

1. Any individual who holds one of the following positions and has signed
the Patents and Copyright Agreement can be a Principal Investigator.

a. Faculty in Tenure Accruing Tracks

Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Professor
Assistant Curator, Associate Curator, Curator
Graduate Research Professor
Distinguished Service Professor

b. Faculty in Non-tenure Accruing Tracks

Assistant Research Scientist, Associate Research Scientist,
Research Scientist
Assistant Research Scholar, Associate Research Scholar, Research
Scholar
Assistant Engineer, Associate Engineer, Engineer
Assistant Research Professor, Associate Research Professor,
Research Professor
Assistant Extension Scientist, Associate Extension Scientist,
Extension Scientist

c. Other University Personnel

Librarians
Instructor/PKY
Assistant Professor/PKY
Associate Professor/PKY
Professor/PKY

2. Investigators in the following categories are not eligible to submit a
proposal unless they have a person in one of the above positions serve
as their sponsor or have approval from the Dean for Graduate Studies
and Research.

Physician Assistant In
Lecturer
Assistant In
Associate In
Courtesy Faculty
OPS Faculty
Visiting Faculty
Clinical Faculty
Research Associates
Postdoctoral Employees

3. For internal competitions such as DSR Development Awards or Biomedical
Research Support, only those individuals listed in section 1 (a, b and
c) above may apply. Young investigators must have completed their
Ph.D. or an appropriate terminal degree and hold a university appoint-
ment at the time of application (Chapter 6C1-7, Florida Administrative
Code). Check the individual program announcement.





Exhibit 3


STIPENDS FOR GRADUATE STUDENT APPOINTMENTS FOR 1983-1984

Graduate 9 Months Bi-Weekly Rate
Assistant Minimum Minimum

1/4-Time $2,925 $150.00
1/3-Time 3,900 200.00
1/2-Time 5,850 300.00
Graduate Fellows 4,875 250.00

The above minimum stipend rates are continued for 1983-1984. The
maximum rates in all categories have been removed to provide
greater departmental flexibility. The actual stipends paid will
continue to be the responsibility of the department chairperson
and will depend upon funds available but in no case will drop
below the minimum listed above. Without special permission of
the Graduate School, no student on appointment shall hold another
remunerative position on campus. All graduate student appoint-
ments must be approved by the Graduate School.

GRADUATE RESEARCH ASSISTANT and GRADUATE TEACHING ASSISTANT -
These are more advanced appointments and should represent an
increase in stipend and responsibility from the graduate assis-
tant appointment. These appointments are to be reserved for
advanced graduate students and require a minimum of 30 hours of
graduate work creditable toward an advanced degree.

GRADUATE RESEARCH ASSOCIATE and GRADUATE TEACHING ASSOCIATE The
appointee shall, as a minimum, have completed most of the work
leading to the doctorate. Appointment does not carry tenure, and
is temporary in nature, either because of the character of the
project or because upon completion of requirements for a doctor-
ate, the appointee will leave the University. It should repre-
sent an increase in stipend over graduate research assistant or
graduate teaching assistant.

PERCENTAGE OF TIME The -percentage of full-time employment is
fixed for a Graduate Assistant as indicated above, but Graduate
Research or Graduate Teaching Assistants or Associates may be
appointed for any amount of time required by their assignment and
in agreement with their academic registration and rate of sti-
pend. However, all graduate students holding less than .50 ap-
pointments must be registered for at least 9 credits to hold the
appointment.

FULL-TIME APPOINTMENTS Appointment of graduate students on a
full-time basis is discouraged.


Revised, 9/83


5.5









Exhibit 4


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
GAINESVILLE. 32611


THE GRADUATE SCHOOL &
THE DIVISION OF SPONSORED RESEARCH
Office of the Dean & Director


223 Grintr Hal
904/392.4646


June 21, 1979



CAREER SERVICE PERSONNEL ASSESSMENT


Section 110.101, Florida Statutes, provides: "The administrative
expenses and costs of operating the personnel program established
by this chapter shall be paid by the various agencies of the state
government, and each such agency shall include in its budget esti-
mates its pro rata share of such cost as determined by the Department
of Administration. To establish an equitable division of costs, the
amount to be paid by each agency shall be determined in such proportion
as the service rendered to each agency bears to the total service ren-
dered under the provisions of this chapter."


EOUAL EMPLOYMENT OPOITUNITY/AFFrIAIM&TIVC ACTION EMPLOYER







Exhibit 5


O C IP A RT I E N O r DE FE N SI
CWTRACT PRISON PROPOSAL L'
tEWEARCH AND DEVELOPME.VT) BodgHi Bw..o No. 22-f700
ThW f1w in AN me wins (I) eusm a at cam O fwing dat (oa. ASPR 3J-07.3) is
stid mw (II) substitsou 1fr the DD orwu 633 Lo suawwuod by the comuetncig ofllew.
...41 or POP, auI.6inii .loCo sax-Cas To at rua-iico,






OVI*49 AWOCAT1010 IN 0. 9141 IOR. S0 PIENPORiO tO I TOI&6 A"OUT oP POPOSAL" I **T 10OLICITAflOC "O.

Is
DETAIL DESCAIIPTIOM OF COST ELIMENTS

1. O4RWL~ YIMAIIAL atssm. wi X261AW A) C CS (8 TOTAL REPICR
S. P(Im CI..J5OP.RtS 111 1
I SCOM RATE IEIS

G OTME I ( ) 4. MATERIAL I
(7) VouR S'TAOAMO CoEwiRCIAL ITEMS
01 I WROIVI ONWAL tRAMCISPES (A* Oil ~mS

TOTrALnaTtTRAL-
LZ MATERIAL oVXrXNAO.J/ I(.. %Z* f

ESTIMATED RATIV EST
IMORCr AO 30*"up" "ODUR COST M*


I()C I1O ______ ______ clrrr
_ _ _ _ 1- __ 1 _

1.77_



TOTAL DWEC LABOR -
4. L.ADO OVZVWEAO (3-Ms O-wo-WO" Cae. C-,LAI RAyE X BASE C STI COST (*3fl2





OITAL LIAOR OVIMMOULAD -. I
S. SIPIS3AL TESING alwgl d 0*61 PWWW f Qvvww~mW ftnmwt~) ET COST





LVTL SPECIAL .0__
S. SP9C3L SOU91019MT at beer ft-) (Itnsis O 8.060 A
-. TRAVECL.71 9 tf0) (GO- deLOI. On dh..ft" S.A. ________777


SPCI II Q1POR SUGMIIICE

7OTAL TRAVEL ____ __ __
S. CONSULSMTI(IcMfrE S CST COST (7 )________







TOTAL CONSULTANTS
9. OTIr* ,* ..T CoXSTS 076- ZMI*SM A)
0. rOOTAL DZE CT COST Alo OVXLEAD I
I1. (19MIC. MDAMWOOSTIITArIVE 9XPEIS9 (Ra.. % ~. sI tl-f AF/ j
12- ROYALTIES&

i1 rTOTAL LI &Jr4 TD COST

14 PE OR a MT
is.TAL ES TOMA 7 COcsrANDp PE OR pROr IT
ThIe eb 1 w p snaf me I oo i on c Mliii S ad in mse1ocra to (Dvocnh. RFP, ec.,



sea yeLrsls, ow .ft "atee a oa( tIs date. ecc wdanc* wi1 the Instructions to OU.,w. end the Footnotes whwhS folio.
I ro~ CC *s "'LO -,IIaiJME



0 oV 10A9 0 ueO


C 53 40


D D 6 3 3-4P



















EXHIBIT A SUPPORTING SCHEDULE (Specity. iI news rowecs s ded. e lo &i eAhWlo
COeT EL No. ITEM DocscrPTIN (So .~oe. 1) EST COST 1I



- I I














I ~

I. NAVE THEC DEPARTMENT O DEFENSE. NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE AONsNISTRATION. Or THE ATOMIC ENERGY COW
MISsION PfO0MoD ANY REVIEW OI IOU. ACCOUNTS OR RECORD IN CONNECTION WITH ANY OT R CoOVCRIINetT **IM(
CONTRACT OH SUBCORNTACT WITHIN THE PAST TWELVE MONTHS?
A.9 LOOK' N ("t ". ""Wn on.)>
NAAI AlNO AOOElIS Or MEviEIGS OFFICE NO A.OIVIOUAI.- I tiLnRCo NaIEA EtsxNTO


II. WILL YOU *COUIRE THE USE OF ANY GOVERNMENT PROPERTY IN TNH PERFORMANCE OF THIS PROPOSED CONTRACT?
rC ES C: MO (t1 r1. damr tty n we 0 sa se B.JO


CO YOU REQUtitt GOVERNMENT CON
TES CMO fity**, Mseatrty.J: AavANCE PATMENTs peaceness paraeENTS OR euaMas*TRWD Loses


IV. 00 YOU NOW MOLD rAY CONTRACT (. as s a sm U m (IR & u) Dpoes FOR THE SAw OR &LmAU WORK(
CALLOD FOR B TS PROPOSED COUNT ACTI lw.
-. U N Os at me. .ainvrl


V. OLS THIS COST SUMMAnY corC3O WITH THE COST PRINCIPLES SIT PORTH IN ASPR. SECTION XV (Je. J.1r1 (W 12M,
0 Ts NM (Io*t s. poam -. e m pen.j


