NSF 21-628: Centers for Innovation and Community Engagement in Solid Earth Geohazards
Program Solicitation
Program Solicitation NSF 21-628
Letter of Intent Due Date(s) (required) (due by 5 p.m. submitter's local time): November 30, 2021 November 16, 2023 November 16, Every Other Year Thereafter Full Proposal Target Date(s): March 15, 2022 March 15, Every Other Year Thereafter Important Information And Revision NotesAny proposal submitted in response to this solicitation should be submitted in accordance with the revised NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) (NSF 22-1), which is effective for proposals submitted, or due, on or after October 4, 2021. Summary Of Program RequirementsGeneral InformationProgram Title:
Synopsis of Program:
Cognizant Program Officer(s): Please note that the following information is current at the time of publishing. See program website for any updates to the points of contact.
Applicable Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number(s):
Award InformationAnticipated Type of Award: Standard Grant or Continuing Grant or Cooperative Agreement Estimated Number of Awards: 3 to 5 Anticipated Funding Amount: $7,000,000 Eligibility InformationWho May Submit Proposals:
Who May Serve as PI:
Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization: 2
Limit on Number of Proposals per PI or co-PI: 1
Proposal Preparation and Submission InstructionsA. Proposal Preparation Instructions
B. Budgetary Information
C. Due Dates
Proposal Review Information CriteriaMerit Review Criteria: National Science Board approved criteria. Additional merit review criteria apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information. Award Administration InformationAward Conditions: Standard NSF award conditions apply. Reporting Requirements: Standard NSF reporting requirements apply. I. IntroductionThe Earth’s tectonics underpin many of the planet’s processes at a broad range of spatial and temporal scales, including earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, landslides and allied hazards. These solid Earth geohazards are responsible for trillions of dollars in damage and the loss of millions of lives in the history of the U.S., and these risks are anticipated to increase in the future as population increases in hazardous areas. Major advances in our understanding of the fundamental forces that drive catastrophic events are needed to respond effectively to this risk and to engage a well-informed populace living in the midst of these hazards. The Centers for Innovation and Community Engagement in Solid Earth Geohazards are intended to catalyze, coordinate, and produce transformative research in the Earth processes that lead to solid Earth geohazards. Centers provide community-scale leadership in two areas: convergence and innovation in systems-level science, and community engagement to develop a diverse and inclusive workforce, as well as a well-prepared and informed public. Centers will be built around a compelling research challenge or theme of significant scale and complexity that would require a coordinated approach beyond what can be accomplished by a small team of researchers. The program will support basic research on Earth processes, as well as the development of new methods needed to advance the science. The program will help facilitate new collaborations within observational, experimental, theoretical and computational domains that will be essential to address the most exciting questions at the cutting edge of Earth science. This program does not support efforts to operationalize monitoring, forecasting, or prediction of hazards, though partnerships could provide support for these activities. Significant, long-term progress in advancing science requires a diverse and inclusive workforce that is highly skilled. Therefore, centers will also meaningfully improve the national welfare through bold and creative activities that broaden participation of underrepresented groups, develop a culture of equity and inclusion, and advance the geoscience workforce. The program’s focus on societally relevant problems provides a platform to engage and train students and postdocs from communities that have been underrepresented in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Additionally, knowledge-sharing between groups carrying out fundamental research and those focused on mitigating and forecasting future hazards is critical for the health and safety of our country. Consequently, Centers will expand the impact of fundamental research to a wide range of stakeholders. II. Program DescriptionCenters for Innovation and Community Engagement in Solid Earth Geohazards must have the following attributes:
Centers will practice strong project management. Therefore, centers will align proposed scope with realistic budgets and timelines for achieving those goals. Centers will also identify important milestones within the timeline of their award period that progress to the accomplishment of the Center’s goals. Additional information on project management expectations for Track II proposals is provided in the proposal preparation guidance below. Track I – Center Catalyst For the FY 2022 competition, Track I – Center Catalyst proposals will address topics that focus on the fundamental processes that create solid Earth geohazards, including earthquakes, volcanoes, landslides, and other solid earth or tectonic processes. The proposal’s scope will align with one or more of the priorities outlined in the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine decadal survey report The Earth in Time, including; What is an earthquake? What drives volcanism? What are the causes and consequences of topographic change? and How can Earth science research reduce the risk and toll of geohazards? Catalyst proposals will outline center development activities, including goal setting, strategic planning and community building, as well as developing and piloting center-scale activities that generate new knowledge with a broad range of impacts. Awardees must engage in research, broader impact activities, and center development activities over the two-year duration of the award. The activities may build on pre-existing efforts, but new, collaborative results attributed to the award are expected. Track I - Center Catalyst Principal Investigators are required to develop a complete strategic plan for operating a future Center. Proposals will describe community engagement activities that will be carried out to develop the plan by the end of the award period. NSF staff will evaluate the plan and monitor progress throughout the award period. Developing a strong strategic plan may require consultation with strategic planning experts. Proposals should speak to a broad audience of Earth scientists and clearly articulate the value of the proposed Center to fundamental research and community engagement in solid Earth geohazards. Key milestones during a Track I project will include a mandatory virtual site visit at the end of year 1 and submission of the strategic plan at 24 months. Additional information is provided in the proposal preparation guidance for a Track I full proposal. Track II – Center Operations In FY 2022, the program will consider only those proposals built around a compelling research challenge or theme related to fundamental earthquake processes. NSF intends to open future competitions to proposals focused more broadly on solid Earth geohazards. Center Operations proposals are expected to outline broad, strategic, center-scale activities in accordance with the Center Attributes, as described earlier in this section. Centers will be agile structures that respond rapidly to emerging opportunities, promote synergy, enhance collaborations, and engage in potentially transformative research. Centers will integrate research, innovation, education, science communication, and efforts to broaden participation. Center proposals will organize their scope into Major Activities, which will provide the framework for aligning the proposed scope with realistic budgets and timelines for achieving Center goals. A Major Activity will most frequently be a major research thrust of the Center but may also be a large-scale effort for workforce development, community-building, broadening participation, or other comparable effort to support broader impacts. Centers may need flexibility to advance Major Activities or to respond quickly and effectively to emerging research and/or broader impact opportunities through subaward seed funding. These emerging areas may include (but are not limited to): high-risk research projects; emerging areas of interdisciplinary research; development of new cyberinfrastructure to support the Center; support for early-career faculty or for investigators changing fields; and innovative educational, diversity-promoting, or outreach ventures. Seed funding is not intended to provide a substitute for NSF individual investigator funding, nor should it be used to fund foundational operational support for the Center. Proposals should describe the criteria and mechanisms for selecting and evaluating projects that may require seed funding. Key milestones will include periodic site visits and other oversight by NSF staff. The initial Track II awards will be made for five years (contingent on acceptable progress). Additional information is provided in the proposal preparation guidance for a Track II full proposal. III. Award InformationIn FY 2022, NSF anticipates making up to three Track I awards (each up to $500,000 for 2 years) as standard or continuing grants. NSF also anticipates up to two new Track II awards (up to $3,000,000 per year for 5 years) as cooperative agreements. Plans for anticipated awards are pending availability of funds and submission of sufficient quality proposals. IV. Eligibility InformationWho May Submit Proposals:
Who May Serve as PI:
Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization: 2
Limit on Number of Proposals per PI or co-PI: 1
V. Proposal Preparation And Submission InstructionsA. Proposal Preparation InstructionsLetters of Intent (required): Each proposing organization must submit a Letter of Intent (LOI) through Research.gov. Full proposals may be submitted only by organizations that have submitted a LOI by the LOI due date. LOIs will be used by NSF to ensure that the appropriate expertise is available for participation in the review and selection process and to foresee potential conflicts of interest. The LOI is one page, articulating a high-level statement of the Center’s focus, a list of all senior personnel and collaborating or partnering organizations. Letter of Intent Preparation Instructions: When submitting a Letter of Intent through Research.gov in response to this Program Solicitation please note the conditions outlined below:
Full Proposal Preparation Instructions: Proposers may opt to submit proposals in response to this Program Solicitation via Research.gov or Grants.gov.
