NSF 16-514: EarthCube:

Program Solicitation NSF 16-514

National Science Foundation Directorate for Geosciences Directorate for Computer & Information Science & Engineering      Office of Advanced Cyberinfrastructure

Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. submitter's local time):

     March 24, 2016

      EarthCube Prototypes

     March 24, 2016

      EarthCube Capabilities

     March 14, 2017

      EarthCube Integration

     March 05, 2019

      EarthCube Science-Enabling Data Capabilities

Full Proposal Target Date(s):

     March 14, 2017

      EarthCube RCN

     March 14, 2019

      EarthCube RCN

Important Information And Revision Notes

Summary Of Program Requirements

General Information

Program 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.

• Eva Zanzerkia,Directorate for Geosciences, Earth Sciences Division, telephone: (703) 292-4734, email: ezanzerk@nsf.gov
• Amy Walton,Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering, Division of Advanced Cyberinfrastructure, telephone: (703) 292-4538, email: awalton@nsf.gov
• Michael Sieracki, Directorate for Geosciences, Division of Ocean Sciences, telephone: (703) 292-7585, email: msierack@nsf.gov
• Subhashree (Shree) Mishra, Directorate for Geosciences, Division of Atmospheric and Geospace Science, telephone: (703) 292-8521, email: sumishra@nsf.gov
• Colleen Strawhacker, Directorate for Geosciences, Office of Polar Programs, telephone: (703) 292-7432, email: colstraw@nsf.gov
• S. Irfan Azeem, telephone: (703) 292-4694, email: sazeem@nsf.gov
• Baris M. Uz, Directorate for Geosciences, Division of Ocean Sciences, telephone: (703) 292-4557, email: bmuz@nsf.gov
• Peter Milne, Directorate for Geosciences, Office of Polar Programs, telephone: (703) 292-4714, email: pmilne@nsf.gov

Applicable Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number(s):

• 47.050 --- Geosciences
• 47.070 --- Computer and Information Science and Engineering

Award Information

Anticipated Type of Award: Standard Grant or Continuing Grant

Estimated Number of Awards: 4 to 11

The number of awards will be determined based on the results of the merit review process and availability of funds.

Anticipated Funding Amount: $5,000,000 to $10,000,000

subject to availability of funds.

The size of awards will vary based on the scope and complexity of the funding opportunity and the projects supported under this call.

Eligibility Information

Who May Submit Proposals:

Proposals may only be submitted by the following:

• Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs) - Two- and four-year IHEs (including community colleges) accredited in, and having a campus located in the US, acting on behalf of their faculty members. Special Instructions for International Branch Campuses of US IHEs: If the proposal includes funding to be provided to an international branch campus of a US institution of higher education (including through use of subawards and consultant arrangements), the proposer must explain the benefit(s) to the project of performance at the international branch campus, and justify why the project activities cannot be performed at the US campus.
• Non-profit, non-academic organizations: Independent museums, observatories, research labs, professional societies and similar organizations in the U.S. associated with educational or research activities.
• Other Federal Agencies and Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs): Contact the appropriate program before preparing a proposal for submission.

Who May Serve as PI:

There are no restrictions or limits.

Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization:

There are no restrictions or limits.

Limit on Number of Proposals per PI or Co-PI:

There are no restrictions or limits.

Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions

A. Proposal Preparation Instructions

• Letters of Intent: Not required
• Preliminary Proposal Submission: Not required
• Full Proposals:
  • Full Proposals submitted via FastLane: NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG) guidelines apply. The complete text of the PAPPG is available electronically on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg.
  • Full Proposals submitted via Grants.gov: NSF Grants.gov Application Guide: A Guide for the Preparation and Submission of NSF Applications via Grants.gov guidelines apply (Note: The NSF Grants.gov Application Guide is available on the Grants.gov website and on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgovguide).

B. Budgetary Information

• Cost Sharing Requirements:

  Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited.