INTRUCONS To OPPERORS


1. The purpoes of this lfor a. to Cosad. a staodsad twins by
wnhich thi s dip SbuoaL to the Oovereaot a ei oy of io-
corrod and ioseiod coe (And tactshed aoei oIne tin)
*fUnabl eIf dretaled rerse eod am"ois. Peter to this eoed
of a cOnnct SWOulla fin dibs proposal the offer shelL
uded the candledii autod In ASPR 3-40.3. bhe mqwd to
Soulai S Cortifloate of Come Cot or Prictg Data (see A.IPR
340 7.3() m0d 3407.4)6

2- As part of t oucpL-c isfsinhii 'equxed by Idebt iw. th
011mw meetrst vrdh this Lw.. and ciearty idcdfy a osc.
ca r pes n dots (theai to, daee eh#Ch is vwuf lebt. ad tec-
twel ad 0aderi as deffined in ASPR 3-40 7.(oL. Lt &adAjU
be umc sobmu =h this two any iisoresum. teombly iv
quso to expl-a Uhe oleerot 'ieetlUo process. is.-lod
A. the eIM feMOM AppLJe aod tho eathemom
or eiad miheds Wodis the #stM oini insIn Ows,
med is pSojeci nro kno datS. Snd
I. the etil mwwoood by offrro an his propped
pI .
3. Attah "eum aPoorest iti ancsey SAd ideaty aw this col-
thnz else, acatca m h so the Laet woL a upporun o


otherwiseo n.eltaEi tohbe Speciic coes eletioneasy be tesd.
Vha suaaw el suppous cost otr prici date to this (w.
as jacucsble. the dam will be opeealcsl.y isafUD" sad
descrbe4d (with achaoes, ee eproep e). ad ids amsisaL.
to the C 6mooeunag 0co or baa reessemiD up= r~e-.

4. The Ims tor the "Cest Eloerve, ad the VPreee
Caonect Zstm a am intended as, ne d rquMomes.
Them my he Feseated is dlffwea fIsue, r ith the Braw s,-
profsI of the CautrcjaE O111cm iif reqmd tawin odrectrn
ad elfi;so np..eemetain. La ein wl o mepr e this, tLw. owIll
he coerlted ad ao wvitheed chen

S. Bfy oudin n 01 th is prooal onwf. at meca d tw
sasgw.Ise. vents to the CooneCLIc oenU in hst eaD-
mod rewpoeiuve. the rnis Ist tous (o th Pm e of
wrifyin the Cm wy pracia do" boeauded. tbos bof.
we=m .d00o m a"d OMr Supporting dams wich wrl pe-
ai qests orsissmon Ofi such cost in ppcan das.. &li
whthe comsuae snd proyscusn med Hebi. Thi
nge may be exoerised n cobcufe wh sany mogatin
prior to coneoct a ewei


FOOTNOTES


I/ KEws en M e seo m. these oncessior ad isionws, come
Mokch I the I Is of the Cina, -ll Prepotl" be cWoarc d
in the elfictast pwlamaoc of the Cntract. Who- any e the
coame in eats p As"e ofrmd* "ac incurrd I.4.. aa
IOtwe osmiss aw choniffe ad d.escbe ch- n a tChed
I of scheie Id.idniy eil Wie Nad trare.ie &et..,,
pm.r Plans. eul e. or wjfod lemie. a contee em ca
nol. Which ar s, sc d Ad at bm Most#he loew of coat to the
swgiteh mamstrewr is cased .inr price.

I/ When apace an Addtin, to Cho sve` h tible in h E itt A s
required. sitnb separate pep.... nocisewr' and tdewuty in
thee 4 R1,141 calms the aftiscosmw in whichh :rmtto.lor f
000Pp r" the Apsecihc coW oedeene, Way be Scourd. Fie tard-
sad toet is Prescried: howe rot. the coss or pricbn daos msat
60 Accowie. CMeedef ad Caxvwo. ad tho. juddsiot laiesr
seed in pr.c ng from the data to the estintsre ist be seated
in se idcteon clsttl to Israe the Contreenng D(lcpe to eOeise
the PmPO64s. For e10d. Provide the beets wed fo pricing
Mnsisle such a by vednr quganons. &hop qtwstea. Or
Liic* F prIces; Lie roan. ot eas we .1 oeeMhed race& wench de
part xignlslicMntt front eWlerncd roes (roemasc eolie,. &
planned oayor .- voevrenit. inc.t Or Isathcagaon lisa une
crease a, tab tote (inwczpeep d esg. ad Clary mncrses.
etc.). Idmift and expi ate oan agmncooas een me iWe
clsdod in the pe iesod price. Awe a6 antIeueded costs at rI
jacla ad detociti. ewE. or arldcpmed technical afflesltife.


/ JIdlcae the rse waeed an p rorde as amopr"We epdne-
oan. Whor eogromr h* bee rechd Wi mth Geormenot rw
resmeuwsEe or th M* ed Iworwd prcalnO rewe. desist the
anm e the amrete nt. Prowde the mrothed of M ajo
and appicart of rn everoe*d em p-ee socuen4 COW
br fdosen a d boweig rade ad bedgetery lare as aces-
swy ro prod. a &ao ae r m1vw ordias e ahe reasonfalane
of preoeed rae.

/ I the toralJ erowye coat entrd here -m aom*sa e250
penayd on a semra Pep (for on DD Form 733. Roflrr
Reoet) the Iolloenb morwlsti or a ch sewir* la of
roymety or Ilcmasee : ain. Ad as aes of liceewr; date of
lice se agreo;en peort nMeroo. pem apsltetari isnal
enmw asC, ootr beets a onMch the rrvelrt ri psyab.e; boet
descrpilon. incadsnB any pair or model ai~rs of eoc* con-
tract sam or comapre on owhch the rorylty as posrle; poe-
cltaiS or aollr roe. of roylsty per rm t: ust pice oa contract
ftem' orboa of munls; and total dollar amnaun( of royrJties.
Ist saton. t specfheiily requrestd by the cby rc... l ajistcer
Scoply o the carrot Icane* hr*mut And OIt lucettan o(
AXppIcable clarms of pecilie patents Ahell be proKuded.

/ Pmoed. a lIM o pnncnpal iteme lthom each csetorr no,
dIcrang nirm or iaicCarerd source. quamstl. West prce,
c aNinttIro obten d. and bases of eoraoIsaug en.ce atd
vtesooebdaes oat coae.


. 0V53fl5.f*W~nV OweL a.,e-eOi-o oI2IIIW I.,


IIM.


1 > l**.,p.lel***






Exhibit 6


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

SPONSORED PROJECTS
APPROVAL FORM


AGENCY APPLICATION DEADLINE
(DO NOT LEAVE BLANK


O postmark OF receipt

Mailing Instructions (Check One)
O First Class
O Overnight Courier
Acc't. #
O Other


University Project # _____
(LEAVE BLANK)
Title of Proposal:

Submitted to Agency/Program:

Mailing Address:


UNIVERSITY ENDORSEMENTS: The attached proposal has been examined by the officials whose signatures appear below.
The principal academic review of the proposal is the responsibility of the Depanmen/Cester and Collee.


Principal Investigator: (Project Director)


NAME: Da
TITLE:
CAMPUS ADDWR
TELEPHONE:
SOC. SEC. NO.


Co-Principal Investigator: (If Applicable)


NAME: Da
TIrTLE:
TELEPHONE:
SOC. SEC. NO.

Co-Principal Investigator: (If Applicable)




NAME: Dau
TrrLE:
TELEPHONE:
SOC. SEC. NO.


Department Head:


NAME: OuD
TrTLE:


Department Head: (If more than one involved)


NAME: Dat
TITLE:


Approval by Dean or Director:


NAME: Dou
TITLE:





Approval by Dean or Director: (If more than one)


NAME: Da
TITLE:




Approval by Vice-President for Agricultural Affairs
(For all projects involving IFAS Personnel)


NAME: Dae





Approval by Vice-President for Health Affairs:
(For all projects involving JHMHC Personnel)


NAME: Date
TITLE:

Official Authorized to Sign for the University:
(Leave Blank)


NAME: Out
TITLE:
Division of Sponsored Research
University of Florida


DSR-1 (4/84)


SEND NOTICE OF AWARD TO:
The University of Florida
Division of Sponsored Research
219 Grinter Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611
(904) 392-1582









TO BE COMPLETED BY PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
(Do Not Complete Shaded Boxes)

UNIV. PROJECT # I-EI!l AGENCY CODE E- I1

AGENCY

,DIV. I 1 1 1 1


PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR


Last Name (Print or Type)

Department
CO-PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR


Last Name (Print or Type)

Department


Social Security Number


College


Social Security Number


FI MI

College


Title of Project

CENTER INVOLVEMENT
Research Center Involvement? Yes No Identify
Criteria for justification: input of center into development of project
resources of center (lab space, equipment, technical help)
The principal investigator certifies that approval has been obtained from the Department Chairman of the center faculty for
their involvement in this proposal .(Please Initial)
INDIRECT COST:
Name of Unit(s) to accrue overhead:
FOR ALL APPUCABLE INDIRECT COST (IDC) ACCRUED: (CHECK ONE)
(A) Return IDC to PI and respective Department only.
(B) Equal split of Department IDC portion among PI & CO-PI Departments (PI IDC portion unchanged).
EIES AND IFAS (C) Equal split of PI IDC portion among PI & CO-PI (Dept. IDC portion unchanged).
FACULTY OMIT (D) Equal split of BOTH Department and PI IDC portions among PI & CO-PI.
THIS SECTION. (E) Return IDC to Center and Home Department of PI (PI IDC portion remains unchanged).
(F) Return IDC to PI and Center ONLY (No Dept IDC return).
(G) OTHER (provide explanation)