See PAPPG Chapter II.C.2 for guidance on the required sections of a full research proposal submitted to NSF. Please note that the proposal preparation instructions provided in this program solicitation may deviate from the PAPPG instructions. Collaborative proposals for either track should be submitted as a single proposal with subawards administered by the lead organization as described in Chapter II.D of the PAPPG. Separately submitted collaborative proposals are not permitted. Track I – Center Catalyst Proposals Cover Sheet. Provide a short informative title for the proposed project. To assist NSF staff in sorting proposals for review, proposal titles must include "Track I – Center Catalyst:". The amount requested should be no more than $500,000 for a duration of 2 years. Project Description. The Project Description may be up to 15 pages in total. This section should be completed according to the general guidelines detailed in the NSF PAPPG, including the requirement for a separate section labeled "Broader Impacts." In addition, it should include:
Track II – Center Operation Proposals In addition to the guidance in the PAPPG and NSF Grants.gov Application Guide, the following items should be included and/or addressed in the proposal: NSF Cover Sheet. Provide a short informative title for the proposed project. To assist NSF staff in sorting proposals for review, proposal titles must include "Track II – Center Operations:". Indicate the total amount requested for the five years of NSF support in the box entitled "requested amount." For Grants.gov users, enter the amount in block 16a of the SF424 R&R form. Project Summary. The Project Summary consists of an overview, a statement on the intellectual merit of the proposed activity, and a statement on the broader impacts of the proposed activity. Include a description of proposed activities in education and human resource development; specific details for activities to promote the participation of groups traditionally underrepresented in the sciences and outreach to both the scientific community and the general public. Limit: 1 page. Project Description. The Project Description comprises of the following sections and is limited to no more than 50 pages, regardless of the number of Major Activities described. This section should be completed according to the general guidelines detailed in the NSF PAPPG, including the requirement for a separate section labeled "Broader Impacts." Executive Summary. Provide a clear rationale for and description of the proposed Center and its potential impact. Briefly describe the institutional setting of the Center, its proposed scope and organization, activities in research and education and their integration, specific efforts to promote diversity and outreach activities to the scientific community and the general public, any shared experimental facilities, any collaborative activities with industry or other sectors, links with related major research centers on or off campus, and a concise summary of the management plan. List of Participants. List the PI, any co-PIs, and each participating senior personnel (faculty level or equivalent) by full name, and his or her institutional and departmental affiliation (Additional biographical information should be inserted in the Biographical Sketch section.) Results from Prior NSF Support. Describe achievements under prior NSF support that pertain to the present proposal. This should include both research results and the results of activities that pertain to broader impacts. Research plan and Major Activities (MAs). Describe proposed Center activities, in sufficient detail for reviewers to be able to evaluate the feasibility of the proposed work and its potential for transformative impact. The scope of the Center should be broken into high-level Major Activities, which will provide the framework for aligning the proposed scope with realistic budgets and timelines for achieving Center goals. For each proposed MA that involves a research thrust, provide a concise description of the long-term research goals and intellectual focus, and describe the planned research activities in sufficient detail to enable assessment of their scientific merit and significance. For an MA that involves workforce development, community-building, or other similar activities, the need for the activity should be clearly established, including justification for the approach, arguments for why the proposed Center is the appropriate vehicle for the activity, and the expected impacts on science and the community. In all cases, describe the role and intellectual contribution of each senior participant in the MA, and briefly outline the available or planned resources to accomplish the stated goals. The need for a center- or institute-like approach involving several investigators and the means of achieving this should be clearly established. The role of the MA in the context of the Center as a whole should be outlined, and connections between MAs making up the unit should be sufficiently articulated to justify their inclusion within the Center. Interactions with partners and other groups should be described. At the beginning of each MA section, name the senior personnel who will participate (these participating senior personnel also should be included in the overall List of Participants) and state the proposed number of postdoctoral, undergraduate