NSF 20-543: EPSCoR Research Infrastructure Improvement Track 4: EPSCoR Research Fellows (RII Track-4)

Program Solicitation NSF 20-543

National Science Foundation Office of Integrative Activities

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

     May 12, 2020

     April 13, 2021

     Second Tuesday in April, Annually Thereafter

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.

• Jose Colom-Ustariz, telephone: (703) 292-7088, email: jcolom@nsf.gov
• Jeanne Small, telephone: (703) 292-8623, email: jsmall@nsf.gov
• Ann Stapleton, telephone: (703) 292-7231, email: astaplet@nsf.gov
• JD Swanson, telephone: (703) 292-2898, email: jswanson@nsf.gov
• Timothy M. VanReken, telephone: (703) 292-7378, email: tvanreke@nsf.gov
• Chinonye Nnakwe Whitley, telephone: (703) 292-8458, email: cwhitley@nsf.gov

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

• 47.041 --- Engineering
• 47.049 --- Mathematical and Physical Sciences
• 47.050 --- Geosciences
• 47.070 --- Computer and Information Science and Engineering
• 47.074 --- Biological Sciences
• 47.075 --- Social Behavioral and Economic Sciences
• 47.076 --- Education and Human Resources
• 47.079 --- Office of International Science and Engineering
• 47.083 --- Office of Integrative Activities (OIA)

Award Information

Anticipated Type of Award: Standard Grant

Estimated Number of Awards: 30

Anticipated Funding Amount: $8,000,000

Estimated program budget, number of awards and average award size/duration are subject to the quality of proposals and availability of funds.

Eligibility Information

Who May Submit Proposals:

Proposals may only be submitted by the following:

• EPSCoR jurisdictions that are RII-eligible for the FY 2020 RII Track-4 competition are listed in the FY 2020 RII Eligibility table, which can be found here.

  Proposals may only be submitted by organizations located in RII-eligible jurisdictions, as follows:

  • Institutions of higher education (Ph.D.-granting and non-Ph.D.-granting), acting on behalf of their faculty members, that are accredited in and have a campus in the United States, its territories or possessions. Distinct academic campuses (e.g., that award their own degrees, have independent administrative structures, admissions policies, alumni associations, etc.) within multi-campus systems qualify as separate submission-eligible institutions.
  • Not-for-profit, non-degree-granting domestic U.S. organizations, acting on behalf of their employees, that include (but are not limited to) independent museums and science centers, observatories, research laboratories, professional societies, and similar organizations that are directly associated with the Nation's research or educational activities. These organizations must have an independent, permanent administrative organization (e.g., an Office of Sponsored Projects) located in the United States, its territories or possessions, and have 501(c)(3) tax status.

Who May Serve as PI:

• PIs employed by degree-granting institutions of higher education must hold a non-tenured faculty appointment at the time of proposal submission. This may be in the form of a pre-tenure tenure-track position or a long-term non-tenure-track position.
• PIs employed by non-degree-granting organizations must hold an early-career career-track appointment where independent research is a major component of their work duties.
• PIs of proposed RII Track-4 projects must have their primary appointment with the submitting institution and have their primary work location within the relevant EPSCoR jurisdiction at the time of proposal submission.
• Only single-PI proposals will be considered. No co-PIs should be included on the proposal.
• Persons holding non-faculty research staff positions or transitional (< 3 years) fixed-term postdoctoral appointments are not eligible.
• No PI who has received an award in any previous RII Track-4 competition may submit a proposal under this solicitation.

Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization: 3

Only three RII Track-4 proposals may be submitted in response to this solicitation by any single organization in a RII-eligible jurisdiction. If more than three proposals are received from any single institution for the RII Track-4 competition, all proposals from that institution are subject to Return Without Review.

Limit on Number of Proposals per PI or Co-PI: 1

An investigator may serve as PI on only one proposal submitted in response to this solicitation.

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 Research.gov: 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:

  Given that a majority of the proposed activities are expected to take place away from the home institution, "off campus" indirect cost rates may apply.

• 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):

       May 12, 2020

       April 13, 2021

       Second Tuesday in April, Annually Thereafter

Proposal Review Information Criteria

Merit 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 Information

Award Conditions:

Standard NSF award conditions apply.

Reporting Requirements:

Standard NSF reporting requirements apply.

I. Introduction

II. Program Description

III. Award Information

IV. Eligibility Information

Who May Submit Proposals:

Proposals may only be submitted by the following:

• EPSCoR jurisdictions that are RII-eligible for the FY 2020 RII Track-4 competition are listed in the FY 2020 RII Eligibility table, which can be found here.

