IPM
Regional Integrated Pest Management
Competitive Grants Program
Southern Region
FY 2007 Request for Applications
Application Deadline: December 6, 2006
Grants.gov program code: QQ.S
Program code name: Southern IPM
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
FEDERALLY SPONSORED COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
REGIONAL INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT COMPETITIVE GRANTS PROGRAM ÐÐ SOUTHERN REGION
INITIAL ANNOUNCEMENT
CATALOG OF FEDERAL DOMESTIC ASSISTANCE: Projects awarded under Section 3(d) of the Smith-Lever Act of May 8, 1914, ch. 79, 38 Stat. 372, 7 U.S.C. 341 et seq. can be found in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under 10.500. Projects awarded under Section 2(c)(1)(B) of the Act of August 4, 1965, Public Law No. 89-106, as amended (7 U.S.C. 450i (c)(1)(B)) can be found in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under 10.200.
DATES: Applications must be received by Grants.gov by close of business (COB) on December 6, 2006 (5:00 p.m. Eastern Time). Applications received after this deadline will normally not be considered for funding. Comments regarding this RFA are requested within six months from the issuance of this notice. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.
STAKEHOLDER INPUT: The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES), USDA is requesting comments regarding this RFA from any interested party. These comments will be considered in the development of the next RFA for the program, if applicable, and will be used to meet the requirements of section 103(c)(2) of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 7613(c)(2)). This section requires the Secretary to solicit and consider input on a current RFA from persons who conduct or use agricultural research, education and extension for use in formulating future RFAs for competitive programs. Written stakeholder comments on this RFA should be submitted in accordance with the deadline set forth in the DATES portion of this Notice.
Written stakeholder comments should be submitted by mail to: Policy, Oversight, and Funds Management Branch; Office of Extramural Programs; CSREES-USDA; STOP 2299; 1400 Independence Avenue, SW; Washington, DC 20250-2299; or via e-mail to: RFP-OEP@csrees.usda.gov. (This e-mail address is intended only for receiving comments regarding this RFA and not for requesting information or forms.) In your comments, please state that you are responding to the FY 2007 Regional Integrated Pest Management Competitive Grants Program RFA for the Southern Region.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: CSREES requests applications for the Regional Integrated Pest Management Competitive Grants Program for fiscal year (FY) 2007 to support the continuum of research and extension efforts needed to increase the implementation of integrated pest management (IPM) methods. The Regional IPM Competitive Grants Program supports projects that develop individual pest control tactics, integrate individual tactics into an IPM system, and develop and implement extension education programs. The program is administered by the land-grant university system's four regional IPM Centers (North Central, Northeastern, Southern, Western) in partnership with CSREES. In FY 2007, CSREES anticipates the amount available for support of the Regional IPM Competitive Grants Program-Southern Region (S-RIPM) will be approximately $827,000. Of this amount, $457,000 is expected to be available for research-only projects, $70,000 for extension-only projects, $200,000 for joint research-extension projects and $100,000 for an IPM evaluation project.
For details about previously funded projects, please see http://www.sripmc.org/ripm/rfa07/ .
This notice identifies the objectives for S-IPM Competitive Grants Program projects, the eligibility criteria for projects and applicants, and the application forms and associated instructions needed to apply for a grant through this program. For FY 2007, all proposals must be submitted electronically through Grants.gov. See Part IV for details.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART I - FUNDING OPPORTUNITY DESCRIPTION
A. Legislative Authority and Background............................................................... 5
B. Priorities and Requirements............................................................................... 5
PART II - AWARD INFORMATION
A. Available Funding............................................................................................... 9
B. Types of Applications......................................................................................... 9
C. Project Types....................................................................................................... 9
PART III - ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION
A. Eligible Applicants............................................................................................. 12
B. Cost Sharing or Matching .................................................................................. 12
PART IV - APPLICATION AND SUBMISSION INFORMATION
A. The Application Package.................................................................................... 13
B. Content and Form of Letter of Intent and Application Submission................... 13
C. Submission Date and Time................................................................................. 18
D. Funding Restrictions........................................................................................... 18
E. Other Submission Requirements........................................................................ 18
PART V - APPLICATION REVIEW REQUIREMENTS
A. General................................................................................................................ 19
B. Evaluation Criteria.............................................................................................. 19
C. Conflicts of Interest and Confidentiality............................................................ 22
D. Organizational Management Information.......................................................... 22
PART VI - AWARD ADMINISTRATION
A. General................................................................................................................ 23
B. Award Notice...................................................................................................... 23
C. Administrative and National Policy Requirements............................................ 24
D. Expected Program Outputs and Reporting Requirements.................................. 25
PART VII - PROGRAM CONTACT....................................................................... 26
PART VIII - OTHER INFORMATION
A. Access to Review Information............................................................................ 27
B. Use of Funds; Changes........................................................................................ 27
C. Confidential Aspects of Applications and Awards............................................ 28
D. Regulatory Information....................................................................................... 28
E. Definitions........................................................................................................... 28
F. CSREES' Grants.gov Implementation Plans...................................................... 29
G. DUNS Number.................................................................................................... 30
H. Required Registration for Grants.gov................................................................. 30
PART I - FUNDING OPPORTUNITY DESCRIPTION
A.Legislative Authority and Background
Authority for the funding of Research projects is contained in Section 2(c)(1)(B) of the Act of August 4, 1965, Public Law No. 89-106, as amended (7 U.S.C. 450i (c)(1)(B)). Authority for the funding of Extension projects is contained in Section 3(d) of the Smith-Lever Act of May 8, 1914, ch. 79, 38 Stat. 372, 7 U.S.C. 341 et seq. For Joint Research-Extension applications (see Part II.C.3), separate awards will be executed for P.L. 89-106 and Smith‑Lever funds.
The Regional IPM Competitive Grants Program supports the continuum of research and extension efforts needed to increase the implementation of IPM methods. The Regional IPM Competitive Grants Program supports projects that develop individual pest control tactics, integrate individual tactics into an IPM system, and develop and implement extension and education programs. The program is administered by the land-grant university system's four regional IPM Centers (North Central, Northeastern, Southern, Western) in partnership with CSREES.
