NSF 09-545: Engineering Research Centers (ERC)

Program Solicitation
NSF 09-545

Replaces Document(s):
NSF 07-521

 

National Science Foundation Directorate for Engineering      Engineering Education and Centers

 

Letter of Intent Due Date(s) (required) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time):

May 15, 2009

Preliminary Proposal Due Date(s) (required) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time):

July 15, 2009

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

February 09, 2010

For Invited Non-energy Topic Full Proposals

May 05, 2010

For Invited Sustainable Energy Topic Full Proposals

Important Information And Revision Notes

Summary Of Program Requirements

General Information

Program Title: 

Synopsis of Program:

Cognizant Program Officer(s):

• Lynn Preston, Leader of the Engineering Research Centers (ERC) Program and Deputy Division Director (Centers), Division of Engineering Education and Centers (EEC), 585N, telephone: (703) 292-5358, fax: (703) 292-9051, email: lpreston@nsf.gov

• Deborah Jackson, Program Director, Engineering Research Centers, Division of Engineering Education and Centers (EEC), 585N, telephone: 703-292-7499, fax: 703-292-9051, email: djackson@nsf.gov

• Barbara Kenny, Program Director, Engineering Research Centers, Division of Engineering Education and Centers (EEC), 585, telephone: (703) 292-4667, fax: (703) 292-9051, email: bkenny@nsf.gov

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

• 47.041 --- Engineering

Award Information

Anticipated Type of Award:  Cooperative Agreement

Estimated Number of Awards:   4

Depending upon availability of funds, at least two and possibly four new ERC awards will be made.

Anticipated Funding Amount:   $13,000,000  (approximately) is expected to be available to support at least two and up to four new Gen-3 ERCs, with approximately two in the Fall of 2010 and two in FY 2011 with year one start-up budgets each of up to $3,250,000, year two budgets of up to $3,500,000, year three budgets of up to $3,750,000, and years four and five budgets of up to $4,000,000 each, pending satisfactory annual performance and availability of funding. NSF support will be augmented by academic cost sharing and financial and in-kind support provided by member firms, and for certain topic areas, these members would include state and local government agencies. Additional support from states and other sources is desired, but not required.

Eligibility Information

Organization Limit: 

Proposals may only be submitted by the following:

• Only U.S. universities with undergraduate, masters, and doctoral engineering programs with the breadth and depth appropriate to support the vision may submit proposals as the lead university. Proposals must be submitted by the lead university. Separately submitted collaborative proposals are not acceptable and will be returned without review.

  Other Organizational Requirements:

  ERC Proposals must meet all of the following organizational requirements or they will be returned without review:

  • Commitments for lead and partner university cost sharing and industrial/government agency financial support must be included in the invited full proposal but not in the preliminary proposal.
  • The number of domestic partner universities is limited to the lead university plus up to four domestic partner universities. The lead or one of the domestic partner universities must be a university that serves students predominantly underrepresented in engineering and science in the U.S. (i.e. women, African Americans, Pacific Islanders, Native Americans, Hispanic Americans, and persons with disabilities).
  • At least one but no more than three foreign universities are required to be partners in research and education and post-award their support must be provided by foreign governments or other non-NSF sources.
  • The ERC must partner with middle and high schools in pre-college education.
  • The ERC must partner with local level organizations devoted to stimulating entrepreneurship and innovation and must include a plan for the support of start-up firms to carry out translational research through the ERC's research program. These firms should not be identified in the proposal stages.

PI Limit: 

The Center Director must be a tenured faculty member in an engineering department at the lead university or may hold a joint appointment in an engineering department at the lead university. The Director's doctoral degree must be in engineering or an associated field of science; if the latter, she/he must have substantial career experience in engineering and a joint appointment in an engineering department at the lead university.

Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization: 

There is no limit on the number of proposals to be submitted by a lead university and there is no limit on the number of ERC partnerships a partner university may join. A lead university can only receive one ERC award through this solicitation.

Limit on Number of Proposals per PI: 

 A PI may be identified as Center Director on only one proposal.

Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions

A. Proposal Preparation Instructions

• Letters of Intent: Submission of Letters of Intent is required. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

• Preliminary Proposals: Submission of Preliminary Proposals is required. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

• Full Proposal Preparation Instructions: This solicitation contains information that deviates from the standard NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide, Part I: Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) proposal preparation guidelines. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

B. Budgetary Information

• Cost Sharing Requirements: Cost Sharing is Specialized. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

• 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

• Letter of Intent Due Date(s) (required) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time):

  May 15, 2009

• Preliminary Proposal Due Date(s) (required) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time):

  July 15, 2009

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

  February 09, 2010

  For Invited Non-energy Topic Full Proposals

  May 05, 2010

  For Invited Sustainable Energy Topic Full Proposals

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:   Additional reporting requirements apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

Agency Contacts

Other Information

I. Introduction

II. Program Description

III. Award Information

IV. Eligibility Information

Organization Limit: 

Proposals may only be submitted by the following:

• Only U.S. universities with undergraduate, masters, and doctoral engineering programs with the breadth and depth appropriate to support the vision may submit proposals as the lead university. Proposals must be submitted by the lead university. Separately submitted collaborative proposals are not acceptable and will be returned without review.

