Skip to content
  • Print

Proposal Development

Chapter Overview

Proposal Development Timetable

Below is a graphic representation of the proposal development process. Most proposals take months to prepare; give yourself and others involved ample time to prepare, review, and give feedback, to ensure the submission of a high-quality competitive proposal.

Applicants are strongly encouraged to notify ORSP as soon as they are reasonably certain that they will be submitting a proposal to an external sponsor. Proposals involving more than one institution or international collaborations often take additional time to coordinate. The following is suggested as a guide for advance notice to ORSP:

    • 2 weeks or more advance notice for single institution submission
    • 4 weeks or more advance notice for multiple institution submission
    • 6 weeks or more for advance notice for international collaboration

Proposal Types

  • Letter of Intent (LOI): Submitted by Principal Investigator/Project Director (PI/PD) or ORSP to the funding agency indicating intent to submit a full proposal in the future, typically to enable the funding agency to prepare their resources in advance of the full submission round. A “binding” LOI may lead to a full proposal submission upon invitation.

  • White Paper: Less formal than a preliminary or full proposal, a White Paper is most often submitted by the PI/PD directly to the funding agency. Typically a two- to five-page document describing a research hypothesis. Discussions with an agency program officer may result in an invitation to submit a full proposal.

  • Pre-Proposal (also Preliminary Proposal, Pre-Application): Solicited or unsolicited, a brief presentation by the PI of goals, methods, personnel, and overall budget submitted to a funding agency. Pre-proposals are used by funding agencies to determine the eligibility of the applicant and the suitability of the proposed project for support.

  • Full Proposal: A complete application package for funding, it includes all attachments and representations and certifications by ORSP attesting to adherence to federal/state and Pacific policies. ORSP typically submits proposals on behalf of University faculty and staff. Proposals may be classified as follows:
    • New: A proposal not previously submitted to a sponsor.
    • Renewal/Competing Renewal: A proposal based on previously funded work for consideration by the sponsor for renewed funding.
    • Resubmission: A proposal that is based on a previously not-funded application, resubmitted for consideration by the sponsor.
    • Non-competing Continuation: A proposal submitted to a sponsor for expected, continued funding (e.g., Year 2 funding of a five-year grant).
    • Supplement: A proposal for supplemental support on an active award (e.g., NSF Research Experience for Undergraduates, or “REU,” stipend support).
    • Solicited vs. unsolicited: A solicited request is a funding announcement seeking proposals for a very specific purpose. Unsolicited proposals typically fall within general priorities of a funding agency, though not for a specific purpose. They are broadly related to a priority area, but the agency is not soliciting for a specific project they already have in mind.

Process for Limited Submission Competitions

Certain agencies and program announcements limit the number of proposal submissions from a given institution. Submitting proposals in excess of the sponsor limitation may result in the automatic rejection of all proposals from the University. If the funding agency limits the number of submissions, please let ORSP know about your submission plans as soon as you are reasonably certain that you will proceed with the submission. ORSP will work with the appropriate College/School Dean to determine which proposal(s) will be submitted if the institutional submission limit is exceeded.

Policies ButtonMore on our limited submission policy here.

Contact with the Funder (Program Officers)

Building a relationship with a sponsor is the best way to submit competitive proposals, and to stay on top of funding trends. Program officers are in the best position to tell you if a particular research/program idea is a “good fit” for their program. They may, in turn, suggest other programs and/or agencies that might be better suited for a particular project.

    1. Consider sending a short e-mail to a potential sponsor. The e-mail should be very clearly written, and succinct—a paragraph or two summarizing the proposed research/project and requesting feedback.
    2. Meeting in person is ideal, but not always feasible. Ask if the program officer is willing to schedule a phone meeting to discuss your project in greater detail.
    3. Prepare yourself for the phone call, with details on your project, facilities at Pacific, and any other questions about the funding opportunity you may have for the sponsor.
    4. A short, informational article with helpful “tips” on how to approach a program officer

Application Guidelines/RFPs

Proposal format is determined by the sponsor's guidelines which can vary significantly from sponsor to sponsor and program to program. For example, some sponsors may place a limit on the number of words contained in the project abstract, or include strict limitations on font size and margins. In an era of increased numbers of applications for limited funding, there is little margin for error. Applicants should download the online version or print a copy of the application guidelines from the sponsor. The application and sponsor guidelines should be very carefully reviewed and then re-reviewed as the success of a particular application will depend in large part on following the sponsor’s programmatic and formatting guidelines.