student, and graduate student participants. Shared Facilities or Infrastructure to be established. Describe the shared facilities and infrastructure, including cyberinfrastructure, to be established. Also include specific plans for the development of instrumentation. Describe plans for maintaining and operating the facilities, including staffing, and plans for ensuring access to the facilities by outside participants. Distinguish clearly between existing facilities and those still to be acquired or developed. Partnerships. Describe any proposed partnerships, interactions, and collaborations with other institutions and sectors, including other federal agencies, national laboratories and industry, as appropriate. Define the goals of the collaborations and activities that would involve the partners. Describe the roles in these collaborations of any participants that have been listed as participating senior investigators. List the senior collaborating participants (Note that a statement of intent to participate is required from external collaborators as a Supplementary Document), the mechanisms planned to stimulate and facilitate knowledge transfer, and the potential long-term impact of the collaborations. Management Plan. Describe the plans for administration of the Center, including the functions of key personnel and the role of any advisory committee, executive committee, program committee, or their equivalent. Describe the procedures and criteria used to select, administer, and evaluate the Major Activities of the Center, and collaborative programs with other groups and institutions. Plans for administering shared facilities should be described in this section. Describe plans for administering the educational programs and outreach activities of the Center, as appropriate. References Cited. List only references cited in the Project Description. See PAPPG for format instructions. Please submit only the following Supplementary Documents: A one-paragraph statement (not to exceed one-half page) from each of those listed as participating senior investigators outlining how they view their role in the Center. This must be specific and not a general letter of support. Letters of Collaboration. Include only official letters of collaboration verifying specific collaborations and/or commitments of non-financial resources from participating institutions. Letters of collaboration must follow the single-sentence format: "If the proposal submitted by Dr. [insert the full name of the Principal Investigator] entitled [insert the proposal title] is selected for funding by the NSF, it is my intent to collaborate and/or commit resources as detailed in the Project Description." One-page document describing the post-doctoral mentoring plan, if funding for post-doctoral participants is included in the proposal. Data Management Plan not to exceed two pages. Please submit the following Single-Copy Documents: A List of Collaborators and Other Affiliations for the PI, any co-PIs and each participating senior investigator must be included, as described in the NSF PAPPG. Suggested Reviewers. Submit a list of individuals who might be suitable to act as impartial reviewers. Include their names, affiliations, phone numbers, e-mail addresses, and areas of expertise. PIs can also include a short list of reviewers not to include Proposals that deviate from the required elements of this solicitation (or other items listed in the PAPPG) may be returned without review. B. Budgetary InformationCost Sharing: Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited. Other Budgetary Limitations: The aggregate budget for a Track I – Center Catalyst proposal should total no more than $500,000 over two years. The annual budgets can vary in amount; a cumulative budget will be automatically generated. A detailed budget justification should document proposed expenses (see PAPPG guidelines). Track II – Center Operations awards are up to $3,000,000 per year for five years. Track II proposals should include funds in the budget for personnel to participate in oversight events (site visits or reverse site visits) in the second, fourth and fifth years of the project. Budgets: Complete NSF official budget pages for each year of support. A budget summary will be automatically generated. A summary budget justification must be included. This must follow the page limits described in the PAPPG. For Track I-Center Catalyst proposals, The aggregate two-year budget should total $500,000.The budget should include funding for Center development activities (website, strategic planning, travel for reverse site visits, etc.) in addition to research and broader impact activities. The annual budgets can vary in amount; a cumulative budget will be automatically generated. A detailed budget justification should document proposed expenses. Multi-institutional proposals should use the award-sub award proposal mechanism (see PAPPG guidelines). For Track II – Center Operations proposals, provide separate budget pages for the Center as a whole and for each participating institution. In the summary budget table, as described below, provide the overall support levels planned for each of the Major Activities of the Center (only year 1 and five-year totals are required.) This should be included as part of the budget justification narrative. This information augments but does not replace the NSF official budget page.