TYPE CATEGORY
New O Research O
Renewal E Training E[
Continuation O
Supplemental O
Revised E Other 1

I h I I I I I I M


CERTIFICATIONS/ASSURANCES
Human Subjects ]
Laboratory Animals [ Proprietary Data n
Recombinant DNA/RNA O Good Lab Practices O
Biohazards O Potentially Proprietary:
Classified Research ] Copyright E
Clearinghouse Review O Invention O
If NONE of the above apply, check here D


OFFICE USE ONLY


BUDG BEGIN:
BUDG END:
TOTAL AMT REQUESTED:
IDC AMT (ON):
IDC AMT (OFF):
UNRECOVERED IDC:
CST SHR:
DSR-1 (4/84)


PROJ BEGIN:
PROJ END:


RATE:
RATE:


BASE:
BASE:


CST SHR %:


Budget CK
Time Needed
Copies Needed
Direct Mail Fed Exp
dau
Subcontractor
No. Subcontracts__ UF Subcontractor












CHECKLIST FOR PROPOSALS


GENERAL
1. The proposed project should be consistent with the objectives of the Department, College and University.
2. All costs should be fully detailed, including the allowable indirect costs, the fringe benefits, health in-
surance, and any cost sharing. Remember that the cost sharing must be validated. Estimated salary in-
creases for equipment and travel costs for multiple-year projects should be anticipated.
3. Does the proposal involve a commitment of the University funds beyond the proposed project period? If
so, has the necessary internal funding been obtained to meet this commitment?
4. If the proposal contains or constitutes privileged/proprietary information, has it been properly marked?
5. If the proposal involves the use of Human Subjects, Laboratory Animals, Biohazards, etc., you should in-
dicate this in the certification and assurances section of the Sponsored Projects Approval Form. Specific
questions should be addressed to the appropriate committee chairperson.
6. If the proposal requires subcontracting or other collaborative activities, has written approval been obtain-
ed?
7. Graduate training programs should be coordinated with the Graduate School. All new degree programs
must be cleared through Academic Affairs.
8. Has indirect cost reimbursement been requested at the appropriate rate?

PERSONNEL
9. Is the applicant eligible to be a principal investigator? You are reminded that the principal investigator and
appropriate research personnel must have signed the University patent and copyright agreements.
10. Percent effort and personnel salaries must conform to the University and agency policy. Remember that
new appointments must be cleared with Academic Affairs and/or Personnel.
11. Fellowship and assistantship rates must comply with the Graduate School policy.

FACILITIES
12. Are the required space and facilities available without detriment to departmental activities? Health Center
projects should have the "No Additional Space Required" form signed.
13. Have you anticipated needs for building or structure modifications? You should check with the University
Planning Office for requirements involving utilities, floor loading, ventilation, etc.
14. Be sure that the equipment prices in your budget are current. Allow for the delivery and installation
charges. Departmental endorsement on the Sponsored Projects Approval Form confirms that the equip-
ment item is unavailable within the department or college for shared use.

QUESTIONS OR REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR CLARIFICATION SHOULD BE
DIRECTED TO THE DIVISION OF SPONSORED RESEARCH, PROPOSAL PROCESSING OFFICE,
208 GRINTER HALL (392-1582)


NOTE: THIS CHECKLIST IS INTENDED AS A GUIDE TO ASSIST
YOU IN THE PREPARATION OF YOUR PROPOSAL. THE
ATTACHED 'SPONSORED PROJECTS APPROVAL FORM'
MUST BE COMPLETED FOR ALL PROPOSALS RE-
QUESTING EXTRAMURAL FUNDING. PLEASE DETACH
THIS SHEET BEFORE OBTAINING SIGNATURES.











Exhibit 7


CERTIFICATE OF IDENTITY

The undersigned Principal Investigator hereby certifies
that on 19 a protocol
entitled
was approved by the
as evidencedby the attached Certificate of Approval.

The undersigned Investigator further certifies that he/
she is submitting a protocol entitled
which, other than the title, is exact-
ly identical in every term, number, procedure, application,
precaution, subject pool, potential benefit, projection, etc.,
to the protocol which was approved by the Institutional Review
Board on 19 and evidenced
by the attached Certiitcate.

The Principal Investigator, by signing below, further
acknowledges his/her understanding that should this protocol
differ in any way, other than its title, no matter how insig-
nificant or minimal, the only procedure available for the
Investigator to get approval of this protocol would be a full
IRB review. Should it, at any time or .for any reason be detar-
mined that this protocol is not identical to the previously
approved protocol, as has been represented, the submission
of this Certificate shall constitute prima facia evidence of
misrepresentation to the Health Center Institutional Review
Board and to the University of Florida, subjecting the Princi-
pal Investigator to appropriate sanctions.

Signed this day of ,19_




Principal Investigator

STATE OF FLORIDA
ss
COUNTY OF ALACHUA

BEFORE ME personally appeared
to me well known and known to me to
be the person described in and who executed the foregoing
instrument, and acknowledged to and before me that
executed said instrument for the purposes therein expressed.

WITNESS my hand and official seal, this day of
19


NOTARY PUBLIC, State of Florida
(SEAL) at Large
My Commission expires:













Exhibit 8


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
GAINESVILLE. 32611


^^R


THE GRADUATE SCHOOL &
THE DIVISION OF SPONSORED RESEARCH
Office of the Dean


MEMORANDUM


TO: Research Faculty

FROM: Ann R. Stevens, Ph.D., Associate Dean for Research

SUBJECT: The Care and Use of Laboratory Animals


Your recently submitted proposal involves the use of laboratory animals and,
therefore, falls under the NIH principles agreed to by the University of
Florida. These principles and the University of Florida's duties and respon-
sibilities are attached for your information. In order to comply with DHHS
policy, certain information must be provided by you. The attached form rep-
resents the best method of collecting such information in an organized and
efficient manner. The form must be completed and returned by
to:

Dr. Richard Halliwell
Box J-126 JHMHC
CAMPUS

Your cooperation in submitting the completed form in a timely fashion will
be greatly appreciated.


ARS/rmb


223 Grinter Hail
904/392-4646













UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
ALL-UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE ON THE CARE AND USE
OF LABORATORY ANIMALS
In order to comoly with 1IH policy and all federal, state and local rules and regulationss
concerning the care, treatment and use of laboratory animals, the Sollowing information must
be provided. Instructional programs, internally funded and unfunded research oroCects using
laboratory animals must also be aoorovea by te Committee. Notification of :.e committee'ss
recommendations will be :immunicated to the investigator as quickly as possible. 'lease
remenmer that research may not be initiated without aooroval. In the case of sponsored
projects, it is therefore advisable to obtain aoDroval at the time the project is suomitted
to the agency, so that the project can start as soon as the award is received. Renemeer
that the division of Soonsored Researcn cannot authorize the opening of accounts unless
approval nas been granted by the Committee.


Form Number


Designation

Date Received

Reviewers


PLEASE TYPE AND COMPLETE ALL QUESTIONS IN DETAIL


1. Principal Investigator:
Campus Mailing Address:
Department and College:


Telephone:
Date:


2. Proposal submitted to (name and address):


3. Starting Date: Conclusion:

4. Proposal Title:


5. Animal Species:
Strains:
Numbers:


Age:
Size:
Sex:


6. Reason for selecting this species:



7. Abstract of animal use (please attach copy to this form).
8. Care and location of animals:




9. Give details of tranquilizers, analgesics and/or anesthetics, etc., used in this study
to prevent pain or suffering to the animal:


10. Disposition of animals at end of experiment (include method of euthanasia.
are being transferred to another project, be sure to secure reapproval).


If animals


Signature of Investigator


Signature of Department Chairperson


(12/83)








______Exhibit 9 OMB No. 0925-06o
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES GRANT CONTRACT FELLOW OTHER
PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECTNew O Competing O Noncompeting 0 Supplemental
PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECTS c u cniuto
continuation continuation
ASSURANCE/CERTIFICATION/DECLARATION
APPLICATION IDENTIFICATION NO. (if known)
- ORIGINAL O FOLLOWUP EXEMPTION
(previously undesignated)

POLICY: A research activity involving human subjects that is not exempt from HHS regulations may not be funded unless an Instift
tional Review Board (IRB) has reviewed and approved the activity in accordance with Section 474 of the Public Health Service Act z
implemented by Title 45, Part 46 of the Code of Federal Regulations (45 CFR 46-as revised). The applicant institution must subm,
certification of IRB approval to HHS unless the applicant institution has designated a specific exemption under Section 46.101(b) which
applies to the proposed research activity. Institutions with an assurance of compliance on file with HHS which covers the propose
activity should submit certification of IRB review and approval with each application. fin exceptional cases, certification may b
accepted up to 60 days after the receipt date for which the application is submitted.) In the case of institutions which do not have a.
assurance of compliance on file with HHS covering the proposed activity, certification of IRS review and approval must be submitted
within 30 days of the receipt of a written request from HHS for certification.
1. TITLE OF APPLICATION OR ACTIVITY


2. PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR, PROGRAM DIRECTOR, OR FELLOW


3. FOOD ANd DRUG ADMINISTRATION REQUIRED INFORMATION (see reverse side)
4. HHS ASSURANCE STATUS
O This institution has an approved assurance of compliance on file with HHS which covers this activity.