  Proposals may only be submitted by organizations located in RII-eligible jurisdictions, as follows:

  • Institutions of higher education (Ph.D.-granting and non-Ph.D.-granting), acting on behalf of their faculty members, that are accredited in and have a campus in the United States, its territories or possessions. Distinct academic campuses (e.g., that award their own degrees, have independent administrative structures, admissions policies, alumni associations, etc.) within multi-campus systems qualify as separate submission-eligible institutions.
  • Not-for-profit, non-degree-granting domestic U.S. organizations, acting on behalf of their employees, that include (but are not limited to) independent museums and science centers, observatories, research laboratories, professional societies, and similar organizations that are directly associated with the Nation's research or educational activities. These organizations must have an independent, permanent administrative organization (e.g., an Office of Sponsored Projects) located in the United States, its territories or possessions, and have 501(c)(3) tax status.

Who May Serve as PI:

• PIs employed by degree-granting institutions of higher education must hold a non-tenured faculty appointment at the time of proposal submission. This may be in the form of a pre-tenure tenure-track position or a long-term non-tenure-track position.
• PIs employed by non-degree-granting organizations must hold an early-career career-track appointment where independent research is a major component of their work duties.
• PIs of proposed RII Track-4 projects must have their primary appointment with the submitting institution and have their primary work location within the relevant EPSCoR jurisdiction at the time of proposal submission.
• Only single-PI proposals will be considered. No co-PIs should be included on the proposal.
• Persons holding non-faculty research staff positions or transitional (< 3 years) fixed-term postdoctoral appointments are not eligible.
• No PI who has received an award in any previous RII Track-4 competition may submit a proposal under this solicitation.

Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization: 3

Only three RII Track-4 proposals may be submitted in response to this solicitation by any single organization in a RII-eligible jurisdiction. If more than three proposals are received from any single institution for the RII Track-4 competition, all proposals from that institution are subject to Return Without Review.

Limit on Number of Proposals per PI or Co-PI: 1

An investigator may serve as PI on only one proposal submitted in response to this solicitation.

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 FastLane, Research.gov, or Grants.gov.

• 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) 292-8134 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 Research.gov: Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation should be prepared and submitted in accordance with the general guidelines contained in the NSF Proposal and Award Policies and 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) 292-8134 or by e-mail from nsfpubs@nsf.gov. The Prepare New Proposal setup will prompt you for the program solicitation number.


• 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) 292-8134 or by e-mail from nsfpubs@nsf.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.

The following instructions are specific to proposals submitted to the Research Infrastructure Improvement Program, Track 4: EPSCoR Research Fellows (RII Track-4) competition and supplement the NSF PAPPG and NSF Grants.gov Application Guide:

• The proposal section labeled Project Description may not exceed 10 pages, including text as well as any graphic or illustrative materials. Proposals that exceed the page limitations or that do not contain all items described below may be returned without review.
• Select Research as the Proposal Type on the Cover Sheet.
• Enter the host site location for the fellowship as the Primary Place of Performance on the Cover Sheet.

The RII Track-4 proposal must include the following elements:

1. NSF Cover Sheet. The project title must begin with "RII Track-4:" and follow with an informative title in the topic area. As specified above, the Proposal Type should be marked as Research, and the Primary Place of Performance should list the host institution for the fellowship visit. Note that approvals for studies involving human subjects or vertebrate animals are not required at proposal submission. However, if human subjects or vertebrate animals are expected to be involved in the proposed research, the appropriate box must be marked on the Cover Sheet, and the PI should enter "Pending" in the space provided for the approval date. These approvals must be in place before any award can be made.

2. Project Summary (1 page maximum). Provide an overview that briefly describes: the vision and goals of the fellowship project; the role of the host site and its personnel in achieving the project's vision and goals; a summary of the objectives and methods to be employed; the expected outcomes and impacts of the proposed activities; and plans for sustaining the project's impacts beyond the award period. In separate statements provide a succinct summary of the intellectual merit and broader impacts of the project. Proposals that do not contain the Project Summary, including an overview and separate statements on intellectual merit and broader impacts, will not be accepted or will be returned without review.

The Project Summary must identify the proposed host site and primary research collaborator(s). At the bottom of the Project Summary, PIs should also indicate the NSF Directorate, Division, and Program that most closely aligns with the proposal's research focus.

3. Table of Contents. The Table of Contents is automatically generated and cannot be edited.

4. Project Description (10 pages maximum). The project description is the centerpiece of the RII Track-4 proposal. This section should present the activities for the proposed fellowship in a clear, detailed, compelling way and describe how the activities will lead to long-lasting impacts to the PI's research career trajectory. In addition to the requirements contained in PAPPG Chapter II C.2.d, the project description must articulate the motivation and context for the proposed fellowship project using language understandable to a scientific audience with broad disciplinary expertise. The goals and objectives for the fellowship project should be clearly stated, and the research plan for achieving the goals and objectives should be presented in sufficient detail to allow reviewers to judge the proposal fairly. The project description should specify the expected outcomes from the fellowship, and should include a timeline for meeting the project goals and objectives. It is crucial that the project description explain clearly how the PI will specifically benefit from the unique opportunities provided by the RII Track-4 fellowship. It should also detail both the role of the host site in achieving the research goals and objectives and how the benefits to the PI's research career will be sustained beyond the award period.

