SOUTHERN REGION IPM CENTER



Southern IPM Center 2015 Request for Applications (RFA)IPM ENHANCEMENT GRANTS 2015Proposals Due 5:00 PM EST Friday, January 16, 2015I. SummaryThrough this Request for Applications (RFA), the Southern IPM Center solicits proposals that will enhance the development and implementation of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in the southern region of the United States. SIPMC has implemented similar grants programs previously, and projects funded from 2004 through 2014 may be viewed at . We highly recommend reading through the entire RFA before beginning your planning, as much of the structure for the project narrative has changed. We will conduct a webinar on Wednesday, December 10 at 2:00 PM Eastern time to provide information about this funding opportunity. Please register online at webinar will be recorded and posted at . All projects must further our mission, which is to foster the development and adoption of Integrated Pest Management (IPM), a science-based approach to managing pests in ways that generate economic, environmental and human health benefits.The Southern IPM Center (SIPMC) is funded by the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture through a grant to North Carolina State University and addresses the Southern Region. SIPMC coordinates, enhances and facilitates the flow of IPM resources and information regionally with activities including grants management, data acquisition and sharing, and infrastructure development. A. Available funds, funding limits and project period: Approximately $300,000 is available. Most projects are limited to $30,000 although in special circumstances IPM Working Group proposals may qualify for up to $40,000. Project period may be no more than one year, with start dates on or after March 1, 2015, and end dates no later than February 28, 2016. Budgets may include indirect charges of no more than 30% of Total Federal Funds (TFF), equivalent to 42.86% Total Direct Costs (TDC).B. Who may apply: Eligible applicants include private individuals and institutions, faculty and qualified staff of four-year universities, businesses, commodity organizations, and governmental and non-governmental organizations. Potential applicants must be in compliance with reporting requirements for any project previously funded by SIPMC to maintain eligibility for new funding. PDs may access previously funded projects at primary Project Director must be from within the Southern Region as defined by USDA NIFA (i.e. these states and territories: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, the U. S. Virgin Islands and Virginia). For the purpose of this RFA the term “territory” is used synonymously with the term “state”, and is inferred whenever the term “state” or “states” is used.Collaboration with individuals outside the region is allowed. C. Project types: Proposals may be submitted for IPM Documents, Seed, Capstone, and Working Group projects. Project limits are:IPM Documents: For completion of new or updated versions of existing Crop Profiles (CPs), Pest Management Strategic Plans (PMSPs), or IPM Priorities. Targeted total funding for this project type is $30,000 that could be used for multiple proposals.Seed and Capstone: Up to $30,000 TFF. IPM Working Groups: Up to $10,000 for team building activities, and up to $30,000 for output-based activities. Eligibility for either type of funding or a combination of both is explained in section II.D. Targeted total funding for all Seed, Capstone and Working Group projects is $270,000.D. Technological Support Available to Successful Applicants: All funded IPM projects are eligible for and encouraged to utilize assistance of SIPMC’s FITT (Facilitation of Innovation Through Technology) initiative for aspects including online conferencing (GoToMeeting, GoToWebinar, GoToTraining); online project management and communications software (Basecamp), email newsletter generation and management (MailChimp), pest reporting/monitoring, storage of pest occurrence data, real-time maps online (EDDMapS), content hosting (Bugwood Images/Presents/Video), advice on technology use, and other tools. A complete listing of FITT offerings is available at . FITT support comes at no added cost to the project. Costs for these functions should not be included in the budget, but expectation/request for the support should be included in the proposal. Any expectations of such support should be mentioned explicitly in the Project Objectives, Evaluation, and/or Milestones sections (V.B.4 c-e) of the proposal. PDs should contact Co-Director LaForest while planning the proposal to ascertain that FITT has the required capability. Use or non-use of FITT by itself is not a factor in scoring the proposals.E. Submission Deadline: All proposals must be submitted through the online submission system, by 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on Friday, January 16, 2015.II. Project Types: Descriptions, Priority and Funding LimitsA. IPM Documents Projects: Crop Profiles, Pest Management Strategic Plans, and IPM Priorities ProjectsProposals will be accepted to update or produce new CPs, PMSPs, or IPM Priorities in order to fill gaps in the SIPMC portfolio of these documents. Funding provided will be commensurate with proposed outputs. CPs have been funded at no more than a few thousand dollars each because they can be