Most federal and state agencies, and many private agencies, in addition to their general funding areas, solicit proposals in predetermined areas of need through publication of Requests for Proposals (RFPs) or similarly named documents (e.g., RFAs). The RFP requirements normally take precedence over the generic requirements for a funding agency; often, both must be followed. It is very important that these guidelines be followed precisely. Most funders will not even consider a proposal that is incomplete, out of compliance, or late.

In addition to basic proposal content and format instructions, most RFPs include a section outlining the criteria that will be followed by reviewers. To ensure a competitive proposal, carefully review and respond to every item in the review criteria section of a proposal preparation guide. This will help you to target your proposal directly to the concerns of the reviewers.

Links to common funders’ general guidelines: NSF Guidelines; NIH Guidelines

Typical Proposal Components

While each sponsor’s guidelines vary—often significantly—some general observations can be made that will help ensure a strong submission. always refer to the instructions for the funding agency:

    • Abstract: A brief summary of your proposed project that describes the methodology, objectives, and significance of the project. Many consider the project abstract to be one of the most important parts of the proposal—if the abstract is not well-written, interesting, creative, innovative, etc., the reviewer may not feel compelled to read the full proposal. 

    • Project Narrative: The project narrative is often page limited. It should be well written, organized, and easy to read. The entire proposal typically includes the following components:

    • Introduction/statement of need: A statement of project objectives, methodology, evaluation, and data dissemination. Tables, charts, graphics, and timelines are an excellent way to organize and present information and may also be included, sponsor permitting.

    • Bibliography: Here the applicant may cite his or her own publications, but also demonstrate to the reviewer that he or she is up-to-date with the latest, most advanced research on the topic. (Keep in mind that the reviewers indeed may be among those whom you cite!)

    • Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources: Typically a description of the resources (physical and human) that either you or the University have at your disposal to carry out the project and can “leverage” to make your proposal more attractive to the sponsor. Some examples include space, library, facilities, human capital, and/or particular institutional strengths or programs that can be brought to bear on a project. ORSP can provide boilerplate material in some circumstances.

    • Biographical Sketch: Must be provided in sponsor format. (Reviewers like consistency—do not stray from the sponsor’s format or provide additional information that is not requested!)

    • Current and Pending Support: Includes all active support of one’s research or other programs, and all pending applications, whether federal or non-federal. ORSP can provide a template upon request. Sponsors will often use this section to determine if an applicant has existing or pending funds in support of the proposed research, or has sufficient time available to devote to the project.

    • Dissemination/Data Management Plan: Increasingly, sponsors are requiring assurance that the data and findings that result from a project will be made freely available to the public.

    • Budget: The “fiscal expression” of your project. Budgets should be reasonable and carefully considered within the scope of the project you are proposing. Applicants should be careful not to “pad” a budget—reviewers in the field generally know what it takes to do the work. Conversely, budgets that are too low for the scope of work you are planning may be viewed as unrealistic.

    • Budget Narrative: A written narrative of your budget request that explains why each item of cost is necessary in order to carry out your project. This may be particularly important, for example, where equipment is requested, or travel is required in order to carry out your project.

Template ButtonTemplates for elements above can be found in the Templates/ Resource section 

Budget Development

I. Summary of Federal Cost Principles and Allowability: Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, or the “Uniform Guidance,” are regulated by the Federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and sets forth the principles for determining the allowability of costs applicable to research and development, training, and other sponsored activities performed by colleges and universities under grants, contracts, and other agreements with the Federal Government. These agreements are referred to as sponsored agreements. The rules of allowability under these principles are:

    • They must be reasonable; that action which a prudent person would have taken in similar circumstances (e.g., travel at federal domestic and/or foreign per-diem rates are generally deemed “reasonable” on federal grants).
    • They must be allocable to the sponsored project under consideration (e.g., a purchase of specific materials and lab supplies must be directly allocable to the particular sponsored grant or project being charged).

