RAPID Data Quality Phyllis M. Housel Gale Sponsored Projects Office SPO Process Review Meeting

1. RAPID Data Quality Phyllis M. Housel Gale Sponsored Projects Office SPO Process Review Meeting August 25, 2008

2. RAPID Data QualityMenu Driven RAPID Menu Driven RAPID is Mechanism specific: WFO – Work for Others Federal NIH Non Federal (includes NIH and other Federal subawards from universities) User Agreements Gifts DOE Indirect Funding CRADAs

3. RAPID Data QualityMenu Driven RAPID NOT Menu Driven RAPID Menu Driven RAPID Cannot create a proposal from “Proposals”

4. RAPID Data QualityMenu Driven RAPID WFO Menu Driven RAPID then has 3 sub-sections for type of Sponsor

5. RAPID Data QualityMenu Driven RAPID Each Mechanism and WFO Sponsor has its own set of panels and actions that are specific to the information requirements of that mechanism.

6. RAPID Data QualityMenu Driven RAPID Information is Mechanism Specific – for example Federal Proposal Review Factors does not have a panel for IP Review FCTRS, but Non-Federal does. A federal flow-through from a university is non-federal and these flow-through questions are here.

7. RAPID Data QualityMenu Driven RAPID Examples are Mechanism Specific Federal Non-Federal

8. RAPID Data QualityMenu Driven RAPID Examples are Mechanism Specific Federal Non-Federal

9. RAPID Data QualityMenu Driven RAPID Examples are Mechanism Specific Federal Non-Federal

10. RAPID Data QualityMaintain Proposal - Header Title • Needs to make scientific sense • Needs to stand alone (not just truncated from a very long title) • Do you want DOE or GAO to read this title? Will they understand it?

11. RAPID Data QualityMaintain Proposal - Header

12. RAPID Data QualityMaintain Proposal - Header Update “Draft” → “Approved by Division” when proposal is ready for SPO Update “Draft” → “Discontinued” if proposal is cancelled

13. RAPID Data QualityMaintain Proposal - Header Status needs to be correct when submitted to SPO Update “Draft” → “Approved by Division” when proposal is ready for SPO

14. RAPID Data QualityMaintain Proposal - Header Proposal Status Maintenance ~ 6 months: “Draft” moves to “Discontinued” ~ 14 months “Approved by Institution” moves to “Not Funded”

15. RAPID Data QualityMaintain Proposal - Projects Dept Rep is the division Director or designee signing the SPPF must be the same as on the Approvals Page

16. RAPID Data QualityMaintain Proposal - Projects

17. RAPID Data QualityMaintain Proposal - Resources • Professional needs to include fellow as the PI and the mentor as mentor on fellowships • Co-Investigators should also be included

18. RAPID Data QualityMaintain Proposal - Resources Divisions set up PI status for fellows and Co-Investigators in the Professional Data Panel

19. RAPID Data QualityMaintain Proposal - Resources Click to provide Eligible PI status in RAPID. Note: Must follow the division guidelines and procedures for who is an eligible PI or a fellow on a fellowship.

20. RAPID Data QualityMaintain Proposal - Certification On New Proposals • Division Staff only enter information for Animals and Humans. • Only one possible answer for division staff to enter. • N/A = “not applicable” = there are no human or animal research subjects

21. RAPID Data QualityMaintain Proposal - Certification • All other lines should be left in default status and will be answered by others.

22. RAPID Data QualityMaintain Proposal - Certification • Only one possible answer for division staff to enter. • N/A = “not applicable” = there are no human or animal research subjects Should have date and the PI’s name if the answer is “N/A” This is the date the PI indicated that there are no human or animal research subjects involved with this research

23. RAPID Data QualityMaintain Proposal - Certification Date is missing here.

24. RAPID Data QualityMaintain Proposal - Certification • Division Staff does not determine “yes” or “no” • PI determines “pending” or “N/A” • final determination is only made by HARC.

25. RAPID Data QualityMaintain Proposal - Certification On Amendments and Supplements (additional statement of work) • Update Humans, Animals, and NEPA/CEQA. • Divisions update Humans and Animals for the new work and the new work only. • Division requests NEPA/CEQA review. • SPO enters the NEPA/CEQA approval

26. RAPID Data QualityMaintain Proposal - Certification NEPA/CEQA is correctly updated (this data is entered by SPO)

27. RAPID Data QualityMaintain Proposal - Certification • Humans and Animals were NOT updated correctly. • The date is the same as on the original proposal. • New work requires new certification by PI about animals and humans.