produced by a single individual (with unpaid contributors and reviewers). PMSPs, on the other hand, are more costly because they include a workshop with stakeholder participation. Only in extraordinary circumstances (e.g., multi-state document involving travel of many collaborators), though, is the cost of a PMSP expected to exceed $8,000. Project limit is $30,000 TFF and the budget must be commensurate with the number, scope and complexity of outputs (PMSPs and/or Crop Profiles) proposed. Targeted total funding for this project type is $30,000, but could be used for multiple proposals.CPs or PMSPs may address crops or other (non-crop) settings for a single state or combination of states. Documents must meet national standards as shown for CPs at and for PMSPs at . A description of PMSP development processes is also available online (). SIPMC is in the process of overhauling electronic management of content in CPs and PMSPs. Funded PDs will be expected to use the resulting online system to enter and compile the component information that comprises each document. Although this will entail use of different methodology we expect the new system to actually ease the PD workload compared to the previous approach. IPM Priorities are lists of research, extension and regulatory priorities for a particular setting. Funds are available to support surveys or other processes that would identify new or updated stakeholder-identified priorities. Examples include priority lists as a component of PMSPs; other examples include those online at . Successful applicants for this project type must coordinate with SIPMC Associate Director Danesha Seth Carley to address format and content standards. B. Seed Projects Successful proposals will have strong potential to initiate, enable, facilitate and/or catalyze effective solutions to important IPM issues and challenges. These projects should do what the name implies – plant a seed that has good potential to grow into a solution. Examples include but are not limited to needs assessments, priority setting activities, establishing baseline data for research project (Pilot study), etc. Projects are limited to $30,000.C. Capstone ProjectsSuccessful proposals will build on previous research and development efforts for capstone projects involving outreach, implementation, and/or educational approaches. Examples include but are not limited to workshops, demonstration programs, online educational resources, pest identification guides, apps to facilitate scouting and other aspects of implementation, expansion of model system to new commodity/pests, etc. Projects are limited to $30,000.D. IPM Working Group ProjectsIPM Working Groups (WGs) comprise diverse stakeholders working collaboratively to identify and address IPM priorities for important IPM issues. The overall limit for any WG is $40,000 within the context of project components described below.All applicants are encouraged to consider requesting technical support from our FITT initiative as detailed in Section I.D above.Types of WG activity: All WGs must produce an updated list of research, extension and regulatory priorities. In addition each WG must undertake a combination of teambuilding activities and/or output-based activities as follows: Teambuilding activities develop and maintain the group itself. Examples include an annual meeting, routine teleconferences, and use of online communications. All of these should be directed at ensuring an active and appropriately diverse stakeholder membership that finds consensus around defining and prioritizing research, development, regulatory and extension activities that successfully address the issue at hand. Proposals to start new WGs are eligible for more funds for teambuilding, but existing WGs are also eligible for teambuilding support.New WGs are eligible for up to $10,000 for initial teambuilding. Minimal expectations are that the group will define its own mission that will lead to regional benefit; will establish communications and collaboration mechanisms; and will prioritize research, extension and regulatory needs that address the issue.Existing WGs are eligible for teambuilding support only if requested in conjunction with output-based activities. They must also re-evaluate research, extension and regulatory priorities.Output-based activities are the work that the team does to address the pest management issue at hand: the research, development and extension activities. These activities should address the group-identified priorities, and produce outputs like those described in Seed, Capstone or IPM Documents project types. New WGs may include such activities, but these are not required if the core objective of the proposal is merely to initiate the new WG. New WGs may focus on initial teambuilding – getting the group up and running and establishing priorities. If output-based funds are requested the proposal should make a strong case for the need to begin output-based work immediately. Proposals for existing WGs must predominantly address output-based activities to merit any funding. Ultimately IPM Working Groups are a means to the end of better IPM. SIPMC will not fund existing WGs that do not undertake output-based activities. Defining “New” and “Existing” Working Groups: A group initiated around the current proposal may qualify as a “new” WG. Groups that have been recently funded, either