Fall 2009 Core Facilities Equipment Funding

Deadline: Midnight - October 15, 2009

Quick Links:
Types of Funding Requests
Matching Funds
Proposal Format and Preparation
Submitting a Proposal
Composition and Logistics of Core Facilities Review Panel

Guidelines for Reviewers

The Office for Research will accept proposals for the purchase of equipment and instrumentation to support core facilities that serve the overall research community at Northwestern University. Requests that are not likely to be eligible for external funding (e.g., because they do not meet the minimum cost guidelines) will be evaluated and prioritized by the Core Facilities Review Panel. Requests for cost-sharing by the Office for Research of external grant proposals is handled directly by the Associate Vice President for Research and the Director of Core Facilities.

NOTE: In order to qualify for this program, you must be a Director or Manager of a university-sponsored core facility (i.e., conforming to the "Expectations for Core Facilities" ) and have submitted an Annual Report for the year of the request.

NOTE: Equipment proposals that do not conform to the specifications outlined below will be returned to the applicant for revision and/or consideration during the next funding cycle.

Types of Funding Requests

Proposals for new equipment will be accepted twice a year (Fall and Spring). Deadlines for submission will be posted on this website.
Requests for operating costs (e.g., personnel, service contracts) will be handled differently and should be addressed to the Director of Core Facilities who will consult with the Associate Vice President for Research. Such requests must be included in the Annual Report explaining why these costs cannot be covered by user fees.
We anticipate that most proposals for equipment will be for less than $100,000 since that is the minimum required for a NSF or NIH instrument grant proposal. Equipment costing more than $100,000 will be considered under certain circumstances, e.g., for replacement of outdated equipment, or duplicate instrumentation if the existing instrument is overwhelmed by demand, or equipment that addresses strategic priorities of the university. The need for such items should be rigorously justified. Proposals for new equipment that are currently under external review will not be accepted. Budgets that are padded with unnecessary items or expenses will not be viewed favorably by the Review Panel.
Multiple equipment requests per facility will be accepted. However, the requests must be clearly prioritized and a separate Description of New Equipment and Budget sections (see below) must be included for each request.
Urgent requests that need an immediate response will be considered on an ad hoc basis and should be conveyed to the Associate Vice President (l-hicke@northwestern.edu) or Director of Core Facilities (p-hockberger@northwestern.edu). Such requests should only be made for exceptional situations.
Requests for equipment to set up new facilities will be accepted, but will require a modified proposal (see below).

Cost Sharing

Cost sharing is not a requirement for equipment proposals, but it is strongly encouraged and will be used in determining fundability. The purpose of cost sharing is to allow faculty, chairs and deans to be active participants in the decision-making process by contributing funds towards the purchase of equipment for core facilities.
Cost sharing can come from faculty, departments, schools, and/or other units within the university.
It is recommended that cost sharing be approximately 10% of the total cost of the instrument. If the instrument being requested costs more than $100,000, then it is recommended that cost sharing be for the amount that exceeds $100,000.
Support for operating costs of core facilities is not considered cost sharing, although user fees can be used to offset the cost of new equipment.
If cost sharing is proposed, then a letter of support from the appropriate person agreeing to provide the funds (explicitly stating amount and date of availability of funds) must be included with the proposal.

Proposal Format and Preparation

Existing facilities:

The proposal will consist of four or five sections depending upon whether it is a new request or a resubmission, respectively: 1) a cover page; 2) a brief description of the equipment requested, where it will be located within the facility, and who will be responsible for it; 3) proposed budget with a clear, concise justification; 4) if this proposal is a resubmission, then address the concerns raised in the previous review; 5) an Appendix that includes documentation supporting the need for the new equipment (e.g., usage data for existing equipment, if applicable; letters of support from faculty needing the equipment) and equipment quote(s).
The following are additional details for each section:
1. Cover page (available as a Word file on this website: Here) (1 page)
  - Date of application (submission date)
  - Name of facility
  - Name of Facility Director (or faculty member responsible for oversight)
  - Name of Facility Manager (responsible for day-to-day management)
  - Name of contact person (for this proposal)
  - Telephone number of contact person
  - Email address of contact person
  - Name of equipment requested (manufacturer, model)
  - Total amount requested (in dollars)
  - Is this proposal a resubmission?
  - Have you received OR support for equipment or operating expenses in the past year? If yes, then please give dates, list items and amount awarded.
  - Signatures of Facility Director and Manager
2. Description of new equipment (1 page per item)
  - Describe each item in sufficient detail so that a non-expert reviewer can understand what it is and how it will be used (for multiple equipment requests, an additional page per item is allowed)
  - Describe the location where the new equipment will be housed and operated; discuss any renovation required to make the space suitable; if renovation of existing space is necessary, indicate how the renovation costs will be funded or include these costs in the proposal
  - Describe how the facility will handle technical support for the new equipment; if expertise does not exist in the facility, then outline how this expertise will be achieved (e.g., through training of existing personnel or hiring of new personnel) and paid for
  - If technical support is provided by existing personnel, then please explain how these new responsibilities will effect existing responsibilities
3. Budget and justification (1 page per item)
  - Provide a budget for the equipment, potential renovation, service contract and technical support; describe matching fund support, if applicable
  - Explain why you are requesting internal support rather than looking for external support
  - Describe how you plan to finance renovations, technical support and service contracts for the equipment (e.g., estimate the total number of service hours per annum and the total number of user fees collected per annum for the equipment; if you are requesting funds for the replacement or upgrade of an existing piece of equipment, then provide the same information anticipated for the requested equipment)
  - Describe the expected impact of the new equipment on research at Northwestern
4. Resubmission (1 page) or proposal submitted previously to a federal agency
  - If this proposal is a resubmission, then clearly address the concerns of the previous review (include the previous Summary Statement in the Appendix)
  - If this submission was submitted previously to a federal agency without success, then explain why you are requesting internal support and address any criticism of the Study Section (include Summary Statement in the Appendix)
5. Appendix documenting the need for the new equipment (no page restriction)
  - Provide competitive quotations from manufacturer or supplier for each instrument requested
  - Provide a list of potential users arranged and grouped alphabetically by PI
  - Provide usage data on existing equipment, if applicable (e.g., when requesting replacement equipment or a second instrument due to excessive usage of an existing instrument)
  - For equipment requests greater than $10,000, provide letters of support from faculty members endorsing the request
- All of the application documents should be compiled into a single, contiguous PDF file. The margins should be one inch on all sides. Text should be no smaller than 11 point Times New Roman (or equivalent) and single line spacing. Save the file using a name that indicates the facility name and year (e.g., EPIC_Spring _09)
- All applications should contain a scanned version of the cover page (see below) with the relevant names and signatures. Letters of support should also be signed, scanned and included in the Appendix