  Other Organizational Requirements:

  ERC Proposals must meet all of the following organizational requirements or they will be returned without review:

  • Commitments for lead and partner university cost sharing and industrial/government agency financial support must be included in the invited full proposal but not in the preliminary proposal.
  • The number of domestic partner universities is limited to the lead university plus up to four domestic partner universities. The lead or one of the domestic partner universities must be a university that serves students predominantly underrepresented in engineering and science in the U.S. (i.e. women, African Americans, Pacific Islanders, Native Americans, Hispanic Americans, and persons with disabilities).
  • At least one but no more than three foreign universities are required to be partners in research and education and post-award their support must be provided by foreign governments or other non-NSF sources.
  • The ERC must partner with middle and high schools in pre-college education.
  • The ERC must partner with local level organizations devoted to stimulating entrepreneurship and innovation and must include a plan for the support of start-up firms to carry out translational research through the ERC's research program. These firms should not be identified in the proposal stages.

PI Limit: 

The Center Director must be a tenured faculty member in an engineering department at the lead university or may hold a joint appointment in an engineering department at the lead university. The Director's doctoral degree must be in engineering or an associated field of science; if the latter, she/he must have substantial career experience in engineering and a joint appointment in an engineering department at the lead university.

Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization: 

There is no limit on the number of proposals to be submitted by a lead university and there is no limit on the number of ERC partnerships a partner university may join. A lead university can only receive one ERC award through this solicitation.

Limit on Number of Proposals per PI: 

 A PI may be identified as Center Director on only one proposal.

V. Proposal Preparation And Submission Instructions

A. Proposal Preparation Instructions

Letters of Intent(required):

A Letter of Intent (LOI) is required to facilitate the NSF review process. The letter should be submitted via FastLane no later than the LOI deadline date specified in this solicitation. The LOI allows NSF to screen the proposals with respect to eligibility requirements, to categorize the proposals, and identify conflicts-of-interest so as to prepare for the proposal review processes. Follow these steps for the LOI preparation and submission:

Submit information for your LOI through FastLane under these categories and only under these categories (note the character limits, which include spaces, as stated below):

• Project Title: The Project Title should begin with "NSF Engineering Research Center for" and follow with a short title that reflects the system focus of the proposed Center.
• Synopsis (maximum of 2,500 characters in this section): Provide brief statements of the vision and goals of the ERC, its research program including research thrust titles and goals, and its university and pre-college education, diversity, and industrial/practitioner collaboration and innovation programs, all at a sufficient level of detail to understand the proposed ERC.
• Other Comments (maximum of 2,500 characters in this section): Continue the Synopsis as needed in this section.
• Topic Area Proposed (maximum of 255 characters in this section): Indicate the topic area under which the preliminary proposal will be submitted: Complex, Coupled Physical Civil Infrastructure Systems under Stress; Energy Systems for a Sustainable Future; or Transformational Engineered Systems - Open Category Chosen by the Proposing ERC Team.
• Participants (maximum of 255 characters in this section): Identify the key ERC participants including their ERC titles/roles, and their departmental and institutional affiliations for the center director, the deputy director, the thrust leaders, the education program director, and other key faculty.
• Participants (continued, maximum of 255 characters in this section): Continuation of Participants section, if needed.
• Point of Contact for NSF Inquiries
• Project PI Information
• Submitter Information
• Senior Project Personnel: Include the names, university(ies), departments and locations (city, state, country) for senior project personnel [maximum of four official Co-PIs].
• Participating Organizations: Include university names and addresses (city, state, country) and the appropriate ERC headings (i.e. lead university) for the following partner organizations: 1) the lead university, 2) the domestic partner university(ies) (limited to the lead university plus up to three domestic partner universities), 3) the university(ies) contributing affiliated faculty, and 4) the foreign partner university(ies) (at least one but no more than three). If desired use these abbreviations for the types of partners: LU (lead university), DPU (domestic partner university), UCAF (university contributing affiliated faculty) and FPU (foreign partner university).

Letter of Intent Preparation Instructions:

When submitting a Letter of Intent through FastLane in response to this Program Solicitation please note the conditions outlined below:

• Sponsored Projects Office (SPO) Submission is not required when submitting Letters of Intent
• A Minimum of 1 and Maximum of 4 Other Senior Project Personnel are allowed
• A Minimum of 1 and Maximum of 15 Other Participating Organizations are allowed
• Topic Area Proposed is required when submitting Letters of Intent
• Participants is required when submitting Letters of Intent
• Participants (continued) is required when submitting Letters of Intent
• Submission of multiple Letters of Intent is allowed

Preliminary Proposals (required): Preliminary proposals are required and must be submitted via the NSF FastLane system.  