• Indirect Cost (F&A) Limitations:

  Not Applicable

• Other Budgetary Limitations:

  Other budgetary limitations apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

C. Due Dates

• Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. submitter's local time):

       March 24, 2016

        EarthCube Prototypes

       March 24, 2016

        EarthCube Capabilities

       March 14, 2017

        EarthCube Integration

       March 05, 2019

        EarthCube Science-Enabling Data Capabilities

• Full Proposal Target Date(s):

       March 14, 2017

        EarthCube RCN

       March 14, 2019

      EarthCube RCN

Proposal Review Information Criteria

Merit Review Criteria: National Science Board approved criteria. Additional merit review considerations apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

Award Administration Information

Award Conditions: Additional award conditions apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

Reporting Requirements: Standard NSF reporting requirements apply.

I. Introduction

II. Program Description

How To Use This Solicitation: As noted in the Important Information Section at the beginning of this solicitation, this document serves as an umbrella solicitation for EarthCube. Funding opportunities will be responsive to themes, requirements, and other strategic or community documents from open community activities. In the structure of this solicitation, funding opportunities will be articulated in Amendments in the Program Description.

The description, vision, and overall goals for EarthCube will not change over time. Only the Amendment Section (see below) will change. When a funding opportunity is available, the Amendment section will detail the specifications of the proposal call including (a) what types of proposals are being solicited; (b) references to the relevant community documents that guided the call and determined the focus of the funding opportunity; (c) the specific funding mechanism(s) employed; (d) proposal due dates or submission windows; (e) any special review criteria and/or reporting criteria; (f) and other specifics of the funding opportunity. As EarthCube evolves over time, new Amendments will replace old Amendments. A listing of all Amendments will be found on the EarthCube NSF Program website (https://www.nsf.gov/geo/earthcube/).

AMENDMENT VII:

This is the seventh Amendment to the EarthCube solicitation. In this solicitation, geosciences refers to the academic research communities supported by the Geosciences Directorate at NSF, and includes the domains of atmospheric and geospace sciences, ocean sciences, Earth sciences and polar sciences. Further details on the scientific topics that are supported in the geosciences can be found within descriptions of individual GEO programs (https://www.nsf.gov/funding/programs.jsp?org=GEO).

For information on EarthCube community governance, activities and directions see: (https://www.earthcube.org/info/about/earthcube-governance).

This Amendment supports two funding opportunities to advance geosciences research:

1. Science-Enabling Data Capabilities: This opportunity builds capabilities to improve geosciences data use and reuse for observational, experimental, and computational research that is interoperable with emerging standards and resources.
2. EarthCube Research Coordination Networks (RCNs): This opportunity supports the formation of RCNs closely tied to the science and data needs of core geosciences programs and domains supported by GEO.

In addition to these solicited opportunities, the EarthCube program will accept requests for supplements to support adoption of emerging EarthCube open web standards and existing cyberinfrastructure by science projects and data resources. Supplements must abide by the guidelines for supplements in the PAPPG. Prospective PIs should contact an EarthCube program director to discuss a potential supplement. The EarthCube program will accept requests for supplements of the following types:

1. Science adoption: Target broadening or enhancing existing geoscience projects to achieve new research and education outcomes through adoption of existing data and software tools (including, but not limited to, products from EarthCube projects). Possible projects include adoption of data standards to support the science goals of a project.


2. Data resource adoption: Support data facilities and data resources to adopt robust standards and/or implementation of pilot tools/activities to improve discovery, interoperability and access to data and cyberinfrastructure services. In conjunction with EarthCube/Council of Data Facilities developments, these awards would facilitate adoption of new semantic web standards and machine-readable publishing patterns, such as for the EarthCube data repository and resource registries. These awards are meant for an initial implementation of these standards and are not meant to sustain existing core functions of data facilities.

