SECTION IV: INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARING AND SUBMITTING NEW/CONTINUING FULL PROPOSALS

If a Concept Letter has been selected by the Consortium for development into a Full Proposal, the following guidelines should be followed. Full narrative proposals should be prepared carefully with respect to style, clarity, manner of presentation, and conciseness. It is particularly important to fully indicate the nature of the problem or opportunity being addressed, the relationship of the work to problems or opportunities of interest to the state and region, the nature of the results and products of the study, how the results will be of benefit and to whom, and how the results will be delivered to targeted audiences. In addition, sufficient detail should be given on the methodological approach to be used in conducting the study. Each of these factors, along with the criteria listed in Section VII, will be evaluated during the technical and scientific review process.

Microsoft Word Forms

The following forms can be found and downloaded from the Consortium’s Web site (http://www.scseagrant.org/funding/funding_rfp_forms.htm) for your use.

• Title/Signature Cover Page
• Project Summary Form
• Budget Summary Form
• Milestone Chart - Proposed Year of Funding
• Milestone Chart - Multi-Year Projects ONLY
• VITAE Form

Instructions for Preparing New Full Proposals

The full narrative proposal should be assembled according to this outline:

1. Title/Signature Page (Consortium form)
2. Project Summary Form
3. Budget Form(s)
4. Narrative, to include the following sections:

5. Milestone Charts
6. Vitae Form
7. Suggested Reviewers

The TITLE/SIGNATURE PAGE form serves as the cover sheet for the proposal. This page includes the project title, principal investigator’s name and affiliation, and the TOTAL amount requested for the duration of the proposed effort. It also serves as the signature page for institutional endorsements (see below).

Page 2 of the proposal will be the completed using the PROJECT SUMMARY FORM; note that some items will be completed by Consortium staff. The summary form is very important in the review process and is of great concern to various federal monitors. It is suggested that it be completed as the final step in preparing the proposal in order to concisely summarize what is presented in the text. Some reviewers get their first and only impression of the proposed project from this form.

The BUDGET FORM should detail and accurately reflect the actual annual costs of carrying out the project. Although the amount requested on the title page reflects the total costs of the project, the budget form should only itemize the costs for the proposed year of effort. Therefore, a completed budget form must be completed for each year covered by the years of proposed funding. An inadequate budget causes just as many problems as one that is inflated; please plan the budget request carefully. There are several federal provisions to be aware of - these are presented in the budget justification section below. Please round off the budget to the nearest dollar.

The body of the proposal begins on page 4 with the TITLE at the top of the page. The title should accurately reflect the nature of the proposal project and be free of technical jargon. Choose words to which the designated user of the research project can relate. The name(s) and affiliation(s) of the project investigator(s) should follow underneath the title.

The INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND section immediately follows the title on the same page; subsequent sections begin immediately afterward (see example, Section VI). A well-developed rationale for the proposed effort must be presented and should emphasize the importance of the work to a target audience. The problem or need should be stated succinctly and should clearly define the audience who desires the solution or will benefit from the work. If the research and/or outreach solution has economic importance, state the nature of the potential economic payoff in an objective fashion. This section should also provide a summary of the current literature as it relates to the project; a demonstrated knowledge of the literature is a key ingredient in a successful Sea Grant proposal.

The OBJECTIVES section should begin with a statement of the overall goal of the project. The goal should be stated as one or more testable hypotheses. For multi-year project proposals, a set of concisely stated objectives for each year should be listed. Objectives clearly state what the project hopes to accomplish, and realistically identify the proposed outcome and application of project results. For example, “increase our knowledge of ...” is not the proper language; rather “to determine the role of X in such-and-such a system” is much more appropriate, and allows for the determination of whether or not the project, in fact, has done so. A short paragraph should follow each objective to support its rationale.

Technical procedures and the development and analyses of data should be fully detailed in the METHODS section. Use the objectives as subheadings and describe the procedures and methods to be used to meet each. Cite relevant literature. Delineate how the hypothesis (hypotheses) will be tested and identify the controls to be used. (The Consortium office should be notified before survey forms or questionnaires are sent to target audiences.) Provide, in general terms, a timetable which identifies the sequence and duration by which objectives will be completed (e.g., “field studies will be completed by x and data analysis will begin...”). Refer to the milestone section below.

