Administration and research support (2023)

research administrator

malia schwartz

Deputy Director of Research


Support in grant management

Michelle loaves

Scientific Research Fellowship Senior Assistant

Support in grant management

sharon clementes

Scientific Research Fellowship Senior Assistant

Support in grant management

kim hindel

Scientific Research Fellowship Senior Assistant

Support in grant management

Brenda Moyer

Scientific Research Fellow

Support in grant management

Keri Neumann

Koordinator, GSO Ocean Robotics Programs

Support in grant management

Gail Paulino

Scientific Research Fellowship Senior Assistant

Support in grant management

Scientific Research Fellowship Senior Assistant

Support in grant management

Scientific Research Grantees (SRGA)


GSO's Scientific Research Grant Assistant (SRGA) team enhances Principal Investigator (PI) productivity and is a key factor in GSO's overall success as a research organization, which in turn greatly enhances the position of URI as a major research university. The GSO Dean has long recognized the importance of SRGA and as such has invested more than 50% of its overhead performance to fund this support for its faculty and marine scientists. The PI-SRGA relationship is a partnership that allows the PI to "focus on the science" (or sponsored activities) while the SRGA handles the various financial and administrative responsibilities required for URI-funded projects and proposals. SRGAs often must juggle multiple competing priorities while working with complex URI management processes and systems that, in many cases, do not prioritize efficiency. Both the PI and SRGA are individuals with unique strengths and work styles, and both parties have a responsibility to develop a cohesive and well-functioning partnership that serves the best interest of the school.


Each SRGA has a group of Professors, Marine Researchers (MRS) and/or their assigned programs or service centers that they provide research support to. SRGA allocations are largely historical and consistent, with SRGAs supporting the same set of PIs/programs for many years. When a new faculty member or MRS joins the GSO, they will be assigned an SRGA who will then work with the new PI to inform them of the research support being provided and how that support will work in the context of the PI. cluster.

SRGA assignments are reviewed at least annually by G.S.O. deanery to ensure fair workloads across all SRGA IP groups and to respond to changing IP needs (for example, programs (for example, start, end, or cross).

Overview of SRGA Activities

SRGAs provide research support to their PIs for pre- and post-award assignments. A full summary of expectations for this position is availablehere.

Review and approval of the offer


All proposals submitted with GSO's involvement, either as lead PI or Co-PI, must go through an internal approval process.before deliveryto the funding agency. This process ensures that the GSO Office of the Dean (1) is aware of the proposal; (2) you can review the budget and any cost sharing (if applicable); (3) can confirm GSO's salaries/expenses for the proposal; and (4) can address any college-level questions or issues before proceeding to InfoEd routing (GSO-Non-Lead) or reaching out to URI-sponsored projects (GSO-Lead) for final URI approval.

All requests for external support, regardless of funding source, must be submitted through InfoEd for review by the GSO Office of the Dean.This also includes preliminary applications or statements of intent, for which the agency even needs a draft budget.The Administrative Director, the Assistant Director of Research and the Executive Secretary are authorized to approve GSO proposals.

In March 2021, URI began implementing a new electronic investigation management (eRA) system called InfoEd. Once fully implemented, InfoEd will be used throughout the grant lifecycle, from proposal to completion. The following information focuses on the application review and approval phase:

Proposal Review – InfoEd

GSO's Office of the Dean considers the “Proposal Development Record,” the “Assembled Document,” and additional “Internal Documents” in its review. Several of the required forms that were previously uploaded as paper copies are now created in the InfoEd proposal framework, including the submission form, question and answer form, conflict of interest form, and budget. However, all proposals must include the following forms:

required forms

  • budget justification
  • Approval email from the URI Coastal Institute (CI) if submitted as a CI proposal, although the designation as a CI proposal (or proposal from another center) is recorded in InfoEd on the electronic submission form
  • Estimate file (Excel or PDF) with the partition of questions and answers forProposals for various schools.