Both types of supplements must satisfy the following requirements. 1.) Integration with EarthCube. Projects must integrate with the EarthCube data and resource registries. These registries are indexed for searching by several data providers, as well as through an EarthCube interface. Funds can be used to work with EarthCube through the Technical Officer or Governance committees. 2.) Metrics, Assessment and Sustainability. Projects must address how their efforts will be sustainable after the funds are expended, and/or how tools will be made available to the broader community after the end of the award period. Integration into other efforts, such as the operation of scientific facilities, is appropriate. Products must be made publicly available, preferably using open source standards where appropriate.

Funding Opportunities

The solicited funding opportunities are described in the following way:

1. Science-Enabling Data Capabilities
   • Description of the Activity
   • Specific Requirements
   • Additional Solicitation Specific Review Criteria
   • Additional Proposal Preparation Guidelines
2. EarthCube Research Coordination Networks (RCN)
   • Description of the Activity
   • Specific Requirements
   • Additional Solicitation Specific Review Criteria
   • Additional Proposal Preparation Guidelines

(1) Science-Enabling Data Capabilities

Award Information:

Estimated Number of Awards: 3-6

Estimated Award Size and Duration:

Awards may be up to 36 months in duration. Budgets must be commensurate with the scope of the work and size of the collaboration.

Description of the Activity:

This opportunity advances the capability of geoscientists to conduct their research by improving use and reuse of observational, experimental, and computational data in a way that is interoperable with emerging open web standards and makes use of resources from EarthCube, other NSF-funded infrastructure, federal agencies, academic institutions and commercial enterprises. Projects will implement software, tools, standards and other infrastructure to improve data management, discovery and access. Tools to enable data analysis, visualization, integration, or other data manipulation, or to take research-driven tools into production for broad usage are also appropriate. Improving integration of data across geosciences domains is additionally important.

Science-Enabling Data Capabilities Projects must be driven by identified scientific needs, such as those identified in major community reports, and demonstrate close coordination with scientific community efforts and their science goals. Possible science partners for project implementations include, but are not limited to, existing scientific RCNs, community science experiments, observatories, or other geosciences community organizations. If projects engage with scientific communities through existing efforts, then they must distinguish who will be involved and how new science outcomes, or significant reduction in the time to science, will be enabled specifically by the project.

Specific Requirements:

1. Advancing geosciences research: Projects should provide clear plans for engagement with the scientific community beginning in the first year and continuing through the full duration of the project. Proposals should describe mechanisms for geoscientist engagement and must address how outreach activities will produce sustained user engagement and adoption. Identifying NSF science award numbers as targets for engagement is encouraged. Plans for dissemination of products to geoscientists beyond the core research team should be included in the proposal and be well described.


2. Reuse of existing tools/infrastructure: Projects must describe how they are using or repurposing existing cyberinfrastructure (including, but not limited to, products of prior EarthCube projects). These are implementation projects for use by the scientific community, and do not necessarily require research or innovation in cyberinfrastructure. If new tools or cyberinfrastructure are proposed, proposals must explicitly justify why existing infrastructure is not appropriate or sufficient. How new components will be integrated into existing infrastructure must be described and will be evaluated.


3. Sustainability: Proposers must include a section in their Project Description describing their plans for the sustainability of the project outcomes (data, tools, and conceptual advancements) beyond the duration of the award. Plans should specifically describe how products and outcomes would be sustained without further NSF funding to the project team beyond award completion. Project plans may acknowledge existing challenges for achieving sustainability and explore novel approaches for addressing these challenges, in line with existing resources and norms of relevant scientific communities. Plans will be evaluated on the viability of the sustainable resource, the fit to the infrastructure being developed and the likelihood of integration into a long-term system. Examples include use and dissemination of open source code, development and adoption of standards for data interoperability, and incorporation into larger cyberinfrastructure entities (including those associated with academic institutions, scientific facilities or private companies).