Assurance identification number


IRB identification number


O No assurance of compliance which applies to this activity has been established with HHS, but the applicant institution will provide written assurance c
compliance and certification of IRB review and approval in accordance with 45 CFR 46 upon request.

5. CERTIFICATION OF IRB REVIEW OR DECLARATION OF EXEMPTION

O This activity has been reviewed and approved by an IRB in accordance with the requirements of 45 CFR 46, including its relevant Subparts. This certif
cation fulfills, when applicable, requirements for certifying FDA status for each investigational new drug or device. (See reverse side of this form.)

Date of IRB review and approval. (If approval is pending, write "pending." Fqllowup certification is required.f
(month/dayr/yar)
0 Full Board Review 0 Expedited Review


O This activity contains multiple projects, some of which have not been reviewed. The IRB has granted approval on condition that all projects covered b
45 CFR 46 will be reviewed and approved before they are initiated and that appropriate further certification (Form HHS 596) will be submitted.


O Human subjects are involved, but this activity qualifies for exemption under 46.101(b) in accordance with paragraph (insertparagraph number
ofexemprion in 46.101 (b, I through 5), but the institution did not designate that exemption on the application.


6. Each official signing below certifies that the information provided on this form is correct and that each institution
assumes responsibility for assuring required future reviews, approvals, and submissions of certification.

APPLICANT INSTITUTION COOPERATING INSTITUTION
NAME. ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE NO. NAME. ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE NO.






NAME AND TITLE OF OFFICIAL (prin or type) NAME AND TITLE OF OFFICIAL (print or type)


SIGNATURE OF OFFICIAL LISTED ABOVE [and date) SIGNATURE OF OFFICIAL LISTED AOOVE fand date)



HHS 596 (Rev. 1/82) (If additional space is needed, please use reverse side under "Notes.'










3. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION REQUIRED INFORMATION (from front side
According to 45 CFR 46.121, if an application is made to HHS requiring certification and involving use of an investigational new drug or di
additional information is required. In addition, according to 21 CFR 312.1(a)(2), 30 days must elapse between date of receipt by FDA of I
FD-1571 and use of the drug. unless the 30 day delay period is waived by FDA.
3a. INVESTIGATIONAL NEW DRUG EXEMPTION lif more than one is involved, list others below underNOTES):
SPONSOR NAME



DRUG NAME



DATE OF END OF 30-DAY EXPIRATION OR WAIVER NUMBER ISSUED



3b. INVESTIGATIONAL DEVICE EXEMPTION:
SPONSOR NAME



DEVICE NAME



Unless notified otherwise by FDA, under 21 CFR 812.2(b) (ii) a sponsor is deemed to have an approved IDE if: (1) the IRB
agreed with the sponsor that the device is a nonsignificant risk device;and (2) the IRB has approved the study. {Check applicable

O The IRB agrees with the sponsor that this device is a nonsignificant risk device.
OR
O The IDE application was submitted to FDA on (date) Number issued._

NOTES:


HHS 596 (Rev. 1/82) BACK
































APPENDICES










Appendix A


GLOSSARY OF GRANT AND CONTRACT TERMINOLOGY

ALLOWABLE COST The term used to describe a cost for which an institution
may be reimbursed under a research support agreement with the Federal Gov-
ernment. The determination of allowability for educational institutions is
governed by cost principles published as Federal Management Circular A-21
(March 6, 1979) (Revised August 16, 1982).

ANNUAL REPORTS A summary of all research and training activities, from
extramural or intramural funding sources.

ASSISTANTSHIP An award, or stipend, which is service connected, made to a
student.

AUTHORIZED INSTITUTIONAL REPRESENTATIVE The administrative official who
is empowered to commit the proposing organization to the conduct of a re-
search project and who thereafter is to represent the institution in deal-
ing with the supporting agency on all administrative matters concerning the
project.

BASIC AGREEMENT A written instrument of understanding effective for a
specific period between a Contractor and agency setting forth the negoti-
ated contract clauses which will be applicable to anticipated future con-
tract within the scope of the agreement. Existence of a basic agreement
does not create a legal implication or obligation that the Government will
in fact enter into any contractss.

BIOMEDICAL SCIENCES SUPPORT GRANT To provide flexible support of research
and research training programs of qualifying institutions; to encourage
these institutions to strengthen and to balance their health-related re-
search activities in order to obtain a cohesive program. Institutions of
higher education, exclusive of health professional schools, engaged in
health-related research may be supported.

BLOCK GRANTS "Block" grants are made from the federal government directly
to states or local units of government, such as counties and municipal-
ities. The grant most often comes to the state in a "block," and the state
may spend the money as it wishes as long as the funds are being used to
fulfill the basic purposes for which they were authorized. Many of the
more recent federal grants under what is called "new federalism" have been
block grants, such as the Housing and Community Development Act money, the
Comprehensive Employment and Training Act money, and funds to support pro-
grams for older Americans. Under the rules of most block grants, the state
must submit an annual "state plan" to the federal government explaining how
and where the funds are to be used. This state plan is public information
and potential grant seekers may wish to review it for programs under which
they wish to seek grant support. One important aspect of block grants is
that while the money is federal, the authority to spend it is local, and
the recipients of block grant funds are allowed great flexibility in how
they use the money.









BUDGET The plan for expenditure of funds required for an activity through
support of designated services, materials and other allowable cost items.

BUDGET PERIOD The interval of time (usually 12 months) into which the
grant project period is divided for budgetary and reporting purposes. (See
also PROJECT PERIOD)

BUSINESS OFFICER/FISCAL OFFICER The financial official of the grantee
institution who has primary responsibility for accountability and reporting
on grant or contract funds.

CAPITATION GRANTS To provide a dependable support base for the education-
al programs of schools of medicine, osteopathy, dentistry, veterinary medi-
cine, optometry, pharmacy, and podiatry. These grants may be used for any
purpose which each school judges will contribute to its educational program
except: construction, financial assistance to students, research or pa-
tient care not necessary for the educational program of the school, hospi-
tal bed costs, operating deficits of teaching hospitals, and other costs
not integral to the education of students.

Stemming from a concept of providing funds per capital of service,
capitation grants are awarded based on the actual number of people served,
rather than on the task to be performed. For example, an organization may
be providing housing for runaway youths. This organization's annual budget
is $100,000 and last year it provided housing for 1,000 youths. A
capitation grant would provide $100 for each youth housed during the coming
year ($100,000 divided by 1,000 youths). Capitation grants are most often
used for training grants where payment is based on enrollment, rather than
training outcome.

CATEGORICAL GRANTS Simply stated, funds under a certain "category" must
be expended within a certain field of interest, such as mental health, ser-
vices for the handicapped, or maternity and child care. Although the num-
ber of categorical grants provided by the federal government has decreased
in the past few years because of an increase in block grants, there are
still more than 1,000 federal grant programs active within the federal gov-
ernment.

CENTER An interdisciplinary unit or division within the University re-
porting to the UF Vice President. These University Centers are not to be
confused with IFAS Centers or AREC's.

CHANGE ORDER This is a written order signed by the Contracting Officer,
directing the Contractor to make changes which the Changes Clause of the
contract authorizes the Contracting Officer to order without the consent of
the Contractor.

COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT The cooperative agreement does not constitute a
third type of funding mechanism, distinctively different from both con-
tracts and grants. There are two basic funding mechanisms: procurement
(contracts) and assistance (grants/cooperative agreements). In the con-
tract, the government is the purchaser of services. In the grant, the gov-
ernment is the patron. In a cooperative agreement, both the university and
the government are partners. In the joining of government funding and












university expertise, the government remains the "junior" partner, but has
the right to claim substantial influence on the performance of the work.
As with grants, cost sharing may be required.

COMPETING RENEWAL Identifies a request for additional support beyond that
previously recommended and must compete for available funds.

CONFERENCE A grant awarded to support international or national meetings,
conferences, and workshops clearly within the areas of the agency's inter-
ests.

CONSORTIUM GRANT This is a grant made to one institution in support of a
project in which the program is carried out through a cooperative arrange-
ment between or among the grantee institution and one or more participating
institutions. The cooperative agreement is subject to approval by the
grantor and should be negotiated prior to submission of the proposal.

CONSTRUCTION A grant made to provide support for building, expanding and
modernizing health facilities. Unless specifically stated, most federal
grants will not provide funds for capital purposes, requiring instead that
the grantee rent or lease the appropriate facility. Special construction
grants, especially in the fields of health and mental health, have been
made in the past for construction, renovation and expansion.

CONSULTANT A person that, because of his expertise in a particular area,
is asked to participate in a grant. A consultant on a UF project cannot be
a University of Florida professor (he can receive only one State check).

CONTINUATION A proposal awarded for more than one year, but funded one
year at a time. A continuation proposal must be submitted at the end of
each year for the next year's funds. This proposal consists of a progress
report and a budget for the next year's award. These are usually not com-
petitive proposals.