Other forms as appropriate

  • Documentation of shared costs or “matching”
  • Agency/Sponsor Review of Non-Standard Indirect Cost Rate
  • Subcontracts: Subrecipient Tracking Form, Statement of Work, Subcontract Budget (now needs to be completed in a standard RR_Budget form to upload to InfoEd), and Budget Justification
  • Agency Required Forms Requiring a Signature Sponsored Projects (OSP)
  • Letter of intent for proposals where URI is the subcontractor; requires an OSP signature
  • A near-final draft of the text of the proposal

For guidelines, procedures, and forms for preparing and submitting applications, visit the URI Office of Sponsored Projects website: In addition, you can find links to the InfoEd system and resources on the InfoEd home page:

approval of the proposal

After careful review of all documents, GSO Dean's Approval Officers can turn to the PI/SRGA with any questions or issues that need to be addressed. If all is in order, the GSO Deanery will be approved in InfoEd and thus released for the next step in the routing chain. For non-primary GSO applications, GSO deanery approvers focus primarily on information and documentation applicable to GSO, including staff IPs and salaries, facilities, cost sharing, F&A allowance , etc.

Principal Investigator (PI) Policy by GSO

A Principal Investigator (PI) is a person responsible for the preparation, implementation, and administration of a grant or contract. The PI and Co-PI of a funded project agree to assume responsibility for the scientific and fiscal implementation of the project and to provide all the necessary services for the award.

In GSO, researchers with the following GSO URI classifications may submit proposals assinglePI:

  • Faculty
  • marine research scientists
  • directors
  • Associate/assistant directors
  • Coastal Resources Manager
  • Others subject to the approval of the GSO Deanery

Other researchers with the requisite qualifications and experience (eg, post-doctoral researchers, marine research staff) may serve as lead PI when accompanied by a relevant researcher from the list above acting as co-PI.

significant proposals


OSG researchers often take the lead in complex multi-investigator, multi-disciplinary, and/or multi-institutional proposals. Recent examples have included the NIH STEEP (PFAS Sources, Transport, Exposure, and Effects) Center, the NSF Regional Class Research Vessel, and the two NOAA Cooperative Institute proposals. These proposals require a high level of coordination and project (proposal) management that is well beyond the capacity of the lead IP and their SRGA working alone.

In these cases, the Deanery of GSO helps. It is important to contact as early in the planning process as possible (ideally more than three months before the application deadline) so that the GSO Office of the Dean can provide substantial assistance. Contact GSO's Research Assistant Director to discuss your proposal development needs. Below is an approximate timeline and general types of services that GSO Deanery can provide in support of your important proposal.


3-4 months before the expiration date:

  • create a timeline/outline of the proposal; Support IP in identifying/establishing the necessary cooperation contacts outside of the GSO
  • Review and edit the draft offers as necessary and verify that they comply with the RFP. assistance in collecting letters of support; and coordinate external contributions through the URI Research Advisory Group if requested
  • Attend proposal team meetings; Keep partner institutions informed about developments/requirements

2 months before the expiration date:

  • Continuous review of draft proposals
  • Assistance in the development and improvement of the budget; provide a cursory review of budgets for compliance with the RFP

1 month before the expiration date:

  • Assist PI in gathering additional documents, including biographical sketches, current and pending attendance, personnel tables and other affiliations, etc. of all the researchers of the proposal.
  • Gather necessary supporting institutional documentation and draft and obtain letters of support from institutional leadership

2 – 3 weeks before the expiration date:

  • Final review of the components of the offer, final budget and justification of the budget; Review Proposal/RFP Checklist for Missing Items

1 week before the expiration date:

  • Upload all final URI forms and other forms (subcontract, agency forms requiring OSP signature, agency specific forms, etc.) as applicable
  • PI starts routing in InfoEd

Cost Sharing Obligations


Certain financing opportunities require that a certain portion of the total cost of the project be in cost-sharing or "matching" form. The match must be inferredno federalsources and may be in cash and/or in-kind, depending on the funding opportunity.

esURI Policyonly then do you agree to a cost-share commitmentnecessaryby the sponsor and only share the costs in the required amount. Cost sharing must be handled consistently and uniformly in the application, in the statement of expenses, and, if necessary, in the financial reports to sponsors. Since the primary source of cost sharing is often the effort of the researcher and/or staff, care should be taken to understand the workload implications (i.e. staff should not exceed 100%) when making commitments.

If you have any questions or need more information about cost sharing, please contact GSO's Assistant Director of Research, Business Manager, or OSP representative.


The proposal will document the cost share in the proposal budget and budget justification and in the URI "Construction and Administrative Costs (Q&A)" section of the submission form. All URI-derived cost-sharing sources are listed with their corresponding PeopleSoft department numbers; Third party matching (cost shares committed by non-URI staff or entities) must match your budget cost share and be specified in a commitment letter or via URI”Third Party Cost Sharing Form.“

Cost sharing in the form of faculty and/or personnel expenses must be quantified and realistic. Upon acceptance of the award by the university, failure to comply with the obligation to share the costs may result in the loss or repatriation of project funds to the funding body and jeopardize future funding. Any non-admission will be charged to the G.S.O. Dean's overhead account, with the Dean and College assuming ultimate financial responsibility. For more information on URI's cost-sharing procedures, click herehere.