The goal of the Regional IPM Competitive Grants Program is to provide knowledge and information needed for the implementation of IPM methods that:
(1) improve the economic benefits related to the adoption of IPM practices;
(2) reduce potential human health risks from pests and the use of pest management practices; and
(3) reduce unreasonable adverse environmental effects from pests and the use of pest management practices.
The program helps achieve this goal by increasing the supply and dissemination of IPM knowledge and by enhancing collaboration among stakeholders. Because the specific needs of each region vary, regional program priorities will vary.
For details about previously funded projects, please see http://www.sripmc.org/ripm/rfa07/.
B.Priorities and Requirements
In FY 2007, S-RIPM will support four types of projects: research, extension, joint research-extension, and IPM evaluation (see Part II, C, Project Types for more information). Funded projects will address broad national goals for IPM as well as the IPM priorities of the Southern region.
The IPM Evaluation project will have attributes that are inherently different from those of other project types. Accordingly, proposals for the IPM Evaluation project will be evaluated using slightly different criteria, as detailed below and in Part V, B.
1. National IPM Goals
Proposals are evaluated for criteria in the "National IPM Goals" section by the Technical Panel. The Technical Panel sees all materials submitted except the relevance statement.
(a) IPM Road Map: The Road Map for the National Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Program (http://www.ipmcenters.org/IPMRoad Map.pdf) identifies strategic directions for IPM research, implementation, and measurement for all pests, in all settings, throughout the nation. Proposals for all project types must address at least one point of intersection between a future direction and a focus area delineated in the Road Map.
IPM Road Map future directions for IPM programming are:
- Improve the cost/benefit relationship when adopting IPM practices;
- Reduce potential human health risks from pests and related management strategies; and
- Minimize adverse environmental effects from pest and related management strategies.
The IPM Road Map focus areas for IPM programming are:
- Production agriculture;
- Natural resources and recreational environments; and
- Residential and public areas.
(b) Risk: Research, extension and joint research-extension projects must have the potential to significantly improve risk avoidance or mitigation in pest management. The IPM Evaluation project must have the potential to document the impact of IPM approaches on risk and/or to contribute to the understanding of how IPM approaches can impact risk. For all project types risk issues addressed may be any or all of environmental, economic, and human health risks.
(c) Innovation: Innovative projects with the strong potential to produce or develop successful new techniques, tools and/or strategies for IPM or IPM evaluation are encouraged. In the area of IPM evaluation, proposals are sought that will produce new evaluation tools and/or develop new and effective ways to document the impact of IPM on societal risk. In particular projects that have the potential to be useful across a diverse range of IPM settings and projects are encouraged.
(d) Compatibility with Other IPM Evaluation Efforts (IPM Evaluation project type only): The value of IPM Evaluation proposals may be higher if they are compatible with other similar efforts. One component of evaluating proposals of the IPM Evaluation project type is potential compatibility of project design and/or output with other regional or national IPM evaluation projects.
2. Southern Region Priorities
The Southern Region consists of 13 States and two territories. Projects funded by S-RIPM must address pest management issues of importance to the region.
Proposals are evaluated for criteria in the "Southern Region Priorities" section by the Relevance Panel. The Relevance Panel sees only the relevance statement. Other items including letters of support may be cited in the relevance statement but will not be provided to the Relevance Panel.
(a) Multi-state: As a regional program, S-RIPM strives to support projects that will produce tangible impacts that are important across wide areas of the region. For all project types, proposals with clear multi-state attributes will score the highest in this criterion. Single-state projects will score low unless they hold clear promise of benefiting IPM in more than one state. Formal arrangements like subcontracts with other states are not necessarily required to indicate a positive multi-state aspect, but explicit documentation of informal relationships is encouraged.
(b) Biologically-based: Projects addressing innovative biologically-based approaches to IPM are encouraged. For the purposes of this RFA, "biologically-based" includes, but is not necessarily limited to, biological control, host plant resistance, cultural controls and mechanical controls. This criterion does not apply to the IPM Evaluation project type.
(c) Stakeholder-identified IPM priorities: S-RIPM is committed to addressing the pest management needs expressed by diverse stakeholders. Applications must include explicit citations that document the stakeholder-identified needs addressed by the proposed project. Explicitly citing such sources demonstrates both that a project is important, and that the Project Directors (PDs) and the grants program are engaged with the community. This criterion does not apply to the IPM Evaluation project type. Sources of stakeholder-identified needs include, but are not limited to:
The database of Southern Region Pest Management Strategic Plans (PMSPs) (http://www.sripmc.org/pmsp/pmsp_form.cfm);
The SRIPMC priorities submissions database (http://www.sripmc.org/Policy/Priorities/seeallpriorities.cfm);
Citable recommendations, meeting minutes and reports from program advisory committees;
Citable recommendations, meeting minutes and reports from stakeholder groups; and
Other documented needs assessment evaluations.
Letters of support will be accepted but are not viewed by the Relevance Panel.
Proposal evaluation relative to this criterion will be based on factors including the number, importance and diversity of stakeholders represented; whether the documents are publicly available; to what extent the priority described exists independent of the proposed project; and timeliness of the priority. A more detailed discussion of such evaluation can be found in the document "Addressing Stakeholder-Identified Priorities" found online at http://www.sripmc.org/fund/sripm/stakeholders.cfm
(d) IPM issues important to the Southern Region: For all project types the relative importance of the IPM setting (e.g., a crop, a type of building) to the region will be used to rank proposals. Evidence of a setting's importance is often but not exclusively indicated by measures such as acreage, monetary value, and number of people involved (e.g., students in a school system). Within the setting, the relative importance of a pest or group of pests will be used to rank proposals. A project addressing the entire pest complex in a setting would be more highly rated than a project addressing an occasional pest that rarely causes significant loss.