4. Metrics and assessment: Proposals must include usage metrics to demonstrate broad and measurable tool adoption for a variety of scientific applications. Plans are needed for clear documentation of any standards used and integration with EarthCube data and resource registries during the course of the project. Participation with EarthCube governance and activities, like the All Hands Meeting are required, and funds must be included in the budget for this participation. Coordination with the scientific community and outreach activities should also be described in the context of extending and measuring use. Where appropriate, plans for adoption of novel methods for assessing scientific impacts of the project are encouraged.

Additional Solicitation Specific Review Criteria

Proposals will be evaluated on how successfully they meet the Specific Requirements:

1. Advancing geosciences research
2. Reuse of existing tools/infrastructure
3. Sustainability
4. Metrics and assessment

Proposal Preparation Guidelines for Science-Enabling Data Capabilities: Proposals must follow these guidelines in addition to, or in replacement of, the requirements in the PAPPG as referenced in Section V.A in this solicitation.

1. Cover Page: The title of the proposed project should begin with the words, "EarthCube Data Capabilities:" Collaborative Proposals should begin "EarthCube Data Capabilities: Collaborative Proposal:"


2. Project Description: In addition to intellectual merit and broader impacts, the project description should describe how the work meets the specific requirements and any additional review criteria indicated. The Project Description must include a Management plan that describes plans and procedures for the development, assessment and sustainability of the proposed activity. The plan should include a list of all participating members of the collaboration, including non-funded participants, their institutions and roles in the project. A clear timeline of expected outcomes should be included. A Sustainability Plan section must also be included.


3. Budget: In a collaborative project, any institution with a budget of less than $100,000 must be included as a subaward in the budget of the Lead Institution's proposal, and not as a separate proposal.


4. Additional Supplementary Documents:
   1. Personnel List: Each proposal must submit a single unified participant list for the entire project. For each person known at the time of proposal submission, provide the last name, first name, and institution/organization. Undergraduate students, graduate students, and postdoctoral researchers not yet specifically identified do not need to be included in this list. Proposals lacking the list of project personnel will be returned without review.
   
   
   2. Letters of Collaboration must be provided for any organization or individuals that are mentioned in the Project Description but are not receiving funds (i.e., mentioned in the proposal and not listed in any of the associated budgets).

(2) EarthCube Research Coordination Networks (RCNs)

Award Information:

Estimated Number of Awards: 3-5

Estimated Award Size and Duration: A maximum of 36 months and a maximum of $300,000.

Proposal Submission: Proposals will be accepted after discussion with program directors and agreement that a proposal should be submitted. Proposals must list the programs and/or program directors that have agreed to the submission in a Single Copy Document. Proposals without this information will be returned without review.

EarthCube RCN proposals may be submitted after the Target Date with permission of an EarthCube Program Director. Permission must be given by email and indicate the agreed upon date of proposal submission.

Description of the Activity:

The goal of 2019 EarthCube Research Coordination Networks (RCNs) is to be closely tied to the science and cyberinfrastructure needs of core geosciences programs and domains supported by GEO. To that end, potential proposers must coordinate EarthCube RCN ideas and discuss the submission of any EarthCube RCN proposal with the relevant GEO program directors.

EarthCube RCNs provide opportunities for academic geosciences communities to organize, seek input, come to consensus and prioritize data, modeling, and technology needs, data science challenges and data standards within and across domains. Other opportunities exist to realize cyberinfrastructure development and build tools and services. Outcomes from the RCN must be tangible and directed towards moving geoscientists closer to shared goals. RCNs are an important information and feedback mechanism within the EarthCube process. Results from these projects will provide feedback for the direction of EarthCube.

EarthCube RCNs should 1) build and strengthen partnerships between geo- and cyber/computer/data scientists; 2) foster new collaborations that lead to better scientific outcomes; 3) expose participants to new ideas, methodologies, approaches, tools, and utilities; 4) reduce redundancies and duplication of effort; and 5) expose best practices and "lessons learned" in data management.

