On December 18th (Tuesday), Wikihub will be unavailable from 7-9am.
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Program Management Resources

here's a landing page for us to share PM resources, proposals, etc.

Table of Contents

Data Services Q1 Grant Proposals

Proposal Process

Document Purpose

There are two purposes for this document:

  1. Share high level steps, roles and schedule for the Q1 DS grant proposals in order to
    1. Get team feedback, revisions and buy-in
    2. Ensure we can get the proposals out the door with the highest quality and least pain
    3. Share first take at building a common proposal process and get your feedback


  1. Read the document
  2. Find your name
  3. Respond to items needing your input
  4. Respond to items you have ideas about


  • Change content as you think appropriate and
  • Add commentary to the discussion page if needed

These proposal sections need a bunch of fleshing out. We are mid-stream so the process below is not going to fully implemented but we need to get ahead of the deadlines as soon as possible by building more detail into the steps, who will do them and when. Please go down to the Proposal Process section to get ideas for what needs your input. (smile)

CollectionSpace 2.0

General schedule (updated 3/5/2010)

  • 2/1 outline feedback due from UCB to MMI: Done
  • 2/8 Prospectus due to Mellon from MMI.  Done around 2/12.
  • 2/19 Meet to identify preliminary budget: Done
  • 2/24-3/3 Define functionality/scope: include input from PAHMA, Herbaria
  • 2/26 Budget meeting UCB team
  • 2/26 or 3/1: UCB revised budget due to MMI
  • 3/3: UCB sends draft sustainability and documents sections to MMI
  • 3/4: MMI sends full draft for entire team review
  • 3/5-3/7: Revisions: all on board to support MMI
  • March 8: First draft due to Mellon
  • April 1: Final draft due to Mellon
  • June: Mellon board meeting
  • July? Tentative start

Writing Tasks

  • Narrative Sustainability – PS, MK (UCB team reviews)
  • Narrative Documentation – PS, MK (UCB team reviews)
  • People – PS, CH, MK, (PMcG) - done except as needed to be revised for budget
  • Budget – DG, AK, PS, CH, MK, PMcG

SPO Process and Schedule

  • PI – CH
  • Schedule (assuming a 4/1/2010 final submission from MMI) – Amy
    • PI: Under discussion with David.  Marlita has pinged David.
    • 3/15/10-3/17/10 Obtain signatures on PRF, 700U, UCB Cost Share Commitment Letters (Chris)
    • 3/17/10 morning.  Proposal review with Terence Phuong in DCIO (Amy).
    • 5:00 pm 3/17/10 Proposal in to SPO (need 5 full days (8-5) to not be considered late)
    • Furlough week plus Cesar Chavez Holiday: 3/22 - 3/26. SPO is closed.
    • Final approved documents to MMI 3/31 5:00 pm (PST)
  • Components – Amy (see documents page, viewing restricted)
    • Completed and signed Proposal Review Form, which must include the date and time proposal is due, with the applicable time zone noted
    • Completed PRF Expanded Personnel Form.
    • Statement of work or technical section (in final or draft form).  We will probably need to pull this from the draft narrative and develop some text providing more detail about UCB work.
    • Budget spreadsheet. If the budget in any required sponsor format is not sufficiently detailed or explanatory, then an Excel spreadsheet should be included for SPO review. 
    • Budget justification and roles and responsibilities -- a separate document, drawn from the narrative and expanded, identifying the roles and responsibilities of people on the budget plus explanations of other line items.
    • Documentation about Mellon's waiver of indirect costs.  Confirmed.
    • Concurrence, i.e. Subrecipient Commitment Form, statement of work, budget and budget justification from any proposed subawardee.  NA.
    • Letters of support from named consultants and/or collaborators.  NA.
    • Cost share commitment letters from IST, PAHMA (M. Black, to be signed by Mari Lyn Salvador, PAHMA director), and Herbaria (request sent to B. Mishler).
    • Project specific justification for inclusion of administrative costs for major project. NA.
    • 700-U form needs to be completed by PI (B. Mishler, PI).
    • Approval of PI exception (please take VCRO deadlines into account).  NA

MMI Activities from 2/25 Steering Committee meeting

  • Carl with connect with Mellon to confirm what their documentation concern is; for example, is it that they need to understand SOA better or is the quality of the documentation an issue? We believe that at the least, it's organization on the wiki is problematic.
  • MMI will handle Mellon's question re IMLS versus Mellon-funded activities
  • MMI will handle IP aspect of proposal
  • Re sustainability: Carl has already started reaching out to Kuali , Robert McDonald, others, put David on a panel

Bamboo Services Platform Proposal

Proposal team, roles and responsibilities

PM: Rich Meyer
Writers: David Greenbaum, Chad Kainz (UoC) , Steve Masover, Kaylea Champion (UoC), Rich Meyer
Reviewers: Janet Broughton, Chad Kainz, David Greenbaum
PI: Janet Broughton
Budgeter(s): David Greenbaum, Chad Kainz
Kick off meeting: Jan 25, 2010
Build schedule: Full schedule of milestones

