# Review and Submission ## Review and Submission ![Harvard Yard and sun is shining](/sites/g/files/omnuum5536/files/styles/hwp_28_10__1920x685/public/2025-08/banner4.jpg?itok=IWXz59uE) ## expand\_more ## On This Page A summary of the [five-day submission timeline](#FiveDayPolicy), the [FORA Review Criteria](#FORAReviewCriteria), and the [mandatory approvals](#ReviewResponsibilities) are outlined below. ## Submission Timeline All outgoing sponsored proposals that will be awarded to Harvard and many life-cycle award modification requests must be reviewed, approved, and authorized by the Office for Sponsored Programs (OSP) prior to submission. OSP requires five full business days to review and approve each outgoing application. Proposals that fall under any of the of the FORA Review Criteria must also be reviewed by the FORA Pre-Award Team. FORA’s signature role in GMAS is Dean/Designee Signatory. During their review, the reviewer may also loop in the appropriate Divisional Dean’s Office for additional input. ### The 5-Day Policy Proposal review and submission is a collaborative process between the Office for Sponsored Program (OSP), FAS Office of Research Administration (FORA), and the Department/Principal Investigator (PI). A proposal must be received by OSP at least five (5) full business days prior to the sponsor’s due date. The proposal components must be in final form with the exception of the technical narrative/statement of work (SOW), which may be submitted in draft form subject to revision. The final and complete narrative/SOW is due three (3) full business days prior to the sponsor’s due date; such proposal shall then be considered submission-ready. Review Process Exception Process ## Review Process To ensure that the review process is fair and PIs who comply with the proposal submission deadline are not penalized, OSP and FORA will review proposals in the order in which they are received. Proposals will not be permitted to “jump the queue” ahead of proposals that were submitted earlier, even when a deadline is imminent. Principal Investigators (PIs) are also encouraged to request that OSP submit a proposal in advance of a sponsor’s deadline as an added precaution. Early submittal may allow for the correction of errors that are detected by the sponsor during the transmission process and may provide an opportunity for resubmission prior to the sponsor’s due date. ## Exception Process Automatic exception requests will not be accepted, and late proposals will be allowed only under very limited circumstances that are outside the control of the PI. PIs may request an exception by completing the [Exception Request Form](https://harvard.az1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_4UuqN4mLuzaNSSN). The cognizant School or Divisional Dean (or their designee) reviews and has decision authority for exception requests. A sponsor contacting a PI with a request for a last-minute proposal would be a compelling reason to approve an exception. Lack of planning to meet a proposal deadline for a federal solicitation announced well in advance of the due date would normally not be an approved exception request. **A proposal submitted less than one business day prior to the sponsor’s due date will not be reviewed or submitted, and there will be no exceptions granted for same-day submissions.** A same day submission is anything received after 5:00PM EST the day before the proposal is due. ### Five-Day Timeline FAQs Open all sections Close all sections ### What is the “submission deadline?” expand\_more The day and time (EST) the proposal is due to the sponsor. If this date falls on a weekend or holiday for federal application, it can be extended to the next business day. For non-federal applications, the submission deadline will be considered the business day prior to the holiday/weekend. ### How do we count the dates? What is five days or three days before the submission deadline? expand\_more Please see [timeline visual and sample calendar](https://osp.finance.harvard.edu/policy-proposal-submission-deadlines-frequently-asked-questions). ### What is the Statement of Work or SOW? expand\_more The SOW or “science” is the totality of the parts of the narrative being presented to a reviewer panel or board of directors during a funding selection process, which may include The Project Summary, Project Description, References Cited, etc. If a sponsor does not use that specific terminology, please use your best judgment to determine the equivalent sections. FORA can also provide guidance on a case-by-case basis. Please contact FORA if any questions arise. ### When is a proposal considered to be received by OSP? expand\_more A proposal is considered received once OSP has all documents that are review-ready at each stage of the proposal submission timeline. For the Day 5 deadline, all proposal components, other than the SOW, must be final. The SOW must be complete but may be in draft form until Day 3. By Day 3, the final project narrative/SOW must be uploaded to GMAS and the sponsor system. Additional time in advance of Day 5 will be required for department administrators/SRAs to administrators to review and compile documents. Please communicate with your department administrator/SRA for department specific process. ### When should OSP be given access to the proposal in the sponsor's system (ASSIST, NSPIRES, etc.)