Follow the full proposal instructions where the differences between the preliminary and full proposals are articulated and submit through FastLane.

Full Proposal Instructions: Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation should be prepared and submitted in accordance with the guidelines specified in the NSF Grant Proposal Guide (GPG). The complete text of the GPG is available electronically on the NSF website at:
https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gpg. Paper copies of the GPG may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-PUBS (7827) or by e-mail from nsfpubs@nsf.gov. 聽

The text of the project description of the preliminary and the invited full proposals must follow the spacing, font and formatting requirements of the NSF Grant Proposal Guide (GPG). Tables and lists in the project description may be in smaller but readable type. Supplementary materials may also be in smaller but readable type. Both will include the items listed below in the order indicated. As a multi-university ERC, the preliminary proposal and any invited full proposal must be submitted as an integrated proposal by the lead university, with proposed sub awards to the other partner institutions. Separate preliminary and full proposals from each partner will not be accepted.

The required format for preliminary and invited full proposals is indicated below. Sections required in the full proposal but not in the preliminary proposal are noted. The preliminary proposal must include the information requested in brief but to be successful, there must be clear statements of goals and clear statements of how these goals will be addressed. The invited full proposal would have a fuller explication of goals and methods.

1. Cover Sheet. Select the ERC Program solicitation number from the pull down list. Where asked to identify the NSF Unit of Consideration select the Division of Engineering Education and then Engineering Research Centers Program. The proposal title should begin with "NSF Engineering Research Center for" and follow with a short title that reflects the system focus of the proposed Center. For planning purposes, October 1, 2010 should be shown as the start date. The proposed Center Director must be shown as the Principal Investigator.

2. Project Summary (limited to one page). The summary should be written in the third person (i.e. the use of the pronoun "it" not "we" to represent the ERC) and should make a compelling case for the ERC. The summary should be informative to persons working in the same or related fields and, insofar as possible, understandable to a scientifically or technically literate lay reader. Include the ERC's name, the Director's name, and the lead university's name, and the names of the domestic and foreign universities at the top of the page. Write a clear description of the ERC, stating its vision and goals, the transforming nature of the systems technology, the fundamental barriers in the way, and its impact on innovation. Under the headings Intellectual Merit and Broader Impact as relevant, provide highlights of the proposed research, capacity to address the Gen-3 university and pre-college education goals, diversity strategy, industrial collaboration, technology transfer and innovation goals and strategies. Briefly indicate the unique opportunities that the Center will provide and its cross-disciplinary composition. A preliminary proposal or invited full proposal that does not include titled sections (Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts) referencing the NSF review criteria and specific reference to how the proposal will address these criteria will be returned without review.

3. Table of Contents will be generated automatically by FastLane.

4. Project Description The project description must contain sections 4.a-4.f and is limited to 15 pages for preliminary proposals and 40 pages for full proposals, including all figures, tables, and charts. These page limits (for both preliminary and invited full proposals) are extended by the length of the Table of Academic and Other Participants, Scientific Advisory Board, and Industrial and Practitioner Members (see section V.A.(4.a)). The project description should be prepared with reference to the review criteria and the guidance provided in this and the preceding sections of this solicitation. The intellectual merit and broader impacts of the ERC must be addressed and described as an integral part of the narrative.

Each proposal that requests funding to support postdoctoral researchers must include, as a separate section within the project description's University Education Section, a description of the mentoring activities that will be provided for such individuals. Examples of such activities are provided and the mentoring plan will be evaluated during the merit review process, under the Broader Impacts and Education review criteria. Proposals that do not include a separate section on mentoring activities within the Project Description will be returned without review.

The project description will not include the normally required separate section on prior NSF support, as this information will be integrated into the discussion of the state of the art in research and education.

If invited to submit a full proposal you have up to thirty days from the date of notification of the invitation to change the configuration of your partner and affiliated universities. By that deadline please send Lynn Preston (lpreston@nsf.gov) an email with an updated (complete) ERC Participant Table.

Start the project description with the Table of Academic and other Participants, Scientific Advisory Board, and Industrial and Practitioner Members (see Section V.A.(4.a)). NSF will extend the page limits above by the number of pages taken up by this table. For example, a three-page table extends the page limit for the narrative for a preliminary proposal to 18 pages and for a full proposal to 43 pages. These page limits include other charts, figures, and tables required as a part of the narrative and others the proposers wish to include. If the Project Description section exceeds these extended page limits, the preliminary or full proposal will be returned without review.

(4.a) Table of Academic and other Participants, Scientific Advisory Board, and Industrial and Practitioner Members. The table should be inserted into an Excel spreadsheet using the format available on the ERC Program's Website
(http://www.erc-assoc.org).