by SIPMC or from other sources, are classified as “existing.” Teambuilding funds will not be awarded merely to replace previous support from either this program or other sources. Funding Limits: All IPM Working Groups are subject to a funding maximum of $40,000, but allowable distribution of funds varies depending on whether a group is new or existing as detailed below. Each component must be described and budgeted independently. Only proposals that clearly demonstrate both need and high likelihood of success will be funded at the maximum rate of $40,000. Maximum fundable amounts for IPM Working Group Projects:ActivityNew IPM WGExisting IPM WGTeambuilding only:$10,000not eligibleOutput-based onlynot eligible as IPM WG, might fit in another project type$30,000Combination, project includes both types$40,000$40,000.III. Program PrioritiesAll projects must be of sufficient quality and technical merit to qualify for funding. Scoring criteria are the most tangible expression of this program’s priorities. PDs are strongly encouraged to review scoring criteria presented in the Proposal Evaluation Score Sheet (section VIII). Please note that some priorities vary across project types.A. Resource building, investment or utilization: LeveragingThis program funds short-term projects for relatively small amounts. Thus, leveraging of resources is critical to the program’s impact. Matching funds from other sources is not required. Appropriate use of other types of resources also will be favorably considered. Proposals should demonstrate the ability to build on resources from other sources past, present and future.All proposals should include evidence of appropriate stakeholder interest and participation. This is particularly important for IPM Working Groups and PMSPs.Seed proposals should provide evidence that the project may, with reasonable hope of success, catalyze or facilitate collaboration and/or allotment of future resources to address the issue. These could include (but are not limited to) human resources through future collaboration and/or funding resources through grant proposals to other funding agencies.Capstone proposals should provide evidence that the project builds on research and/or extension work that has already been accomplished.B. Regional ImportanceAll projects must address important IPM issues for the Southern Region. Indicators of regional importance could include: Explicit references to existing, publicly available documentation of stakeholder prioritization of the issue. Evidence of the setting’s importance in the region and the area addressed.Evidence of the importance of the IPM issue (e.g. pest) addressed.Multi-state: Projects that offer benefits to two or more states in the region or that entail multi-state collaboration are preferred, especially for Seed, Capstone and IPM WG projects. The work may occur in only one state, but if so evidence of the project’s potential value (e.g., letters of support, citations of stakeholder prioritization in other states, etc.) will improve prospects for funding. Projects of value to only one state will also be considered for funding. PMSPs: Projects to produce PMSPs will receive full points under this criterion if they address the following settings in states with significant production of the crop: cotton, peaches, sweet potato, strawberry, soybean, peanut, rice, and turfgrass (except NC, TX and VA, where PMSPs have recently been produced). Crop Profile: Projects to produce new or updated CPs will score well under this criterion if they address situations in which the setting is significant in the state and for which a current CP is either nonexistent or significantly out of date. See for Southern CPs.C. Potential for SuccessProjects funded by this program are not expected to solve major IPM issues, but they are expected to contribute significantly to the advancement of IPM by initiating solutions to problems (Seed projects), providing important finishing touches to existing problem-solving efforts (Capstone projects), assembling and contributing to the body of knowledge used to address IPM issues (IPM Documents), and catalyzing and facilitating collaborative contributions from diverse stakeholders (Working Group projects). Criteria for evaluating potential success include:Adherence to established document templates and procedures (IPM Document proposals only). Appropriate audience targeting. Appropriate project design: work plans appropriately address objectives; procedures are appropriate to accomplish objectives.Appropriate stakeholder interest and involvement.D. Potential ImpactProjects funded by this program should have clear potential to produce impact in one or more areas defined by the National IPM Roadmap. Projects are expected to accomplish at least short-term impacts (changes in learning) that in turn will accomplish or (more likely) contribute to accomplishment of medium-term impacts (changes in attitude or behavior) that in turn will contribute to long-term impacts (improvements in environmental, economic or human health conditions).Important note on evaluation options: Ideally every funded project would include a plan to measure its own impact. That can be problematic, however, with short-term, low-budget projects. With the exception of IPM Documents projects, which are exempt from this criterion, projects may fulfill evaluation requirements using