Thank you for joining us on 7/17/2025.
We've updated our FAQ to include the demo recording: What does a campus & PI approved eGC1 mean to OSP?
Q&A from the session are included here for reference and will be posted to the MRAM website shortly.
What does a campus & PI approved eGC1 look like?
Q1: Is it still the case that all faculty members identified on an egc1 must complete SFI disclosure even if they are not an investigator or key personnel?
A1: All personnel participating on the project must be listed on the PI, Personnel, & Organizations page. Only those personnel who are marked as Investigators must complete a FIDS disclosure.
Q2: Is international travel for a conference budgeted on a proposal “international activities”? To clarify "The International Involvement Section Identifies the countries where research will take place" Is Any portion of this project to be conducted internationally? Y/N.
A2: Yes, international travel for conferences should be considered international activities and marked so on the eGC1.
Q3: Related to cost sharing, would a school-level commitment of support be required to be included here, even if it would not be fulfilled as a cost share award line at award set up?
A3: PI, campus unit, and school/college level approvals of Cost Share are documented via the eGC1 approval flow process. If the eGC1 was routed through this process with cost share documented, approving the eGC1 demonstrates that the reviewer has approved the cost share commitments on the eGC1.
8/01/2025 edit: This question was intended to ask about what would fall into the category of “voluntary uncommitted cost share” (VUCS). This is institutional, school, department support provided that is not presented as cost share to the sponsor.
Documentation for VUCS is not needed on the eGC1.
Please note there may be times when OSP will ask about source of funding for activities documented in a scope of work for which there is no apparent request for sponsored funding. This may be to ensure visibility into how activity is being supported and that the use of that source of funding is aligning with University policies.
Q4: When is the eGC1 contact data used after the proposal is submitted? Where does the contact data flow into other modules and used in post award? If the eGC1 data is not used, what contact data is referenced for auto emails?
A4: When an Award Setup Request has been created by OSP, the PI, Admin Contact, Pre-Award Budget Contact, and eGC1 Preparer are notified. When an ASR has been returned or processed only the Award Preparer is notified. Likewise, when a MOD is created, returned, or processed, only the Award Preparer is notified. Additionally, when an award setup request is created, associated with the eGC1, the award preparer role is also added to the eGC1 as a contact. See more information on Awards Email Notifications in the SAGE User Guide.
Q5: For the sponsor docs, your presentation says only one document should be updated. If there is a signature page/face page the Instructions used to be that the signature page should be a separate document, uploaded in the Sponsor Document section. Can you confirm these instructions?
A5: Per the eGC1 instructions, please upload one file of the proposal (in the correct order) and a separate file with signature page(s) if appropriate.
Q6: What are the revisions to GIM1?
A6: The revised GIM 1 is published. Revisions to GIM 1 were discussed at the April and June MRAM sessions. Additionally, from June to July, both versions were available for review and comparison.
Q7: Joint appointments are important for Schools/Colleges. Does OSP review/use this data in any way? Could they be automated?
A7: OSP does not review joint appointments. Currently, unit reviewers for joint appointments have to be added manually as ad hoc reviewers. The ability to automatically add these reviewers will be taken into account for future updates to SAGE.
Q8: Will you consider having a "post award" contact on the contacts page. this is very important when depts use central services for pre award and central services are not involved in post award activities.
A8: When an award setup request is created, associated with the eGC1, the award preparer role is also added to the eGC1 as a contact. The SAGE Team is aware of the request to add additional contacts to the eGC1s and it is in consideration for future development.
Q9: Do PIs need to complete Research Security Training for state contracts?
A9: If the proposal involves flow-through funding from a federal agency that requires covered individuals to complete required training, all covered individuals will need to have completed Research Security Training. Currently, this is required by the Department of Energy and the United States Department of Agriculture. It will become a requirement for proposals to National Science Foundation (prime and flow-through) on October 10, 2025. Please check the notice of funding opportunity to see if this may be an opportunity-specific requirement rather than an federal agency requirement. Unless federal agency funding is involved, we have not seen information about this training being required for state contracts.
Q10: Is a mentor on e.g., an F31, considered Key Personnel?
A10: Yes, the Mentor would be considered Key Personnel. Please see Who is considered an investigator and needs to disclose?
Q11: Should the field "Date needed from OSP" be filled out the same as the NIH due date? Could you please give more information about this field.
A11: This is not a required field nor a field OSP uses. If you are going to fill this out, please make it the same as the Sponsor Deadline field. If you need to use an earlier date than the actual Sponsor Deadline (e.g., for PI availability), please use that earlier deadline as the Sponsor Deadline. The GIM 19 deadline is always based on the Sponsor Deadline field.
