SECTION VI. FORMS and INSTRUCTIONS

Word Processing and Format Instructions

The content of any proposal is critical to its ultimate success; however, consistency of format is just as 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 additional word processing as the package is being assembled. The following instructions must be observed.

• Length of Proposal—the text of the proposal (Introduction through Budget Justification) should not exceed 15 pages. Excessively long proposals will be returned.

• Spacing—Lines within paragraphs should be single-spaced; double-space between paragraphs.

• Margins—Top, bottom, and side margins should all be one (1) inch from the edge of page.

• Typing Style—Use a word processor with Times New Roman - 11 point (minimum).

• Headings—All headings (INTRODUCTION, OBJECTIVES, etc.) must be capitalized, underlined, and left-justified.

• Figures and Tables—All figures and tables must fit within an 8 1/2" x 11" format and must be electronically reproducible. Do not send PDF files.

• Title Page of Text—Figure 2 provides an example of how the first page of the proposal should be structured.

Submission of Proposal

Prior to initial submission, all proposals should be reviewed by the Institutional Liaison and endorsed by the Sponsored Programs office for accurate budget and matching funds commitment, on the Title/Signature page. Investigators are encouraged to submit their proposals to their institution’s research/business office for signatures one week before they are due at the Consortium office (see Appendix I for the name of your institutional research/business officers).

Proposals must be submitted by e-mail as a Microsoft Word file attachment to proposals@scseagrant.org, and the original hard copy and fifteen (15) copies of the proposal are due to the Consortium by COB on July 25, 2005.

_________________________________________________________
Figure 2: Sample format for the Title/Introduction page of the proposal.

GENETIC IMPROVEMENT OF HARD CLAM, Mercenaria mercenaria, POPULATIONS FOR COMMERCIAL MARICULTURE STOCK DEVELOPMENT IN SOUTH CAROLINA

Principal Investigator:	John J. Manz Associate Marine Scientist Marine Resources Research Institute
Associate Investigators:	A.G. Eversole Associate Professor Dept of Aquaculture, Fisheries & Wildlife Clemson University Robert T. Dillon, Jr. Assistant Professor Department of Biology College of Charleston
Cooperating Investigators:	R. K. Koehn, Chairman Department of Biology State University of NY Stony Brook, NY G. F. Newkirk Associate Professor Biology Department Dalhousie University L. S. Adamkewicz Assistant Professor Department of Biology George Mason University

_________________________
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND

INSTRUCTION FOR PREPARING
SEA GRANT PROJECT SUMMARY FORM
(formerly NOAA 90-2)

The project summary is intended to present a concise description of the funded activity in a form useful to a variety of readers not necessarily requiring detailed information. Project summaries are not substitutes for proposals or reports but should permit judgments as to whether such proposals or reports merit reading for a particular purpose. The summary contains the following information:

(1) TITLE: Project titles should be carefully constructed to give as much information as possible about the project in not more than two lines (about 16 words)—preferably less. Consider always that there will be people (perhaps influential) who will judge the content of a program from scanning a list of titles—or titles plus funding numbers.

(2) PROJECT NUMBER: Assigned by the Consortium. Leave blank.

(3) GRANT NUMBER: Assigned by NSGCP. Leave blank.

(4) SUB PROGRAM: Assigned by Consortium. Leave blank.

(5) REVISION DATE: The date on which the summary is compiled. Each time the computer file is changed in any way, this date will be changed.

(6) INITIATION DATE: The date on which Sea Grant support for the project was initiated or is to be initiated. Leave blank if summary is for a project proposed but not yet agreed upon.

(7) COMPLETION DATE: The date on which it is estimated that this particular project will be completed. Leave blank if summary is for a project proposed but not yet agreed upon.

8) PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR(S): The name of the P.I. as, i.e., “Maris, H.O. (5.00 mm), “ indicating in parentheses the time in man-months the P.I. will devote to the project for the duration of the entire project.

(9) DEPARTMENT AND INSTITUTION: The academic affiliation of the P.I., i.e., Animal Science Department, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

(10) ASSOCIATE INVESTIGATOR: Names and man-months of Associates whose efforts are significant to the success of the project, as Cancus, A.M. (6.00 mm)

(11) AFFILIATION: As for each P.I., i.e., Biology Department, Tufts University.

(12) SEA GRANT FUNDS TO DATE (MATCH FUNDS TO DATE): Total federal (and match) funding awarded (committed) to the project up to the beginning of the grant year for which the proposal is prepared.

(13) CURRENT SEA GRANT FUNDS (CURRENT MATCH FUNDS): The grant funds committed to the project for the current year, if applicable.

(14) PROPOSED SEA GRANT FUNDS (PROPOSED MATCH FUNDS): The grant funds requested for the project for the proposal year, if applicable.

(15) RELATED PROJECTS: Assigned by the Consortium. Leave blank.

(16) PARENT PROJECTS: Assigned by the Consortium. Leave blank.

(17) SEA GRANT CLASSIFICATION NUMBER: Assigned by the Consortium. Leave blank.

(18) KEYWORDS: Assigned by the Consortium. Leave blank.

(19) OBJECTIVES: This section should describe what the investigator intends to accomplish. Preferably it should be stated so that, at a later date, it can be determined whether he/she has, in fact, done it. The heading “Objective” should be interpreted as “The Objectives of this task are.” Objectives should be numbered and listed, and should begin with the word “To” followed by a verb. In keeping with Sea Grant’s mission, such appropriate verbs are, for example: test (the hypothesis), develop, provide, determine, isolate, characterize, identify, restore, implement. Less desirable but sometimes appropriate are: promote, conduct, analyze, apply, investigate, examine, and describe. Some, such as: study, consider, continue, etc. should not be used since failure to do these is not determinable.

(20) METHODOLOGY: This is an optional section of no more than six lines to indicate the methodology or show sub-objectives that indicate the approach to be taken. Specific questions that an interested person would ask should be answered under objectives or methodology, like which heavy metals, which pollutants, which pathogens, what species of seaweed or shellfish, what kind of a model?

(21) RATIONALE: This section should make a concise statement of why this is an appropriate Sea Grant project; i.e., what problem or opportunity is being addressed. The project need not promise to fully solve a problem but it should be shown that it is a logical step towards solution. Long involved background statements should be avoided. Where the potential users (of the information to be developed) have been identified this should be conveyed. This information should be no longer than six lines.

(22) ACCOMPLISHMENTS: This section is generally applicable to an ongoing project and should contain concise statements of progress towards the stated objectives. Publications resulting from the project should be reported. When the PROJECT SUMMARY is prepared for a proposed project, enter: “To be updated.”

(23) BENEFITS: This section is not strictly a part of the Project Summary but an after-the-fact accounting of benefits that flow to society from the effort. Where possible these are to be quantified. Instructions for uniform reporting of BENEFITS have yet to be developed. This is an important section of the permanent record to be updated regularly, subsequent to the project’s completion.

 

back to top