The table will list 1) the academic and other partners carrying out the research, education, innovation/technology transfer functions of the ERC, 2) nominated and committed members of its Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) for the preliminary proposal and invited full proposal, and 3) the firms and agencies and individuals contacted to be partners in the preliminary proposal and committed to be partners in the full proposal. NSF will use this table to determine whether potential reviewers have conflicts-of-interest and as a reference for the staffing and industrial participation in the proposed ERC. Insert the table at the beginning of the Project Description.

In addition to inclusion in the proposal submission, the proposer must send the following two documents via email. After receipt of the proposal number from FastLane, send an email to ercintent@nsf.gov. Do not submit these two documents separately through FastLane. The subject heading of the email should note the proposal number, the PI's name, and the lead university. Attach the following documents to the email:

1. Table of Academic and other Participants (see above).

2. Power Point Slides: one slide summarizing the vision of the ERC and another showing the ERC's three-plane strategic planning chart. On each slide indicate the proposal number, the PI's name, the name of the ERC, and the lead university's name. A sample can be found on the ERC Program's Website (http://www.erc-assoc.org). These documents will be used during the review process. Remember to email these documents to ercintent@nsf.gov; do not submit the slides through FastLane.

The following sections should be prepared with reference to the guidance in Section II above and the review criteria.

(4.b) Vision and Rationale for the ERC. State the vision of the ERC, justify why it is transformational, position the proposed ERC in the state of the art, and provide a rationale for value added by the creation of the ERC in research, innovation, and education.

(4.c) Strategic Research Plan and Research Program. Given the ERC's engineered system vision and strategy for innovation, present the ERC's strategic research plan, including its deliverables, the major fundamental and technological barriers in the way of achieving them, and the major research goals. Provide a graphical depiction of the strategic plan using the ERC Program's 3-Plane Strategic Planning Chart. Describe how the ERC's research program will be structured into thrusts or groups of projects and the role of small firms, testbeds, and partnerships with entities designed to speed innovation in achieving the vision. Provide a milestone chart or "road map" depicting the timing of the key research topics and their interdependencies, the test beds, and deliverables of the ERC over a ten-year period, with greater detail for years one through five.

For each thrust area, provide the following information as a minimum. At the start of each thrust's narrative, provide a small table listing the thrust leader and other faculty participants by name, their departments, and institutions. Discuss the goals and objectives of the thrust vis-a-vis the goals of the ERC. Position the research proposed for the thrust in the state of the art and discuss its role in the ERC's three-plane strategic plan. Provide information on projected fundamental knowledge and technology deliverables, and the specific fundamental knowledge and other barriers the thrust will address in the context of the ERC's strategic plan. Provide specific examples of key research projects in sufficient detail for the reviewers to judge how the work will be done and methodologies to be used. Discuss the integration of projects within the thrust and the interdependencies among the thrusts. Discuss the cross-disciplinary mix needed to achieve the thrust's goals. Discuss when and how small firms will be involved in translational research to speed innovation.

(4.d) University and Pre-college Education Programs. Given the guidance in Section II, University Education, provide the ERC's hypothesis of the desired characteristics of a creative and innovative engineer, capable of success in a global economy; the strategy to achieve these characteristics; and the implementation and assessment plans to determine progress and impact. The educational program should encompass all the partner academic institutions and should take advantage of available cyberinfrastructure for cross-institution educational impact.

Given the guidance in Section II, Pre-college Education, describe the ERC's pre-college education program goals, its strategy, its metrics for success and its assessment plan. Discuss the following: the role of the ERC's faculty and students and the pre-college institutions administrators, teachers, and students in the program; how the students and postdoctoral researchers will be mentored (discuss in separate statements); and how the university faculty and students will be rewarded for their educational/mentoring efforts by the university administrations involved.

(4.e) Industrial/Practitioner Collaboration and Innovation. Given the guidance in Section II, provide the ERC's goals and strategies to address these challenges. For the preliminary and invited full proposals, discuss the general terms of the ERC's membership agreement and intellectual property (IP) policy. The completed membership agreement and IP policy are not required.

Preliminary and invited full proposals must include letter(s) from partner organizations or programs, etc. devoted to entrepreneurship, nurturing start-up firms to speed innovation, etc. If a state or local government agency is committed to providing support to the ERC to enhance its impact on local economic development, a letter of commitment must also be included. These letters are to be uploaded into the supplementary documents section of the proposal.

Preliminary proposals also may include up to ten letters from firms and/or other organizations that involve practitioners (such as state and local infrastructure agencies) that are committed to membership in the ERC's Industrial/Practitioner Partnership if an award is made. Full proposals will include letters from all firms/organizations committed to partnership. These letters should be uploaded into the supplementary documents section of the proposal. Do not include letters from those only interested in partnership in either the preliminary proposal or the invited full proposal.