For each entry in the Table, include indirect costs. Column totals must equal the total budget requested from NSF for the period shown. Include major capital equipment under shared facilities. C. Due Dates
D. Research.gov/Grants.gov RequirementsFor Proposals Submitted Via Research.gov:
For Proposals Submitted Via Grants.gov:
Proposers that submitted via Research.gov may use Research.gov to verify the status of their submission to NSF. For proposers that submitted via Grants.gov, until an application has been received and validated by NSF, the Authorized Organizational Representative may check the status of an application on Grants.gov. After proposers have received an e-mail notification from NSF, Research.gov should be used to check the status of an application. VI. NSF Proposal Processing And Review ProceduresProposals received by NSF are assigned to the appropriate NSF program for acknowledgement and, if they meet NSF requirements, for review. All proposals are carefully reviewed by a scientist, engineer, or educator serving as an NSF Program Officer, and usually by three to ten other persons outside NSF either as ad hoc reviewers, panelists, or both, who are experts in the particular fields represented by the proposal. These reviewers are selected by Program Officers charged with oversight of the review process. Proposers are invited to suggest names of persons they believe are especially well qualified to review the proposal and/or persons they would prefer not review the proposal. These suggestions may serve as one source in the reviewer selection process at the Program Officer's discretion. Submission of such names, however, is optional. Care is taken to ensure that reviewers have no conflicts of interest with the proposal. In addition, Program Officers may obtain comments from site visits before recommending final action on proposals. Senior NSF staff further review recommendations for awards. A flowchart that depicts the entire NSF proposal and award process (and associated timeline) is included in PAPPG Exhibit III-1. A comprehensive description of the Foundation's merit review process is available on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/merit_review/. Proposers should also be aware of core strategies that are essential to the fulfillment of NSF's mission, as articulated in NSF 22-068"> Leading the World in Discovery and Innovation, STEM Talent Development and the Delivery of Benefits from Research - NSF Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years (FY) 2022 - 2026 . These strategies are integrated in the program planning and implementation process, of which proposal review is one part. NSF's mission is particularly well-implemented through the integration of research and education and broadening participation in NSF programs, projects, and activities. One of the strategic objectives in support of NSF's mission is to foster integration of research and education through the programs, projects, and activities it supports at academic and research institutions. These institutions must recruit, train, and prepare a diverse STEM workforce to advance the frontiers of science and participate in the U.S. technology-based economy. NSF's contribution to the national innovation ecosystem is to provide cutting-edge research under the guidance of the Nation's most creative scientists and engineers. NSF also supports development of a strong science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce by investing in building the knowledge that informs improvements in STEM teaching and learning. NSF's mission calls for the broadening of opportunities and expanding participation of groups, institutions, and geographic regions that are underrepresented in STEM disciplines, which is essential to the health and vitality of science and engineering. NSF is committed to this principle of diversity and deems it central to the programs, projects, and activities it considers and supports. A. Merit Review Principles and CriteriaThe National Science Foundation strives to invest in a robust and diverse portfolio of projects that creates new knowledge and enables breakthroughs in understanding across all areas of science and engineering research and education. To identify which projects to support, NSF relies on a merit review process that incorporates consideration of both the technical aspects of a proposed project and its potential to contribute more broadly to advancing NSF's mission "to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense; and for other purposes." NSF makes every effort to conduct a fair, competitive, transparent merit review process for the selection of projects. 1. Merit Review Principles These principles are to be given due diligence by PIs and organizations when preparing proposals and managing projects, by reviewers when reading and evaluating proposals, and by NSF program staff when determining whether or not to recommend proposals for funding and while overseeing awards. Given that NSF is the primary federal agency charged with nurturing and supporting excellence in basic research and education, the following three principles apply:
With respect to the third principle, even if assessment of Broader Impacts outcomes for particular projects is done at an aggregated level, PIs are expected to be accountable for carrying out the activities described in the funded project. Thus, individual projects should include clearly stated goals, specific descriptions of the activities that the PI intends to do, and a plan in place to document the outputs of those activities. These three merit review principles provide the basis for the merit review criteria, as well as a context within which the users of the criteria can better understand their intent. 2. Merit Review Criteria All NSF proposals are evaluated through use of the two National Science Board approved merit review criteria. In some instances, however, NSF will employ additional criteria as required to highlight the specific objectives of certain programs and activities. The two merit review criteria are listed below. Both criteria are to be given full consideration during the review and decision-making processes; each criterion is necessary but neither, by itself, is sufficient. Therefore, proposers must fully address both criteria. (PAPPG Chapter II.C.2.d(i). contains additional information for use by proposers in development of the Project Description section of the proposal). Reviewers are strongly encouraged to review the criteria, including PAPPG Chapter II.C.2.d(i), prior to the review of a proposal. When evaluating NSF proposals, reviewers will be asked to consider what the proposers want to do, why they want to do it, how they plan to do it, how they will know if they succeed, and what benefits could accrue if the project is successful. These issues apply both to the technical aspects of the proposal and the way in which the project may make broader contributions. To that end, reviewers will be asked to evaluate all proposals against two criteria:
The following elements should be considered in the review for both criteria:
Broader impacts may be accomplished through the research itself, through the activities that are directly related to specific research projects, or through activities that are supported by, but are complementary to, the project. NSF values the advancement of scientific knowledge and activities that contribute to achievement of societally relevant outcomes. Such outcomes include, but are not limited to: full participation of women, persons with disabilities, and other underrepresented groups in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM); improved STEM education and educator development at any level; increased public scientific literacy and public engagement with science and technology; improved well-being of individuals in society; development of a diverse, globally competitive STEM workforce; increased partnerships between academia, industry, and others; improved national security; increased economic competitiveness of the United States; and enhanced infrastructure for research and education. Proposers are reminded that reviewers will also be asked to review the Data Management Plan and the Postdoctoral Researcher Mentoring Plan, as appropriate. Additional Solicitation Specific Review Criteria In addition to the NSF Merit Review Criteria, reviewers of these proposals will be asked to consider the following:
B. Review and Selection ProcessProposals submitted in response to this program solicitation will be reviewed by Ad hoc Review and/or Panel Review, or Reverse Site Review. Full proposals in both tracks will be evaluated in two stages. The first utilizes ad hoc written reviews from experts in the areas of science and community engagement addressed by the proposals. The second stage involves panel review by a group of experts that span the broad range of topics covered by the full proposals. For Track II proposals, panelists will engage in a virtual site visit where PIs will be invited to present his/her vision of the PFC, details about the proposed activities in research, education, and community engagement, and any responses to the issues raised in the ad hoc reviews. The panelists will have access to the ad hoc reviews prior to the site visit. The presentation will be followed by a question-and-answer period to allow for free exchange between the PIs and the panel. Based upon all the information provided, the panel will be asked to classify the proposals from both tracks into one of three categories, Not Competitive, Competitive, and Highly Competitive. This input will then be used by the Program Directors in the Division of Earth Science to make a selection of those proposals that warrant consideration for funding through the program. Reviewers will be asked to evaluate proposals using two National Science Board approved merit review criteria and, if applicable, additional program specific criteria. A summary rating and accompanying narrative will generally be completed and submitted by each reviewer and/or panel. The Program Officer assigned to manage the proposal's review will consider the advice of reviewers and will formulate a recommendation. After scientific, technical and programmatic review and consideration of appropriate factors, the NSF Program Officer recommends to the cognizant Division Director whether the proposal should be declined or recommended for award. NSF strives to be able to tell applicants whether their proposals have been declined or recommended for funding within six months. Large or particularly complex proposals or proposals from new awardees may require additional review and processing time. The time interval begins on the deadline or target date, or receipt date, whichever is later. The interval ends when the Division Director acts upon the Program Officer's recommendation. After programmatic approval has