II. Factors Affecting Allowability of Costs: Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under federal awards:

    • Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles.
    • Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the federal award as to types or amount of cost items.
    • Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-federal entity.
    • Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the federal award as an indirect cost.
    • Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP).
    • Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period.

      Federal sponsors such as the NSF and NIH have their own implementing guidelines for the Uniform Guidance, e.g., the NSF’s Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide.

III. Direct Costs vs. Indirect Costs: The cost of a sponsored agreement is comprised of the allowable direct costs plus the allocable portion of the Facilities & Administrative Costs (F&A) or Indirect Costs of the institution.

    • Direct costs: Costs directly needed to accomplish the specific project (e.g., summer salary, GA assistants, graduate and undergraduate student workers, fringe benefits, equipment, materials, supplies, travel, external consultants, subawards, tuition).
    • Indirect costs: Costs that the University incurs to support all research/sponsored program activities on campus (e.g., maintenance of University lab facilities, utilities, University administration, library, sponsored programs).

Pacific's Federally Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate for research and sponsored programs on campus effective 07/01/17-06/30/21 is currently 62% of a project's budgeted salaries and wages. Pacific's off campus rate of 26% may be used if 50% or more of the entire project's efforts will be done at an off-campus location.  These rates are subject to change every 4 years. Some funders set a limit on indirect costs or do not allow them as part of the budget. Carefully read the funder's guidelines and rules. 

Policies ButtonPacific's Current Indirect rate can be found here

IV. Effort: Project personnel may not work more than 100% of their time, nor can they be paid more than 100% of their base salary rate. In other words, the total allocation of time to University teaching, service, and research activities may not exceed 100%. Faculty may request reimbursement for academic year release time and summer salary.

V. Budget: The budget should include those costs associated with the successful completion of the project. It must be as accurate as possible, based on estimated costs. All grant proposal submissions must be developed using the appropriate ORSP Excel budget spreadsheet templates (see Typical Budget Components sidebar on this page for direct link). These templates include institutional rates and formulas to help develop your budget in accordance to federal and University guidelines. This template is the document the University uses to manage your award once received. Once the budget is developed using the template, amounts should be transferred to the budget form provided by the funder.

1. Budget Period: Usually 12 months; one or more budget periods make up the “Project Period” or “Period of Performance.”

2. Salaries and Wages: Payment for academic year or summer time allocated to a sponsored project.

      • Academic Year Release Time: Release time is time away from teaching, service, and/or administrative responsibilities by the University to conduct research or other activities during the academic year. Faculty members must receive the approval of their Chair and Dean when applying for release time. Release time for faculty is usually expressed in terms of percentage of effort and is based on the ten-month academic year.
      • Course Release: For information on course release contact your specific Dean/Chair for guidance in amount and permission to add into a proposal.
      • Monthly compensation: This is based on the OMB guidelines for calculating base salary. Faculty base = Appointment Contract base amount (no additional stipends)/number of contract months. For example $90,000 base salary/9 month contract = $10,000 per month. For percentage calculations please use the cheat sheet attached to the budget templates linked in the box above.
      • Summer Salary: Faculty on a standard 10-month appointment can receive up to 2 months of compensation for sponsored programs each year, or 20% of their base salaries.
      • Other Project Personnel: Such as student research assistants, graduate assistants, undergraduate/graduate student workers, and/or other technical personnel may be included in the budget when those costs are directly related to the project.
      • Project Administration: Under the Uniform Guidance, in some instances, project administration may be an allowable cost provided such costs are integral to the project and the individuals involved can be specifically identified to the project or activity. Check the guidelines for the program to which the application is being made. In some cases, it must be explicitly stated in the budget why the individual in integral. Prior written approval of the awarding agency may be required.