NEW! The PI should state specific EXPECTED OUTCOME(S) for each year of the proposed work. Generally, an outcome is the result of a process. We often define outcomes in terms of measurable data and a specific timeframe for measurement. Further, outcomes are measurable results that have a positive impact on the technology or management practices in the area under study, or further our knowledge of it. An example of an outcome would be “Develop and refine appropriate success metrics for assessing restored oyster reef ecological function and sustainability for intertidal and subtidal habitats.” The Consortium will collectively use these statements in order to: (1) document its annual implementation plan for each of the two years (2006-07 and 2007-08) covered by this program plan as required by the National Sea Grant College Program, and (2) evaluate the progress of each Sea Grant project on an annual basis based on, among other things success in achieving outcomes.

The Consortium will be evaluating the extent to which a proposal specifically identifies its TARGET AUDIENCES and what OUTREACH/EDUCATION efforts will be used to convey project results to them. Therefore, PIs must identify the users, organizations, and groups who will benefit from the work. Briefly identify the information products to be generated and the mechanisms that will be used to deliver resultant information to the target audiences. Prospective PIs are strongly encouraged to make contact with their target audiences to gauge interest and solicit their support for and involvement in the proposed effort prior to submitting their proposals.

In a brief section, the INFORMATION PRODUCTS to result from the proposed project should be described. These products will depend on the audiences to be reached or the user groups as identified in the introduction. Journal articles and technical reports are geared to the professional community (and are clearly expected to be generated by Sea Grant PIs); Sea Grant extension booklets and brochures to marine and coastal resource users. If Sea Grant Extension or Communications staff will (or should) play a role in the proposed effort in terms of disseminating resultant information, please contact the Consortium to formalize their involvement in the project (See Appendix II). Note: the Consortium also requires progress and final reports on all projects; refer to Section VIII for more details.

The ANTICIPATED BENEFITS section should state concisely how the results of the proposed project would improve or change the current situation based upon the information and products produced. How will the target audience(s) benefit from the work, and to what degree? What economic benefits might result from the successful completion of the proposed work? The Consortium and NSGCP will determine whether the proposed effort is conceptually sound based on the arguments made in this section. Another factor considered in the review process is how a proposed effort relates to other recent and ongoing research and/or outreach programs, projects, or proposals. Relationships to other efforts should be described in a brief RELATED WORK section. A statement of how the proposal “fits” with other work in the field is strongly suggested.

The BUDGET JUSTIFICATION should justify the need for Sea Grant funds for each and all line items and outline matching fund use. It must explain the major duties of personnel and percentages of time for all participants, including undergraduate and graduate students. All capital and permanent equipment must be itemized along with the cost and specific justification of need. Construction funds, vessels, and vehicles are not eligible for Sea Grant funding. Requests for travel funds must be described via the formula used for calculation (e.g., number of miles at cost per mile for so many trips to some destination). If you are requesting travel funds for a national meeting, indicate the importance of the meeting to the proposed work. In the same regard, provide a detailed list of the types of supplies to be purchased. It is important that the funds requested truly reflect the costs of the project and be thoroughly justified.

REFERENCES should be listed according to the standards established in the field of study.

Annual and four-year MILESTONE CHARTS must be completed to illustrate the timetable for the completion of all tasks necessary to meet the proposed objectives. This will allow the reviewer and program monitor to track progress of the project. This schedule should include a mechanism for self-review or coordination with users, such as an industry steering committee or presentations at professional meetings. Time for preparing the final report must also be included. Remember that annual progress reports are due on January 31 for all projects continuing into the next year.

Biographical data should be provided on the VITAE FORM (two pages maximum) for all principal and associate investigators. Please be sure to include your phone number and email address as part of your professional address. Long resumes in lieu of this form are not acceptable as substitutes.

Include, on a separate sheet of paper attached to your transmittal letter, the names, addresses, and phone numbers of four or more peer REVIEWERS you feel are highly qualified to make substantive comments on the technical merits of the proposal. They may or may not be requested to provide reviews.

Instructions for Preparing Continuing Full Proposals

Continuing proposals differ from new proposals in that the projects have already gone through the rigorous technical review process and received initial funding. The emphasis for a successful continuing proposal is placed on the demonstration of significant progress towards the project’s objectives and extension of its results. However, proposal content will be important during the review process and the criteria (Section VII) will be applied.