(4.f) Infrastructure.

Institutional Configuration, Team, Diversity, and Administration Partnership

Justify the institutional configuration given the vision. Discuss the value added by each domestic and foreign university partner in research, education, and innovation. Discuss the role of the ERC in the strategic plans of the lead and partner institutions and how the ERC will be supported and sustained by the lead and partner universities. Discuss how the partnership with a foreign university(ies) will be administered.

Discuss the composition and roles of the leadership team, including the Director, Deputy Director, Research Thrust Leaders, University Education and Pre-college Education Program Directors, Industrial Collaboration and Innovation Director, Administrative Director, and Student Leadership Council. Provide summary information in the form of a pie chart indicating the disciplinary composition of the faculty team, based on their departmental affiliations or degrees, as appropriate for each person.

Provide the ERC's 10-year diversity strategic plan, including goals, non-quantitative milestones, and intended actions for success in building diverse leadership, faculty, graduate and undergraduate student teams and diverse cadres of ERC graduates. Plans may not include quantitative targets; however, upon award, annual reports will include quantitative information on impacts benchmarked against engineering-wide averages.

NSF is committed to providing equal opportunities for participation in its programs and promoting the full use of the Nation's research and engineering resources. To aid in meeting these objectives, NSF requests information on the gender, race, ethnicity and disability status of individuals named as PIs/co-PIs on proposals and awards. For proposals submitted to this solicitation we are also requesting information on the current diversity of the ERC's leadership team and faculty. Provide a table of the current diversity of the leadership team and faculty (U.S. citizens and permanent residents only) for the proposed ERC using the following sample format. Submission of the information on this table by individuals or university(ies) is voluntary and is not a condition of receiving an award.

ERC Name	Male	Female	African American	Native American, Pacific Islander	Hispanic American	Persons with Disabilities
Leadership Team	.	.	.	.	.	.
Faculty Total	.	.	.	.	.	.
Total	.	.	.	.	.	.

The data provided in this table may reflect the reportable diversity of the leadership team and faculty who have been identified to participate in the ERC during years one through five from the lead and the university-level domestic partner institutions. These data may include the number of men and the number of women (U.S. citizens and permanent residents) and the number of U.S. citizens or permanent residents who are members of racial groups underrepresented in engineering and science (African American, Pacific Islander, Native American, Alaskan Native), ethnic groups underrepresented in engineering and science (Hispanic American), and persons with disabilities who are involved in the ERC's research and curriculum development efforts. Since it is not clear at the proposal stage which students will be involved, please do not include students. Do not include non-tenure-track faculty, research staff, post-doctoral students, technicians, or office staff. Do not include pre-college teachers or students. A person who is both a faculty member and a member of the leadership team should be counted only on the leadership team.

Discuss the commitment of the partner institutions to the goals of the proposed ERC and how they will assure their policies and practices support the center in achieving its goals. Include a discussion of tenure and mentoring policies per guidance in II.B.8.e.

Organizational Structure and Management System

Describe the proposed organizational structure including information on how the members from participating universities and pre-college institutions will be developed into an integrated team. Include an organization chart for the ERC. Discuss the roles of the Council of Deans in coordinating the partner institutions, the lead university policy boards, the Student Leadership Council, the Scientific Advisory Board and the Industrial/Practitioner Advisory Board. Describe how projects will be selected and evaluated and who will be responsible for integration of projects to achieve the ERC's deliverables.

Financial Support and Functional Allocation of Resources

1. Functional Budget Table (for invited full proposals only):

Insert into this section of the full proposal a functional budget table, showing only the proportional distribution of effort across the functions of the ERC without showing the support levels from any sources. The reviewers are not allowed to access information regarding university cost sharing. A template of the table can be found at (http://www.erc-assoc.org).

2. Committed Industrial and Other Non-NSF, Non-Academic Support (for invited full proposals only):

In addition, the proposal should include information regarding the expected levels of support for the first year from committed member firms and any commitment from state and/or local governments for cash and/or in-kind support. A template of the table can be found at (http://www.erc-assoc.org).

Headquarters and Equipment Infrastructure

Briefly discuss the laboratories, shared facilities and equipment for the ERC, referring the reader to the required section on Facilities and Equipment in the FastLane proposal template for more detail. Discuss those that will be shared by members of the ERC team. Distinguish between equipment and facilities that are already available and any that will be acquired by the Center. Invited full proposals only will include a description of headquarters space, its size, and functionality. Note, the headquarters space must be located on the campus of the lead academic institution. Discuss how the facilities and equipment of the ERC and the Cyberinfrastructure will be used to form a collaborative team with shared resources and information.