The PI, in conjunction with the GSO Business Office, is responsible for monitoring the agency-approved ratio of budgeted cost versus actual cost throughout the grant implementation period. SRGA often assists the PI in tracking and reporting the cost sharing of these grants.

Facilities and administration costs for sponsored projects


URI has federally negotiated facilities and administrative overhead (F&A) costs(Transparency) Prayerson grants and contract activities. The type of funded research activity carried out will determine the rate used for the proposal and subsequent award.

The URI section of the electronic transmission form, "Facility and Administrative (F&A) Costs," indicates the applicable F&A percentage distribution that will be reimbursed to the participating university(s) or business, if awarded. GSO has developed a policy for the distribution of F&A on GSO-led proposals that have one or more non-GSO entities participating.

GSO Question and Answer Distribution Policy

GSO PIs regularly propose complex proposals involving multiple researchers from departments/colleges outside of the GSO. Both the university and the funded research sponsors promote this type of collaboration. The following guidelines were developed to assist GSO PIs in clarifying and minimizing resulting issues related to effort, F&A allocations, and award oversight when non-GSO entities are involved.

In cases where only GSO researchers/entities are involved, the nomination and award process is straightforward, with effort, F&A, and grant spending being tracked within the university and the F&A being returned to the GSO with subsequent distribution guidelines being issued after approval by the university.

However, for proposals involving non-GSO-URI partners (eg CELS, Engineering, Pharmacy, etc.) two scenarios are possible:

Scenario 1

For proposals where effort and administrative aspects are shared between GSO-PI and non-GSO partners, the overhead allocation will be split/allocated according to each unit's relative share of the Modified Total Direct Costs (MTDC) of the project. project at no cost. -share or match posts.

The resulting numbers may differ from the credit percentages shown on the electronic form for submitting the proposal. This is acceptable as there is a substantial difference between the relative scientific contribution of PIs and the day-to-day support required to manage a research grant through travel, purchases, staffing and other actions.

scenario 2

For URI collaboration proposals that are complex enough, the GSO PI and its URI partners may wish to award separate CFS for each participating university. In these cases, the following steps should be followed:

  • Separate budgets are prepared for each participating well as a single combined budget. The F&A breakdown for each participating university must be reflected in the combined budget. Upload an Excel file to the Internal Documents section of InfoEd.
  • Questions and answers section of the electronic submission form
    - In the question and answer distribution section of the electronic transmission form on InfoEd, each participating university is listed with its share of the combined budget. This includes the relevant department numbers and the distribution percentage for all universities (added to 100%). (For the GSO unit/PI, this would be Department 2800; other colleges may have additional college/department divisions for their part.)
    When starting routing in InfoEd(GSO PI clicks "Approve with Comments"), PIs should note in the comments field: "This is a community URI proposal between#schools We expect a surcharge#CFSs as a result.” This will notify URI Sponsored Projects (OSP) of the expected establishment of the grant and will reduce OSP's processing time for the award.

Once awarded, there will be multiple Project Numbers (CFS) with overheads that will be distributed according to the Q&A section of the Funded Proposal Submission Electronic Form. If the funding agency requests revised budgets prior to award, the Q&A breakdown and electronic form section should also be revised based on the revised budget figures, as described above.

Provide monitoring and tracking with multiple CFS

Because multiple CFSs are located at multiple universities outside of the GSO, the PI/GSO unit (and its research support staff) may not have access to external project numbers and therefore may not can monitor spending by Co-PIs, although they do provide oversight. and Reporting have responsibilities for general promotion. To address this issue with a non-GSO CFS, IPs/GSO entities are encouraged to establish a financial oversight assurance process at the start of funding. This may include shared access to all project CFS, regular communication and/or meetings between staff, quarterly reports from non-GSO partners to the GSO PI, or other mechanisms (formal or informal) that the PI may implement to reduce spending. of the scholarship. is consistent with the overall goals and work plan of the fellowship.