Q12: If International travel is added to a project, does OSP need to be notified? When we have travel on our budgets that could either be for domestic or international travel depending on where the conferences are that our faculty's research is accepted to, we have been noting that travel may be domestic or international in our budget justifications, but are there additional steps that we should be taking? Should we be using a specific budget category/code? Oftentimes it's impossible to tell exactly where travel will be to at the proposal stage.
A12: This will depend on the sponsor's policies. Many sponsors require prior approval for international travel that was not in the original proposal or award. (And sometimes also require prior approval even when the international travel is in the proposal and award, e.g., for many federal contracts). In these instances the prior approval request will need to route to OSP for review/submission via a MOD to the existing award.
Q13: I've seen a recurring issue where voluntary cost share is included in proposals, despite UW policy prohibiting it unless required by the FOA or part of the merit review. Pre-award staff often miss this, and OSP hasn’t been reviewing this closely/rejecting these proposals, which leaves them moving forward against UW guidance.
As a post-award staff member, I’ve raised concerns when I find this after submission, but PIs typically respond that “OSP didn’t reject it,” leaving us with little authority to push back. The power dynamics make it hard for campus units to enforce cost share policy, so it would be nice if OSP could take a stronger role in reviewing and stopping unallowable voluntary cost share before proposals are submitted. This often becomes a problem for post-award folks when setting up an awarded project and getting push back at that time. Any ideas on how to fix these issues?
A13: Cost Share is part of OSP Institutional Review. And if the eGC1 and proposal have this well documented, it makes it easier for campus and OSP to review. However, if the cost share is not well documented, it is more difficult to review and may not be reviewed at all even if OSP has provided a review of the technical instructions. While voluntary committed cost share is discouraged, it is not prohibited by UW policy and is often not prohibited by sponsor policy (with NSF as an exception). In those cases if cost share was documented in the proposal, the cost share commitment is a requirement of the award even if the award is not explicit about this. If you have any cost share questions, you can contact Post Award Fiscal compliance, gcafco@uw.edu. Please also review GCA's Cost Share Guidance.
Q14: I need to receive approval notifications for related MODs, real-time approval notification is crucial in order for me to submit subaward modification requests in a timely manner.
A14: ORIS is reviewing these roles/notifications as well. Currently, there is only one award preparer role which receives notifications. ORIS will relay this to their team to reiterate the need for multiple notification recipients.
Q15: Can you please provide clarification around the cost share addendum requirement in the eGC1? OSP reviewers routinely require the cost share addendum be completed at the time of the proposal but I believe you said OSP does not require this. I will also note what is written in the eGC1 on the cost sharing page: "Complete a separate Cost Sharing Addendum Form and attach it to your application only if cost sharing is proposed for this Application." If this IS NOT required, could the eGC1 be updated to reflect OSP's policy?
A15: Currently, OSP does not require the Cost Share Addendum at time of proposal (even though the eGC1 instructions are to attach a copy). Your units may have this requirement, however. OSP is going to look at this more closely to determine whether to maintain its current policy.
Q16: Does OSP want Subaward documents to also be uploaded as single documents (1 per subaward), and in any particular document order?
A16: If subaward documents are included in the application to the sponsor, please upload as part of the single file of the proposal (in the correct order) under "Documents to be Submitted to Sponsor". Subaward packages with additional materials not included in the application, can be uploaded as "Internal Documents" for OSP review, one file per subaward.
Q17: Can you share best practice for sponsors forwarding award agreements via DocuSign. should the DocuSign go to our reviewer every time?
A17: In general DocuSign agreements should be sent to the OSP inbox (osp@uw.edu). However, if you know the OSP reviewer that will be signing the award, they can assigned to that individual.
Q18: When a signature page is uploaded for OSP signature, is there a requirement or best practice that the document be labeled "OSP Signature Required"?
A18: Yes, that is a best practice.
Q19: We’ve encountered issues with administrative supplements associated with parent awards. We have to create a new eGC1 for the supplement application, and often the NOFO indicates we need to use the same application title as the parent award. But when we get the NOA for a noncompeting continuation of the parent or a NOA for a different admin supplement, OSP often associates with the NOA/ASR with the most recent eGC1 that has the title. Tips for avoiding this issue?
A19: The supplemental funds will be awarded to the original, parent eGC1 and AWD number. A potential solution for keeping track of supplemental eGC1s is to use the parent proposal tile followed by a parenthetical descriptor [e.g., (FY25 supplement)].
We look forward to seeing you at the next MRAM.
Thank you,
The Office of Sponsored Programs