EarthCube RCNs may center around:

• The development of community standards, data citation or other community plans for data management in one or more fields of the geosciences. This will help communities address NSF requirements for data management plans in proposals.
• The articulation of common cyberinfrastructure and technology grand challenges across different geosciences disciplines, including dialog towards designing potential solutions for data integration, computation, modeling, software and/or visualization needed to meet future scientific and education goals.
• Identifying and articulating geosciences research grand challenges that are convergent with NSF Big Ideas such as Harnessing the Data Revolution, Navigating the New Arctic, and Rules of Life.

Specific Requirements:

1. Focus/Topic: EarthCube RCN proposals must be rooted in the academic geosciences community. Proposals must specify what activities will be undertaken, what groups will be involved, what products will be generated by network activities, and how information about the network and opportunities to participate will be disseminated. The proposal should also outline the expected benefits of the network's activities in moving one or more geosciences fields forward in scientific goals through cyberinfrastructure, data science or open data standards. The specific outcomes from the RCN should be described.


2. EarthCube Participation: Participation and involvement in EarthCube Governance, including meetings, events and sharing information between RCNs and other EarthCube projects is required. Funds should be allocated to support representatives in EarthCube meetings and activities. Proposals must include a section on how the network will interact with EarthCube Governance activities.


3. Steering Committee: Each RCN must have a steering committee primarily composed of academic geoscientists. Researchers with a cyber, data and/or computer science background should also have key roles within the network, and these should be described in the proposal. The Steering Committee should reflect the diversity of the network's participants, and be responsible for the network's success, but remain a manageable size. The proposal should articulate the roles of the Steering Committee members and the reasons for their selection.


4. Network Participants: The size of an RCN is expected to vary depending on the topic or issue and network needs. It is expected that a network will involve investigators at diverse organizations, including different levels of academic institutions. The inclusion of new researchers, post-docs, graduate students, and undergraduates is strongly encouraged. Proposals should clearly articulate well-developed mechanisms that will maintain openness, ensure access, and actively promote participation by interested parties. Although inclusion of federal agencies, international organizations and commercial partners is welcome, RCNs are intended to serve the needs of geoscientists in US academic institutions. NSF funding predominantly supports participation by US researchers. Any proposed international collaboration should articulate how it strengthens the project's activities. Participants from institutions outside the US are encouraged to seek support from their respective funding organizations. NSF funds may not be used to support the expenses of international scientists and students at their home institutions.


5. Outcomes: EarthCube RCNs must produce an outcome within 24-30 months. They must promote effective communication and provide opportunities for collaboration focused on actionable improvements for the academic geosciences community. Any outcomes of the RCN, including discussion forums, documents, policies and practices must be openly shared with the academic community. Proposals should detail mechanisms that will be used to serve these materials.

Additional Solicitation Specific Review Criteria

Proposals will be evaluated on how successfully they meet the Specific Requirements:

1. Focus/Topic
2. EarthCube Participation
3. Steering Committee
4. Network Participants
5. Outcomes

Proposal Preparation Guidelines for EarthCube RCNs

Proposals must follow these guidelines in addition to, or in replacement of, the requirements in the PAPPG as referenced in Section V.A. in this solicitation.

1. Cover Page: The title of the proposed project should begin with the words: "EarthCube RCN:"
2. Project Description: The Project Description should begin with a list of the Steering Committee members and their institutions. The Project Description should address aspects of management, coordination, and participant diversity within the 15-page project description.
3. Budget: In a collaborative project, any collaborative institution with a budget of less than $100,000 must be included as a subaward in the budget of the lead institution's proposal, and not as a separate proposal.
4. Single Copy Document: Proposals must submit a single copy document with a list of the programs and program directors within GEO that were contacted and have agreed to interest in this RCN.

Funds from this program may not support independent, individual research projects of the participants; nor are they to be used as a mechanism for a mini-grant awarding program. Note that funds requested to support activities of the network participants, such as participant travel, materials and supplies for the network projects, and network retreats should be listed as "participant support" in the proposed budget and managed by the submitting organization.