PART II - AWARD INFORMATION
A. Available Funding
USDA has no commitment to fund any particular application or to make a specific number of awards. In FY 2007, approximately $827,000 is expected to be available to fund applications to the S-RIPM Competitive Grants Program. Of this amount, approximately $457,000 is expected to be available for research-only projects, $70,000 for extension-only projects, $200,000 for joint research-extension projects and $100,000 for an IPM evaluation project. Individual grant duration and maximum fund availability depend on the project type and the degree of collaboration among states and/or territories in the Southern Region.
B. Types of Applications
In FY 2007, S-RIPM Competitive Grants Program applications may be submitted as one of the following types of requests.
1.New Application
This is a project application that has not been previously submitted to the S-RIPM Competitive Grants Program. All new applications will be reviewed competitively using the selection process and evaluation criteria described in Part V.
2.Renewal Application
This is a project application that requests additional funding for a project beyond the period approved in an original or amended award. Renewal applications must be received by the application due date, will be evaluated in competition with other pending applications in appropriate areas to which they are assigned, and will be reviewed according to the same evaluation criteria as new applications.
C. Project Types
The Southern IPM Center, on behalf of the S-RIPM Competitive Grants Program, solicits applications for the following types of projects in FY 2007. You must explicitly indicate the type of project you are proposing in two places on your application: on the Relevance Statement and on the Project Summary.
1.Research
This funding category develops the research base needed for the construction of comprehensive pest management systems that have a strong likelihood of contributing to ongoing IPM implementation efforts. You may develop individual tactics needed for pest management systems (e.g., biocontrol, cultural control, host resistance) or help increase our understanding of how interactions among tactics alter the effectiveness of pest management within agricultural, forest, suburban, and urban ecosystems. Where appropriate, the experimental approach should emphasize field-scale experiments spanning multiple seasons or locations. Practices should be designed to reduce initial pest populations, lower the carrying capacity of the ecosystem for pests, or increase tolerance of hosts to pest injury. Long-term fundamental research is not appropriate for funding.
Research involving chemical pesticides should be designed to reduce the amount and frequency and to increase the selectivity of a pesticide application in order to minimize adverse impacts on beneficial organisms and limit buildup of pest populations that are resistant to pesticides. Applications should clearly demonstrate how the tactic or IPM system, once developed, can be incorporated into an existing production system. Applications that focus solely on the development and/or evaluation of pesticides will only be considered if they have extraordinary potential to reduce environmental, economic or human health risk.
Research projects may have a duration of up to three years. Please note that one- or two- year Research projects may be eligible for no-cost extensions after years one and two, but that no carryover or extension is permitted for these projects beyond three years. Any unexpended funds are lost.
The budget limit for research is defined only by the amount of funds available for this project type, expected to be approximately $457,000. Project directors are strongly encouraged to consider the recent history of awards for research projects funded by this program, available at http://www.sripmc.org/ripm/rfa07/ .
2.Extension
This funding category enhances outreach efforts that support the wide-scale implementation of IPM methods. Projects should maximize opportunities to build strategic alliances with industry and user groups to expand their active participation in increasing the adoption of IPM methods. You may develop educational materials and information delivery systems needed for outreach efforts, conducting field-scale or on-farm demonstrations, or delivering IPM education and training. A research component is not a required element of Extension projects, but the research base should be documented.
The budget limit for extension projects is defined only by the amount of funds available for this project type, expected to be approximately $70,000. Project directors are strongly encouraged to consider the recent history of awards for extension projects funded by this program, available at http://www.sripmc.org/ripm/rfa07/.
Extension projects may have a duration of up to three years.
3.Joint Research-Extension
This funding category combines research and extension activities (as described in Parts II.C.1 and 2, above). Joint Research-Extension projects validate pest management systems, introduce new pest management tactics into local production systems, and deliver these systems to producers and their advisors through IPM education and training programs. The project team should include both researchers and extension educators with appointments in research and extension.
The budget limit for extension projects is defined only by the amount of funds available for this project type, expected to be approximately $200,000. Project directors are strongly encouraged to consider the recent history of awards for joint research/extension projects funded by this program, available at http://www.sripmc.org/ripm/rfa07/.
Joint research-extension projects may have a duration of up to three years. Please note that one- or two-year Joint Research-Extension projects may be eligible for no-cost extensions after years one and two, but that no carryover or extension is permitted for these projects beyond three years. Any unexpended funds are lost.
4.IPM Evaluation
This funding category provides support for a single project with the primary focus of IPM evaluation. An IPM Evaluation project may document adoption of IPM approaches and practices over time, and/or develop new methods or approaches for documenting changes in IPM adoption. In either case the project must address the issue of how IPM programs ultimately impact economic, environmental or human health risks as perceived by society. The project should have strong potential to address the "So what?" question; that is, what benefits to society does IPM provide? Such questions have often been addressed in terms of proxy indicators like "pesticides saved." An ideal IPM Evaluation project would address terminal outcomes such as impact on measures of environmental quality, human health and/or economic well-being.
This program will fund no more than one IPM Evaluation project. The budget limit for the IPM evaluation project is $100,000.
Evaluation projects may have a duration of up to three years. Please note that 1- or 2-year Joint Research-Extension projects may be eligible for no-cost extensions after years one and two, but that no carryover or extension is permitted for these projects beyond three years. Any unexpended funds are lost.
PART III - ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION
A. Eligible Applicants
Organizations eligible to receive Research awards are: state agricultural experiment stations, land-grant colleges and universities, research foundations established by land-grant colleges and universities, colleges and universities receiving funds under the Act of October 10, 1962 (16 U.S.C. 582a et seq.), and accredited schools or colleges of veterinary medicine. For Research projects, eligible land-grant colleges and universities include all 1862, 1890, and 1994 land-grant institutions. Eligibility for Extension projects is limited to 1862 land-grant colleges and universities. Award recipients may subcontract to organizations not eligible to apply, provided such organizations are necessary for the conduct of the project. An applicant's failure to meet an eligibility criterion by the time of an application deadline will result in CSREES returning the application without review or, even though an application may be reviewed, will preclude CSREES from making an award.