The project description must include separate sections describing the fellowship project's expected Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts. The section addressing Intellectual Merit should describe the project's research-focused activities and how these activities will enhance the PI's individual research capacity beyond the duration of the fellowship period. The section addressing Broader Impacts should articulate the benefits to the PI's home institution and/or jurisdiction that are expected to derive from the fellowship project. Additional benefits that fall under NSF's Broader Impacts merit review criteria should also be discussed in this section.

Proposals must also include a section detailing the Results from Prior NSF Support; for PIs with no prior NSF support, a simple statement to that effect is sufficient.

5. References Cited. References cited in the project description should be listed in this section. See PAPPG Chapter II.C.2.e. While there is no established page limitation for the references, this section must include bibliographic citations only and must not be used to provide parenthetical information beyond the page limits of the Project Description.

6. Biographical Sketch. Include a biographical sketch for the PI according to standard NSF grant proposal guidelines. No other biographical sketches should be included with the proposal.

7. Budget Pages and Budget Justification. The budget should be consistent with and appropriate to the scope of the fellowship activities presented in the Project Description. Prepare budget pages for each year of support and a budget justification (not to exceed five pages). Because the fellowship-related travel (transportation and living expenses) represents a major component of the RII Track-4 budget, PIs should provide sufficient detailed documentation to justify the requested expenses.

8. Current and Pending Support. List the current and pending support for the PI. Include this proposal at the top of the list of current and pending support. See PAPPG Chapter II.C.2.h.

9. Facilities, Equipment, and Other Resources. The PI should provide a description of the relevant facilities, equipment, and other resources. Only the PI's resources should be described, with emphasis on those resources needed for the project's work and especially any equipment that will be transported for use at the host site. Any facilities, equipment, and other resources that belong to the host site and are needed for the project should be described in the project description and not in this section. See PAPPG Chapter II.C.2.i.

10. Supplementary Documentation (in addition to those required by the PAPPG)

• At least one Letter of Support must be included from individuals in each of the following three categories. Proposals that do not include all required letters may be Returned Without Review. Where appropriate, more than one letter may be submitted for any or all of the categories.
  • From the appropriate supervisory administrator at the PI's home institution. Typically, this will be the PI's Department Chair or Dean. The purpose of this letter is to confirm the administrator's support of the PI's plans and particularly to verify that the PI will receive whatever release time is needed from other professional duties to complete the fellowship project as proposed. This letter should also confirm the PI's employment status at the home institution as it pertains to eligibility for the RII Track-4 competition;
  • From the identified primary research collaborator(s) at the host site. This letter should confirm the collaborator's understanding of the goals of the EPSCoR fellowship and provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the PI will receive the support necessary to complete the proposed activities; and
  • From the appropriate administrative managers at the host institution. The purpose of this letter is to confirm that all necessary logistical arrangements (site access, office space, cyber connectivity) will be made for the PI's potential visit(s) to ensure that the project may proceed as proposed. In the rare cases where the PI believes that the primary research collaborator at the host site is also the appropriate administrative manager, the PI should contact the cognizant NSF Program Officer for guidance.
• Additional Letters of Support from other parties may be submitted only if they are needed to verify specific tangible commitments related to activities described in the proposal. PIs will be required to remove letters that do not meet this standard.
• A Postdoctoral Mentoring Plan is required if support is requested for a postdoctoral researcher's participation in the project.
• A Data Management Plan is also required as is the case for all NSF proposals.

11. Single-Copy Documents As required by the PAPPG, the PI must include a single-copy document detailing their collaborations and other affiliations.

B. Budgetary Information

Cost Sharing:

Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited.

Indirect Cost (F&A) Limitations:

Given that a majority of the proposed activities are expected to take place away from the home institution, "off campus" indirect cost rates may apply.