III. Award Information

IV. Eligibility Information

Who May Submit Proposals:

Proposals may only be submitted by the following:

• Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs) - Two- and four-year IHEs (including community colleges) accredited in, and having a campus located in the US, acting on behalf of their faculty members. Special Instructions for International Branch Campuses of US IHEs: If the proposal includes funding to be provided to an international branch campus of a US institution of higher education (including through use of subawards and consultant arrangements), the proposer must explain the benefit(s) to the project of performance at the international branch campus, and justify why the project activities cannot be performed at the US campus.
• Non-profit, non-academic organizations: Independent museums, observatories, research labs, professional societies and similar organizations in the U.S. associated with educational or research activities.
• Other Federal Agencies and Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs): Contact the appropriate program before preparing a proposal for submission.

Who May Serve as PI:

There are no restrictions or limits.

Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization:

There are no restrictions or limits.

Limit on Number of Proposals per PI or Co-PI:

There are no restrictions or limits.

Additional Eligibility Info:

Proposals involving non-NSF FFRDC or Federal agency personnel must be approved prior to submission to ensure appropriate submission parameters related to funding personnel at these institutions. PIs should contact the cognizant PO. In all cases non-NSF FFRDC or Federal agency contributors must appear in one of two ways: (1) a subaward on a proposal submitted by an academic or non-profit institution or (2) a proposal that is submitted as part of a collaborative effort lead by an academic or non-profit institution.

NSF-funded FFRDCs are exempt from the above restriction and may submit proposals without restriction.

Please be aware that if you have not received NSF funding you will be required to submit additional information before an award can be recommended. Please refer to the Prospective New Awardee Guide for information and preparation of the necessary documentation: https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pnag./p>

For-profit organizations may participate as subawardees on proposals that are led by eligible institutions. The purpose of EarthCube is to serve closely the needs of the academic geosciences community and this type of partnership ensures that close connections between for-profit efforts and academic institutions are maintained.

V. Proposal Preparation And Submission Instructions

A. Proposal Preparation Instructions

Full Proposal Preparation Instructions: Proposers may opt to submit proposals in response to this Program Solicitation via Grants.gov or via the NSF FastLane system.

• Full proposals submitted via FastLane: Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation should be prepared and submitted in accordance with the general guidelines contained in the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide(PAPPG). The complete text of the PAPPG is available electronically on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg. Paper copies of the PAPPG may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-7827 or by e-mail from nsfpubs@nsf.gov. Proposers are reminded to identify this program solicitation number in the program solicitation block on the NSF Cover Sheet For Proposal to the National Science Foundation. Compliance with this requirement is critical to determining the relevant proposal processing guidelines. Failure to submit this information may delay processing.


• Full proposals submitted via Grants.gov: Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation via Grants.gov should be prepared and submitted in accordance with the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide: A Guide for the Preparation and Submission of NSF Applications via Grants.gov. The complete text of the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide is available on the Grants.gov website and on the NSF website at: (https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgovguide). To obtain copies of the Application Guide and Application Forms Package, click on the Apply tab on the Grants.gov site, then click on the Apply Step 1: Download a Grant Application Package and Application Instructions link and enter the funding opportunity number, (the program solicitation number without the NSF prefix) and press the Download Package button. Paper copies of the Grants.gov Application Guide also may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-7827 or by e-mail from nsfpubs@nsf.gov.

In determining which method to utilize in the electronic preparation and submission of the proposal, please note the following:

Collaborative Proposals. All collaborative proposals submitted as separate submissions from multiple organizations must be submitted via the NSF FastLane system. PAPPG Chapter II.D.3 provides additional information on collaborative proposals.

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.

Proposers must follow any additional instructions provided in the Amendment.

B. Budgetary Information

Cost Sharing:

Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited.

Other Budgetary Limitations:

Limits apply. Please see program description for further information.