? expand\_more Departments should grant View access to OSP and FORA reviewers as early as practical. For the purpose of version control (i.e., reviewing the same document, zero discrepancies between the sponsor-system version and the GMAS version) and to avoid delayed or late submissions, the earlier FORA and OSP can be given access the better. By Day 3 when the final Statement of Work has been uploaded to the sponsor system, departments should grant View and Submit access to allow submission by OSP. ### My PI is participating as a non-lead in a Collaborative proposal in which all institutions involved are submitting a single, combined statement of work. I can’t control when the final science will be completed. What should I do? expand\_more In the instances where we are a non-lead collaborator, the expectation is that a draft of the full scientific or programmatic narrative be included upon locking and routing the proposal. When possible, it is beneficial to give FORA and OSP reviewers full view/submit access in the portal through which you are submitting so that any recent changes to the narrative will be visible. The scientific or programmatic narrative need not be finalized by Day 3 for a non-lead collaboration but there must be a complete draft available for OSP and FORA to make a complete review. Components of the narrative that our PI is solely responsible for, such as their Results from Prior NSF Support, should be finalized by this time. A separate Harvard-specific SOW is not required for collaborative projects, however this will is required for proposals in which Harvard is a subrecipient. This document must be finalized by Day 3 for those proposals. ### What is the process to request an exception? expand\_more If the PI is unable to meet the 5-Day proposal submission window, they must complete OSP's [5-Day Exception Request form](https://osp.finance.harvard.edu/5-day-exception-request-form). The PI must include as detailed information as possible within the Late Submission Justification and clearly state when the proposal will be locked-and-routed for OSP/FORA/SEAS review. OSP will then forward this request to the appropriate Cognizant/Divisional Dean. The Dean will review the exception and either deny or approve the request, including when the proposal must be released to OSP. The Dean may request additional information from the PI, such as proof of extenuating circumstances (e.g. an email from the sponsor requesting a proposal outside the 5-day window). ### How long will it take to receive a determination on the request? expand\_more The Deans will review the exceptions as quickly as possible, but the timing will depend on their schedules/availability. There is no process to expedite the review timeline, so exception requests should be submitted as early as possible. ### Should the department route the proposal to OSP while they wait for an exception? expand\_more Until a reply to the exception request is received, the Department and PI should proceed as if an exception has been granted, gathering the remaining proposal documents and locking-and-routing in GMAS. OSP will not assign a reviewer to the proposal until the Exception Request has been approved by the Divisional/SEAS Dean. ### How will the PI/Department be notified of the Dean’s decision? expand\_more The Dean will notify OSP of their decision by replying to the original email sent by OSP. OSP will inform the department administrators and the PI. Each Divisional/SEAS Dean may choose to inform the PI directly. OSP will assign a proposal reviewer if and when the request is approved. ### What happens if an exception is not approved? expand\_more If an exception request is denied, OSP will delete the GMAS request after the PI and department administrators have been notified. ### The PI needs time to modify the SOW, when is it due to OSP meet the Day 3 requirement? expand\_more The proposal must be released to OSP by close of business on Day 3. ### If the PI does not have the complete and final science by Day 3, are they required to submit an exception? expand\_more If the proposal was originally locked-and-routed by Day 5 (i.e., exception request was not required) and now the final SOW will be late, an exception request should be submitted. Same day proposals will not be submitted. If the PI already received an approval to release the proposal after Day 5 and will not be able to meet the approved new deadline, then a new request will need to be approved by the Dean. ### If a draft of the science is not available five days before the submission deadline, but the other pieces are ready, does this require an exception request? expand\_more Yes. ### My proposal has internal approvals associated with it that will need to be resolved prior to submission to the sponsor (e.g. Exceptional PI Rights, IDC Waiver). If I don't have those approvals in hand by Day 5, will I need an exception? expand\_more Required internal approvals should be requested well in advance of Day 5 to allow adequate time for review. An exception to the 5-Day policy is not required if the internal approvals have not yet been confirmed, but the approval process should be initiated before the request is locked-and-routed. Please enter a comment in GMAS to indicate the status of these internal approvals. OSP may not submit a proposal depending on the nature and context of the missing approval (e.g., Provost approval, etc.). ### Would a proposal that was submitted in compliance with the 5-day policy (meaning no exception was required) require an exception if it undergoes significant changes prior to submission that are not in response to OSP/FAS/SEAS reviewer comments? (Example: expand\_more Under extenuating circumstances that are outside of the PI's control, please contact FORA/SEAS for a case-by-case determination. If the PI has made their best faith effort to comply with the 5-day policy at the original lock-and-route date, we will do our best to accommodate the changes, however this will depend on the circumstances/impact of the changes, and will be at the discretion of FORA/SEAS, in consultation with OSP and the Dean's Office. If the changes requested are within the PI's control and could have been addressed at the time of lock-and-route, an additional exception will be required. No same-day retractions will be permitted. FORA Review and Approval Required (Dean/Designee GMAS signature