Other Budgetary Limitations:

• Funding requests should have a total duration of 24 months. Total funds requested may not exceed $300,000. Due to the other budgetary limitations detailed below, it is expected that in most cases the actual requested budgets will be substantially less than the overall $300,000 limit.
• Budgets may include up to six months of salary and fringe benefit support for the PI. Support may be for academic, calendar, or summer months. Up to six months of salary and fringe benefit support (including tuition at the home institution, if appropriate) is also allowed for one additional trainee-level participant. The six-month limit on salary and fringe benefit requests for each participant is total, not per year. In all cases the requested support is expected to closely align with the duration of the fellowship visit(s) to the host institution. NSF's Senior Personnel Salaries and Wages Policy (PAPPG Chapter II.C.2.g.i(a)) does not apply to proposals submitted under this solicitation. However, the policy may be applied to PIs' future NSF proposal submissions if they are awarded an EPSCoR Research Fellowship.
• Up to $75,000 total in travel expenses are allowed, to cover both the PI and one additional trainee-level researcher. The requested travel budget must conform to these additional requirements:
  • Up to $20,000 may be requested solely for transportation between the PI's home institution and the host site. This includes any local transportation expenses during the fellowship visit (e.g., rental vehicles). Multiple trips between the home institution and host site are allowed. Detailed justification for the requested transportation costs must be provided.
  • Up to $50,000 may be requested for living expenses for the PI and one additional trainee-level researcher during time spent at the host site. Under no circumstances may the living expense charges (Lodging, Meals, and Incidental Expenses) exceed the per diem rates set by the United States General Services Administration (GSA) for the host site location. In many cases it is anticipated that the PI will be able to identify accommodations at a cost below the GSA per diem rates during the extended fellowship visits. In all cases the PI must provide a detailed justification for the requested living expense budget.
  • Up to $5,000 may be requested for other travel related to the fellowship project.
• Up to $10,000 total in additional direct costs are allowed. These funds may be used for shipping equipment, purchasing supplies, laboratory or computational facility fees, publication charges, or other similar costs directly related to the research activities at the host site.
• Collaborators at the host institutions are not eligible to receive salary or fringe benefit support under this award. Host institutions may receive payment for accommodations provided to the PI or trainee-level participant during the fellowship visit; these expenses may include lodging, meals, and incidental expenses. Host institutions may also receive payment for services directly related to research activities during the fellowship visit; such costs must be consistent with established fee structures at the host institution and are subject to the award's overall $10,000 limit for additional direct costs. Under no circumstances may there be a subaward to the host institution.

Proposals that fail to comply with any of these budgetary limitations will be Returned Without Review if, in NSF's judgement, the budget cannot be corrected without substantially modifying the proposed scope of work.

C. Due Dates

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

       May 12, 2020

       April 13, 2021

       Second Tuesday in April, Annually Thereafter

D. FastLane/Research.gov/Grants.gov Requirements

For Proposals Submitted Via FastLane or Research.gov:

To prepare and submit a proposal via FastLane, see detailed technical instructions available at: https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/a1/newstan.htm. To prepare and submit a proposal via Research.gov, see detailed technical instructions available at: https://www.research.gov/research-portal/appmanager/base/desktop?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=research_node_display&_nodePath=/researchGov/Service/Desktop/ProposalPreparationandSubmission.html. For FastLane or Research.gov user support, call the FastLane and Research.gov Help Desk at 1-800-673-6188 or e-mail fastlane@nsf.gov or rgov@nsf.gov. The FastLane and Research.gov Help Desk answers general technical questions related to the use of the FastLane and Research.gov systems. 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: https://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 or 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 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

Reviewers for the RII Track-4 competition will also be asked to review each proposal with respect to these specific questions as they relate to intellectual merit and broader impacts:

• What evidence is presented to demonstrate that the proposed research outcomes can be achieved within the constraints of the fellowship period, with the work being performed primarily at the host site?
• How will the fellowship have a positive impact on the trajectory of the PI's research career both during the period of the award and beyond?
• How will the fellowship yield tangible benefits to the home institution and/or jurisdiction beyond the individual benefits to the PI?
• What evidence is there that the home institution and the host site are each committing the necessary resources, both scientific and administrative, to lend confidence that the fellowship project will be successful in achieving its intended outcomes?

B. Review and Selection Process

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

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) 292-8134 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 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:

• Jose Colom-Ustariz, telephone: (703) 292-7088, email: jcolom@nsf.gov
• Jeanne Small, telephone: (703) 292-8623, email: jsmall@nsf.gov
• Ann Stapleton, telephone: (703) 292-7231, email: astaplet@nsf.gov
• JD Swanson, telephone: (703) 292-2898, email: jswanson@nsf.gov
• Timothy M. VanReken, telephone: (703) 292-7378, email: tvanreke@nsf.gov
• Chinonye Nnakwe Whitley, telephone: (703) 292-8458, email: cwhitley@nsf.gov

For questions related to the use of FastLane or Research.gov, contact:

• FastLane and Research.gov Help Desk: 1-800-673-6188

  FastLane Help Desk e-mail: fastlane@nsf.gov.

  Research.gov Help Desk e-mail: rgov@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 https://www.grants.gov.

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 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
Reports Clearance Officer
Office of the General Counsel
National Science Foundation
Alexandria, VA 22314