C. Due Dates

• Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. submitter's local time):

       March 24, 2016

        EarthCube Prototypes

       March 24, 2016

        EarthCube Capabilities

       March 14, 2017

        EarthCube Integration

       March 05, 2019

        EarthCube Science-Enabling Data Capabilities

• Full Proposal Target Date(s):

       March 14, 2017

        EarthCube RCN

       March 14, 2019

        EarthCube RCN

EarthCube RCN proposals may be submitted after the Target Date with permission of an EarthCube Program Director. Permission must be given by email and indicate the agreed upon date of proposal submission.

D. FastLane/Grants.gov Requirements

For Proposals Submitted Via FastLane:

To prepare and submit a proposal via FastLane, see detailed technical instructions available at: https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/a1/newstan.htm. For FastLane user support, call the FastLane Help Desk at 1-800-673-6188 or e-mail fastlane@nsf.gov. The FastLane Help Desk answers general technical questions related to the use of the FastLane system. Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section VIII of this funding opportunity.

For Proposals Submitted Via Grants.gov:

Before using Grants.gov for the first time, each organization must register to create an institutional profile. Once registered, the applicant's organization can then apply for any federal grant on the Grants.gov website. Comprehensive information about using Grants.gov is available on the Grants.gov Applicant Resources webpage: http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants.html. In addition, the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide (see link in Section V.A) provides instructions regarding the technical preparation of proposals via Grants.gov. For Grants.gov user support, contact the Grants.gov Contact Center at 1-800-518-4726 or by email: support@grants.gov. The Grants.gov Contact Center answers general technical questions related to the use of Grants.gov. Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section VIII of this solicitation.

Submitting the Proposal: Once all documents have been completed, the Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) must submit the application to Grants.gov and verify the desired funding opportunity and agency to which the application is submitted. The AOR must then sign and submit the application to Grants.gov. The completed application will be transferred to the NSF FastLane system for further processing.

Proposers that submitted via FastLane are strongly encouraged to use FastLane 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 Procedures

Proposals 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 Building the Future: Investing in Discovery and Innovation - NSF Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years (FY) 2018 – 2022. 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 Criteria

The 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:

• All NSF projects should be of the highest quality and have the potential to advance, if not transform, the frontiers of knowledge.
• NSF projects, in the aggregate, should contribute more broadly to achieving societal goals. These "Broader Impacts" may be accomplished through the research itself, through activities that are directly related to specific research projects, or through activities that are supported by, but are complementary to, the project. The project activities may be based on previously established and/or innovative methods and approaches, but in either case must be well justified.
• Meaningful assessment and evaluation of NSF funded projects should be based on appropriate metrics, keeping in mind the likely correlation between the effect of broader impacts and the resources provided to implement projects. If the size of the activity is limited, evaluation of that activity in isolation is not likely to be meaningful. Thus, assessing the effectiveness of these activities may best be done at a higher, more aggregated, level than the individual project.

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:

• Intellectual Merit: The Intellectual Merit criterion encompasses the potential to advance knowledge; and
• Broader Impacts: The Broader Impacts criterion encompasses the potential to benefit society and contribute to the achievement of specific, desired societal outcomes.

The following elements should be considered in the review for both criteria:

1. What is the potential for the proposed activity to
   1. Advance knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields (Intellectual Merit); and
   2. Benefit society or advance desired societal outcomes (Broader Impacts)?
2. To what extent do the proposed activities suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts?
3. Is the plan for carrying out the proposed activities well-reasoned, well-organized, and based on a sound rationale? Does the plan incorporate a mechanism to assess success?
4. How well qualified is the individual, team, or organization to conduct the proposed activities?
5. Are there adequate resources available to the PI (either at the home organization or through collaborations) to carry out the proposed activities?

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 underrepresented minorities 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

Additional Review Criteria for EarthCube funding opportunities is detailed in the Amendment in Section II.

B. Review and Selection Process

Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation will be reviewed by Ad hoc Review and/or Panel Review, or Internal NSF Review.