Research and Extension personnel from other USDA/ IPM regions (North Central, Northeastern, and Western) and other state and federal organizations can participate as members of project teams, but they cannot serve as sole PDs on a proposal submitted to the S-RIPM Competitive Grants Program; i.e., the primary institution must be from one of the Southern Region states or terrorities.
The lead PD of a multi-regional project must be employed at a qualified institution within the Southern Region. The results of such research and extension activities must be applicable to problems in the Southern Region. A majority of the funds for each application (i.e., more than 50%) must be utilized by institutions within the Southern Region.
B. Cost Sharing or Matching
There are no matching requirements associated with the Regional IPM Competitive Grants Program, and matching resources will not be factored into the review process as evaluation criteria.
PART IV - APPLICATION AND SUBMISSION INFORMATION
A. The Application Package
1. If you are a Project Director
DO NOT AUTOMATICALLY REGISTER. Project directors do not need to register with Grants.gov, unless they are authorized to submit an application on behalf of their organization. Applications to this RFA must be submitted electronically to Grants.gov by an Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR). Usually this individual works at a university's Grants and Contracts Office or Office of Sponsored Programs. Prior to preparing an application, contact your AOR to determine if your organization is registered to submit electronic applications through Grants.gov (most qualifying institutions in the South are now registered) and how many days are needed to process your proposal.
To access application materials via Grants.gov, go to https://apply.grants.gov/forms_apps_idx.html and enter the funding opportunity number USDA-CSREES-RIPM-000221.
Note that the Grants.gov application consists of specific forms supplemented by PDF (portable document file) attachments. In order to save a document as a PDF, the applicant will need to use PDF generator software. Grants.gov has published the following web page on tools and software that the applicant can use: http://www.grants.gov/resources/download_software.jsp#pdf_conversion_programs.
For additional help on applying electronically, see http://www.csrees.usda.gov/funding/electronic.html and in particular the CSREES Grants.gov application guide.
2. If you are an Authorized Organizational Representative
Refer to http://grants.gov/applicants/get_registered.jsp for steps for preparing to submit applications through Grants.gov.) Note, Grants.gov works only with Internet Explorer 5.01 or higher, Netscape Communicator 4.5-4.8, Netscape 6.1, 6.2 or 7.
B. Content and Form of Application Submission
Electronic applications should be prepared in accordance with the CSREES Grants.gov application guide entitled "A Guide for Preparation and Submission of CSREES Applications via Grants.gov." This guide is part of the corresponding application package (see Section A above) The following is additional information needed in order to prepare an application in response to this RFA.
1. R&R Cover Sheet.
a. Estimated Project Funding (Field 16 on the Form).
Accurately include the amount requested from Research funds (P.L. 89-106) and/or Extension funds (Smith-Lever 3(d)).
2. R&R Other Project Information Form.
a. Project Summary/Abstract (Field 6. on the Form). It must be attached as a PDF document and have the following parts:
(i) Project Type (choose one): Research; Extension; Joint Research-Extension; or IPM Evaluation.
(ii) Summary Statement. The first line of your summary should state the type of project you are submitting, for example, "This is a Research project" or "This is an Extension project." For Joint Research-Extension projects, the summary statement must indicate how many dollars are being requested from each respective source (Smith-Lever funds are for extension, and P.L. 89-106 funds are for research). The summary should be a self-contained, specific description of the activity to be undertaken and should focus on: overall project goal(s) and supporting objectives; plans to accomplish project goal(s); and relevance of the project to the priorities of the Southern IPM Center (see Part I.B.).
b. Project Narrative (Field 7. on the Form).
In this section, describe the need for your project; your goals and how you will achieve them; and how you (and the Southern IPM Center) will know you have succeeded.
Page limits for this section: Subsections (i) through (iii), combined, 15 pages. Subsection (iv), 3 pages.
Include all of the following in the Project Description:
(i) Problem, Background and Justification
¥ Problem: Describe, in simple terms, the problem. Consider including the economic importance of the crop or problem, the importance of the pest(s), and the reason for your study (e.g., conventional pest-control strategies no longer work; beneficial insects are being harmed by available pest-control options; there is a lack of training or implementation of new IPM tactics).
¥ Background: Address the specific need(s) identified by growers and other stakeholders in the Southern Region. Cite at least one needs-assessment evaluation used to formulate your project (sources include but are not limited to Pest Management Strategic Plans at http://www.sripmc.org/pmsp/pmsp_form.cfm and web page submissions at http://www.sripmc.org/Policy/Priorities/). Demonstrate that you are engaged with constituents on some level and that your project addresses their needs.
Review ongoing or completed work (local/regional/national) that is relevant to your project, and include references. Describe how previous work funded by the Regional IPM Competitive Grants Program or other sources might contribute to the proposed project.
¥ Justification: Specify who in the Southern Region stands to benefit from your project. Consider environmental, health, or economic benefits.
Describe why current technologies and practices are inadequate, or explain how the proposed approach will (1) help to improve or implement existing pest management systems and (2) address the specific needs identified in this solicitation.
Tell us about the potential applicability of the proposed approach to other production regions and the relevance of the project to the priorities of the Southern IPM Center (see Part I.B. of this RFA).
(ii) Objectives and Anticipated Impacts. Provide clear, concise, and logically numbered statement(s) of the specific aims of the proposed effort. If you are writing a Joint Research-Extension proposal, please separate the research and extension objectives.
Describe the anticipated impacts that could be associated with the fulfillment of your objectives (you may do this in list or table format). Both your objectives and your impacts should connect to the goal of the Southern Region IPM Center to advance the implementation of IPM to safeguard human health, safeguard the environment and promote economic benefits.
(iii) Approach and Procedures. Describe how each of the stated objectives will be reached. Include appropriate experimental design and experimental units, reference methods to be used, and appropriate statistical analysis. Include a timetable for the start and completion of each phase of the project. For a joint research-extension application, describe how the project will be managed, particularly how coordination between research and extension components will be achieved and maintained.
(iv) Evaluation Plans. Provide detailed plans for evaluation of the project and indicate how successful impacts and outcomes will be measured. Include specific evaluation objectives with specific impact indicators (e.g., adoption rate, number of areas impacted, pesticide use, profitability) that will be used to measure the success of the project.