5. References Cited. Section not to exceed five pages.

6. Biographical Sketches (two-page limit per person). The basic GPG guidelines for preparation of biographical material apply. Biographical sketches are required of all the key participants (e.g., the Center Director, Deputy Director, the University Education Director the Pre-College Education Director (if known), Industrial Collaboration and Innovation Director (if known), the Research Thrust Leaders, the Administrative Director (if known), if known, and other faculty expected to receive more than $80,000 in year one from the ERC. For faculty, publications listed should be highly relevant to the proposal.

7. Budgetary Information. The preliminary and invited full proposals will include a budget for each of the five years proposed. FastLane will automatically provide a cumulative budget. Preliminary proposals should not include any subcontracts, however enter the anticipated total level of subcontract support on line G5, Subawards and provide a budget justification or the planned levels for subcontracts to the partners. Full proposals require the inclusion of separate budgets for subcontracts for the partner institutions at any level.

In the budget justification section of the preliminary and invited full proposals, provide a pie chart or a table showing the planned distribution among the lead and domestic partner universities of the requested NSF funds as proposed for year one. Also show the total expected to be distributed to any or all universities contributing affiliated faculty.

Cost sharing is specialized. Please see Section V.B. for additional information.

8. Current and Pending Support. Include only for the Director, Deputy Director, and Research Thrust Leaders, and other faculty expected to receive more than $80,000 in year 1 from the ERC.

9. Facilities, Equipment, Resources, and Headquarters. Refer to the GPG for allowable content.

10. Reviewer Information. Use FastLane to enter a "List of Suggested Reviewers," if desired. 

11. Supplementary Documents. The following items must be provided as supplemental documents.

Letters of Commitment:

At the preliminary proposal stage submit the following letters of commitment: 1) letters from senior university administrators (Dean of Engineering and higher-level university officials) for the lead university attesting to the institutional commitment to the goals of the ERC and that the lead and/or one of the domestic partner universities is a university that serves students predominantly underrepresented in engineering and science in the U.S. (i.e. women, African Americans, Pacific Islanders, Native Americans, Hispanic Americans, and persons with disabilities). The letters should not mention cost sharing, as that information cannot be revealed to reviewers, or a commitment to headquarters space at the preliminary proposal stage as that is not required; 2) letters from senior university administrators (Deans of Engineering and higher-level university officials) for the partner universities attesting to the institutional commitment to the goals of the ERC; 3) letters from the administrators of proposed innovation partners and proposed pre-college partners committing to their roles in the ERC; 4) up to ten letters from firms or agencies committed to membership; 5) letters from any participating federal laboratories indicating their financial support for their staff participating in the ERC; 6) letters from state or local government agencies committed to providing support to the ERC to enhance its impact on local economic development and/or as members; 7) letters of commitment from the foreign university administrator(s) regarding their participation and eventual financial support. Funds from the foreign university partners, and/or other non-NSF sources, do not have to be in place at the proposal stage, rather they will be provided during year one, if an award is made. No letters are required from the universities providing affiliated faculty.

The same letters submitted with the preliminary proposal for items 2) through 7) may be used for the invited full proposal as long as the letters use the generic term “proposal” (not “preliminary proposal”).

At the invited full proposal stage submit the following letters of commitment: 1) letters from senior university administrators (Dean of Engineering and higher-level university officials) for the lead university attesting to the institutional commitment to the goals of the ERC; that the lead and/or one of the domestic partner universities is a university that serves students predominantly underrepresented in engineering and science in the U.S. (i.e. women, African Americans, Pacific Islanders, Native Americans, Hispanic Americans, and persons with disabilities); and the commitment to headquarters of sufficient space and resources to support the leadership, management, and collaboration functions of the ERC. The headquarters space must be located on the campus of the lead university. The letters should not mention cost sharing as that information cannot be revealed to reviewers; 2) letters from senior university administrators (Deans of Engineering and higher-level university officials) for the partner universities attesting to the institutional commitment to the goals of the ERC 3) letters from the administrators of proposed innovation partners and proposed pre-college partners committed to their roles in the ERC; 4) letters from all firms or agencies committed to membership; 5) letters from participating federal laboratories indicating their financial support for their staff participating in the ERC; 6) letters from state or local government agencies committed to providing support to the ERC to enhance its impact on local economic development and/or members; 7) letters of commitment from the foreign university administrators regarding their participation and eventual financial support. Funds from the foreign university partner(s), and/or other non-NSF sources, do not have to be in place at the proposal stage, rather they will be provided during year one, if an award is made. No letters are required from the universities providing affiliated faculty.

The letters as they appear in the proposal should be addressed to Ms. Lynn Preston, Leader of the ERC Program, Division of Engineering Education and Centers, Suite 585, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. All letters must be placed in the Supplementary Documents section of the FastLane proposal and submitted electronically, as part of the proposal.  Please instruct the authors of these letters not to mail, email, or fax copies to the NSF.

