Spring 2002 Technology Fee RFP

CSM Technology Fee
Request for Proposals
for Spring 2002 Awards

Please Note: Technology Fee proposals are considered twice per academic year. Proposals submitted by the Fall semester deadline are considered for funding that will allow early Spring semester implementation. Proposals submitted by the Spring semester deadline are considered for funding that becomes available after July 1 so they may be implemented by the beginning of the Fall semester.


Important Dates Technology fee proposals to be considered this Fall for Spring 2002 awards are due by 1pm on Friday, November 2, 2001 Questions about the worksheet, RFP, proposal process, or other committee business can be submitted to the committee via an e-mail to Derek Wilson at dwilson@mines.edu. A Q&A session with the committee will be scheduled if needed.

Background: Technology fee revenues and matching funds are administered through the Technology Fee Committee, which was established to solicit, review, and fund proposals. Technology fee guidelines (available via the Technology Fee Committee web page or in print form from the Computing Center) contain background information about the technology fee with which you should become familiar.

Eligibility: Proposals are accepted from any academic program, department, or division; the Computing Center, the Library, and any official CSM Student Organization including recognized student chapters of professional societies and organizations. Only proposals meeting the criteria outlined in the Technology Fee Guidelines document can be considered for funding.

Important!
All items requested in a proposal must be related to each other and identifiable through a common project. Proposals must identify how requested items relate to a specific need or objective. Unrelated items must be requested in separate proposals. Proposals received with apparent laundry lists of unrelated items may be rejected, ranked low, or be assigned lower funding priority than the same items requested in separate project-oriented proposals. Likewise, projects which appear to be broken up into separate proposals to apparently reduce funding requests (such as different elements of the same laboratory) will be viewed negatively and may receive lower funding priority. If multiple proposals are submitted by a department or organization, all proposals must be bundled together and submitted with a memo from the department head or organization chair or advisor that summarizes the relationship of the proposals to department technology needs and strategies. Please also pay close attention to the proposal evaluation criteria below.

Format and Content: Proposals shall contain five sections as listed below and printed in 10 point or larger font. Each section shall be limited in length as noted:

COVER SHEET
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (Maximum one page)
TECHNICAL OR STRATEGIC BASIS FOR PROPOSAL (Maximum two pages)
EDUCATIONAL AND OTHER BENEFITS THAT WILL ACCRUE (Maximum one page)
BUDGET DETAILS AND NARRATIVE (Maximum two pages)

COVER SHEET: The Technology Fee Proposal Worksheet shall form the cover sheet (PDF, Word 97 version).Proposals submitted without a completed worksheet will not be considered.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Within a maximum of one page of text, the entire proposal shall be summarized. This is the most critical part of the proposal. It gives evaluators their first impression of the nature and quality of the proposal. It should be written in simple language, so that it can be readily understood. This is not the place to argue your case in detail. Excessive information is unnecessary and may be counterproductive. It may be best to write the Executive Summary only after all other sections have been completed, and it should certainly be checked at that stage. A good Executive Summary contains the following elements:

a summary of what is being requested/proposed, including costs;
the problem that is being addressed, and its relationship to the departmental/organizational long-term computing or technology strategy;
the benefits that will accrue from implementing the proposal, and
an explanation of why existing and/or central resources cannot be used to meet the need.

TECHNICAL OR STRATEGIC BASIS FOR PROPOSAL: Within two pages of text, this section defines the importance of this request and how it fits within the computing and/or technology strategy of the department or organization. This is the heart of the proposal and will form a primary basis for judging its quality. Where necessary, supplemental materials may be submitted to clarify this section (see Supplementary Materials section below). This section should be clearly written to convince evaluators of the merits of the proposal by describing:

the problem or need,
the alternative solutions available to address the problem or need,
any assessment data, student feedback, or statistical data relevant to the proposal,
technical information (numbers, capacities, characteristics, lifecycle) about the proposed solution, and
the justification for the selected alternative

EDUCATIONAL AND OTHER BENEFITS THAT WILL ACCRUE: Within one page of text, this section defines the specific educational and other benefits that will accrue to students if this proposal is approved. In addition to summarizing how students will benefit, this section must address:

who will benefit (eg. all students? undergraduates? specific classes? specific majors?)
when they will benefit (eg. field camp, junior year)
how many will benefit. (eg. 147 stdnts/yr taking course X, half of all EG majors, etc.)

The allocation of benefits to students within the department or organization, and to those outside the department or organization, should be clearly specified.