(1) Research Projects: Provide detailed plans for evaluation of the project, indicating how you will determine whether the anticipated impacts stated in Part IV.B.2(b.ii), above, have been achieved. If measurement of these anticipated impacts will not be possible in the context of the proposed project, describe how the tactic or system you studied, once developed, might be incorporated into an existing crop management program on a large scale.
(2) Extension Projects and Joint Research-Extension Projects: Provide detailed plans for evaluation of the project. Evaluation plans that include surveys should indicate survey expertise of investigators and/or describe the survey methodology that will be used.
(3) IPM Evaluation Projects: Evaluation plans are not required for IPM Evaluation Projects.
The Evaluation Plans portion of the application should not exceed three pages in length.
c. Other Attachments (Field 11. on the Form); all must be PDFs. Name them according to the names shown here.
(i) Relevance Statement A three-page statement should be included that describes the relevance of the project to the priorities discussed in Part I.B. The Relevance Statement is the only part of the submission that will be viewed by the Relevance Review Panel. Conversely, it is the only part of the submission that the Technical Review Panel will not see.
The Relevance Statement should contain, in this order:
(a) Names and institutions of PDs and major cooperators;
(b) Project title;
(c) Project type (choose one): Research; Extension; Joint Research-Extension; or IPM Evaluation;
(d) Project summary (see Part IV.B.2a), above; this may be copied directly from the application; it should not exceed one page in length; and
(e) Description of the problem, background, and justification; and (You may copy this section from the application, as long you do not exceed the total 3-page limit for the entire Relevance Statement. Be sure to address all four types of priorities (a-d) outlined in Part I.B of this RFA).
¥ Discuss the level of multi-state involvement in the project and potential multi-state impacts resulting from the project;
¥ Indicate how the project develops, promotes, or implements biologically-based tactics;
¥ Indicate how your project addresses stakeholder-identified priorities; cite at least one source (see Part I.B); demonstrate that you are engaged with constituents, on some level, in regard to their priorities; and
¥ Discuss why the IPM issue addressed by this project is important to the Southern Region.
(f) Project objectives and anticipated outcomes. Provide clear, concise, and logically numbered statements(s) of the specific aims of the proposed effort. Describe the anticipated impacts that could be associated with the fulfillment of your objectives (you may do this in table format). Both your objectives and your impacts should connect to the goal of the Southern Region IPM Center to advance the implementation of IPM to safeguard human health, safeguard the environment and promote economic benefits.
You do not need to include a list of references, letters of support, budget, or other forms with the Relevance Statement.
(ii) Collaborative Arrangements (attached as PDFs). Formal consulting or collaborative arrangements with others should be fully explained and justified. If the consultant(s) or collaborator(s) are known at the time of application, vitae or resume should be provided. In addition, evidence (e.g., letter of support) should be provided that the collaborators involved have agreed to render these services. The applicant also will be required to provide additional information on consultants and collaborators in the budget portion of the application.
(iii) Appendices to Project Narrative. Appendices to the Project Narrative are allowed if they are directly germane to the proposed project. The addition of appendices should not be used to circumvent the text and/or figures and tables page limitations.
3. Budget.
Please note that indirect costs and tuition are not allowed. For further information, see Part IV.D.
a. A budget form is required for each year of requested support and another summing the requested support over all requested years. The R&R Subaward Budget Attachment described in section 6.1 of "A Guide for Preparation and Submission of CSREES Applications via Grants.gov" should be utilized to provide the information. Funds may be requested under any of the categories listed on the form, provided that the item or service for which support is requested is allowable under the authorizing legislation; the applicable statutes, regulations, and Federal cost principles; and these program guidelines; and can be justified as necessary for the successful conduct of the proposed project.
b. Budget Justification (Field K on the form; attach as a PDF).
Joint Research-Extension projects must show the proposed breakdown of amounts requested from P.L. 89-106 funds (Research) and Smith-Lever funds (Extension) for each year of funding being requested. Include cumulative project costs over all years, by cost category and funding source (Research and/or Extension). An example of a form that may be used for this purpose is available at http://www.sripmc.org/ripm/rfa07/jointbudget.pdf or http://www.sripmc.org/ripm/rfa07/jointbudget.doc .
For any subcontractors, the budget justification must include a statement of work, summary budget and a budget for each year as well as a budget justification (with the same detail as required for the grantee budget).
4. Supplemental Information Form.
a. Program to which you are applying (Field 2. on the Form). Enter the program code name (i.e., enter "Southern IPM") and the program code (QQ.S). It is critical for the routing of this application that the program code be entered exactly as stated or the application may not be routed to the intended program.
C. Submission Date and Time
Applications must be received by Grants.gov by COB on December 6, 2006 (5:00 p.m. Eastern Time). Applications received after this deadline will normally not be considered for funding.
D. Funding Restrictions
CSREES has determined that grant funds awarded under this authority may not be used for the renovation or refurbishment of research, education, or extension space; the purchase or installation of fixed equipment in such space; or the planning, repair, rehabilitation, acquisition, or construction of buildings or facilities.
Pursuant to Section 1473 of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1997 (91 Stat. 981), indirect costs and tuition remission are unallowable costs under Section 2(c)(1)(B) projects and Section 3(d) of the Smith-Lever funded projects, and no funds will be approved for this purpose. Costs that are a part of the institution's indirect cost pool may not be reclassified as direct costs for the purpose of making them allowable.
E. Other Submission Requirements
1. Where to Submit
Applications: Applications will be submitted to CSREES through Grants.gov. The applicant should follow the submission requirements noted in the document entitled "A Guide for Preparation and Submission of CSREES Applications via Grants.gov."
PART V - APPLICATION REVIEW REQUIREMENTS
A. General
Subsection (c)(5) of the Competitive, Special, and Facilities Research Grant Act (7 U.S.C. 450i(c)), as amended by Section 212 of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 450i(c)(5)) requires grantees to arrange for scientific peer review of their proposed research activities and merit review of their proposed extension and education activities in accordance with regulations promulgated by the Secretary prior to the Secretary making a grant award under this authority. The application review process conducted by the Southern IPM Center fulfills the scientific peer review and merit review requirements. Additional reviews by the submitting institutions are not necessary.