CONTINUATION OF INCREMENTALLY FUNDED CONTRACT Supplemental agreement
which allots funds for the next increment of work to be performed under a
multiple year, incrementally funded contract, and stipulates additional
time period covered by such allotment.

CONTINUING EDUCATION A grant, usually short-term, made to provide support
for additional or updated training to individuals practicing or wishing to
practice in a given field. Often called "professional development."

CONTRACT An exchange of promises which gives rise to legally enforceable
rights and duties. Contracts with the federal government are subject to an
extensive body of law and regulation which governs, among other subjects,
the manner of contract formation, terms and conditions, and remedies and
sanctions available to the parties.

CONTRACT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE The office which performs assigned
functions relating to contract administration and assigned pre-award
functions.












CONTRACTING OFFICER An agency official who is, by virtue of his position
or express appointment under prescribed procedures, authorized to develop,
enter into and administer contracts, and to make determinations and find-
ings with respect thereto.

CONTRACTING OFFICER'S REPRESENTATIVE An agency employee designated in
writing by a Contracting Officer pursuant to agency regulation to act as
the Contracting Officer's authorized representative in administering a spe-
cial contract. The Contractor is furnished a copy of the appointment which
will delineate the scope of the COR's authority.

CONTRACTS & GRANTS OFFICE A branch of Finance & Accounting which does the
accounting for all grants and contracts for the University, except IFAS and
EIES.

COPYRIGHT The exclusive right bestowed, by federal law, to an author (or
University, as author/owner, if developed with University funds, facilities
or personnel) for the publication, production or sale of the rights to a
scholarly, literary, dramatic, musical, visual or artistic work or computer
program. Copyrightable work developed with University support shall be
reported to the Division of Sponsored Research.

COST-PLUS-A-FEE CONTRACT This is a cost-reimbursement contract under
which the Contractor is paid a fee as well as for experienced costs. The
fee may be set as a fixed percentage of the total estimated cost (a
cost-plus-fixed-fee contract) or it may vary depending upon specified pa-
rameters such as cost, performance or scheduled incentives set at the time
the contract is negotiated (a cost-plus-incentive-fee contract). Colleges
and universities are rarely eligible for cost-plus-a-fee contracts.

COST REIMBURSEMENT CONTRACT This is a contract issued on the basis of an
estimate of the costs of performing the work arrived at by negotiation be-
tween the Government and the Contractor. The contract provides for payment
to the Contractor for costs actually incurred up to a ceiling amount equal
to the total estimated cost stated in the contract. The Contractor is
excused from further performance after his costs reach the ceiling, unless
the Government increases the ceiling.

COST SHARING This is a requirement that a performing institution may not
receive reimbursement for all its allowable costs under a sponsored proj-
ect. It usually is given effect through a negotiated agreement, included
or incorporated in the support instrument, under which the institution
agrees to seek reimbursement for specified cost items only up to a spec-
ified ceiling, and to contribute, or cost-share the remainder.

DATA The term used to describe recorded information, regardless of form
or characteristics.

DEMONSTRATION GRANT This is a grant, generally of limited duration, made
to establish or demonstrate the feasibility of a theory or approach. Among
the most common types of grants made in the human services field, demon-
stration grants, as opposed to basic research grants, are made to agencies
in order to illustrate the effectiveness of a certain procedure or method-
ology, while at the same time providing a direct benefit to a group of









clients. Unlike research grants, there is usually a large amount of evi-
dence that the methodology to be demonstrated should prove effective before
the grant is awarded. Often demonstration grants are the second step of
research grants, attempting to show that the success of a research grant
may have greater applicability or a wider target population than originally
envisioned.

DISCRETIONARY PROJECT A grant made in support of an individual project in
accordance with legislation which permits the grantor agency to exercise
judgment in selecting the project, the grantee and the amount of the award.

EDUCATIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT Any grant or contract under which Federal
financing is provided on a cost reimbursement basis for all or an agreed
portion of the cost incurred for training or other educational services.
Typical of work covered by educational service agreements are summer insti-
tutes, special training programs for selected participants, professional or
technical services to cooperating countries, the development and introduc-
tion of new or expanded courses, and similar instructional oriented un-
dertakings, including special research training programs, that are sepa-
rately budgeted and accounted for by the institution.

The term does not extend to (a) grants or contracts for organized research,
(b) arrangements under which the Federal financing is exclusively in the
form of scholarships, fellowships, traineeships, or other fixed amounts
such as cost of education allowance or the normal published tuition rates
and fees of an institution, or (c) construction, facility and exclusively
general resource or institutional type grants.

EXCESS PROPERTY Also known as surplus property. Any government property
that has been designated as surplus that may then be paid for by a NSF
grant.

EXPLORATORY GRANTS To encourage the development of new research programs
in the area of community health. These awards are made for a maximum peri-
od of 2 years at a level not to exceed $20,000 per year (direct costs).

FELLOWSHIP A grant made to an individual to support specific training
which will enhance that individual's level of competence in the particular
area. This is not considered employment.

FINANCE & ACCOUNTING The office or area of the University that pertains
to all financial matters.

FIXED PRICE CONTRACT This is a contract in which the Contractor guaran-
tees to deliver or perform the contract work within the period specified at
a fixed price agreed upon in advance and payable no matter what the actual
costs are.

FIXED PRICE CONTRACT WITH PRICE REVISION This is a Fixed Price Contract
which contains a provision for negotiating the price, sometimes both down-
ward and upward within present limits, after the work has been completed.

FLOWDOWN The term used to describe the requirement that a contract clause
appearing in a prime contract appear in subcontracts. The requirement may









apply to first tier subcontracts (Contractor-Subcontractor) or to all tiers
(Subcontractor-Subcontractor as well). The requirement may be triggered by
certain characteristics of the subcontract which are specified in the
clause or regulations, e.g. subcontracts for a value of more than $10,000.

FLOWTHROUGH FUNDS Flowthrough funds are federal monies distributed by the
state according to priority needs. Since they come from federal sources,
they require regulatory compliance in accordance with federal regulations.
They also are subject to assessment of 'indirect cost, even though the state
agency might not grant indirect costs for projects supported by state gen-
erated funds. A special rate has been negotiated at the UF for federal
flowthrough dollars.

FORMAL ADVERTISING This procurement method derives its name from the pro-
cedures it employs. There are several steps in a formally advertised pro-
curement: (1) preparation of the Invitation for Bids (IFB) which clearly,
accurately and completely describes the Government's requirements, (2) dis-
tribution of the IFB to prospective bidders by mail, posting in public
places, and other means as may be appropriate, (3) submission of bids by
prospective Contractors, (4) public opening and recording of bids, and (5)
award of a contract to that responsible bidder whose bid will be most ad-
vantageous to the Government. The contract awarded will be of the firm
fixed-price type in most instances.

FORMULA A grant in which funds are provided to specified grantees on the
basis of a specific formula, prescribed in legislation or regulation, rath-
er than on the basis of an individual project review. The formula is
usually based on such factors as population, per capital income, enrollment,
mortality and morbidity. These grants are generally mandatory. The scope
of work is very broad.

FRINGE BENEFITS These are costs related to the salaries and wages of all
state employees. At the University of Florida there are two rates used in
calculating fringe benefits. Faculty and career service employees have a
comprehensive rate. This figure is comprised of social security, state
retirement, unemployment compensation and workman's compensation. In addi-
tion, faculty and career service employees may elect to take out state
health insurance. The second rate applies to student assistants, graduate
assistants, temporary OPS help, and non-line itemed post-docs. This rate
includes unemployment compensation and workman's compensation only; social
security, state retirement and insurance are not covered. Applicants
should confirm the current rate level with the Sponsored Research Office or
the Personnel Office.

GENERAL PROVISIONS These provisions are often referred to as
"boilerplate," because for the most part they are contract clauses required
by statute or regulation to appear in all government contracts or all con-
tracts of a particular type. (NOTE: Though the provisions used by differ-
ent agencies may have the same title and appear similar, significant as-
pects of the clause may be different and one should not assume the clause
is the same as that with which one is familiar.)

GENERAL RESEARCH SUPPORT Designed to provide flexible support of research
training programs of qualifying institutions; to encourage these










institutions to strengthen and to balance their research activities in or-
der to obtain a cohesive program. An example is the NIH General Research
Support Program. Both health professional schools or non-profit research
organizations engaged in health-related research may be supported. In this
program each health professional school is considered to be an "institu-
tion" even though it may be a component of a university.

GRADUATE TRAINING PROGRAMS To assist and extend training of individuals
preparing for research and academic careers in fundamental, pre-clinical,
public health, and other disciplines related to the area of interest of the
awarding Institute/Division.

GRANT An exchange of property or funds for assurances that a particular
use will or will not be made of it. The assurances required may be exten-
sive and detailed, taking the form of conditions to which the grantee
agrees. Insofar as a breach of any of these conditions is subject to reme-
dy at law the grant constitutes a contract. Grants are a form of assis-
tance, as distinct from contracts, which are a form of procurement.

GRANTEE The institution, public or private non-profit corporation, orga-
nization, agency, or other legally accountable entity that receives a
grant, and assumes legal and financial responsibility and accountability
both for the awarded funds and for the performance of the grant-supported
activity. In certain cases, a grantee may be an individual in the United
States.

