Electronic Routing for Grant Applications / Internal Approvals Using Cayuse 424
Submission of applications for extramural funding must be approved by Central Administration.
1) applications for grants and contracts to be awarded to Yeshiva University,
2) requests to enter into consortia via sub-awards and sub-contracts to grants and contracts awarded to other institutions, and
3) any communication with an extramural funding source that presents specific detailed budgetary information, discusses commitment of university resources, or requires signature approval by a University official (including Deans Office, CCI, Animal Institute, Safety, etc).
[Although, non-competing continuation applications (aka “Progress Reports,” "RPPRs") also require institutional approval, the procedures outlined here currently pertain to only competing applications for new grants and renewals of previously awarded grants.]
Cayuse 424 is the web-based system for preparing and submitting University grant applications to federal agencies through Grants.gov. Cayuse 424 also stores data concerning proposals that will not be submitted electronically to the federal government. In Cayuse, these proposals are termed “non-federal”.
The “Routing and Approvals” feature in Cayuse 424 is designed to obtain sequential departmental and institutional approval of grant application submissions. This system will be used for internal sign-offs on all applications regardless of whether the actual submission will be made electronically to a federal agency.
All proposals created in Cayuse will automatically generate a Proposal Summary (containing most of the information necessary for pre-submission review) and a Routing Chain (the electronic pathway for obtaining pre-submission institutional approvals).
1. Proposal Summary. This section of the proposal package may be found near the bottom of the navigation panel on the left side of the screen within a proposal. The Proposal Summary contains a “Summary” page containing basic information about a submission and a “Supporting Documents Attachment Page” for attaching additional files that may be required for institutional review. Neither of these will be part of the submitted application.
2. Routing Chain. The Proposal Management section of a proposal is found at the bottom of the navigation panel of a Cayuse application. The second to last link on the bottom takes you to “Routing and Approval”, which contains the routing chain.
The former hard copy (paper) internal review procedure using form GA6742 is replaced by the combination of:
1. Information in the Proposal Summary and Supporting Documents
2. Evidence of electronic approvals by other administrative units as viewed in the routing chain,
3. Budget information contained within the proposal.
Preparations for Routing
The profiles of PD/PIs and Department Chairs contain information that is important to the routing process. Viewing and making changes to these profiles requires the appropriate permissions. If you need access to someone’s profile to make a change,ask that person or call the Office of Grant Support (X3643).
PI and Department Chair profiles must contain correct email addresses.
For most departments, the Department Chair should be assigned as “Next Reviewer” for each PI. The Office of Grant Support must be assigned as “Next Reviewer” for each Department Chair. This will allow for an auto-generation of a generic routing chain (which can be modified, according to your needs).
Every PI and every person/office involved in approving proposals may decide to “delegate” authority to another user. A delegate receives all email messages related to routing approvals and has full power to access routed proposals, approve the proposal,and perform rejections (see below). Common reasons for delegating authority include 1) preventing a possible break in the routing chain when an approver is absent, 2) distributing the workload among several people, and 3) transferring approval duties to a subordinate.
Note: all delegations by faculty PIs and Department Chairs require a one-time completion of the Delegation Routing form, which should be returned to email@example.com
Creating a Routing Chain
Routing Chains are created at the same instant that a proposal is created. The routing chain may be accessed within a Cayuse proposal through the Proposal Management section found at the bottom of the navigation panel or the second icon from the left in the upper right hand corner of a proposal.
The name of the PD/PI on the grant is auto-filled as the first person on the chain. In most departments, each proposal created will have a fuller, albeit generic, routing chain produced automatically. Click on the “Edit Chain?” icon in the upper right to add more steps in the chain. If, at any point in the grant submission process, you need to add or edit the names on the list, just click on that same icon.