either of two approaches or a combination of both. All proposals must address one of the following, or a combination of both:Project Effect (i.e. traditional approach): Measurement of project outcomes and/or impacts resulting from this project. For example, include a post-implementation survey of the changes in IPM practices among project participants to determine project impact on those practices.Baseline Option: Measurement of information (i.e. baseline data) contributing to the general body of knowledge related to evaluation of IPM in the issue/setting addressed. The result should be useful to future impact evaluation efforts. In other words, this impact evaluation work may be separated or unhinged from the project itself, and address instead the broader issue/setting. For example, include a survey of current IPM practices used by the growers involved in your proposed project.PDs of funded projects are expected to consult with SIPMC’s Impact Evaluation Specialist during the course of the project to ensure that impact evaluation plans are properly implemented. A toolkit for evaluating IPM adoption and impacts is available online at . The toolkit is a rich source of information and guidance for developing this aspect of the proposal. IV. EligibilityEligible applicants include private individuals and institutions, faculty and qualified staff of four-year universities, businesses, commodity organizations, and governmental and non-governmental organizations. The primary Project Director must be from within the Southern Region (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, the U. S. Virgin Islands and Virginia); however, collaboration with individuals outside the region is acceptable. PDs and Co-PDs who have previously been funded are eligible only if reports on previous projects are up to date. PDs of projects funded since 2008 by this program who have not submitted appropriate progress and/or termination reports in SIPMC’s online database () are not eligible for funding. V: SubmissionA. Proposal PreparationProject Directors must register online at . Proposals must be submitted in electronic format at this site no later than 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on Friday, January 16, 2015. The entire proposal submission process is explained at this site, all forms may be downloaded from this site, and submissions will only be accepted through this site. Because some of these forms change from year to year, please use the newest forms on the site. Some documents, such as CVs, do not necessitate forms; in those cases, follow the instructions provided for each required document. Use single-spaced, 12-point type with 1-inch margins and two returns (one blank line) between paragraphs. Font requirements may be relaxed only on the Logic Model diagram page if necessary, as described below. You must convert several documents as specified below to PDF files before uploading them. If you scan documents such as cover pages, support letters, or appendices, scan them as documents rather than pictures so the text is searchable. Make sure documents are close to 8.5 by 11 inches. We may need to merge documents, so do not apply security settings that prevent document assembly.The submission process is begun with data entry using an online form, as follows:Upon visiting the website , you will be prompted to login. The login system uses your email as the key identifier, so be consistent with which email account you enter here.At the welcome screen, select “Proposals” in the green navigation near the top.Select “List of Current RFA’s”Select “View RFA Details” for IPM Enhancement Grants 2015You may download all pertinent forms here. When you are ready to begin submission, select the “enter new proposal” button.B. Proposal ComponentsProposal Submission Form (online entry): This is an online form, with information entered directly into the online system and no need to convert files. Fields marked by asterisk (*) are required. Required fields include:Contracting State (must be in the Southern Region, state or territory)Contracting Organization: In many cases this will be the name of the PD’s UniversityCooperating States (if any, select all that correspond to co-PDs)Project TitleFunding Requested: Use only numerals (no commas nor $) in the Funding Requested field.Proposal summary: Limit to 3200 characters including spaces. Briefly explain a) the problem or opportunity; b) your approach, in simple terms that can be understood by the general public, university personnel, private organizations, and budget staff; and c) the anticipated impact.Objectives. Text should be identical to (i.e. copied from or to) the “Objectives” field of the Project Narrative (Section V.B.4.c.).Cover and Assurances Form (download template, submit as PDF): Download the form and complete it, and convert to PDF prior to submitting. The Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) must check the box indicating institutional approval of the entire proposal including all pages of this form. The project title should be descriptive and no longer than 100 characters (letters, punctuation, and spaces between words). Use the IPM acronym rather than writing out Integrated Pest Management. When determining your project start and end dates, note that funds will be available as early as March 1, 2015 and must be expended by February 28, 2016. Logic