required) **FORA Review Criteria** Whether FAS is the responsible Tub or participates through Inter-Faculty Involvement, the FORA Pre-Award team must review and approve projects that contain the items listed below. FORA’s signature role in GMAS is “Dean/Designee Signatory.” In some instances (for example, when proposal offers a large amount of cost sharing), the FORA reviewer may loop in the appropriate Divisional Dean’s office for additional input. **Dean/Designee Signatory and notification contacts:** [ arrow\_forward Arts & Humanities division and Non-Divisional units: Katherine Zuccala ](mailto:kzuccala@fas.harvard.edu) [ arrow\_forward Science & Social Science divisions: Jimmy Matejek-Morris ](mailto:jmatejek@fas.harvard.edu) For New and Competing Renewal Proposals For Existing Projects ## For New and Competing Renewal Proposals 1. **Proposals that include an indirect cost rate less than the amount required of the sponsor type per the FAS Indirect Cost Policy, resulting in an IDC shortfall:** 1. **15% Total Direct Costs for non-profit and state/local government sponsors** 2. **68.5% Modified Total Direct Costs (MTDC) for Organized Research, 34.0% MTDC for Other Sponsored Activities, 26.0% MTDC for Off Campus Research for foreign government sponsors and industry/for-profit sponsors** The FORA IDC signature requirement applies to grant and contract proposals only; student and postdoctoral fellowship proposals are excluded. The FORA signature must be added even if the project falls under any of the policy’s categorical exemptions. 2. **Proposals that include any quantifiable cost sharing commitments (either mandatory or voluntary).** Cost share commitments must be quantified in the proposal and entered in the GMAS Cost Sharing form. Additional related information and guidance can be found on the [FAS Cost Sharing Approval and Signature Requirements](https://prod-fasresearchadministration.drupalsites.harvard.edu/cost-sharing#CostSharingApprovalandSignatureRequirements) webpage. 3. **Proposals to the European Commission/European Research Council (ERC)** With the exception of Marie Sklodowska-Curie actions Research Fellowships 4. **The FORA Pre-Award team must be notified via email in the event of the following (but no GMAS signature is required):** 1. When exception to PI or Co-PI rights are needed, based on the [FAS PI Eligibility Policy](/pi-eligibility "PI Eligibility") 2. When Provost review is required based on the University’s [Provost Review Criteria](https://osp.finance.harvard.edu/provost-criteria). ## For Existing Projects 1. **New cost sharing commitments or specific changes added to existing awards.** Please review "[Table 2](https://prod-fasresearchadministration.drupalsites.harvard.edu/cost-sharing#CostShareTable2): Types of Changes Requiring a GMAS Cost Sharing Request at Award Stage" within the FAS Cost Sharing and Signature Requirements. 2. **The FORA Pre-Award team must be notified via email (but no GMAS signature is required) when plans for** [**Indirect Cost shortfall recovery**](/indirect-costs "Indirect Costs") **are modified after proposal submission or during award lifecycle** ## Review Responsibilities Once a proposal is locked-and-routed for review in GMAS, the Department, FORA (if required), OVPR (if required), Research Compliance Program (RCP) (if required), and OSP will review the proposal with a set of distinct review criteria in mind: Department FORA OVPR RCP OSP ## Department Department/Center/Institute signatures in GMAS indicate: - Approval of the PI as a member of the department in good standing and confirmation that the PI holds appropriate PI Rights within the department - Knowledge and approval of the subject area of the proposal - Approval of departmental resources (e.g. space and facilities, explicit or implied cost sharing, personnel) used by and/or committed to the project - Approval of PI and Senior Personnel effort commitments relative to their overall responsibilities and commitments to the department - Acceptance of responsibility for grant management and departmental oversight, if proposal is funded - Budgeted expenses are allowable, allocable, reasonable, and consistently treated and in compliance with FAS, University, and sponsor policies - Proposal is complete and ready for FORA and/or OSP review ## FORA FORA’s Dean/Designee signature indicates: - School-level Approval of a proposed indirect cost shortfall recovery plan and the use of appropriate Indirect Cost rates (On-Campus or Off-Campus, Organized Research or Other Sponsored Activities) - School-level approval of cost sharing commitments ## OVPR The Office of the Vice Provost for Research’s (OVPR) signature indicates: - Approval of the [Provost Review Criteria](https://osp.finance.harvard.edu/provost-criteria) ## RCP The Research Compliance Program’s (RCP) signature indicates: - Approval of all international components. - Note there is no signature role in GMAS for the RCP. If project includes international activity, email [RCP\_internationalcollaborations@harvard.edu](mailto:RCP_internationalcollaborations@harvard.edu) or the appropriate Divisional RCP contact as soon as possible, but no later than the date of lock-and-route. Once RCP review is complete, upload their email confirmation to GMAS request. ## OSP University-level OSP signature indicates: - Accuracy and compliance with university and sponsor guidelines and policy - Confirmation that the legal and fiscal interests of the University are protected, and that detailed contract provisions involving intellectual property (e.g. patents and copyrights), restrictions on publication or other sharing of data or research results, external control over hiring practices, etc., conform with those considered acceptable by the University. - A summary of OSP’s review process can be found here: [Proposal Review](https://osp.finance.harvard.edu/proposal-review)