BUDGET DETAILS AND NARRATIVE: Within two pages of text this section shall address:

a list of planned expenditures (eg. 5 Pentium III 866Mhz computers @$2,300 each, 1 8ppm inkjet printer @$400, 1 flatbed scanner @$350, etc.)
support requirements and sources for support,
the matching funds to be applied in this proposal, plans for leveraging this grant to attract other funding, or an explanation why such support is not available, and
the consequences if the proposal is not funded.

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS: Supplementary materials (product information, quotes, computing lab plans/maps/design, etc.) may be submitted, attached to the back of the proposal. If you provide supplementary material, please

limit what you provide to materials that are relevant to any special requests or justifications you are making, or are particularly helpful or necessary to evaluate the proposal
insure that price quotations accurately reflect the cost of configurations you are requesting
justify unusual equipment or software configurations thoroughly

Proposal writers are cautioned that evaluators are under no obligation to review supplemental materials. Voluminous supplementary materials may be considered as non-responsive to this RFP, and may be counter-productive. When available, however, a department or organizational strategic plan defining the longer-term expectations for harnessing computing and technology to satisfy program goals and objectives shall be accepted as an appendix. The presence of such a strategic plan should be noted in the narrative.

Proposal Submission and Deadline: Electronic copies of proposals with cover sheets and appropriate supplemental information must be submitted electronically, preferably in a single PDF file (see tech fee examples web page), by the due date and time. If you submit a PDF file, then you do not need to submit printed copies. However, if you cannot submit a PDF file, then you must submit the cover page and proposal body in Microsoft Word format AND 12 printed copies by the submission deadline. Electronic copies should be submitted via e-mail to dwilson@mines.edu. Your submittal is not complete until you receive a confirmation e-mail indicating it was received. If you do not receive a confirmation within 24 to 48 hours after you submit, then please check the status with Carolyn Horton or Derek Wilson in the Computing Center. Proposals to be considered this Fall for Spring 2002 awards will be accepted via e-mail or in the Computing Center main office (GC 232) until 1:00pm on Friday, November 2, 2001.

Evaluation Criteria: Specific criteria used by the committee to evaluate proposals will include:

potential impact on students,
potential impact on the mission and operation of the submitting department, division, or organization,
cost effectiveness (matching requested resources with desired outcomes; quality and appropriateness of request) and Budget (total cost, value),
department/organization commitment to operation, management, maintenance,
importance of proposal to CSM students and programs.

In the past, the committee has placed great importance on the demonstration of commitment to the support of the technology by the submitting departments or organizations. This commitment is typically demonstrated by investment of departmental or organization funds and resources, or by the leveraging of technology fee awards to obtain other grants and resources. Lack of such commitment and support requires a comprehensive explanation as to why matching resources are not available or are not being pursued.

Provision of additional technical support from department resources (not the Computing Center, not the Institution) will be considered as demonstrating departmental commitment.

Guidelines and Comments:

The primary uses of technology fee and matching funds are expected to be for capital and resource acquisition. Although initial operating and student help funds may be requested, ongoing needs (of all types) are expected to increasingly come from other sources.
Use of technology fee funds to match a committed or recently obtained grant (from a foundation or NSF, for example) that requires a matching source is appropriate as long as the proposal meets the guidelines for expenditure of technology fee funds. For this situation, reimbursement for recently ordered or purchased resources may be appropriate. Technology fee awards will generally not be committed to match planned or pending proposals. Proposals must be for new or replacement resources. Reimbursement for resources previously ordered or purchased, except as noted above, will not be considered.
Please identify any requests that are components of a continuing project. Assessment data, evaluations, student feedback, and other relevant information should be provided and discussed in the body of the proposal.
Although matching funds within a proposal are not required, in most cases the committee views the contribution of specific matching funds within a proposal as demonstrating departmental/organization commitment. The broader commitment to seeking resources and funding technology from philanthropic and other sources is more important, however, and should be demonstrated in the proposal. Donations (such as software) should be realistically portrayed and valued based on educational pricing, not commercial pricing.
Total project budgets (maintenance, upgrades, software, operating costs, etc.) should be included so the committee can best evaluate plans.
Proposals that seek standard/mainstream resources that will be supportable by existing or planned support-staff resources are encouraged.
Partial awards or funding may be offered.
Contact Derek Wilson (dwilson@mines, x3986) with RFP / worksheet questions.

Please Remember:

to ask questions of the committee by submitting them to dwilson@mines.edu
to let the tech fee committee chairperson know if you would be interested in attending a Q&A session with the committee
to complete the technology fee proposal worksheet and use it as the cover of your proposal,
to follow the proposal format,
to submit all proposals from one organization or department at the same time with a memo from the dept head or organization chair,
to submit a single PDF file containing the worksheet and proposal OR MS-Word DOC files with 12 printed copies of your worksheet and proposal by the deadline.