SECTION V. PROPOSAL CONTENT and SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS (FOR NEW AND CONTINUING FULL PROPOSALS)

The content of any proposal is critical to its ultimate success; however, consistency of format is also important. Proposals initially accepted at the state level by the Consortium are packaged and submitted to NSGCP. Requiring that all proposals adhere to a common style significantly reduces the need for editing and word processing as the program plan is being assembled. Detailed instructions on proposal format for both the initial and final versions are included in Section VI.

Prior to initial submission, all proposals MUST be reviewed by the Institutional Liaison and endorsed (on the Title/Signature page) by the designated signatory authority at your institution for accurate budget and matching funds commitment. Therefore, we strongly suggest that the initial proposal be sent to your institution’s research/business office for endorsement and signatures one week before it is due at the Consortium (see Appendix II for the name of your institutional liaison officer).

All proposals must be submitted as follows:

• An electronic file, in Microsoft Word, attached to an e-mail sent to proposals@scseagrant.org, and

• The original and fifteen (15) hard copies of each proposal mailed to the Consortium address:

Proposal Desk
South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium
287 Meeting Street
Charleston, SC 29401-1514

All proposals are due at the Consortium by COB on July 25, 2005.

Full proposals are reviewed by Consortium professional staff, Sea Grant Extension staff with expertise in the area of the proposed effort, and outside technical experts and appropriate business/industry/user professionals (the experts and professionals are chosen by the Executive Director) through a written peer and external panel review process. The standard professional REVIEW FORM provides a listing of the criteria used in the review process (also see Section VII), covering both conceptual content appropriate to Sea Grant and technical merit of the plan of work. The reviews are then evaluated and proposals are either accepted or rejected. Prospective investigators whose proposals are accepted may be asked to address reviewers’ comments by preparing a statement that will be attached to the original proposal; no revisions to the proposal itself will be allowed. Any subsequent revisions in the budget MUST be endorsed by the investigator’s institutional signatory official.

 

back to top