The suggested order of the routing chain is shown below. If the business rules of your department call for a change in this order, you may change it according to your needs. Additional necessary (or desired) steps in the chain should be inserted into the routing chain before routing is initiated. These steps may include IRB (CCI), IACUC, EH&S, etc. However, the PD/PI must be the first step in the chain, OGS-Budget should be the second to last step in each chain, and the Authorized Organizational Representative must be the next to last (FCOI--Financial Conflict of Interest Office is the very last. However, you will have the ability to submit prior to their approval):
1. Program Director/Principal Investigator (PD/PI)
2. Additional PD/PIs (on Multiple PD/PI Grants only). Only Einstein PD/PIs will be included on the routing chain. Additional PD/PIs who are not Einstein faculty will not be placed in the chain. Their approval will be inferred from sub-award documentation.
3. Departmental Chair (Insert name of Chair or request that a separate profile be created for routing only.)
4. Office of Grant Support (Insert “OFFICE OF GRANT SUPPORT, [Routing Contact]”). The role of the OGS in routing is to verify that A) the routing chain has been constructed correctly and contains the necessary steps and B) the minimum required institutional forms have been attached in the Proposal Summary. The OGS will not check on the presence or appropriateness of documents required by other administrative units.
5. Dean’s Office (Insert “DEAN'S OFFICE, [Routing Contact]” Dean’s Office approval can and should be done at this stage of the routing.They do not need to be added at the end).
6. For most departments, when needed, the following steps should be inserted AFTER the Deans Office.
CCI-Einstein/YU Institutional Review Board [Referred to, on Cayuse, as CCI (Committee on Clinical Investigations)]
EH&S (Environmental Health and Safety)
Office of Biotechnology
7. OGS-Budget (Insert “OGS-Budget, [Routing Contact]”)
8. Authorized Organizational Representative (Insert “AOR-Authorized Organizational Representative, [Routing Contact]”). Authorized Organizational Representative (Jed Shivers) will be the only AOR on a routing chain and his approval will indicate that the proposal is ready to submit (as indicated by the yellow lightning bolt).
9. Office of Biotechnology--optional, as needed.
10. MWBE--optional, as needed.
11. FCOI-Financial Conflict of Interest will do a more detailed check. If you are ready to submit, do not wait for their approval. You can submit once the AOR approves and do not have to wait for FCOI approval.
If the Departmental Administrator chooses to be a step in the chain, he/she may be inserted anywhere that makes the most sense for your department. For many administrators, being inserted into the chain immediately before OGS-Budget allows for changes to be made to the budget right up until the time for full budget review.
Note: With the exception of the Departmental Chair, which may be selected by name, please use the Office Designations mentioned above when constructing or modifying the routing chains.
When Should Routing Begin? What is Required?
Proposals should be routed for internal review and approval at least 8 days before the application deadline. The following must be included in the Cayuse proposal file before routing begins:
Completed form pages. In the SF424 NIH application this includes:
SF 424 RR face pages 1 and 2
SF 424 Key Persons page
Final modular budget and either SF 424 RR Budget or PHS 398 Year 1 [for Modular Applications]
SF 424 RR Budget All Years [for Non-Modular Applications]
For non-NIH applications, the proposal must include the budget that will be submitted to the agency.
Proposal Summary (near bottom of the navigation panel on the left side of the screen within a proposal) contains 2 sections. The “Summary”document will now need to be filled out (a great deal of this is auto-filled as you work on your application).
The “Documents” section of the Proposal Summary is used to upload required forms. Each application must have a minimum of the Einstein Grant Application Approval Form added into the document section.
Note: When a PI signs the PI/PD Certification portion of the Einstein Grant Application Approval Form, he/she is taking responsibility for the proposal and stating that he/she has reviewed the access permissions associated with the proposal. Therefore, every PI on a proposal MUST have a minimum of “Write” and “Change Permissions” permissions to that proposal, regardless of who creates the proposal or whether the PI has formally delegated authority to another user.
Other necessary documents may include forms for approvals from IRB, EH&S, IACUC, etc.