New Facilities: The instructions above apply to new facilities with the following modifications:

5 page limit (instead of 2 pages) for the body of the application
extra pages to allow expanded description of the facility and a detailed plan for funding of operating costs, space and necessary infrastructure
Provide letters of support from department heads and/or school research deans

Submitting the proposal

Please send your proposal as a single .pdf file to the Depot server website for Core Facilities (the link will be posted prior to the submission date).
Proposals must be submitted no later than midnight on October 15, 2009.

Composition and Logistics of Core Facilities Review Panel

Proposals will be solicited and reviewed twice a year
Proposals will be reviewed by a rotating committee (Review Panel) consisting of:
research deans (or their delegates) from WCAS, McC, FSM and SoC
plus representative facility directors and managers
To be eligible for funds from the Office for Research, facility directors and managers will be expected to serve on the Review Panel when asked
Guidelines for Members of the Core Facilities Review Panel can be found here.
Completed proposals will be reviewed on a 7-pt scale (1=outstanding, 7=poor) based upon the following criteria (Summary Statement template):
1. Justification of need
2. Rationale for internal funding
3. Breadth of proposed instrument/equipment use
4. Management of facility
Scores will be recommendations to the Office for Research, who will make final funding decisions

REVIEW PANEL
CHAIR
Craig Bina Associate Dean for Research and Graduate Studies, WCAS Professor of Earth & Planetary Science
MEMBERS
Michael Avram Director of Clinical Pharmacology Facility Associate Professor of Anesthesiology (FSM)	Stephen Miller Director of Flow Cytometry Core, Immunology Professor of Microbiology-Immunology (FSM)
Joseph Bass Director of Hormone Core Facility Associate Professor of Medicine, Endocrinology (FSM) Mark Eugene Duban Manager of CESAMM Research Assistant Professor of Chemistry (WCAS)	Todd Parrish Director of Center for Advanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging Associate Professor of Radiology (FSM)
Lynn Doglio Manager of Transgenic and Targeted Mutagenesis Facility Research Associate Professor, Center for Genetic Medicine (FSM)	Jon Siegel Associate Professor of Communication Sciences and Disorders (ScC)
Arabela Grigorescu Manager of Keck Biophysics Facility Research Assistant Professor, Biochemistry, Mol. Biology & Cell Biology (WCAS)	Warren Toutellotte Director, Research Histology & Phenotyping Lab Director, Transgenic & Targeted Mutagenesis Lab Associate Professor of Pathology and Neurology (FSM)
Denis Keane Director of DND-CAT, Argonne National Laboratory Research Associate Professor of Materials Science (McC)	Jeff Weiss Director for Research Core Planning at Feinberg Research Professor of Medicine, Endocrinology (FSM)
Richard Lueptow Senior Associate Dean of McCormick Professor of Mechanical Engineering (McC)	Catherine Woolley Director of Biological Imaging Facility Professor of Neurobiology & Physiology (WCAS)
Ljuba Lyass Manager of Human Embryonic Stem Cell Facility Research Associate of Medicine, Neurology (FSM)	Anna Zago Manager of Pathology Core Research Assistant Professor of Pathology (FSM)

Acknowledgments in Grant Applications and Publications - the use of
data generated in a core facility in a grant application, progress
report or publication contains the implicit understanding that the PI
or authors will acknowledge the use of the core facility. Since many
of our facilities are supported by federal agencies, such
acknowledgment is mandatory.