Hi, Dr. Sooby and All,

I can accept that OSP may need this for their internal assurance and record, although, at this juncture I believe it is moot. When the decision was made to make the attachment necessary on April 17, it was unclear how all of this would play out.

I’m still fine with attaching an email; however, the problem arises when OSP rejects a proposal with no notification over an internal form that is not required by the sponsor. The delays and back and forth are inefficient. My suggestion is to simply put it in the review checklist and have the RA attach when making corrections.

Thank you,

Liz

From: Elizabeth Sooby <elizabeth.sooby@utsa.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2026 8:39 PM
To: Jennifer Silver <Jennifer.Silver@utsa.edu>; Elizabeth Tilley <elizabeth.tilley@utsa.edu>; Rowdy Research (rowdy.research@lists.it.utsa.edu) <rowdy.research@lists.it.utsa.edu>; Claudia Delgado <claudia.delgado2@utsa.edu>
Cc: Monica Trevino <monica.trevino3@utsa.edu>
Subject: Re: Genesis Mission Proposals

Hey All,

Is this not clear from the structure of the submission?

Elizabeth S. Sooby, PhD

Associate Dean for Research, College of Sciences
Associate Professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy
The University of Texas at San Antonio
One UTSA Circle
San Antonio, TX 78249
elizabeth.sooby@utsa.edu

From: Jennifer Silver <Jennifer.Silver@utsa.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2026 8:37:18 PM
To: Elizabeth Tilley <elizabeth.tilley@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 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

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?

The memo is not required by DoE, but please correct me if I’m wrong.
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.
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.