For non-federal “generic” applications that are using the Cayuse system only for internal routing, please consult with the OGS about the additional documents needed for internal review.
Note: attachments in the “Documents” section do NOT need to be in PDF. If you have trouble uploading, choose the second box "source"--to upload your document.
Starting the Routing
Routing is initiated when the PI (or the PI’s delegate) goes into the Routing and Approval section of a proposal and puts a check mark in the first box in the routing chain. As soon as this is done, the access rights to the Proposal forms are curtailed for the PI and anyone who had permissions to that proposal. Attachments, such as the Research Plan, can be modified, but not the form data or the budget.
Each person on the chain will receive an email when there are 0 steps away; this indicates it is now their turn to review the proposal. Another email will be sent to all approvers when the AOR approves the grant and it is ready for submission.
Each person/office/approver on the routing chain will need to view those parts of the proposal that are relevant to their approval decision. Several things can occur at each step in the routing process. The approver may conclude that:
1) The proposal is ready for submission. The approval box is checked.
2) The proposal is ready for submission but the PI/Administrator needs to be aware of some issues. The approval box is checked.Comments are made in the “Routing History” and/or an email message is sent to the PI/Administrator.
3) Some minor or isolated changes must be made prior to submission. A phone call or email to the PI/Administrator describes the problem. Changes are made. The approval box is checked.
4) Serious problems are discovered that require a) the PI/Administrator to make changes and re-initiate the routing or b) re-evaluation of the proposal by a specific intermediate step in the routing. The approval box for the specific previous approval that now requires re-evaluation is UNCHECKED.
Rejections During Routing
“Unchecking” a previously checked box is termed a “Rejection” and brings the approval process back to that step. This also results in emails regarding the rejection being sent to all people on the routing chain. Some or all of these people will eventually need to go back in and reapprove the revised application. Rejection can result in unnecessary delays in the routing process.
Changes to the Budget During Routing
A common example of #3 and #4 above is the discovery by OGS-Budget of problems with the submitted budget. When changes are required, it is essential that there be timely communication between OGS-Budget and the PI and/or administrator so that everyone understands 1) that a problem exists, 2) the nature of the problem and the change required and 3) who will be making the change. Depending on the complexity of the problem, OGS-Budget will determine whether a phone call or email is the best approach to a solution so that the routing can continue.
As noted above, formal “Rejection” by OGS-Budget back to the PI or Administrator should be avoided when possible. When the Administrator step immediately precedes OGS-Budget, rejection will not interfere with other earlier approvals and, when accompanied by a comment in the routing history, may be an alternative to sending an email. However, if phone discussion is likely going to be necessary to finalize a solution, the rejection action may be unnecessary.
Who Submits Approved Proposals?
When OGS-Budget approves the application, the AOR approves and the proposal is authorized for submission to the funding agency. At this stage in the process, ANYONE with “Write” permissions to a proposal may perform the actual application submission to the agency.
Who Will Receive Notification of Proposal Arrival at NIH eRA Commons?
Several people must be informed about the arrival of a proposal on NIH Commons. These include the PI, any person assisting the PI with the submission, and the Office of Grant Support. Adherence to the following conventions will ensure that the appropriate people are kept aware of proposal progress:
SF424 R& R page:
Item 5 Applicant Information: “Person to be contacted regarding this submission” must be auto-filled. Dhanonjoy Saha should be selected from the drop-down menu. Confirm that his email is firstname.lastname@example.org
Item 19 Authorized Representative: Auto-fill Regina Janicki as the AOR. However, for the email address, insert the email address of the departmental administrative person who should receive emails concerning the proposal status.
How are Changed/Corrected Applications Submitted?
If errors or warnings require that the grant application needs to be resubmitted as a changed/corrected application, the “Submit” permissions need to be re-set by the Office of Grant Support.
Every effort will be made to do this shortly after the first submission of an application, but if you log on and find that you are in "read-only"mode (i.e., you cannot make any changes to the forms), please call the OGS and request restored permissions.