GRANT-IN-AID This is another name for a project grant or formula grant,
most frequently the latter.

GRANTS MANAGER/GRANTS MANAGEMENT OFFICER The agency official responsible
for grant administration and for liaison with grantees. (He is responsible
for all business management aspects associated with negotiation, award and
administration of grants).

GRANTS OFFICER The agency official authorized to take final action on
grants.

HALF-SHEET FORM The official University of Florida form typed in DSR au-
thorizing the release of funds on a grant. This gives most of the informa-
tion immediately necessary for the appropriate fiscal office to issue an
account number.

HEGIS NUMBER A nationwide classification coding system for training and
research discipline categories.

HUMAN SUBJECTS CERTIFICATION When a project in any way uses humans for
experimentation, the principal investigator must have the project reviewed
and approved by the Human Subjects Committee.

INDEMNITY CLAUSE A clause or subsection in a contract that states that
the University holds the government or grantor harmless. We cannot agree
to indemnity clauses.









INDIRECT COSTS These are costs that have been incurred for common or
joint objectives and therefore cannot be identified specifically with a
particular project or activity. They are costs involving operational sup-
port for mixed purposes, e.g. library system, or which benefit a variety of
activities, e.g. building maintenance, heating and cooling and research
administration.

INDIRECT COST RATE A percentage rate-negotiated by a Contractor with the
federal government. When applied to a base of the research project's di-
rect costs, this percentage rate determines the maximum reimbursable indi-
rect costs of the project. A single indirect cost rate is usually negoti-
ated for use on all federally funded projects at an institution.

IN-KIND CONTRIBUTION Donation of time or services that is of measurable
dollar value.

INSTITUTE Same as center. May also be a special workshop.

INSTITUTIONAL GRANT This type of grant is awarded generally on a formula
basis which takes into consideration the volume of grants and contracts in
one or more fields or disciplines at an institution. Detailed proposals
are not normally required. The National Science Foundation and the Depart-
ment of Health and Human Services are the primary sources of institutional
grants. The scope of work is very broad.

INVENTION STATEMENT A statement submitted by the P.I. to the granting
agency at the end of the grant period, indicating whether any inventions
were derived as a result of the grant.

KEY PERSONNEL The personnel considered to be of primary importance to the
successful conduct of a research project. The term usually applies to the
senior members) of the project staff. Those coming within the definition
are normally identified by name in the research agreement. Changes require
sponsor notification and approval.

LETTER CONTRACT Written preliminary contractual document which authorizes
immediate commencement of work and stipulates maximum fund obligations
which may be incurred prior to negotiation of a definitive contract. A
letter contract will be superseded by definitive contract at the earliest
practicable date, usually with-in 90 days.

LETTER OF CREDIT (CASH LIMITATION) A special accounting mechanism whereby
an account is set up to receive funds from the awarding agency on a monthly
basis. Similar to a charge account. Minimizes cash flow problems.

LINE All persons that are appointed in the State University System are
appointed to a line, except OPS personnel. There is one (1) line for every
person. When a person terminates or transfers, the line is vacant and free
to be filled again.

LINE ITEM One cost category in a budget.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT A unit of government below the State level, including
specifically a county, municipality, city, town, township, school district,









local public authority, special district, intrastate district, council of
governments, sponsor group representative organization, and other regional
or interstate government entity, or any agency or instrumentality of a lo-
cal government, exclusive of institutions of higher education and hos-
pitals.

MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT A requirement contained in legislation or regu-
lations specifying that a grantee must maintain a certain specified level
of financial effort in a specific subject area in order to receive Federal
grant funds; and that the Federal grant funds may be used only to supple-
ment, not supplant, the level of grantee funds.

MATCHING Funds equal or similar to those used.

MATCHING GRANTS A matching grant means that the agency or individual who
is receiving the grant guarantees to provide a certain portion of the total
grant funds from sources other than the government. This "match" may be as
small as one percent for many research grants to as much as fifty percent
of total project costs with organizations such as the National Endowment
for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities. Often there is a
"sliding match" requirement, which means that the agency receiving the
grant will provide a greater share of the total costs in the second and
subsequent years of the award. Matching requirements may be for a "hard"
or "soft" match. A "hard" match means that actual dollar matches must be
secured, whereas a "soft" match allows for such donated services as volun-
teer time and goods or equipment to be counted in lieu of "hard" dollars.

MG&G ACCOUNT "Miscellaneous Gifts and Grants." Handled directly by Con-
tracts and Grants, 128 Grinter Hall.

MODIFICATION Document altering or amending one or more provisions of an
existing contract or basic agreement. (If funds are provided for addition-
al work which necessitates extending the performance period in excess of
six months, a supplemental agreement (renewal) should be executed).

MONTHLY REPORTS A report prepared by the Division of Sponsored Research,
listing all proposals submitted and all awards accepted by the University
of Florida during a month.

NASA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS These agreements generally involve no ex-
change of funds but involve the use of NASA services, equipment or facil-
ities.

NEGOTIATE, NEGOTIATION These terms, when applied to the making of con-
tracts, refer to making purchases and contracts without formal advertising.

NEW CONTRACT Document covering a new work requirement which defines the
specifications, conditions, and negotiated clauses pertaining to a contrac-
tual agreement between the government and a contractor. If a basic agree-
ment exists with the contractor, the contractual document sets forth the
scope of work, price, delivery, and additional matters peculiar to the par-
ticular procurement and incorporates by reference or appends the negotiated
clauses agreed upon in the basic agreement.









NEW GRANT Identifies an original request for support of a particular
project or activity.

NIH MANPOWER SURVEY A report which must be submitted to NIH showing the
level and amount of time for all personnel employed on a grant whether or
not they are paid from the grant. This is a detailed report giving name,
Social Security number, birth date, sex, degree, hours worked, salary, etc.
This must go in with all NIH continuation proposals.

NO COST EXTENSION An extension of the grant period which does not require
additional funding.

NONCOMPETING RENEWAL Request for additional support beyond that previous-
ly awarded but within an overall approved project period. This request
does not compete for available funds. Often called "continuation."

OCO "Operating Capital Outlay" The University accounting category used
for the purchase of equipment.

OE "Operating Expense" The University accounting category which is for
the purchasing of expense items.

OFF CAMPUS Research or training that is not conducted on the University
campus itself. Off campus would include the city of Gainesville and outly-
ing counties. Off campus research does not include use of campus Op-
erations and Maintenance, buildings and equipment.

ON CAMPUS All research or training that is conducted on the University
campus is termed on campus, including the V.A. Hospital.

OPS "Other Personal Services" The University accounting category used
for temporary employees. These are usually student assistants, graduate
research assistants anyone who is not a line employee of the University.

PATENT A legal protection for an individual who has produced or created
an original idea, product, etc.

PLANNING GRANT A grant made to support planning, developing, designing
and establishing the means for performing research, delivering health ser-
vices, or accomplishing other approved objectives.

POSTDOCTORAL FELLOWSHIPS To provide postdoctoral research training sup-
port in health and health-related areas to individuals having received a
Ph.D., M.D., D.D.S., D.O., D.V.M., Sc.D., D. Eng., or equivalent domestic
for foreign degree. A supply allowance of up to $5,000 ($2,000 for U.S.
Government labs) per 12-month period will be provided, upon request, to the
sponsoring institution. Considered advanced professional training, not
employment.

POWER OF ATTORNEY A letter signed by the President of the University at-
testing to the fact that the person signing for the President has the power
to do so.









PREDOCTORAL FELLOWSHIPS To provide predoctoral research training support
in health and health-related areas to holders of baccalaureate degrees or
equivalent experience. Fellowships are not awarded for study leading to
the M.D., D.O., D.D.S., D.V.M., or other applied science degrees. An in-
stitutional allowance of $4,000 is normally provided to a sponsoring insti-
tution in the United States in lieu of tuition and all other fees.

PRIME CONTRACT Any contract entered into directly between the Contractor
and the Government or other party which is not for the purpose of carrying
out any requirement of another contract.

PRIOR APPROVAL Written permission to use grant funds for certain purposes
not included in the approved budget, or to change certain aspects of the
program in a way not originally planned. Such permission must be obtained
from the awarding component from which the grant was received or, when spe-
cifically prescribed, from the designated institutional official, prior to
the performance of the act requiring such approval. Failure to obtain pri-
or approval, when required, is at the grantee's risk. Most agencies make
no commitment to approve such expenditures on a retroactive basis.

PROGRAM DIRECTOR/PROJECT DIRECTOR/PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR The faculty mem-
ber or other employee of the educational institution whose proposed project
is approved and funded by the awarding agency, who is responsible for the
scientific conduct of the project and expenditure of funds.

PROGRAM OFFICER/PROGRAM MANAGER The title given by grantor agencies, es-
pecially NSF, to the scientific or technical employee responsible for eval-
uation of proposals and recommendation of action thereon in a specific area
and, if an award is made, for the scientific aspects of grant adminis-
tration and for liaison with Principal Investigators/Project Directors.

PROGRAM PROJECT GRANTS For support of a broadly based and usually long-
term program of research activity. These grants are flexible, usually di-
rected toward a range of problems within a broad category, having a central
research focus rather than a specific single purpose.

PROJECT GRANTS This is the most common form of grant. To support a dis-
crete, specified, circumscribed project to be performed by the named inves-
tigator(s) in an area representing his specific interest and competencies.