Main campus facilities

sea ​​water systems

The Seawater Facilities Service Center at the Marine Science Research Center (MSRF) offers a remarkable variety of opportunities to study marine life. Jointly operated by GSO and CELS and a core RI NSF EPSCoR facility, the seawater facilities host a growing range of marine science research topics, from the molecular ecology of zooplankton to the physiology and behavior of fish, crustaceans and other marine organisms. Food web impacts of ocean acidification.

Indoor research and aquarium facilities are housed in three buildings: the Ann Gall Durbin Marine Research Aquarium, the Ark Annex, and the Luther Blount Aquaculture Research Laboratory. With 8,000 m2 ft. From wet-lab interior space to nearly limitless exterior space, any marine environment can be replicated to extreme depth and breadth. Narragansett Bay water is pumped through the facility and can be chilled or heated and delivered raw or filtered. Salinity can also be manipulated.

Facility features include wet labs dedicated to pathology and transgenic research, a dock, four seawater inlet pipes, a pump house, a newly renovated 10-tank outdoor shallow water mesocosm facility, and many other outdoor portable tanks. Temperature, photoperiod, filtration, aeration, flow rates, and sunlight are available to create the perfect environment for your research needs. Also available are four climate chambers capable of simulating both polar (-4 to 20°C) and temperate (4 to 24°C) conditions, a -20 cold room, a laminar flow tank, three large incubators, and a 24/ 7 backup generators. lift and rescue workers.

As a service center, there are fees associated with the use of space in the facility ( and are billed based on the number of square meters used.

MSRF Analytical Laboratories

In addition to the seawater facilities described above, the goal of the MSRF Analytical Service Center is to provide the tools necessary for scientific research, as well as assist with student education and sample analysis. The service center offers sample analysis on a variety of state-of-the-art instruments, including instruments focused on particle analysis (flow cytometry, cell sorting, Coulter counter), particle and cell imaging (flowCAM, epifluorescence microscope, dissection microscope), chemical analysis (Lachat nutrient analyzer, dissolved gas analysis with MIMS) and molecular biology (PCR, quantitative PCR, plate reader, nanodrop, qubit). In addition, MSRF Analytical offers instrument training, experimental design advice, and sample analysis assistance. As a service center, some devices have associated fees (, while other devices are openly available for free and on a subscription/unsubscribe basis.

inner space center

The ability to connect high-definition video on ships and ROVs to the broader scientific community and the public, known as telepresence communications, was developed over the past decade by Professor Robert Ballard at GSO. The ISC is the anchor of this effort, receiving and transmitting live video from ROVs to the Internet, schools, and museums. The ISC houses a complete television production center with live interactive studios and production/editing facilities. The ISC has a large server system capable of archiving high-resolution images, as well as all data collected at sea, which can be easily accessed by external users in real time.

Marine Geological Sample Laboratory

The Marine Geological Sample Laboratory (MGSL), nicknamed "Rock & Core," is one of four NSF-funded sample repositories (MGSL,RCD,WHOI-SSL, yOSU-MGR) for dredged rock, deep-sea cores, and terrestrial geological samples. The MGSL began life as a collection of materials acquired by the Marine Geology and Geophysics Group at GSO, but has since grown to also house materials acquired by external PIs and was collected by vessels from UNOLS, NOAA, and the United States Antarctic Program. USA. The facility is located on the Narragansett Bay campus on Receiving Road. Its primary goal is to ensure that geological samples are properly stored, described, preserved and available for use by qualified researchers around the world.

device development lab

The Equipment Development Laboratory (EDL), part of the John King Paleomagnetic Laboratory, provides machine shop capability for our research community. EDL was formed to help GSO faculty develop new scientific equipment and reduce the time to implement a new design. Users outside the URI can also consume EDL services.
EDL has extensive machining, welding, CAD design, and high tolerance assembly capabilities. EDL's projects have ranged from the design of sensitive analytical instruments to the fabrication of custom laboratory and sampling equipment and large core drilling systems.

Note: For a complete list of GSO research facilities and laboratories, go to:

Top Articles
Latest Posts
Article information

Author: Aron Pacocha

Last Updated: 01/09/2023

Views: 5921

Rating: 4.8 / 5 (68 voted)

Reviews: 91% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Aron Pacocha

Birthday: 1999-08-12

Address: 3808 Moen Corner, Gorczanyport, FL 67364-2074

Phone: +393457723392

Job: Retail Consultant

Hobby: Jewelry making, Cooking, Gaming, Reading, Juggling, Cabaret, Origami

Introduction: My name is Aron Pacocha, I am a happy, tasty, innocent, proud, talented, courageous, magnificent person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.