Skip to content
Apr 25 / RAS

What Do You Want From Me? A Field Guide to SoM-Level Review

School of Medicine-level review in the proposal queue has been around for a while now, but long cycles of funding can prevent even the most well-funded among us from subjection to our scrutiny.  And, as in all protocols sponsor-related, new compliance elements are being added all the time.  Here’s a quick-reference guide on what we’re looking for, and why:

 

  1. The full proposal. We have to see what is going to the agency, even if internal budgets are provided.  This way, we can say “yes, we knew that this is what Dr. X communicated to the sponsor, and we can support that with necessary School of Medicine resources.”  If you are using the system-to-system submission feature through Evisions, your full proposal is already included!  If your proposal needs to be submitted by other means (such a sponsor website), use the “Print to PDF” or similar feature to save a copy of the proposal, and upload the PDF to the “Attachments” section of the Evisions record.
  • For subcontracts: if WSU is the subcontractor, we don’t need the prime proposal, but we do need the letter of intent to subcontract, and the supporting documents that are being submitted to the prime recipient institution.

 

  1. Your internal budget. If you are doing a detailed budget on a system-to-system submission, you’re probably covered.  If, however, you are submitting a budget overview or a modular proposal, we need to verify that the funds requested are commensurate with planned funding.  This also helps us check for cost share.

 

  1. Cost share commitment forms. Speaking of cost share, any cost share commitment forms must be uploaded to the “Attachments” section of the Evisions record.  If there is a cash match commitment in the proposal, there must be evidence of the agreement of the match source uploaded.  In addition to the uploaded forms, choose “YES” on the Evisions “Proposal Budget” page as the answer to “Cost Sharing.”  This will reveal the ability to enter cost share information, such as department and index, so that the cost sharing department can verify their commitment to the cost share.
  • For over-the-cap:  In pre-award, we do not require a fully-executed cost share commitment form for the amounts over-the-cap (no Dean signature, no Fiscal Affairs signature) but we do require a department signature for awareness documentation.  Please also provide the index that will fund the cost share.  Note: over-the-cap cost share is considered “Voluntary.”

 

  1. OnCore accountability, or waiver: If you have human subjects, you have to either include OnCore fees in your budget, show how you will be cost sharing the fees, or upload a waiver to “Proposal Attachments.” Waivers are obtained from the Clinical Research Service Center, whether your project is clinical or not.  Unfamiliar with the policy?  Check out the handbook!

 

  1. Correct coding. Evisions coding is super important!  The data that is input at this phase is the basis for a whole host of reporting that affects such things as department rankings and investigator credit.  To be sure that you are getting full and accurate credit for the submission, be sure the “General Information” is input correctly; take a look at our coding table for guidance, or ask us if you’re not sure.
  • Investigator credit: This is done on the “Personnel Roster” page of the Evisions record.  If your investigator has a retreat to more than one department, s/he will have to be listed twice (or as many times as s/he has appointments) and the credit split proportionally between departments.  Confused?  Give us a shout.

 

Most of what we need to see is what your GCO also needs, with a few additions and for different reasons.  We’re not here to duplicate SPA review; we’re here to ensure the School of Medicine can support your project in a compliant way.  Remember: it’s extremely important to route your proposal before submission!  This way, every source of manpower and resources on your project is aware and on board.  The result?  Fewer headaches at award time, and more credit where credit is due.