Model and Discussion: Limit 2 pages (submit as PDF). An example logic model framework is provided at the end of this RFA, and other information can be found at . The template form provided is optional, but the submission should be similar to this format. Minimum font and margin requirements may be relaxed for the Logic Model page only, but reviewers will not be expected to take extraordinary measures (magnification, etc.) to see what is provided. In other programs the logic model is often placed at the end of the proposal, possibly giving the misimpression that the logic model is an afterthought. Development of a logic model can be a powerful tool in planning and developing a proposal. A good logic model also quickly summarizes proposal purposes, approach, and potential for the reviewer. Logic model diagram: Limit 1 page. Provide a logic model to summarize your proposal. The logic model should correspond to the information provided in the narrative of your proposal. For example:Situation and priorities, as detailed in the “Problem and Justification”, part 4.b.(Skipping to right-most column and then progressing right to left) At least one of each: long term outcomes addressedmedium term outcomes addressedshort term outcomes accomplished as described below in “Project Objectives” part 4.c.ii. and 4.c.ivOutputs: Activities and participants, corresponding to description of Project Objectives as described below in “Project Objectives” part 4.c. Inputs: Project inputs as described throughout the proposal but particularly corresponding to the budget and budget justificationLeveraged inputs – indicate previous work, related current inputs not funded directly by this proposal, and/or future inputs that might result from this projectEvaluation, corresponding to section 4.d below, “Evaluation Plan”.Assumptions and External Factors, corresponding to information presented throughout the proposal. Discussion: Limit 1 page. Ideally the rest of the proposal might serve as an explanation of the logic model, but you briefly explain the logic model here. Discussion should focus on how this project fits into the broader context of the pest management issue being addressed, the particular focus of your proposal and the opportunities and limits of your proposal. Project Narrative: (download template, submit as PDF). Use a standard 12-point font, single space, with margins of at least 1 inch on all sides. Include these components: Title page: Limit 1 page Project TitleName and Institution of primary Project DirectorName(s) and Institution(s) of Co-PDsTotal Amount RequestedProject Type (choose 1): IPM Documents Crop Profile(s)IPM Documents PMSPSeedCapstoneIPM Working Group, newIPM Working Group, continuingProblem and Justification: Limit 2 pages. Describe, in simple terms, the problem or challenge, and the reason for your study. (IPM Document proposals may address only item v, below.)Situation: Explain the current situation, challenges to and/or opportunities for IPM implementation, and how this project will address those challenges and/or opportunities. Consider including the importance of the crop (or other setting), the pest(s), the economic ramifications, barriers and opportunities, etc. Leveraging: This grant program claims to leverage other resources, thus increasing ultimate impact. Address the ways this proposal could leverage and contributes to impacts of previous work (capstone projects), future work (seed projects) and/or the work of multiple people and organizations (IPM Working Group projects). Review ongoing or completed work (local/regional/national) that ties to your project and include references. An exhaustive literature review is not required, but useful references should be made as appropriate.Stakeholder Identified Priorities: Address the specific priorities identified by growers or other stakeholders in the Southern region that this project addresses. If possible cite at least one IPM stakeholder priority used to formulate the project (provide a link, year, and source). If no priority is posted, say so, and cite a journal review article, proceedings from scientific workshops, or other sources produced by qualified stakeholders. In summary, demonstrate that you are engaged with constituents on some level and that your project addresses their needs. Some stakeholder identified IPM priorities are presented online at .Specify who stands to benefit from your project: Consider environmental, health, or economic benefits or how the project indirectly can feed into these objectives. If appropriate discuss the applicability of the proposed approach to areas (states, regions) other than those included in the proposal.IPM Document need: (IPM Documents projects only): Address the need for this project based on considerations such as:importance of the setting(s) in the location (states, region) addressedabsence or obsolescence of existing IPM Documents for this setting applicability (or lack of) of existing IPM Documents focused on other areas (states, regions)Project Objectives: Limit 1 pageThe contents of this section should be copied to (or from) the Objectives section of the Proposal Submission Form, (part V.B.1.g. Objectives).Using a numbered list, name and describe primary Project Objectives, the major outputs and/or activities of the project. Proposals usually include 1-4 primary objectives.Every Project Objective must