SUMMARY OF REQUIREMENTS

Topic	Preliminary proposal	Invited Full proposal
Proposal Requirements:
Commitment of academic and industrial funds	No	Yes
Commitment from foreign partner university(ies)	Yes	Yes
Identification of participating faculty members from the lead and university-level partner institutions	Years 1-5	Years 1-5
Names of participating pre-college institutions	Yes	Yes
Names of pre-college teachers	No	No
Name of participating innovation partner(s), i.e. program devoted to entrepreneurship, stimulating innovation, etc.	Yes	Yes
Names and affiliations of industry/agency or practitioner organization personnel committed to partnership in the ERC	Yes	Yes
Submission Requirements:
Table of Participants in NSF's Excel spreadsheet and 2 PowerPoint slides on vision and strategic plan emailed to ercintent@nsf.gov	Yes	Yes
Letter of Intent (LOI) submitted through FastLane	Yes	No
Mode of submission of proposal	Submission in FastLane	Submission in FastLane, only by Invitation
Format:
Information about PI	Yes	Yes
NSF Cover Sheet	Yes	Yes
FastLane Submission of Cover Sheet	FastLane only	FastLane only
Table of Contents	Automatic	Automatic
Project Summary with reference to Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts	Yes	Yes
Table of Participants/Partners, at the start of the project description	Yes	Yes
Project Description	15 pages, including charts, etc., but extended by the size of the Table of Participants/Partners	40 pages, including charts, etc., but extended by the size of the Table of Participants/Partners
Letters of Commitment:
Letters from lead and domestic and foreign partner universities committing to ERC	Yes	Yes
Letter from lead university committing to HQ space	No	Yes
Letters of commitment to membership from industry/practitioners	Up to 10	All
Letters of Commitment to partnership from pre-college partners	Yes	Yes
Letters of Commitment from any state or local government providing non-member financial support to the ERC	No	Yes
Letters of Commitment to partnership from innovation partners	Yes	Yes
Budgetary Information:
Separate budgets for years 1-5	Yes, but no subaward budgets	Yes with subaward budgets
Cumulative budget for years 1-5	Generated by FastLane	Generated by FastLane
Allocation of Funds by Institution (Year 1 only) and functional budget	No	Yes, but place in the single copy documents section
Justification for Secretarial & Admin. Support	No	Yes

Proposers are reminded to identify the program solicitation number (NSF 09-545) 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.

B. Budgetary Information

Cost Sharing:   The proposed cost sharing must be shown on Line M on the proposal budget. Documentation of the availability of cost sharing must be included in the proposal. Only items which would be allowable under the applicable cost principles, if charged to the project, may be included as the awardee's contribution to cost sharing. Contributions may be made from any non-Federal source, including non-Federal grants or contracts, and may be cash or in-kind (see OMB Circular A-110, Section 23). It should be noted that contributions counted as cost-sharing toward projects of another Federal agency may not be counted towards meeting the specific cost-sharing requirements of the NSF award. All cost-sharing amounts are subject to audit. Failure to provide the level of cost-sharing reflected in the approved award budget may result in termination of the NSF award, disallowance of award costs and/or refund of award funds to NSF.

Cost Sharing Requirements: Academic cost sharing is required to support and sustain the ERC. The lead university is responsible for securing, retaining, managing, and certifying and delivering to NSF the ERC’s cost sharing (cash and in-kind), at the level stated in the cooperative agreement if an award is made. The total level of cost sharing will be the responsibility of the lead university but can also include contributions by any or all of the partner universities. The actual amount will be calculated based on the formula described below. The formula reflects institution type and the level of funding proposed. Cost sharing is not required or expected of the institutions solely contributing affiliated faculty.

Cost sharing is not a review criterion but is an eligibility criterion for the invited full proposal. The provision and quality (space, size, and functionality) of headquarters space is an eligibility criterion and a review criterion for the invited full proposals. The proposed cost sharing must be shown on Line M on the proposal budget (for the invited full proposal budget). (Line M is masked from reviewers during the review process.) Documentation of the availability of cost sharing must be included in the invited full proposal (see below for information on submitting the proposed cost sharing information). Only items which would be allowable under the applicable cost principles and administrative requirements if charged to the project may be included as the awardee's contribution to cost sharing.

It is understood that the availability of financial resources may present significant challenges to commit to cost sharing in an ERC for some smaller universities and colleges and universities that do not have high research activity. Therefore, the ERC cost sharing requirements are graduated and vary by the basic classification categories of universities and colleges as defined in the “Carnegie Foundation’s Classification of Institutions of Higher Education.” The classification categories and ERC cost sharing requirements are as follows:

• RU/VH: Research Universities (very high research activity) – required cost sharing level is 20% of the allocation of the NSF budget to the lead or partner university;
• RU/H: Research Universities (high research activity) – required cost sharing level is 15% of the allocation of the NSF budget to the lead or partner university;
• DRU: Doctoral/Research Universities – cost sharing level is 10% of the allocation of the NSF budget to that partner university;
• Master's L: Master's Colleges and Universities (larger programs) – cost sharing level is 10% of the allocation of the NSF budget to that partner university/college;
• Bac/Diverse: Baccalaureate Colleges--Diverse Fields – cost sharing level is 5% of the allocation of the NSF budget to that partner college.