3. Fringe Benefits: Fringe benefits are direct costs associated with salaries and wages and include: FICA (Social Security); retirement; insurance for medical, dental, life, unemployment insurance, long-term disability, and employee liability coverage; and worker's compensation. Pacific adheres to the following fringe rates:Travel: All travel attributable to the project should be itemized. Travel expenses should be subdivided for domestic and foreign travel. List countries to be visited and dates of travel (if known), and justification for travel. Domestic per-diem travel rates can be estimated using U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) Rates; foreign per-diem travel rates can be estimated using State Department Rates. Pacific adhears to the rates mentioned above:

      • 17.65% for Release-Time/Full-Time Faculty/Staff and Post-Doctoral Researchers
      • 35% for Staff and Post-Doctoral Researchers who will be hired specifically for the grant/contract/sponsored project that is not currently employed by Pacific.
      • 7.65% for Undergraduate and Graduate Student Assistants/ Researchers paid on an hourly basis when not taking university course

4. Travel: All travel attributable to the project should be itemized.  Travel expenses should be subdivided for domestic and foreign travel.  List countries to be visited and dates of travel (if known), and justification for travel. Domestic per-diem travel rates can be estimated using U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) Rates; foreign per-diem travel rates can be estimated using State Department Rates.

Please note that most government agencies require the use of a domestic carrier for travel both in the U.S. and abroad, except under very specific circumstances. For more detailed information see the Fly America Act. Please see chapter Award Managment for Day-to -Day information on university policies and procedures for travel .

5. Equipment: Often defined by a funding agency, and for Pacific purposes, capital equipment is defined as a tangible article that has a useful life of more than one year and an acquisition cost of $5,000 or more. Any request for equipment should be clearly justified in the proposal’s budget justification. See Chapter 6 on Award Management for more information on university policies and procedures for capital expenditures. 

6. Supplies: Identify all consumable supplies needed for the project. Supplies are defined as items of expendable equipment that do not meet the definition of permanent equipment. These include laboratory supplies, chemicals, books, and computer supplies. Some sponsors will request itemization (Rate x Qty.) for these types of costs. On federal grants, computing devices are treated as supplies provided their cost is less than $5,000. Computing devices are those devices “that acquire, store, analyze, process, and publish data and other information electronically, including accessories (or ‘peripherals’) for printing, transmitting and receiving, or storing electronic information.” See Chapter 6 on Award Management for more information on university policies and procedures for purchasing. 

7. Publication: If a publication is one of the expected results of the project, a brief synopsis of the expected publication content and its costs should be detailed.

8. Facilities and Administrative (F&A) Costs: Also known as Indirect Costs, are those expenses related to research that cannot be easily identified with a particular sponsored project, instructional activity, or any other institutional activity. Indirect Cost Negotiated rate and more information included above.These costs are classified under two broad categories:

      • Facilities (depreciation and use allowances, equipment, operation and maintenance, and library expenses)
      • Administrative (general, sponsored projects, departmental, and school administration, and student administration and services) F&A is normally an element of every proposal budget, unless it is disallowed by the sponsor. 

Template ButtonTemplates for elements above can be found on Templates/Resources

Multi-Institution Collaborations

When collaborating with other individuals or institutions, the nature of the collaboration should be predetermined and identified in the proposal. Collaborators meeting generally accepted criteria (below) can be appropriately identified as either a subaward or contractor/vendor.

Subcontractor: Subcontractors may have some or all of the following characteristics: (Keep in mind that for the purposes of this handbook, the terms “subawardee,” “subcontractor,” and “subrecipient” are used interchangeably, although in a technical sense they mean slightly different things.)

    • Performance is measured against meeting the overall objectives of the program. Has responsibility for administrative and technical/programmatic decisions.
    • Utilizes the resources (both human and physical) of their institutions/organizations.
    • Provides on-going intellectual contributions for the life of the program.
    • Assists the primary investigator/project director of the lead institution in annual and final technical reporting.
    • Responsible for applicable program compliance requirements.
    • May share in potential patentable or copyrightable technology to be created through project; entity has responsibility to protect technology.

Upon award, the subcontractor will be issued a “subcontract” or “subaward” depending on whether the prime award is in the form of a “contract” or “grant.” In most cases, the prime sponsor’s requirements “flow down” to the subcontractor. Many federal terms and conditions that apply to the lead institution apply to the subcontractor. For example, the NSF’s Responsible Conduct of Research and Federal mandated Financial Conflict of Interest tracking requires flow-down to the subcontractor.