B. Evaluation Criteria
Application review will be handled at the regional level using a two-part process except IPM Evaluation proposals which will be only be reviewed by the technical panel. The Relevance Panel (Merit Review) will use only the Relevance Statement to review project relevance to regional priorities. The Technical Panel will use applications, but not Relevance Statements, to review project technical merit and feasibility. Successful applications must be strong in both areas. To be funded, an application must meet minimum standards set by both panels. The Grants Manager will combine results of both reviews. Final funding recommendations to USDA/CSREES will be made by Southern Region IPM Center leadership, in consultation with the Southern Region Experiment Station and Extension Directors. Paragraphs 1 and 2, below, delineate the review criteria.
1.Relevance and Technical Panels
The Relevance Panel will use only relevance statements (see Part IV, B, 2.,c. (i)) to evaluate the project relevance of research, extension, and joint research-extension projects to Southern Region priorities. The relevance review shall be performed by IPM stakeholders from within the region with expertise appropriate to evaluate the proposed project. Relevance reviewers may not include principals, collaborators or others involved in the preparation of the application under review. The relevance panel will not evaluate IPM Evaluation proposals.
The Technical Panel consisting of experts from outside the Southern Region will review proposals for all project types. This panel will incorporate Relevance Panel results with its own evaluation of technical merit and relevance to national IPM priorities to produce a final overall ranking of proposals. Technical Panel members may be selected from an applicant organization or from outside the organization, but shall not include principals, collaborators or others involved in the preparation of the application under review.
2. Criteria common to evaluation of all project types
Evaluation of all projects will include compliance with explicit format and content requirements of this RFA; quality of the project design and methodology, appropriateness of the budget, extent to which IPM Roadmap issues are addressed, extent to which the project is innovative and might produce new tools and/or approaches, and extent to which the problem is important to the Southern region.
Project teams should be composed to ably address the issues entailed in the project. For instance, if the project includes a strong economic component, commensurate economic expertise should be represented in the project team.
3. Criteria for Research, Extension, and Joint Research-Extension Project Types
Research, extension, and joint research-extension projects will all be evaluated on potential for eventual broad adoption and application of results by practitioners in the field. The extent to which a proposal addresses issues identified as priorities by stakeholder groups and potential to have positive impact in multiple states and territories will also be evaluated.
4. Criteria for IPM Evaluation project type
In addition to other evaluation criteria, IPM Evaluation project types will be judged by the extent to which methods and/or outcomes are compatible with other IPM Evaluation efforts across the nation. Methods developed by the project should ideally be easily translatable to other locations and IPM settings. Evaluation data that results from the project should ideally be readily aggregated with data from other projects to enable more broadly applicable conclusions.
5. Funding decisions
Final funding recommendations to USDA/CSREES will be made by Southern Region IPM Center leadership, in consultation with the Southern Region Experiment Station and Extension Directors.
6.Evaluation of Research, Extension and Joint Research-Extension Project Types:
| Criterion | Scoring weight |
| Technical merit (rated by Technical Panel) | |
| Proposal complies with content and format requirements as specified by this RFA | 5% |
| Quality of project design and methodology | 15% |
| Project feasibility and prospects for implementation | 5% |
| Composition and competence of project team | 5% |
| Budget appropriate to the project | 5% |
| National Goals (rated by Technical Panel) | |
| Project addresses IPM Roadmap issues | 5% |
| Has potential to improve risk avoidance or mitigation | 10% |
| Project is innovative | 10% |
| Southern Region Importance (rated by Relevance Panel) | |
| Multi-state: The project involves two or more states or territories in the Southern Region or at least has strong potential for multi-state impact | 10% |
| Biologically-based: The project develops, promotes, or implements biologically-based tactics and/or strategies | 10% |
| Stakeholder links: The project addresses issues that are explicitly identified by stakeholders in the Southern region as being of high priority. | 10% |
| Regional importance: The project addresses issues that are important to the Southern region by virtue of measures such as crop acreage, pesticide use, people affected, etc. | 10% |
7. Evaluation of IPM Evaluation Project Type (evaluated only by the Technical Panel):
| Criterion | Scoring weight |
| Technical merit | |
| Compliance with content and format requirements as specified by this RFA | 5% |
| Quality of project design and methodology | 20% |
| Composition and competence of project team | 10% |
| Budget appropriate to the project | 5% |
| National Goals | |
| Addresses IPM Roadmap issues | 5% |
| Has strong potential to improve the understanding of the relationship between IPM adoption and risk | 20% |
| Compatibility with other IPM Evaluation projects | 10% |
| Innovative: Potential to produce new evaluation tools and/or new, useful ways of documenting IPM impacts on societal risk | 15% |
| Southern Region Importance | |
| Addresses evaluation of IPM in settings and pest issues important to the Southern region | 10% |
C. Conflicts of Interest and Confidentiality
During the peer evaluation process, extreme care will be taken to prevent any actual or perceived conflicts of interest that may impact review or evaluation. For the purpose of determining conflicts of interest, the academic and administrative autonomy of an institution shall be determined by reference to the current Higher Education Directory, published by Higher Education Publications, Inc., 6400 Arlington Boulevard, Suite 648, Falls Church, Virginia 22042. Phone: (703) 532-2300. Website: http://www.hepinc.com.
Names of submitting institutions and individuals, as well as application content and peer evaluations, will be kept confidential, except to those involved in the review process, to the extent permitted by law. In addition, the identities of peer reviewers will remain confidential throughout the entire review process. Therefore, the names of the reviewers will not be released to applicants.
D. Organizational Management Information
Specific management information relating to an applicant shall be submitted on a one-time basis as part of the responsibility determination prior to the award of a grant identified under this RFA, if such information has not been provided previously under this or another CSREES program. CSREES will provide copies of forms recommended for use in fulfilling these requirements as part of the pre-award process. Although an applicant may be eligible based on its status as one of these entities, there are factors that may exclude an applicant from receiving Federal financial and nonfinancial assistance and benefits under this program (e.g., debarment or suspension of an individual involved or a determination that an applicant is not responsible based on submitted organizational management information).