PROJECT PERIOD The total time for which support of a project has been
approved. Competing extensions of project periods generally are subject to
in-depth review and re-evaluation of the activity. (See also: Budget Pe-
riod)

PROPOSAL A set of documents containing a descriptive narrative of an idea
and a budget to be submitted to a funding agency for support of research or
training.

RENEWAL Supplemental agreement to an existing contract with the incumbent
contractor which provides for the performance of new or additional work
similar or identical in nature to that previously required, obligates addi-
tional funds, and extends the performance period for more than six months









(usually for one year). (A renewal will not be executed on a competitive
award, instead a new contract will be executed).

RESEARCH GRANT Made in support of investigation or experimentation aimed
at the discovery and interpretation of facts, revision of accepted theories
in the light of new facts, or the application of such new or revised the-
ories. As opposed to demonstration grants and project grants, research
grants are provided to test theories and hypotheses, develop or interpret
new information, or revise accepted theories without the requirements that
some benefit be immediately passed on to the clients. There are two types,
basic and applied. Basic research, which enjoyed great favor in the
1960's, has found funding harder to obtain lately while applied research
funds have continued to grow, especially in environmental programs.

RESEARCH CAREER DEVELOPMENT AWARDS Salary support to buy release time for
mid-career faculty of promise, to enable them to devote full time effort to
research.

RESEARCH DEMONSTRATION AND DISSEMINATION PROJECTS To provide support de-
signed to develop, test, and evaluate health service activities, and to
foster the application of existing knowledge.

RESEARCH SCIENTIST AWARD For the support of a research scientist qual-
ified to pursue independent research which would extend the research pro-
gram of his sponsoring institution, or to direct an essential part of this
research program.

RESEARCH SCIENTIST DEVELOPMENT AWARD-RESEARCH For support of a scientist,
committed to research, in need of additional experience.

RESEARCH SCIENTIST DEVELOPMENT AWARD-RESEARCH & TRAINING For support of a
scientist, committed to research, in need of both advanced research train-
ing and additional experience.

RESTRICTED FUNDS Funds which have been allocated for a particular use
agreed upon usually by both the granting agency and the institution.

RFP "Request for a Proposal." If an agency has a particular area that
they wish to fund, they will put out an RFP or Request for Proposal in that
area.

SEED MONEY Small grants awarded to professors starting in an area of re-
search. Also referred to as development awards.

SENIOR PERSONNEL Those professorial or professional personnel who are
either (1) responsible for the scientific or technical direction of a sup-
ported project as named Principal Investigators or Project Directors, or
(2) senior assistant to the PI/PD.

SERVICE A grant made to support cost for the purpose of organizing, es-
tablishing, providing or expanding the delivery of health or other essen-
tial services to a specified community or area.










SMALL GRANTS To support for one year or less, in amounts generally limit-
ed to a maximum of $5,000 for direct costs, in a relatively rapid and flex-
ible manner, studies in behavioral, biological and medical sciences rele-
vant to mental health; for support of preliminary research explorations.
(In extraordinary circumstances, awards up to $6,000 will be made). Exam-
ple: NIMH.

SOCIAL SECURITY A percentage of a working person's salary taken out of
the pay check (automatically) and matched by the employer to pay benefits
to the elderly, disabled, etc. who cannot support themselves.

SPECIAL PROVISIONS These are the tailor-made requirements of an agree-
ment, e.g. scope of work, price, delivery terms, and additional matters
related to the particular contract requirements.

STAFFING A grant made to an institution to provide support for salaries
of professional and technical personnel and their in-service training.

STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW Certain federally funded assistance programs
require State Clearinghouse review. Individual states have set up their
review mechanism and may propose additional programs to be subject to re-
view. States have the right to review and send comments to the federal
funding agency. For specific information, refer to Executive Order 12372.

STATE GOVERNMENT Any of the several States of the United States, the Dis-
trict of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, any territory or pos-
session of the United States, or any agency or instrumentality of a State
exclusive of state institutions of higher education and hospitals.

STEP-FUNDED GRANT This is a project grant usually for a period of three
years, with the initial commitment for the grant providing 100% of the
funds for the first year, 2/3 of the funds for the second year and 1/3 of
the funds for the third year. After the first year, additional commitments
may be made out of the new fiscal year, to arrive at a total of 100% for
year 2 and subsequent years.

STIPENDS Student financial support, allowable on training grants and fel-
lowships, in accordance with pre-established levels.

SUBCONTRACT A portion of work on a contract that is handled by another
agency. Example: The Army has a contract with the University of Florida.
Since some of the work is handled by the University of Tennessee, the Uni-
versity of Florida will therefore have a subcontract with the University of
Tennessee.

SUPPLEMENT An award for additional funds over and above the amount orig-
inally awarded, either for the current operating year or for any future
year previously recommended.

TECHNICAL DATA The term used to describe recorded information, regardless
of form or characteristic, of a scientific or technical nature.

TECHNICAL OFFICER A Government representative designated to coordinate
technical matters arising under the contract or grant. He/she will deal










directly with the research investigator and may make decisions within the
direction or scope of the work. As a rule he/she cannot make any decision
regarding administration or cost matters which remain the province of the
grants manager or the contracting officer. A written change order should
be requested whenever the technical officer requests an action which has an
effect on the scope of work or which increases costs.

TRAINING A grant awarded to an organization to support costs of training
students, personnel or prospective employees in research, or in the tech-
niques or practices pertinent to the delivery of health services in the
particular area of concern.

UNDERGRADUATE TRAINING PROGRAMS To assist qualified institutions to im-
prove and expand the training of undergraduate students in disciplines
related to the area of interest of the awarding Institute/Division.

UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION This is required for all state employees, and
is usually included as a component of the fringe benefits package.

UNRELEASED FUNDS Funds that have not been released into an account yet.
They are released by way of a 441 form (budget transfer form).

UNRESTRICTED FUNDS Funds given in a lump sum which can be used for any-
thing the P.I. deems necessary for the progress of the project.

UNSOLICITED PROPOSAL The term applied to a written offer to perform work
which is not the result of a formal written request for proposals issued by
an agency. The offer may be briefer than a response to an RFP, but it
should contain the same elements.

USDA COOPERATIVE RESEARCH AGREEMENTS These reflect significant technical
collaboration between a grantee experiment station and an agency laborato-
ry.

WORKMAN'S COMPENSATION Compensation for injuries that occur on the job.
This item is usually included as part of the fringe benefits package.






Appendix B


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
GAINESVILLE. 32611



THE GRADUATE SCHOOL &
THE DIVISION OF SPONSORED RESEARCH 223 Grinter Hall
Office of the Dean January 24, 1984 904/392-4646
TO: Faculty Members

FROM: Donald R. Price, Acting Dean for Graduate Studies and Research

RE: Department of Defense Short Form Research Contract

Through the Defense Acquisition Circular (DAC) 76-46 dated August 24,
1982, the Short Form Research Contract has been approved for inclusion in
the Defense Acquisition Regulations. This action has resulted in substan-
tial revisions to the Short Form Research Packet. The packet now consists
of a Research Proposal Cover Page, Page 1; the Offeror's Statements, Page
2; the Equipment Acquisition Statement, Page 3; and the Budget, Page 4. It
should be used when you are preparing an unsolicited submission of $10,000
or more to all Department of Defense agencies.

The Defense Acquisition Regulations concerning the preparation and
submission of an unsolicited proposal are attached. Following this prepa-
ratory information is the actual Short Form Research Contract packet. As
mentioned above, it only contains four parts. Below is a brief explanation
of how to complete each page.

Research Proposal Cover Page, Page 1

This is the proposal cover page, coming immediately after the Univer-
sity of Florida Sponsored Projects Approval Form, DSR-1. You should
complete items 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 14. The Division has
completed or will complete the remaining items.

Offeror's Statements, Page 2

On page 2 of the application you need only complete items A and B.
The principal investigator must complete these two items since he/she is
the only person who can provide this specific information on the project.
You will note that items C, D, and E have been completed for you.

Equipment Acquisition Statement, Page 3

If you plan to use project funds to acquire either automated data
processing equipment of any price or other equipment items having a single
item price of more than $500 are requested as a part of your project
budget, you are required to provide the Government with a statement as to
why it is necessary to acquire equipment with contract funds. Many of the
delays in processing funding requests are due to the contractor's failure
to include an Equipment Acquisition Statement with the original request.
The statement should say that the University is either unwilling or unable
to purchase the requested equipment items with funds other than those


EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY:AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER




Letter to Faculty
January 24, 1984
Page 2

provided by the agency. In an attempt to alleviate the delays caused by
this problem, Page 3 has been enclosed as a part of the Short Form Research
Contract Packet. The form must be signed by the principal investigator,
the department chairman, the college dean and an authorized official of the
institution.

Budget, Page 4

The budget format has been greatly simplified by the new regulations.
The DD Form 633 is no longer required. Its submission is optional. The
Division of Sponsored Research has prepared a budget breakdown in an easy
format. Budgets should be completed for each year of funds requested and
as a summary of the total request. The pages should be numbered sequen-
tially.

These pages constitute the business part of the proposal. In-
structions concerning the make-up of the technical portion can be found in
the attached Defense Acquisition Regulations.

If you have any questions, please call the Proposal Processing Office
at 392-1582.