Policies Button Pacific's Responsible Conduct of Research and Financial Conflit of Interest Policy 

Vendors: Vendors (also often referred to as consultants/contractor and in this handbook the terms may be used interchangeably) may have one or more of the following characteristics:

    • Provide a particular service, or set of services as part of their routine professional activity and/or business operation.
    • Provide a similar service to other individuals/institutions.
    • Operate in a competitive environment (compete with others who can provide a similar service).
    • Provides goods or services that are ancillary to the operation of a program

Vendors are independently responsible for providing ancillary services in support of the project and are not responsible for the overall research management and direction of the project. As such, the primary sponsor’s terms and conditions, and compliance requirements do not typically flow down to vendors.
Vendors operate independently and are not Pacific employees. Vendors are generally “works for hire,” and typically not provided rights to copyright and/or inventions that might result from the project’s activities.

Policies ButtonMore on Copyright Policies here

Establishing a Subcontractor and/or Contractor/Vendor at the Proposal Development Stage

I. If Pacific is the lead institution (with one or more subcontractor(s)): If Pacific is the lead on a collaborative submission that will include one or more subcontractors, the PI/PD should provide the names of their collaborators, their role in the project, and their contact information to ORSP as soon as possible in the proposal development stage so that ORSP can coordinate its efforts with their respective counterparts at each institution. Each Subcontracting Organization/Entity must provide the following to Pacific Pre-Award staff prior to submission:

    1. Pacific SPO specific questions
    2. Statement of Work: A brief description of the work that the subcontracting entity will perform should the project be funded.  It should identify the co-investigator and other senior/key personnel and specify tasks/deliverables expected during the project. It sets the "ground rules" for the relationship and, as such, is a very important document.
    3. Detailed Budget and Budget Justification
    4. Proposal/Project Specific Requirements
    5. Copy of current Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (if applicable)
    6. Letter of Commitment signed by the institution's Authorized Official.
    7. Copy of Pacific's current Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (if applicable)
    8. Biographical Sketch (if applicable)
    9. Current and Pending (if applicable)
    10. Collaborators and other Affiliations (if applicable)
    11. Facilities and Equipment (if applicable)  

II. If Pacific is the subcontractor: If an external institution is the lead entity on a proposal submission,   and Pacific will be the subcontractor, the Pacific PI should provide ORSP's contact info to the lead collaborating PI/PD. The PI member should also provide to Pacific ORSP a Statement of Work they will perform, a detailed budget and budget justification, and the program solicitation/announcement (if applicable) to which the lead institution is responding. The lead institution's Sponsored Programs office should contact ORSP as soon as possible to request proposal materials required for submission.  At a minimum (similarly to above), Pacific would provide to the lead institution the following documents:

    1. External entity's Subrecipient Monitoring Form (if applicable) or Letter of Commitment signed by Pacific's Authorized Official.  
    2. Statement of Work: A brief description of the work that Pacific will perform should the project be funded. It should identify the Pacific co-investigator and other senior/key personnel and specify tasks/deliverables expected during the project.
    3. Detailed Budget and Budget Justification
    4. Proposal/Project Specific Requirements
    5. Copy of Pacific's current Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (if applicable)
    6. Biographical Sketch (if applicable)
    7. Current and Pending (if applicable)
    8. Collaborators and other Affiliations (if applicable)
    9. Facilities and Equipment (if applicable)

III. Vendors:  Contractors, consultants or business vendors should provide Pacific a "consulting letter," or "quote for services" which broadly details the nature of the services being provided to the project and the expected unit cost and quantity.  (Vendors/contractors typically will provide their standard consulting rates and the number of hours they expect to work on the project.  Vendors may provide a quote for services. Refer Award Management Chapter for Day to Day and information on university policies and procedures on establising a vendor. 


I. Definition: Federal Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards defines cost-sharing or matching as that portion of project costs not paid by Federal funds (unless otherwise authorized by Federal statute). It includes both cash and in-kind contributions that a recipient makes to an award:

    • Cash contributions: The recipient’s cash outlay, including the outlay of cash contributed to the recipient by third parties.
    • In-kind contributions: Non-cash contributions in the form of committed effort, real property, equipment, supplies, and other expendable property, and the value of goods and services benefitting and specifically identifiable to the project or program.
      The Uniform Guidance makes no distinction between cost-sharing and matching. However, matching usually refers to the specific ratio between the amount of the award and the amount committed by the recipient, such as a dollar-for-dollar match (1:1). Cost-sharing is a more general term and is used in this document to refer to both cost-sharing and matching. Cost-sharing is:
      • Mandatory if it is required by the sponsor as a condition of the award.
      • Voluntary if it is offered by the institution when no mandatory cost-sharing requirements exist, or is in excess of mandatory cost-sharing requirements.