target accomplishment of or contribute to accomplishment of at least one long-term outcome (because everything we do is aimed at long term outcomes). Medium- and short-term outcomes should be described as the means to that long-term end. In the first paragraph, name and describe the project objective. Use separate statements to describe the relationship between the objective and long-, medium-, and short-term outcomes. Suggested format: one sentence per outcome. Example: (All examples in this RFA use red italic font to indicate text that a PD might enter)On-farm demonstrations of control alternatives for IPM of radish root rots: Long-term outcome: Improved profitability of LA vegetable growers by decreasing crop loss and decreasing IPM-related input costs. Medium-term outcomes: NEW NRCS cost-share policy for intercropping as an IPM methodChange grower practice to increase the diversity of methods used.Short-term outcome: To improve the knowledge of growers and NRCS staff regarding IPM options.Develop radish root rot ID app….etc.Evaluation Plan: Limit: 2 pages including tablesSubmission of evaluation plans in a tabular format is required; additional explanatory text is optional. Present evaluation plans in a table or table(s) like the example below. You may number tables or rows to facilitate reference in the text. Additional explanation is optional, but the entire section including tables may not exceed two (2) pages. Evaluation tables should specifically address how project objectives and activities relate to outcomes identified in Project Objectives (section V.B.4.c). OPTIONS FOR EVALUATION DATA COLLECTION: (See the “Important note” evaluation plan options in section III.D, above). Evaluation activities may include either of the following approaches or a combination of both:collect data to evaluate project effect on learning, action, or condition resulting directly from this projectcollect baseline data regarding learning, action or condition related to the issue the proposal addresses. The baseline data developed would then be available to you and others for future use. Example: Evaluation Table: Project Objective 1, On-farm Demonstrations OutcomeIndicator(s)Method(s)Resp. personWhen1. New cost-sharing policy NRCS intention for new policyChat with NRCS staff (project effect)PD John Doe2/28/20162.More diversity of practices Current grower practiceSurvey of winter meeting participants (baseline data).County Agents, coordinated by John DoeApril 2015The PD interacts with local NRCS staff on almost a daily basis, in part because we are co-located in the same office building. Learning of their intention to change the cost-sharing policy (line 1) will not be difficult. Etc………Milestones: Limit: 1 page Milestones are identifiable and documentable activities undertaken to achieve an objective, so this section addresses “methodology”. These milestones do not need to include every minute detail, but enough detail to demonstrate that the objective has been well thought through. The implied final milestone will be completion of the objective itself.Indicators of success or completion will range from simple emails or agendas to results from an evaluation activity (such as a survey of meeting participants or growers). For each milestone, a person responsible for the milestone should be identified. We understand that not all “jobs” can be assigned right away, and that this may sometimes be one of the important milestones. Where possible, identify people by name. Use one table for each Project Objective.If any surveys are proposed, describe the survey methodology that will be used and who will perform this work. The issue of Institutional Review Board approval must be explicitly addressed. Example: Milestones, Project Objective 1, On-Farm DemonstrationsMilestoneCompletion Indicator Responsible personDeadline 1. Commitment for space on the research farmApproval by CALS admin via the university request systemPD John DoeJan 31, 20152. Establish and manage demo plots(many, throughout season)Mary Roe and her field staffThrough the season3. Publicize the field dayBlog, email and other routine channelsCounty Agent Mike SmithOne month prior to field days, est. July 15Etc.Literature Cited: Applicants should list only publications cited in the proposal. (submit PDF)Cooperation of Key Personnel and Institutional Units Involved (download template, submit as PDF):Identify key personnel and each institutional unit contributing to the project. In multiple-institutional projects, each institution should be identified and the lead institution designated. Applicants should clearly define the roles and responsibilities of each person and institutional unit of the project team, if applicable.If the project includes consulting, collaborative or sub-contractual arrangements, such arrangements should be fully explained and justified in the budget narrative and budget. In addition, evidence should be provided here that the collaborators involved have agreed to render these services. Acceptable documentation for this purpose includes letters of intent or statements of work from the individual or organization. Copies of either letters or email messages from the collaborators will suffice for this purpose.Project Directors, co-Project Directors, and any collaborators who will receive a portion of the budget must provide current vitae (two pages maximum) including a listing of the most relevant publications. Budget Excel Form: (Download the Excel form provided, and DO NOT convert before submitting – submit as an Excel file.) If the project entails multiple contracts, include separate budget forms and budget narratives for each institution. Indirect costs of up to 30% TFF awarded (equivalent to 42.86% of TDC) may be requested. For example, a project for $30,000 could include no more than $9,000 indirect costs. Budgets must fall within the limits described above ($30,000 for Seed, Capstone and IPM Documents projects; $40,000 for IPM Working Groups).Budget Narrative: (download template, submit as PDF). A detailed budget narrative using the template provided must be included. Items should correspond with and be ordered similarly to major budget lines in the Budget form, but should also provide more detail. Explicitly provide the computations that lead to the numbers presented on the budget form. If consulting, collaborative, or sub-contractual arrangements are included in the project, these arrangements should be fully explained. A proposed statement of work and a budget for each arrangement involving the transfer of substantive programmatic work or the providing of financial assistance to a third party must be provided. Current and Pending Support Forms: (download template, submit as PDF). A separate form is required for the PD and each co-PD. Enter the current proposal under the “pending” line. Conflict of Interest Forms: Download the Excel form provided, and DO NOT convert before submitting – submit as an Excel file. Provide a separate form for the PD and each co-PD. Be sure the form is updated – fairly often we note that recent co-authors in someone’s CV are not listed in the COI form, for instance.CVs of Key Personnel: A CV is required for each of the key personnel. Submit a single PDF file containing all CV’s, with each CV limited to 2 pages. Appendices: Supplementary materials may be submitted in PDF format as appendices. The most common use for this is to submit letters of support and/or cooperation from non-PD collaborators (for instance, interested Working Group members), which may be included in a single appendix. Project Directors are strongly cautioned not to abuse this provision in an attempt to circumvent page limits. VI. Evaluation and Selection Criteria Panelists will rate every proposal using the evaluation criteria score sheet shown below. Because this program will support several project types, the review panel will use the following review and recommendation sequence.Each proposal will be rated (high, medium, low, un-fundable) based on consensus of the panel using the evaluation criteria shown in the score sheet.For each project type, proposals rated “high” will be funded until the assigned fund pool is exhausted or until all proposals rated “high” are funded, whichever comes first:Up to $30,000 for IPM DocumentsUp to $100,000 for IPM Working GroupsUp to $270,000 for Seed and CapstoneAny funds and any proposals remaining after step 2 will be considered together as a single pool. The panel will assign remaining funds to the remaining highest-rated proposals until available funds are exhausted. VII. Project Reports Successful applicants will be required to submit a final report within sixty (60) days after the termination date of the subcontract. Report formats and instructions for submitting will be provided by the Center. VIII. Proposal Evaluation Score Sheet CriteriaIPM DocumentsSeedCapstoneWorking GroupResource building, investment or utilization (15 points)Plans for appropriate involvement of stakeholders in the PMSP processAppropriate plan to include experts in production and/or review Potential to catalyze or facilitate future effective projectsStakeholder interest and involvementBuilds on and enhances previous work on this issueStakeholder interest and involvementPotential to coordinate, catalyze and produce synergies Stakeholder interest and involvementRegional Importance and potential for beneficial impact (25 points)Fill key gaps in the current CP/PMSP/Priorities portfoliosImportance in the Southern Region of setting(s) addressedAddresses important issues, citing indicators such as stakeholder priorities, value of the crop/setting, contribution of the issue to environmental, economic and human health risk, etc.Potential for success (25 points)Will use standard formats and procedures and involve SIPMC staffLogical targeting of the issue by the projectAppropriate project designImpact evaluation(15 points)Exempt Plan to assess project outcomes and impactsOR Plan to produce new baseline evaluation informationOR A combination of aspects of bothProposal preparation (10 points)Meets all format requirementsMeets all format requirements. Clear explanation of issues addressed and what the project could provideBudget (10 points)Detailed budget justification corresponding to project scope, objectives and proceduresFor questions regarding the Request for Applications or submission of a proposal, contact Jim VanKirk, Director (jim@ , 919 513 8179). For technical questions regarding submission of a proposal, contact Alex Belskis (abelskis@, 919 522 5602) or Rosemary Hallberg (rhallberg@, 919 513 8182).Logic Model Example Template. Copyright University of Wisconsin Cooperative Extension, 2003 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download