  • Feb 5: 3-5 page prospectus with one-page budget
  • Mar 1: full proposal draft to Mellon
  • Mar 11: full partner contribution documentation
  • Mar 18, 5PM: full proposal to SPO
  • Apr 1: final proposal to Mellon

SPO Requirements

Liaison: Amy Kimball
PI: Janet Broughton
Schedule: SPO deadline, Mar 18, 2010, 5PM

  • PRF
  • 700-U: PI Statement of Economic Interest
  • Proposal
  • Budget and Justification
  • Subrecipient Forms
  • External MOIs
  • Local MOI and Cost Share Letters

Design cycle:

  • Literature Review
  • 5 Community Design Workshops
  • Multi-institutional Working Groups

Writing cycle:
Review cycle:
QA cycle:

IMLS/CollectionSpace Communities of Practice

  • 2/1 submitted by MMI
  • September to October 2010: response
  • October: start
  • CS2 and Bamboo proposal team to use this proposal as coherence check for Mellon proposals
    • Also review for what can be re-purposed for the other proposals

Proposal Process (early thoughts; this needs input from team)

  1. Identify proposal team, roles and responsibilities
    1. PM
    2. Writers
    3. Reviewers
    4. PI
    5. Budgeter(s)
  2. .Kick off meeting
  3. Build schedule
    1. SPO (Sponsored Projects Office) – Amy
      • Must check sponsors website for specific terms and conditions of funding source.
      • UCB policy allows cost sharing only when required by the sponsor and incorporated in the program announcement.
      • PI   Each proposal must have a UCB Principal Investigator.  A Principal Investigator is an individual who has been granted the ability to officially solicit or apply for extramural support for research, training, or public service programs or projects in the name of the University with the prior approval of the Board of Regents or an authorized Officer or official of the University.
      • Schedule 
        • SPO must have 5 full working days (8-5) prior to submission in order for the proposal to not be considered late. 
        • Terence Phuong in DCIO needs at least one day prior to SPO submission to review. 
        • Subrecipients will need 2-3 weeks prior to that to fill out the Subrecipient form. 
        • Allow 1-2 days to obtain signatures on the PRF (Proposal Review Form) and Cost Share Committment letters prior tol SPO submission.
      • Components   http://www.spo.berkeley.edu/guide/proposalquick.html   http://www.spo.berkeley.edu/Forms/UCForms.htmlAn on-time proposal must include:
        • Completed and signed Proposal Review Form, which must include the date and time proposal is due, with the applicable time zone noted
        • Statement of work or technical section (in final or draft form)
        • Budget with complete justification (note: if the budget in any required sponsor format is not sufficiently detailed or explanatory, then an Excel spreadsheet should be included for SPO review). Indirect costs must be calculated with either the federal negotiated rate or the rate specified by the sponsor in written policy or program guideline documents. Any request for a vital program waiver must accompany the proposal to SPO
        • Concurrence, i.e. Subrecipient Commitment Form, statement of work, budget and budget justification from any proposed subawardee
        • Letters of support from named consultants and/or collaborators
        • Properly documented cost sharing, matching
        • Project specific justification for inclusion of administrative costs for “major project” (Note: this justification cannot be generic)
        • Completed State and/or Federal Conflict of Interest disclosure forms
        • Approval of PI exception (please take VCRO deadlines into account)
    2. Design cycle
      • This could include competitive research (who else is doing this work? How are we different and better?)
    3. Writing cycle
    4. Review cycle
    5. QA cycle
  • 4. Writing phase
    1. Identify common sections from similar proposals; re-purpose
    2. Manage effort to ensure proposal is on schedule and team is in alignment (including other institutions, partners)
    3. QA
      1. Does the proposal SELL?
      2. Compliance – Amy 
        1. SPO
        2. Funder
        3. Any Other
      3. Content Copy Edit
        1. Accuracy
        2. Continuity
      4. Final review to ensure package is complete
    1. *## Identify central storage for proposal components that are used again and again (e.g. legal, SPO requirements) – Amy, PMcG
      1. Gather common documentation - Amy
        1. http://www.spo.berkeley.edu/Forms/UCForms.html
        2. http://www.spo.berkeley.edu/Policy/fa2007.pdf (Current Indirect Cost Rate Agreement)
        3. Sample cost share letter:  (see attachment)
        4. Budget information:  http://www.spo.berkeley.edu/Procedures/budget.html

Mellon Grant Proposal Resources and Guidelines

Campus budget calendar for 2010-11 budget submissions

Including IT Bank milestones and internal IST schedule.

BNHM-IST IT Bank submission


  • Done. February 26: CTC status updates
  • Done. March 4: CTC presentation
  • Done. March 9: High level review of goals and approach (DAG, PM, CRH)
  • March 15: Draft 1 (Hoffman)
  • March 16-19: Review with DAG, PM, Steering Committee; revise.
  • March 29: VCRO submission (to Anne Benker)
  • March 31: Check in with Anne Benker (Chris)
  • April 2: Deadline to campus

MVP IT Bank submission

  • ??: Writing and budget
  • ??: Steering Committee review
  • IST Review deadlines (coming...)
  • February 26: CTC status updates
  • March 4: CTC presentation
  • April 2: Deadline to campus

IST internal budget schedule


  • No labels