Specific additional review criteria will vary depending on the funding opportunity and is articulated for each funding opportunity in the Amendment section of this solicitation.

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 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 Information

A. Notification of the Award

Notification of the award is made to the submitting organization by a Grants Officer in the Division of Grants and Agreements. 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 Conditions

An 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) 292-7827 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.

Special Award Conditions:

Any Special Award Conditions will be described in the Amendment in Section II.

C. Reporting Requirements

For 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 Contacts

Please 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:

• Eva Zanzerkia, Directorate for Geosciences, Earth Sciences Division, telephone: (703) 292-4734, email: ezanzerk@nsf.gov
• Amy Walton, Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering, Division of Advanced Cyberinfrastructure, telephone: (703) 292-4538, email: awalton@nsf.gov
• Michael Sieracki, Directorate for Geosciences, Division of Ocean Sciences, telephone: (703) 292-7585, email: msierack@nsf.gov
• Subhashree (Shree) Mishra, Directorate for Geosciences, Division of Atmospheric and Geospace Science, telephone: (703) 292-8521, email: sumishra@nsf.gov
• Colleen Strawhacker, Directorate for Geosciences, Office of Polar Programs, telephone: (703) 292-7432, email: colstraw@nsf.gov
• S. Irfan Azeem, telephone: (703) 292-4694, email: sazeem@nsf.gov
• Baris M. Uz, Directorate for Geosciences, Division of Ocean Sciences, telephone: (703) 292-4557, email: bmuz@nsf.gov
• Peter Milne, Directorate for Geosciences, Office of Polar Programs, telephone: (703) 292-4714, email: pmilne@nsf.gov

For questions related to the use of FastLane, contact:

• FastLane Help Desk, telephone: 1-800-673-6188; e-mail: fastlane@nsf.gov.

For questions relating to Grants.gov contact:

• Grants.gov Contact Center: If the Authorized Organizational Representatives (AOR) has not received a confirmation message from Grants.gov within 48 hours of submission of application, please contact via telephone: 1-800-518-4726; e-mail: support@grants.gov.

IX. Other Information

The 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 http://www.grants.gov.

Related Programs:

The National Science Foundation (NSF)'s Harnessing the Data Revolution (HDR) Big Idea is a visionary, national-scale activity to enable new modes of data-driven discovery, allowing fundamentally new questions to be asked and answered in science and engineering frontiers, generating new knowledge and understanding, and accelerating discovery and innovation. The HDR vision is realized via a coordinated set of program solicitations resulting in an ecosystem of inter-related activities consisting of (1) research in foundations of data science; frameworks, algorithms, and systems for data science; and, data-driven research in science and engineering, (ii) cyberinfrastructure, and, (iii) education and workforce development—all of which are designed to amplify the intrinsically multidisciplinary nature of the data science challenge. The HDR Big Idea will establish theoretical, technical, and ethical data science frameworks, and apply them to practical problems in science and engineering, and in society more generally.

About The National Science Foundation

The 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.

The National Science Foundation promotes and advances scientific progress in the United States by competitively awarding grants and cooperative agreements for research and education in the sciences, mathematics, and engineering. To get the latest information about program deadlines, to download copies of NSF publications, and to access abstracts of awards, visit the NSF Website at https://www.nsf.gov Location: 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314 For General Information (NSF Information Center): (703) 292-5111 TDD (for the hearing-impaired): (703) 292-5090 To Order Publications or Forms:   Send an e-mail to: nsfpubs@nsf.gov or telephone: (703) 292-7827 To Locate NSF Employees: (703) 292-5111

Privacy Act And Public Burden Statements

The 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 Systems of Records, NSF-50, "Principal Investigator/Proposal File and Associated Records," 69 Federal Register 26410 (May 12, 2004), and NSF-51, "Reviewer/Proposal File and Associated Records," 69 Federal Register 26410 (May 12, 2004). 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
Reports Clearance Officer
Office of the General Counsel
National Science Foundation
Alexandria, VA 22314