PART VI - AWARD ADMINISTRATION
A. General
Within the limit of funds available for such purpose, the awarding official of CSREES shall make grants to those responsible, eligible applicants whose applications are judged most meritorious under the procedures set forth in this RFA. The date specified by the awarding official of CSREES as the effective date of the grant shall be no later than September 30 of the Federal fiscal year in which the project is approved for support and funds are appropriated for such purpose, unless otherwise permitted by law. It should be noted that the project need not be initiated on the grant effective date, but as soon thereafter as practical so project goals may be attained within the funded project period. All funds granted by CSREES under this RFA shall be expended solely for the purpose for which the funds are granted in accordance with the approved application and budget, the regulations, the terms and conditions of the award, the applicable Federal cost principles, and the Department's assistance regulations (parts 3015 and 3019 of 7 CFR). NOTE: Beginning in fiscal year 2007 CRIS Forms AD-416 "Research Work Unit/Project Description-Research Resume" and AD-417 "Research Work Unit/Project Description-Classification of Research," will apply to both the P.L. 89-106 and Smith-Lever 3(d) funds and will be requested if an application is identified for funding.
B. Award Notice
The grant award document shall include at a minimum the following:
(1) Legal name and address of performing organization or institution to whom the Administrator has awarded a grant under the terms of this request for applications;
(2) Title of project;
(3) Name(s) and institution(s) of PDs chosen to direct and control approved activities;
(4) Identifying grant number assigned by the Department;
(5) Project period, specifying the amount of time the Department intends to support the project
without requiring recompetition for funds;
(6) Total amount of Departmental financial assistance approved by the Administrator during the
project period;
(7) Legal authority(ies) under which the grant is awarded;
(8) Appropriate Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number;
(9) Applicable award terms and conditions (see
http://www.csrees.usda.gov/business/awards/awardterms.html to review CSREES award terms
and conditions);
(10) Approved budget plan for categorizing allocable project funds to accomplish the stated
purpose of the grant award; and
(11) Other information or provisions deemed necessary by CSREES to carry out its respective
granting activities or to accomplish the purpose of a particular grant.
C. Administrative and National Policy Requirements
Several Federal statutes and regulations apply to grant applications considered for review and to project grants awarded under this program. These include, but are not limited to:
7 CFR Part 1, subpart A - USDA implementation of the Freedom of Information Act.
7 CFR Part 3 - USDA implementation of OMB Circular No. A-129 regarding debt collection.
7 CFR Part 15, subpart A - USDA implementation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.
7 CFR Part 331 and 9 CFR Part 121 - USDA implementation of the Agricultural Bioterrorism Protection Act of 2002.
7 CFR Part 3015 - USDA Uniform Federal Assistance Regulations, implementing OMB directives (i.e., OMB Circular Nos. A-21 and A-122, now codified at 2 CFR Parts 220 and 230) and incorporating provisions of 31 U.S.C. 6301-6308 (formerly the Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act of 1977, Pub. L. No. 95-224), as well as general policy requirements applicable to recipients of Departmental financial assistance.
7 CFR Part 3017 - USDA implementation of Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) and Governmentwide Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace (Grants).
7 CFR Part 3018 - USDA implementation of Restrictions on Lobbying. Imposes prohibitions and requirements for disclosure and certification related to lobbying on recipients of Federal contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, and loans.
7 CFR Part 3019 - USDA implementation of OMB Circular A-110, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Other Agreements With Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Nonprofit Organizations.
7 CFR Part 3052 - USDA implementation of OMB Circular No. A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-profit Organizations.
7 CFR Part 3407 - CSREES procedures to implement the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended.
29 U.S.C. 794 (section 504, Rehabilitation Act of 1973) and 7 CFR Part 15b (USDA implementation of statute) - prohibiting discrimination based upon physical or mental handicap in Federally assisted programs.
35 U.S.C. 200 et seq. - Bayh-Dole Act, controlling allocation of rights to inventions made by employees of small business firms and domestic nonprofit organizations, including universities, in Federally assisted programs (implementing regulations are contained in 37 CFR Part 401).
D. Expected Program Outputs and Reporting Requirements
In addition to the reporting requirements identified in CSREES "Terms and Conditions" (which is provided to successful applicants as part of the award package), successful applicants will be required to submit a detailed yearly progress report and, upon completion of the project, a final technical report to the Grants Manager.
Progress reports for the S-RIPM Competitive Grants Program should be 1-2 pages (12-point type or larger, one-inch margins). In the report, the PD will be expected to demonstrate that progress has been made on the project; to highlight important findings and recommendations made as a result of the project progress to date; to fully describe changes in objectives, procedures, and the timetable for completion of the project; etc. Failure to submit a progress report will result in a recommendation to CSREES to reduce or terminate funding. The Grants Manager will contact the PD at the time the report is due, approximately one year after the grant starting date.
PDs are required to acknowledge CSREES and the Regional IPM Competitive Grants Program Ð Southern Region in all publications or other products that result from funds that are awarded. Reprints or copies of all publications would be appreciated.
Final reports will be due 90 days after the project termination date. Final reports must be comprehensive and should include more data, figures, etc., than normally would occur in a typical refereed publication or extension publication. For specifics on the reporting requirements, see http://www.sripmc.org/ripm/ripm_reporting_requirements.cfm.
PART VII - PROGRAM CONTACT
Applicants and other interested parties are encouraged to contact the Grants Manager:
James R. VanKirk
Director, Southern Region IPM Center
1730 Varsity Dr.
Raleigh, NC 27606-2194
Telephone: (919) 513-8179
Fax: (919) 513-1114
E-mail: jim@sripmc.org
PART VIII - OTHER INFORMATION
A. Access to Review Information
Copies of reviews, not including the identity of reviewers, and a summary of the panel comments will be sent to the applicant PD after the review process has been completed.
