Hi Liz,

This documentation is for the internal validation of the lead PI's choice of a subrecipient or collaborative proposal type. 

I met with Claudia regarding FOA Amendment 2 when it was released and we decided the documentation should be included in the proposal record. 

An email or statement from the PI to the RA during the planning is acceptable. 

Thanks!
Jennifer

Jennifer Silver, CRA

Senior Director

Office of Sponsored Projects
The University of Texas at San Antonio
One UTSA Circle
San Antonio, TX 78249
O: 210.458.4234

utsa.edu

image



From: Elizabeth Tilley <elizabeth.tilley@utsa.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2026 7:11:27 PM
To: Jennifer Silver <Jennifer.Silver@utsa.edu>; Rowdy Research (rowdy.research@lists.it.utsa.edu) <rowdy.research@lists.it.utsa.edu>
Cc: Elizabeth Sooby <elizabeth.sooby@utsa.edu>; Monica Trevino <monica.trevino3@utsa.edu>
Subject: RE: Genesis Mission Proposals

Hi Jennifer,

 

I just had a proposal rejected with no notice over the email you describe below.  I am just wondering if this is the most efficient practice?

 

  1. The memo is not required by DoE, but please correct me if I’m wrong.  
  2. I would suggest instead of rejecting a proposal over an internal memo that is not required by the sponsor, can reviewers request it in the review checklist to add after review vs. rejecting.  This will avoid delayed back and forth.  
  3. Also we have proposals that were initially set up as subawards and they never changed.  Is it necessary to provide a memo for those proposals?  

 

If this is something required by DoE, I understand.  I am suggesting putting in the review checklist to make the process more efficient as we have numerous proposals coming through.

 

Thank you!

 

From: Jennifer Silver <Jennifer.Silver@utsa.edu>
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2026 4:15 PM
To: Rowdy Research (rowdy.research@lists.it.utsa.edu) <rowdy.research@lists.it.utsa.edu>
Subject: [Rowdy.research] Genesis Mission Proposals

 

Everyone,

 

After confirming with the Department of Energy regarding the amended FOA, we were informed that they are strongly encouraging a single application with a subrecipient(s) under a lead institution. While one is not encouraged over the other, collaborative applications will be accepted, reviewed, and not penalized in any manner. The amendment 000002 applies to both Phase I and Phase II. 

 

With this guidance, please discuss this option with your faculty and follow their direction in packaging their preferred way.  Finally, emphasize that the internal deadlines for submissions by OSP still stand.

 

Documentation from the faculty of this preference (collaborative vs. subawards) is required for the proposal file. 

 

Thank you,

Jennifer

 

Jennifer Silver, CRA

Senior Director

Office of Sponsored Projects
The University of Texas at San Antonio
One UTSA Circle
San Antonio, TX 78249
O: 210.458.4234

utsa.edu