Cost-sharing occurs when a portion of the total cost of a sponsored project is borne by the University rather than the sponsor. Whether cost-sharing is mandated by the sponsor or volunteered by the recipient, the cost-sharing becomes a University commitment and represents a legal, binding obligation of the University once the award has been granted. Under the Uniform Guidance, Subpart D (§200.306) (effective 12/26/2014), voluntary committed cost-sharing is not expected. In addition, it cannot be used as a factor during the merit review of applications or proposals, but may be considered if it is both in accordance with federal awarding agency regulations and specified in a notice of funding opportunity. Criteria for considering voluntary committed cost-sharing and any other program policy factors that may be used to determine who may receive a federal award must be explicitly described in the notice of funding opportunity.

II.Cost-Sharing Approval: Pacific limits cost-sharing to that which is mandated by the sponsor. In some instances of voluntary cost-sharing, the University may determine that cost- sharing may be an implied mandate by a private non-federal sponsor necessary to the project’s funding outcome. Where cost-sharing is not required by the sponsor or necessary to ensure the competitiveness of a proposal, PIs and departments should refrain from making such commitments voluntarily. All proposed mandatory and voluntary commitments of cost-sharing arrangements must be discussed and approved by the responsible, Chair and Dean before the proposal is submitted to ORSP. Prior to considering University cost-share on a sponsored proposal/project:

    •  the PI should confer with the Chair and/or Dean regarding a cost-share strategy to meet the sponsor’s requirements;
    • the PI, Chair, and/or Dean may wish to contact ORSP to discuss the specifics of the proposal and to determine the sources of funds to meet this requirement; and 
    • All cost-sharing commitments must be indicated and approved on the routing form prior to submission.

Committed cost-sharing (quantifiable cost-sharing included in any part of a submitted proposal) creates a legal, binding obligation by the University and must be treated similarly to any direct or indirect expenses, whether paid for by the sponsor or cost-shared by the University. Cost-sharing of direct expenditures represents a commitment of departmental, program, or University resources to support a sponsored project or program.

III. Source of Funds:  The PI is responsible for identifying all sources of funds for cost-sharing of direct costs. The PI may not utilize funds from an existing federal award as the source of cost-sharing, except as authorized by statute. Cost-sharing is typically funded by donation of academic year time/effort, associated fringe benefits, or other department designated funds. Cost-sharing may also include indirect costs associated with the identified direct costs if the sponsor allows indirect costs to be included as cost-sharing.

IV Allowable Cost-Sharing Expenditures on Federal Awards: Cost-sharing expenditures must satisfy all of the following criteria:

    • Verifiable from the official University records;
    • Not previously used as cost-sharing for another project (the same cost-sharing expenditures cannot be used for multiple projects);
    • Necessary and reasonable for proper and efficient accomplishment of the project;
    • Allowable under the terms of the award (e.g., in compliance with the Uniform Guidance, Subpart E (§200.403) Factors affecting allowability of costs.
    • Incurred during the effective dates of the grant or during the pre-award phase when authorized by the sponsor; and
    • Not paid by the Federal Government under another award.
  1. Unallowable Cost-Sharing Expenditures on Federal Awards: The following expenditures cannot be offered as cost-sharing commitments in sponsored project proposals:
    • Costs considered unallowable by the sponsor;
    • Costs considered unallowable under the Uniform Guidance, Subpart E (§200.420) Considerations for Selected Items of Cost;
    • Salary amounts exceeding a regulatory salary cap (e.g., National Institutes of Health); University facilities such as laboratory space. PIs should not commit the use of facilities as cost- sharing, but rather characterize the facilities as “available for the performance of the sponsored agreement at no direct cost to the project”.

< Return to Finding Funding Return to Table of Contents Go to Proposal Review and Submission >