B. Use of Funds; Changes
1. Delegation of Fiscal Responsibility
Unless the terms and conditions of the grant state otherwise, the grantee may not in whole or in part delegate or transfer to another person, institution, or organization the responsibility for use or expenditure of grant funds.
2. Changes in Project Plans
(a) The permissible changes by the grantee, PD(s), or other key project personnel in the approved project grant shall be limited to changes in methodology, techniques, or other similar aspects of the project to expedite achievement of the project's approved goals. If the grantee or the PD(s) is uncertain as to whether a change complies with this provision, the question must be referred to the Authorized Departmental Officer (ADO) for a final determination. The ADO is the signatory of the award document, not the program contact.
(b) Changes in approved goals or objectives shall be requested by the grantee and approved in writing by the ADO prior to effecting such changes. In no event shall requests for such changes be approved which are outside the scope of the original approved project.
(c) Changes in approved project leadership or the replacement or reassignment of other key project personnel shall be requested by the grantee and approved in writing by the ADO prior to effecting such changes.
(d) Transfers of actual performance of the substantive programmatic work in whole or in part and provisions for payment of funds, whether or not Federal funds are involved, shall be requested by the grantee and approved in writing by the ADO prior to effecting such transfers, unless prescribed otherwise in the terms and conditions of the grant.
(e) The project period may be extended by CSREES without additional financial support, for such additional period(s) as the ADO determines may be necessary to complete or fulfill the purposes of an approved project, but in no case shall the total project period exceed three years for Research projects; five years for Extension projects; and three years for Joint Research-Extension projects as indicated in the terms and conditions. Any extension of time shall be conditioned upon prior request by the grantee and approval in writing by the ADO, unless prescribed otherwise in the terms and conditions of a grant. Research and Joint
Research-Extension projects (funded from P.L. 89-106) cannot be extended beyond the third year. Project periods should be sufficient to achieve objectives without exceeding three (3) years. PDs of three-year projects are advised to use available funds prior to the termination of the award.
(f) Changes in an approved budget must be requested by the grantee and approved in writing by the ADO prior to instituting such changes if the revision will involve transfers or expenditures of amounts requiring prior approval as set forth in the applicable Federal cost principles,
Departmental regulations, or grant award.
C. Confidential Aspects of Applications and Awards
When an application results in a grant, it becomes a part of the record of CSREES transactions, available to the public upon specific request. Information that the Secretary determines to be of a confidential, privileged, or proprietary nature will be held in confidence to the extent permitted by law. Therefore, any information that the applicant wishes to have considered as confidential, privileged or proprietary should be clearly marked within the application. The original copy of an application that does not result in a grant will be retained by the Agency for a period of three years. Other copies will be destroyed. Such an application will be released only with the consent of the applicant or to the extent required by law. An application may be withdrawn at any time prior to the final action thereon.
D. Regulatory Information
For the reasons set forth in the final Rule-related Notice to 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V (48 FR 29114, June 24, 1983), this program is excluded from the scope of the Executive Order 12372 which requires intergovernmental consultation with state and local officials. Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the collection of information requirements contained in this Notice have been approved under OMB Document No. 0524-0039.
E. Definitions
For the purpose of this program, the following definitions are applicable:
Administrator means the Administrator of CSREES and any other officer or employee of the Department to whom the authority involved is delegated.
Authorized departmental officer means the Secretary or any employee of the Department who has the authority to issue or modify grant instruments on behalf of the Secretary.
Authorized representative means the president, director, or chief executive officer or other designated official of the applicant organization who has the authority to commit the resources of the organization.
Budget period means the interval of time (usually 12 months) into which the project period is divided for budgetary and reporting purposes.
Cash contributions means the applicant's cash outlay, including the outlay of money contributed to the applicant by non-Federal third parties.
Department or USDA means the United States Department of Agriculture.
Grant means the award by the Secretary of funds to an eligible organization or individual to assist in meeting the costs of conducting, for the benefit of the public, an identified project which is intended and designed to accomplish the purpose of the program as identified in these guidelines.
Grantee means the organization designated in the grant award document as the responsible legal entity to which a grant is awarded.
Peer reviewers means experts or consultants qualified by training and experience in particular field of science, education, or technology to give expert advice on the scientific and technical merit of grant applications on the relevance of those applications to one or more of the application evaluation criteria. Peer reviewers may be ad hoc or convened as a panel.
Prior approval means written approval evidencing prior consent by an authorized departmental officer.
Project means the particular activity within the scope of the program supported by a grant award.
Project director (PD) means the single individual designated by the grantee in the grant application and approved by the Secretary who is responsible for the direction and management of the project.
Project period means the period, as stated in the award document, during which Federal sponsorship begins and ends.
Secretary means the Secretary of Agriculture and any other officer or employee of the Department of Agriculture to whom the authority involved is delegated.
USDA means the United States Department of Agriculture.
F. CSREES' Grants.gov Implementation Plans
CSREES is continuing to develop its capacity to exchange proposal and grant data electronically with its grantees through Grants.gov and to process, review, and award proposals and grants electronically. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2006, CSREES offered an electronic application option for select grant programs and partnered with five institutions to use Grants.gov Apply. CSREES utilized the SF-424 R&R (Research and Related) forms package (see 70 FR 9656, published in the Federal Register on February 28, 2005) along with CSREES Agency-specific forms and instructions to receive the electronic applications. These pilot activities were successful and provided lessons for applicants and CSREES.As a result, for the FY 2007 (October 1, 2006-September 30, 2007) cycle, CSREES is requiring electronic submission through Grants.gov for some programs while providing a Grants.gov option for others. Please visit http://www.csrees.usda.gov/funding/fy07changes.html for information about FY 2007 submission requirements by program. For more information about CSREES' Grants.gov plans, including important announcements, program implementation, and detailed requirements, see the CSREES' web site, http://www.csrees.usda.gov/business/other_links/egov/egov.html. The information on these web sites will be updated as appropriate. It is suggested that the sites be visited periodically for important updates. For FY 2007, all proposals must be submitted electronically through Grants.gov. See Part IV for details.