For continuing proposals, the following outline should be followed:

1. Title/Signature Page
2. Project Summary Form (Updated)
3. Budget Form(s)
4. Narrative, to include the following sections:

5. Milestone Charts (Consortium forms)
6. Vitae Form

The TITLE/SIGNATURE PAGE must be completed and endorsed by the submitting institution.

The PROJECT SUMMARY FORM should be updated to include accomplishments and benefits to date; remember that this information sets the first impression for the project. All other pertinent information should be updated as directed in the instructions.

The BUDGET FORM for the upcoming year should be reviewed and modified if necessary; changes in the budget from original budget projections should be highlighted. All budget items must again be supported in the Budget Justification section of the text. Again, please do not round your budget.

The TITLE AND INTRODUCTION sections should be a repeat of those used in the initial proposal; updated information should be included.

The OBJECTIVES of the project should be restated, along with the hypotheses being tested, immediately following the introduction. Also list the objectives to be met in each of the upcoming and subsequent years.

Detail the technical (experimental) procedures and the methods proposed for analyses of data in the METHODS section, using the objectives as subheadings. (Refer back to the discussion of METHODS under the “Full Proposal Instructions” for more details.) Particular attention should be paid to the methods and procedures to be used in the upcoming year(s).

NEW! The PI should state specific EXPECTED OUTCOME(S) for each upcoming year of the proposed work. Generally, an outcome is the result of a process. We often define outcomes in terms of measurable data and a specific timeframe for measurement. Further, outcomes are measurable results that have a positive impact on the technology or management practices in the area under study, or further our knowledge of it. An example of an outcome would be “Develop and refine appropriate success metrics for assessing restored oyster reef ecological function and sustainability for intertidal and subtidal habitats.” The Consortium will collectively use these statements in order to: (1) document its annual implementation plan for each of the two years (2006-07 and 2007-08) as required by the National Sea Grant College Program, and (2) evaluate the progress of each Sea Grant project on an annual basis.

The Consortium will be evaluating the extent to which a proposal specifically identifies its TARGET AUDIENCES and what OUTREACH/EDUCATION efforts will be used to convey project results to them. Therefore, PIs must identify the users, organizations, and groups who will benefit from the work. Briefly identify the information products to be generated and the mechanisms that will be used to deliver resultant information to the target audiences. Prospective PIs should consider making contact with their target audiences to gauge interest and solicit involvement and support for the proposed effort.

TECHNICAL PROGRESS should be provided in sufficient detail to provide a reviewer enough information for evaluating progress made toward the stated objectives. Use each objective originally proposed as a subheading and describe the progress made in terms of the milestones originally set. Any departure from the original work plan must be explained. For each objective provide, in a series of paragraphs, the following information:

1. Statement of the original objective;
2. An indication of the progress made, by quantitative means (i.e., 100% complete, 75% complete, etc.);
3. Concise statement of the methods used;
4. Detailed summary of results, outcomes, and benefits to date; and
5. Level of involvement of targeted audiences, along with progress on dissemination of results.

An example of this might be “Objective 2. To evaluate bulkhead structures which will alleviate adjacent shoreline erosion. (20% completed.) Five designs from other states were evaluated. Design #1 reduced adjacent erosion by 5% in experimental tests...” Further, any planned publications, conferences, or meetings should be discussed. Interactions with personnel from the Sea Grant Extension or Communications Programs for dissemination of results, or with targeted user groups directly, should be noted as well.

BENEFITS-TO-DATE should convey to the reader any changes that have occurred in the problem situation based upon the results of the project. Have resource management decisions been affected? What commercial impacts have resulted? What new information has been developed? What has been the reaction of the target audience? For example, “Bulkhead design #1 developed under this project has been adopted by the City of Megalopolis with a resultant reduction of adjacent property erosion by 10%. This has resulted in the savings of approximately x dollars in beach renourishment and bulkhead construction costs for the year 1999.” In addition, published articles, approved theses, seminar/conference abstracts, patents, etc., should be listed.

The BUDGET JUSTIFICATION, REFERENCES, VITAE AND REVIEWERS sections should be completed as in a new proposal. The MILESTONE CHARTS should be included for reference and evaluation of the timely progress of the project. Refer to the section “Instructions for New Proposals” for details and guidance in preparing these sections.