DRP:jah















SHORT FORM RESEARCH CONTRACT
RESEARCH PROPOSAL
DATE: COVER PAGE


DO NOT USE THIS BLOCK


1. TO: (Submit copies of proposal to:) 2. SCIENTIFIC FIELD





3. FROM: NAME AND ADDRESS OF OFFEROR 4. TYPE OF ORGANIZATION
University of Florida (X) Educational Institution
219 Grinter Hall ( )Other nonprofit
Gainesville FL 32611
IDENTIFICATION NO. DUNS#004426771
5. TITLE: 6. REQUESTED 8. PROPOSAL ALSO BEING SUBMITTED TO:
DURATION:


7. PROPOSED AMOUNT

S
9. REQUESTED START DATE: 10. TYPE OF CONTRACT: 11. PROPOSAL VALID UNTIL:
( )Cost Plus Fixed Fee (minimum 6 months)
( )Cost. No Fee
( )Cost Sharing
12. PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORSS: 13. ADMINISTRATIVE REPRESENTATIVE AUTHORIZED

TO CONDUCT NEGOTIATIONS:
Name and Department Telephone No. Name Telephone No.

Ann R. Stevens Ph.D. (904)392-1582

Katharina Phillips (904)392-1582


14. OFFEROR'S STATEMENTS:
See Page 2
ENCLOSURES or Page Numbers (if page numbers, precede item(s) by "pg")
Technical:
__Title and abstract of proposed effort
__Statement of Work
Discussion of background, objectives, approaches, and available facilities
Names and brief biographical information of key personnel
Financial:
Cost estimate detailed by cost elements on DD Form 633 or equivalent
Type of support other than financial, if any, required of the Government, e.g., facilities, equipment, materials or per-
sonnel resources
Administrative:
Statements, if applicable, regarding cost sharing, organizational conflicts of interest, status of security clearances, envir-
onmental impact, and previous organizational experience in the field covered by the proposal.
Statement as to why it is necessary to acquire property, if any, with contract funds (see DAR 13-301 (a)).


15. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE:

Typed Name:

Title:


Signature:

Date Signed:


00 Form 2222-3















SHORT FORM RESEARCH CONTRACT
RESEARCH PROPOSAL
Page 2

OFFEROR'S STATEMENTS:

A. DISCLOSURE PREFERENCE. The proposal shall not be duplicated, used, or disclosed in whole or in part for any purpose
other than to evaluate the proposal without the written permission of the offeror (except that if a contract is awarded on the basis of
this proposal, the terms of the contract shall control disclosure and use). This restriction does not limit the Government's right to use
information contained in the proposal if it is obtainable from another source without restriction. All data contained in this proposal
is subject to this restriction.
( ) Permission is hereby granted to evaluate this proposal in accordance with your normal procedures which may include evaluation
by evaluators both within and outside the Government with the understanding that written agreement not to disclose this in-
formation shall not be required of or obtained from any such evaluators.
() Restrict the evaluation of the above proposal to Government Personnel only. The offeror shall mark the proposal in accordance
with DAR 4-913.

B. LIMITED RIGHTS DATA. Limited rights data, if any, contained in this proposal are identified in Enclosure
or pages) No.

C. CONTRACT CLAUSES. By signature on Page 1 of this Proposal the offeror authorizes award of a contract in accordance with
the provisions of DAR Section IV, Part 13 and agrees to be bound by the contract clauses contained in DAR 7-2203 or 7-2204.
as appropriate, in effect on the date of this proposal or such other date as may be mutually agreed upon.

D. REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS.
(X) Representations and Certifications pertaining to Contingent Fee, Certification of Nonsegregated Facilities, Previous Contract
Compliance Reports, Affirmative Action Compliance and Clean Air and Water and Environmental Impact Statement were
furnished your office on 12/09/83 These representations and certifications remain valid and are appropriate for the
subject proposal. No facility to be used for the proposed research has been the subject of a conviction under the Clean Air Act
or the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
( ) The comprehensive Representations and Certifications as cited above have not been submitted. The attached Representations
and Certifications have been developed in connection with the subject proposal and:
() should be used only in connection with the subject proposal.
( ) may be used not only for the subject proposal but as a comprehensive submission for possible use with prospective unsoli-
cited proposals.









Page 3


Attn: Research Office of Procurement



Subject: Equipment Acquisition Statement




Gentlemen:

This is to inform you that the University of Florida is unwilling and/or
unable to purchase the equipment requested in this proposal submission.

Any exceptions this this statement are listed below.

Signature:
Principal Investigator

Signature:
Department Chairman

Signature:
College Dean

Signature:
Authorized Official
Division of Sponsored Research
University of Florida
EXCEPTIONS:
(If none,
write none.)











Page 4


DIRECT LABOR EFFORT SALARY FRINGE TOTAL










TOTAL DIRECT LABOR
TRAVEL (Give details on attached budget justification)
- -a. Transportation


b. Per Diem or Subsistence

TOTAL TRAVEL
EQUIPMENT (Give details on attached budget justification)




TOTAL EQUIPMENT ,.
OTHER DIRECT COSTS (Give details on attached budget justification _
a. Materials and Supplies

b. Expenses

c. Consultants

d. Other

TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS
INDIRECT COSTS RATE BASE


TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS
TOTAL AMOUNT REQUESTED













FREQUENTLY USED FACTS FOR PROPOSAL SUBMISSION


1. ENTITY NUMBER: 1-596001874-C8 (EIES)
1-596001874-H4 (IFAS)
1-596001874-C7 (All Others)

2. IRS Numbers: Federal: 59-73-0209K
(Fed I.D.#) State: 02-00010-06-11


3. DUNS Number:
(Dun & Bradstreet)


040874745 (Lake Alfred)
004426771 (All Others)


4. CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT #6

5. DHHS General Assurance for the Use of Human Subjects: M1266
IRB# 01NR (Health); 02XM (General) (2/17/84)

6. DHHS Indirect Cost Agreement dated May 16, 1984


7. DHHS Letter of Credit Number: 75083326

8. DHHS Cost Sharing Agreement Dated 3/1/66


9. Cognizant Audit Agency: DHHS

10. Consultant Payments may not exceed the daily equivalent of
the maximum rate paid for GS-18 ($252.00). (Base
Salary-Excluding Fringe)


11. Chairmen of University Committees:
Human Subjects (Health Ctr) -Dr. B.
Human Subjects (All Others) -Dr. M.
Laboratory Animals -Dr. R.
Biohazards -Mr. P.
Radiation Protection -Mr. H.
Computer Center -Mr. R.
Recombinant DNA/RNA -Mr. P.


Wilder
Levy
Halliwell
Collis
Norton
Schoenau
Collis


20% Fringe Benefits Rate (Salary)


1% Fringe Benefits Rate (OPS)



$123/month or $1,476/year
Family Coverage
$65/month or $780/year
Single Coverage
Health Insurance



$48/year or $12/quarter
State Personnel Assessment



47% Modified Total Direct Costs



29% Modified Total Direct Costs


INDIRECT COST:


2-3063
2-0433
2-0471
2-1591
2-1594
2-2061
2-1591


TYPE
Fixed
Fixed
Fixed
Fixed
Fixed
Fixed


12. Division of Sponsored Research Phone Numbers:
Program Information 2-4804
Proposal Processing 2-1582

***DSR REQUIRES TWO (2) FULL WORKING DAYS TO
PROCESS PROPOSALS
(Consult College/Department for Internal Deadlines)
Revised 06/22/84


FROM
7/1/84
7/1/84
7/1/84
7/1/84
7/1/84
7/1/84


For all career service, faculty and A&P
positions, to be assessed on base salary figure.

For all graduate students, student workers
(except CWSP), and other parttime help (OPS),
to be assessed on base salary figure.

Only career service, faculty & A&P positions are
eligible for insurance. Should be prorated by
percent FTE. Talk with your fiscal person or
call DSR for information on faculty summer
appointments and insurance applicability.
Insurance is added to fringe amount to achieve
total benefits for employee.

Required by State Department of Administration
to be included in expense category for all
Career Service employees. Prorated'by percent
FTE when employee is appointed for a year.


Indirect rate for on-campus research, modified
by equipment items costing $500 or more,
stipends, amounts over $25,000 for subs.

Indirect rate for off-campus research modified
by equipment items costing $500 or more,
stipends, amounts over $25,000 for subs.


EFFECTIVE PERIOD


TO
6/30/85
6/30/85
6/30/85
6/30/85
6/30/85
6/30/85


RATE*
47.0%
29.0%
44.0%
32.0%
24.0%
26.0%


LOCATIONS
On Campus
Off Campus
On Campus
Off Campus
Off Campus


APPLICABLE TO
Research
Research
Instruction
Instruction
AREC/ARC
Restricted Programs
Flow Through Money


Fixed 7/1/84 6/30/85 11.0% (1) Space Astronomy Lab All Program
Fixed 7/1/84 6/30/85 75.0% (2) Space Astronomy Lab All Program
(Recharge Rate)
*BASE: (1) Modified total direct cost consisting of salaries and wages,
fringe benefits, materials and supplies, services, travel, subcontracts
and subgrants up to $25,000 each.
(2) Direct salaries and wages including vacation, holiday and sick
pay but excluding other fringe benefits.


Is
IS


NUMBERS AND DATES


BUDGET FACTS


V




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs