One final project report and one final expenditure report will be required, both at the end of the grant period. See Section II.H of the RFP.
No. Faculty and staff may be paid a maximum of 25% of regular salary from the Rapid Response Workforce Development subprogram, and release from regular duties equivalent to the salary requested from Rapid Response must be guaranteed and documented by the institution. Any faculty or staff member working on the project, whether new or already employed, may receive up to 25% of regular salary, to be calculated as the amount of time dedicated to the project and with appropriate release. Under no circumstances may any faculty or staff receive additional compensation through the grant, even if work is performed outside of regular business hours.
Funds must be fully expended and all project activity conducted during the contract term. It is not permissible for contract activities (e.g., travel, salary support) to be completed outside the contract period.
Yes, though any subscription and/or token must be both paid for and used during the contract period and prior to termination. Payment for a service period that extends beyond the contract term is not permitted.
No – see Section VII of the RFP.
No – see Section V of the RFP.
No. The Rapid Response Workforce Development subprogram is open to all public postsecondary institutions (including two-year, four-year, and special purpose). See Section II.C.2 of the RFP.
The RFP sets no limit on the number of proposals a PI may submit. It is a good idea for a PI submitting across multiple programs/units to disclose all proposals for which he/she is serving as PI. Staff will be reviewing budgets as well to assess requests for salary support, and the PI will be limited to a maximum of 25% of regular salary across all submissions, which is consistent with the intent of the salary limitation in the RFP.
Staff are planning for a turnaround to a funding decision of three to four weeks. Of course this is a new initiative, so projections are difficult. Building out a project timeline that starts around a month after submission is reasonable, and we will keep applicants posted as staff get a better sense of the timing.
RRWD is an acronym of the subprogram’s name, Rapid Response Workforce Development.
No. Under no circumstances may Support Fund dollars provided through this program be used to provide additional compensation to faculty or staff. If the project includes any direct payment to faculty or staff, it can be provided only as a percentage of salary granted as release from regular duties by the institution.
Students may receive stipends for training as long as the activities for which they are receiving the stipend are not part of their regular work. They may not receive both payment for work performed and a stipend for the same activities.
All institutional actions to purchase the equipment requested and approved in the proposal should begin as soon as possible after award, so the purchase order should be in place well in advance of the contract termination date. The purpose of this provision is to allow a limited contract extension in the event that the ordered equipment is delayed or vendor’s confirmed delivery date is outside the contract term. All institutional actions to purchase equipment, including the purchase order, should be in place well before the two-week window, which is specified as the time at which the extension should be requested, with documentation of the delay required.
Projects can pay students and other training participants, though cannot pay faculty or staff of LA higher education institutions, or of any state agency (this counts as additional compensation). Training materials and consumables (such as PPE) are allowable, though nothing purchased with state funds can given as personal property. Travel costs for participants are permissible within PPM49.
Yes, travel expenses are permitted, including to appropriate conferences. All travel paid via BoRSF must comply with PPM49, the state’s travel policy, and must take place – not just be reserved and/or paid for – before contract termination. The only restriction is that any travel must be fully aligned with the purposes of the funded project and the Rapid Response Workforce Development subprogram.
Yes, RRWD funds can be used to cover release time to conduct project activities, up to 25% of AY salary. If additional time is needed, the institution can provide as match, but may not request from BoRSF. Time tracking should be via pay period timesheets that show actual time spent on the activities/funding sources that comprise the faculty/staff member’s base salary. Since BoRSF awards are not cost-reimbursable, the documentation will not be submitted to Regents to process payment, but must be retained in contract files in case of audit.
Salary support may be funded via the grant as release, but cannot be directly paid by BoRSF. Salary support may be requested – it is not required – to cover release, or the institution may cover participating faculty/staff project work as part of their regular duties. The amount provided through Rapid Response cannot exceed 25%.
The RFP references $2.6B in new investment, but the total is much higher. What is the discrepancy?
The reference to $2.6B was a typographical error and has been corrected.
No. The eligible categories align with LA Works’ workforce priority areas, which can be accessed at https://www.laworks.net/WORKSTraining/. It is projected that thousands of jobs will be created, so it will be up to the applicant to show how the specific workforce need to be addressed fits within the urgent new opportunities coming online.
Yes. This is specified in Section II.C.2 of the RFP.
Items considered “standard” include items typically provided by the institution (e.g., office furniture, desktop computers), those that are general-purpose or without specific capabilities necessary to complete project work (e.g., a car). Non-standard items may be requested when they provide specialty capacity that is essential for the project (e.g., high-processing-power computers, research drones). It is the responsibility of the applicant to demonstrate that all items requested in the budget are eligible under the rules set forth in the RFP. It is also critical that the institution commit to all expenses related to operation and maintanance of any equipment purchased through this program, which may not be provided by the Support Fund.
Yes, though the rules regarding discipline eligibility must be followed, so the unit must either select a single eligible academic discipline or root a multidisciplinary proposal in an eligible area. Note that non-academic activities are not eligible for BoRSF funding.
No. Only faculty members who are currently employed by the submitting institution may submit NoIs and proposals.
Provided all information is complete and up-to-date, applicants are welcome to upload biosketch and current/pending support forms used for federal or other non-BoRSF competitions.
Potential applicants should reference previous years’ consultant reports to see the range and types of proposals recommended in any BoRSF program. Reports from numerous competitive cycles are available at https://rsi.laregents.edu/downloads_page/consultant-reports/.
Yes, provided all Co-PIs are eligible per the guidelines in the RFP.
The PI of a multidisciplinary proposal does not have to be a member of the lead department, but the proposal should provide a rationale for the choice. Given the departmental focus of the program and the requirement that multidisciplinary projects be rooted in and primarily benefit a discipline eligible in the funding cycle, consultants will very likely have questions about the selection of leadership which should be addressed explicitly.
I am not sure why the forms are different, but the format is not material. We would advise applicants to use the ENH format just to keep the proposals all looking alike, but the forms are similar enough that it won’t make much difference in communicating the information.
Appendix material is not part of the page limit.
You can use the ENH due date as a guideline. Note that BoRSF programs run in annual cycles, and not on an ad hoc schedule, so this really refers to the last five funding cycles.
For the Current Situation data the applicant can use whatever form the team feels is most compelling. The idea of the data is provide a foundation of information that preemptively answers questions about the unit and the project in relationship to the unit. It is there to help the applicants make their case and guide the reviewers in their assessment.
You can use the RCS taxonomy as a guideline, or the old Enhancement taxonomy, which was based on a now-eliminated NSF taxonomy (these are the same document). The important part is that, if there is any question of eligibility or what the discipline is, that the applicants make a convincing case that the proposal has been submitted to the appropriate discipline.
It is ok to limit information on previous awards to the lead unit, especially in Comprehensive. The intention was to keep to the spirit of the newly organized Departmental version of Enhancement that emphasizes the department over the PI. But five years for an entire department is enough to sort through for the applicant, and enough for the reviewer to process. However if the applicant feels that listing all the departments’ BoRSF history helps make the case, then feel free to do so.
The limit is on the department, and not the campus. Per your example, Biological Sciences may participate in one multidisciplinary (as lead or partner) and one department-based comprehensive proposal, but the campus may submit as many multidisciplinary proposals as it deems appropriate. It is important for applicants to note, however, that our funding is extremely limited and we don’t anticipate funding a large number of comprehensive proposals in any given cycle.
The institutional screening committee approval form is not dictated by the Regents, and can take the form that the campus deems appropriate – memorandum/approval form, letter from the committee, certification of approval, etc. LOGAN will have a separate (optional) upload for the screening committee
The BoR does not dictate how a campus conducts its internal screening or specify that deliberations/results must be shared with the applicants. That is entirely an internal decision. Bear in mind, however, that proposal contents submitted to the BoR – including data such as internal priorities – become public records, and are subject to release upon request.
Only awards – grants and contracts – should be included. Endowments are matching funds and donor-restricted, so are not considered part of the award list.
Targeted workforce refers to any program that terminates in a specific workforce application (e.g., PTEC or construction crafts). It may align with a subject area or discipline, but need not, which is why it is kept separate in the discipline list.
Detailed budget guidelines are set forth in sections V-VII of the RFP. Section II.B sets forth budget limits per project type (Comprehensive: $300,000 in year 1, $200,000 years 2-5; Targeted: $200,000 for one-year projects)
The rank order should be by department/unit, and not by discipline.
Each campus can accomplish these requirements according to its own preferences. In terms of priorities, strategic plans and role, scope, and mission statements are a good place to start. Selection of members for the screening committee is the purview of the campus; Offices of Sponsored Programs are welcome to share best practices or exchange approaches at their discretion.
No, though any equipment requested should be justified in terms of the academic enhancement it provides to the department/unit in terms. Note, too, that personal devices (e.g., iPads, laptops) purchased with Support Fund monies must be tagged and remain the property of the campus. Under no circumstances may they be given to faculty, students, or other individuals as personal property.
We have no way of knowing at this point. At a budget level of approximately $3M for the whole ENH program, we would expect 20+/-. The budget level, however, may change and actual funding recommendations depend on the cost of recommended proposals and expected revenues to the Support Fund.
Yes. No institutional ranking is required. Departmental rankings can be included in the body of each affected proposal or uploaded separately in LOGAN.
Yes, provided the institution can make a strong case for the use of short-term Support Funds in this way, as well as outline concrete plans for sustaining the faculty position after limited BoRSF dollars are exhausted.
No. Departmental Enhancement is limited to “academic, research, and agricultural departments and units,” and the unit’s mission must reflect these descriptors. Support facilities are not eligible as applicants, though a proposal from an eligible department may indicate that items purchased will be housed in a shared facility, as a way of broadening the impact of the investment. In addition, an associated academic program (e.g., Library and Information Services) is eligible, but its proposals must reflect the academic mission of the program.
The Multidisciplinary distinction is definitely departmental. The idea is that two different units are both participating in, invested in and being enhanced by the proposal. One of the departments receiving an equal or greater share of the enhancement must from an eligible discipline. Proposals are not multidisciplinary because the academic work touches on themes outside of the PI’s normal discipline. As in, a Business proposal is not also Computer Science because they are working with computers, or also Mathematics because they are doing some high level statistics work. They are only multidisciplinary if they are actually working with a Computer Science Department or Mathematics Department, and those departments are invested in the project and receiving tangible enhancement.
In the new Departmental Enhancement format, the Multi distinction is less important. Before there was a separate Multi competition with its own pot of money. Now there is one competition. Before the PI had to make a calculation as to whether the project would be more competitive in a multi competition or a stand-alone discipline-based competition. Now the distinction serves only as a guideline for the reviewers. Multi signifies a broad impact, and that the relationship of the departments needs to be examined by the panel, and that BoRSF needs to carefully consider which experts are assigned to review it. So it is important to understand, but will not affect which pot of money you are competing for.
The previous Multi competition was designed to give a competitive space to projects that fell in between disciplines because two departments were working together. Business and Computer Science might actually be putting together a shared lab that was a huge boost to each department but fell out of the normal scope of the Business or Computer Sci competitions, and might be dismissed. Now we have designed a review that builds that into a single competition.
For a proposal to be Multi it needs to: a) be submitted by a department that is based in an eligible discipline b) the submitting department must receive equal or greater benefit from the project than the other participating departments and c) at least one other department must benefit, it must present its own mission statement and state its case for why the project fits the priorities described in that statement, and it must have faculty involved that have actual roles. The partnering departments do not have to be based in eligible disciplines.
For Engineering, if the department submits in Engineering A, to be a multi proposal the partnering department must be outside of Engineering A. If a department under Engineering A partners with a department from Engineering B, then it can be considered Multi. If two Eng A or two Eng B departments submit a proposal together, and they are separate units with separate administrations, then they are welcome to format their proposal the way you would with a Multi proposal. As in, they should probably submit two mission statements that explain how the project addresses priorities in each separate department. But, like I said before, the Multi label is just a guideline, if they write it that way then it will be easy to set up the review for it, but labeling Multi will not change how it competes, because it is a single competition.
It does not matter what departments the participating faculty members work in when it comes to labeling the proposal Multi, or choosing a discipline to submit under. The participating departments check off the disciplines they represent. Hundreds of proposals have been submitted since I’ve been here with faculty working across departments on teams, and most of those probably were not Multi. Multi is department based. If more than one department from more than one discipline have vested roles in the project, then it is Multi. Creating the PI teams is a strategic element of the project but does not determine the disciplines the proposal is submitted under. If you are submitting under Humanities, it is a better bet to have a Humanities PI and not a Poli Sci PI, even if the Poli Sci PI did most of the writing. And if you are doing real Sociology work you probably want a Sociology person represented on the team to show the panel you have your bases covered. But none of that has to do with how the project is submitted. The department submits the proposal, the department chooses the discipline to submit under, and if they partner with another department they should look into the process for submitting and the process for formatting a Multi proposal and consider submitting as Multi.
The PI of a Multidisciplinary project may be from any participating department, but the proposal must be rooted in a discipline eligible in the funding cycle and convincingly argue that project benefits will accrue significantly, and not just incidentally or tangentally, to one or more eligible disciplines. External reviewers will assess and make determinations about the degree to which a proposal demonstrates its eligibility per the criteria set forth in the RFP.