been obtained, the proposals recommended for funding will be forwarded to the Division of Grants and Agreements or the Division of Acquisition and Cooperative Support for review of business, financial, and policy implications. After an administrative review has occurred, Grants and Agreements Officers perform the processing and issuance of a grant or other agreement. Proposers are cautioned that only a Grants and Agreements Officer may make commitments, obligations or awards on behalf of NSF or authorize the expenditure of funds. No commitment on the part of NSF should be inferred from technical or budgetary discussions with a NSF Program Officer. A Principal Investigator or organization that makes financial or personnel commitments in the absence of a grant or cooperative agreement signed by the NSF Grants and Agreements Officer does so at their own risk. Once an award or declination decision has been made, Principal Investigators are provided feedback about their proposals. In all cases, reviews are treated as confidential documents. Verbatim copies of reviews, excluding the names of the reviewers or any reviewer-identifying information, are sent to the Principal Investigator/Project Director by the Program Officer. In addition, the proposer will receive an explanation of the decision to award or decline funding. VII. Award Administration InformationA. Notification of the AwardNotification of the award is made to the submitting organization by an NSF Grants and Agreements Officer . Organizations whose proposals are declined will be advised as promptly as possible by the cognizant NSF Program administering the program. Verbatim copies of reviews, not including the identity of the reviewer, will be provided automatically to the Principal Investigator. (See Section VI.B. for additional information on the review process.) B. Award ConditionsAn NSF award consists of: (1) the award notice, which includes any special provisions applicable to the award and any numbered amendments thereto; (2) the budget, which indicates the amounts, by categories of expense, on which NSF has based its support (or otherwise communicates any specific approvals or disapprovals of proposed expenditures); (3) the proposal referenced in the award notice; (4) the applicable award conditions, such as Grant General Conditions (GC-1)*; or Research Terms and Conditions* and (5) any announcement or other NSF issuance that may be incorporated by reference in the award notice. Cooperative agreements also are administered in accordance with NSF Cooperative Agreement Financial and Administrative Terms and Conditions (CA-FATC) and the applicable Programmatic Terms and Conditions. NSF awards are electronically signed by an NSF Grants and Agreements Officer and transmitted electronically to the organization via e-mail. *These documents may be accessed electronically on NSF's Website at https://www.nsf.gov/awards/managing/award_conditions.jsp?org=NSF. Paper copies may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-8134 or by e-mail from nsfpubs@nsf.gov. More comprehensive information on NSF Award Conditions and other important information on the administration of NSF awards is contained in the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) Chapter VII, available electronically on the NSF Website at https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg. C. Reporting RequirementsFor all multi-year grants (including both standard and continuing grants), the Principal Investigator must submit an annual project report to the cognizant Program Officer no later than 90 days prior to the end of the current budget period. (Some programs or awards require submission of more frequent project reports). No later than 120 days following expiration of a grant, the PI also is required to submit a final project report, and a project outcomes report for the general public. Failure to provide the required annual or final project reports, or the project outcomes report, will delay NSF review and processing of any future funding increments as well as any pending proposals for all identified PIs and co-PIs on a given award. PIs should examine the formats of the required reports in advance to assure availability of required data. PIs are required to use NSF's electronic project-reporting system, available through Research.gov, for preparation and submission of annual and final project reports. Such reports provide information on accomplishments, project participants (individual and organizational), publications, and other specific products and impacts of the project. Submission of the report via Research.gov constitutes certification by the PI that the contents of the report are accurate and complete. The project outcomes report also must be prepared and submitted using Research.gov. This report serves as a brief summary, prepared specifically for the public, of the nature and outcomes of the project. This report will be posted on the NSF website exactly as it is submitted by the PI. More comprehensive information on NSF Reporting Requirements and other important information on the administration of NSF awards is contained in the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) Chapter VII, available electronically on the NSF Website at https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg. VIII. Agency ContactsPlease note that the program contact information is current at the time of publishing. See program website for any updates to the points of contact. General inquiries regarding this program should be made to:
For questions related to the use of FastLane or Research.gov, contact:
For questions relating to Grants.gov contact:
IX. Other InformationThe NSF website provides the most comprehensive source of information on NSF Directorates (including contact information), programs and funding opportunities. Use of this website by potential proposers is strongly encouraged. In addition, "NSF Update" is an information-delivery system designed to keep potential proposers and other interested parties apprised of new NSF funding opportunities and publications, important changes in proposal and award policies and procedures, and upcoming NSF Grants Conferences. Subscribers are informed through e-mail or the user's Web browser each time new publications are issued that match their identified interests. "NSF Update" also is available on NSF's website. Grants.gov provides an additional electronic capability to search for Federal government-wide grant opportunities. NSF funding opportunities may be accessed via this mechanism. Further information on Grants.gov may be obtained at https://www.grants.gov. About The National Science FoundationThe National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent Federal agency created by the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (42 USC 1861-75). The Act states the purpose of the NSF is "to promote the progress of science; [and] to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare by supporting research and education in all fields of science and engineering." NSF funds research and education in most fields of science and engineering. It does this through grants and cooperative agreements to more than 2,000 colleges, universities, K-12 school systems, businesses, informal science organizations and other research organizations throughout the US. The Foundation accounts for about one-fourth of Federal support to academic institutions for basic research. NSF receives approximately 55,000 proposals each year for research, education and training projects, of which approximately 11,000 are funded. In addition, the Foundation receives several thousand applications for graduate and postdoctoral fellowships. The agency operates no laboratories itself but does support National Research Centers, user facilities, certain oceanographic vessels and Arctic and Antarctic research stations. The Foundation also supports cooperative research between universities and industry, US participation in international scientific and engineering efforts, and educational activities at every academic level. Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities (FASED) provide funding for special assistance or equipment to enable persons with disabilities to work on NSF-supported projects. See the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide Chapter II.E.6 for instructions regarding preparation of these types of proposals. The National Science Foundation has Telephonic Device for the Deaf (TDD) and Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) capabilities that enable individuals with hearing impairments to communicate with the Foundation about NSF programs, employment or general information. TDD may be accessed at (703) 292-5090 and (800) 281-8749, FIRS at (800) 877-8339. The National Science Foundation Information Center may be reached at (703) 292-5111.
Privacy Act And Public Burden StatementsThe information requested on proposal forms and project reports is solicited under the authority of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended. The information on proposal forms will be used in connection with the selection of qualified proposals; and project reports submitted by awardees will be used for program evaluation and reporting within the Executive Branch and to Congress. The information requested may be disclosed to qualified reviewers and staff assistants as part of the proposal review process; to proposer institutions/grantees to provide or obtain data regarding the proposal review process, award decisions, or the administration of awards; to government contractors, experts, volunteers and researchers and educators as necessary to complete assigned work; to other government agencies or other entities needing information regarding applicants or nominees as part of a joint application review process, or in order to coordinate programs or policy; and to another Federal agency, court, or party in a court or Federal administrative proceeding if the government is a party. Information about Principal Investigators may be added to the Reviewer file and used to select potential candidates to serve as peer reviewers or advisory committee members. See System of Record Notices, NSF-50, "Principal Investigator/Proposal File and Associated Records," and NSF-51, "Reviewer/Proposal File and Associated Records.” Submission of the information is voluntary. Failure to provide full and complete information, however, may reduce the possibility of receiving an award. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OMB control number for this collection is 3145-0058. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 120 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions. Send comments regarding the burden estimate and any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to: Suzanne H. Plimpton | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