28. RAPID Data QualityMaintain Proposal - Certification On continuation progress report • Only update Human and Animals if there has been a change to the research. • SPO will accept the PI’s signature that the annual review is in place and conforms to NIH requirements for continuation progress reports. • Do not update the NEPA/CEQA because a new statement of work is not being reviewed. • If required, these dates need to be updated before the proposal is submitted to SPO. • No other information is changed by the division.

29. RAPID Data QualityMaintain Proposal - Certification New SPPF language is being developed for the non-competing continuations above the signature line for the PI to provide affirmative confirmation that all approvals are in place according to NIH requirements. More on this to come…..

30. RAPID Data QualityMaintain Proposal - Certification Division does NOT removed approvals from the certification page that are carried forward when the continuation proposal is created. correct incorrect

31. RAPID Data QualityProposal Review Factors – DOE Review FCTRS Work with/within DOE Mission Includes B&R code and description Must be the same as the related B&R page

32. RAPID Data QualityProposal Review Factors – DOE Review FCTRS Subcontract Justification narrative justification is required by DOE

33. RAPID Data QualityProposal Review Factors – DOE Review FCTRS BAA • Title • Reference # • URL

34. RAPID Data QualityProposal Review Factors – DOE Review FCTRS Human/Animal Involvement requires narrative description

35. RAPID Data QualityProposal Review Factors – NEPA Review FCTRS Location should include all locations where research will take place, LBNL and subcontract locations

36. RAPID Data QualityProposal Review Factors – NEPA Review FCTRS For LBNL – use the building #

37. RAPID Data QualityProposal Review Factors – Related B&Rs • Do NOT use the “WFO” BNR code. It is not the DOE Related Program Related B&R. • Tab out to ensure name is correct. (We use the Budget Office B&R table) • If the title is incorrect or the B&R is not in the look-up list, please call Direct Budget Office and request the update. • This must be done prior to the proposal being submitted to SPO.

38. RAPID Data QualityProposal Review Factors – NEPA Review FCTRS Must match the B&R code(s) listed in the DOE Review FCTRS You can have more than one

39. RAPID Data QualityProposal Review Factors – NEPA Review FCTRS Always TAB out of the B&R code field so the title appears for your review.

40. RAPID Data QualityProposal Review Factors – Proposal Burdens • Refer to the Burden Matrix • Burden questions should be referred to the Budget Office • Field Operations personnel are responsible for the correctness of the Burdens. • The SPO cannot update the burdens in RAPID, only the Field Operations personnel.

41. RAPID Data QualityProposal Review Factors – Background/Property IP For Non-Federal Sponsors

42. RAPID Data QualityProposal Review Factors – Background/Property IP Policy Non-Federal sponsors will receive title to LBNL inventions under this project, unless one of a. through f. applies. Provide explanation for a "Yes" answer: Sponsor Declines The Sponsor declines its right to title in LBNL inventions. Provide reason and reference correspondence below.

43. RAPID Data QualityProposal Review Factors – Background/Property IP Research Tools Likely inventions would be research tool(s), which should be available to many organizations. Indicate research tools and why below: Field of Use A domestic Sponsor's interest to appropriately commercialize is in fewer fields of use than are realistically commercially feasible for the invention. Provide explanation below:

44. RAPID Data QualityProposal Review Factors – Background/Property IP Federal Flow Thru Sponsor's funding is from a Federal agency. Provide Agency below: UC Sponsor is UC.

45. RAPID Data QualityProposal Review Factors – Background/Property IP Special There are special facts and it is not in the best interests of the United States. Provide explanation below: Other Issues Is there LBNL background intellectual property (IP) that may be used in the proposed project? Are there any other issues that need to be considered in allocating IP rights? Provide explanation below.

46. RAPID Data QualityProposal Review Factors – Background/Property IP This must also be completed for non-federal sponsors If the answer is “yes”, must provide explanation. SPPF is being updated to print this correctly.

47. RAPID Data QualitySubmit Proposal - Approvals • Dept Rep is the division Director or designee signing the SPPF. • Dept Rep must be the same as used on the Maintain Proposals – Projects Page

48. RAPID Data QualitySubmit Proposal - Approvals Correct SPO CO must be selected before proposal is place in Approved by Division Status

49. RAPID Data QualitySubmit Proposal - Submission Sponsor Proposal ID Complete whenever ID # is known

50. RAPID Data QualitySubmit Proposal - Submission Sponsor Proposal ID • Known for NASA and DOD CDMRP • Known for NIH non-competing continuations • If proposal # is identified by the sponsor when the proposal is being submitted; it should be entered here