If the university is classified in more than one Carnegie category, it must cost share at the highest cost sharing category as described above. In addition, the Carnegie classification that is to be used is the classification in place at the LOI submission deadline and will remain throughout the duration of the competition and a subsequent award.

Source: http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/classifications/index.asp

In order for NSF to determine that the proposed ERC meets the cost sharing requirements, the cost sharing commitment of the ERC must be documented and the details presented in a table of committed support.

For invited full proposals only: Provide a table of committed cash and in-kind support by the lead university and any partner university providing cash and in-kind support for years 1-5. In the text, indicate the nature of the in-kind support. The table should be inserted into an Excel spreadsheet using the template available on the ERC Program's Website at http://www.erc-assoc.org. This table and any text explanations should be uploaded into the single-copy documents section of the full proposal submission in FastLane.

Other Budgetary Limitations:  

See Section V.A. for additional information.

Budget Preparation Instructions:  See Section V.A. for additional information.

C. Due Dates

• Letter of Intent Due Date(s) (required) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time):

  May 15, 2009

• Preliminary Proposal Due Date(s) (required) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time):

  July 15, 2009

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

  February 09, 2010

  For Invited Non-energy Topic Full Proposals

  May 05, 2010

  For Invited Sustainable Energy Topic Full Proposals

D. FastLane Requirements

Proposers are required to prepare and submit all proposals for this program solicitation through use of the NSF FastLane system. Detailed instructions regarding the technical aspects of proposal preparation and submission via FastLane are available at: http://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.

Submission of Electronically Signed Cover Sheets. The Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) must electronically sign the proposal Cover Sheet to submit the required proposal certifications (see Chapter II, Section C of the Grant Proposal Guide for a listing of the certifications). The AOR must provide the required electronic certifications within five working days following the electronic submission of the proposal. Further instructions regarding this process are available on the FastLane Website at:
https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/fastlane.jsp.

VI. NSF Proposal Processing And Review Procedures   

Proposals received by NSF are assigned to the appropriate NSF program where they will be reviewed if they meet NSF proposal preparation requirements. 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 who are experts in the particular fields represented by the proposal. These reviewers are selected by Program Officers charged with the 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.

A. NSF Merit Review Criteria

All NSF proposals are evaluated through use of the two National Science Board (NSB)-approved merit review criteria: intellectual merit and the broader impacts of the proposed effort. In some instances, however, NSF will employ additional criteria as required to highlight the specific objectives of certain programs and activities.

The two NSB-approved merit review criteria are listed below. The criteria include considerations that help define them. These considerations are suggestions and not all will apply to any given proposal. While proposers must address both merit review criteria, reviewers will be asked to address only those considerations that are relevant to the proposal being considered and for which the reviewer is qualified to make judgements.

What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity?
How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields? How well qualified is the proposer (individual or team) to conduct the project? (If appropriate, the reviewer will comment on the quality of the prior work.) To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts? How well conceived and organized is the proposed activity? Is there sufficient access to resources?

What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity?
How well does the activity advance discovery and understanding while promoting teaching, training, and learning? How well does the proposed activity broaden the participation of underrepresented groups (e.g., gender, ethnicity, disability, geographic, etc.)? To what extent will it enhance the infrastructure for research and education, such as facilities, instrumentation, networks, and partnerships? Will the results be disseminated broadly to enhance scientific and technological understanding? What may be the benefits of the proposed activity to society?

NSF staff also will give careful consideration to the following in making funding decisions:

Integrating Diversity into NSF Programs, Projects, and Activities
Broadening opportunities and enabling the participation of all citizens -- women and men, underrepresented minorities, and persons with disabilities -- 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.

Additional Review Criteria:

Additional review criteria for preliminary proposals and invited full proposals are as follows:

Vision and Research-

• Proposal effectively defines a transformational engineered system at the cusp of emerging discoveries in science and engineering and emerging opportunities for technological innovation;
• Proposal defines a culture of discovery and innovation with a symbiotic relationship between research, education, innovation, and life-long skill development in a global economy to stimulate innovation and provide students and faculty with a globally-oriented research and education experience;
• Research strategic plan targets critical systems goals that motivate breakthrough fundamental knowledge and technology barriers and defines:
  • High quality cross-disciplinary research program that addresses these barriers through fundamental research and enabling and systems level research and proof-of-concept testbeds;
  • Significant involvement of undergraduate ERC students in research through the academic year and for other students through a Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) experience;
  • Creative and appropriately timed role for small firms/other organizations to carry out translational research within the ERC to speed technology transfer and provide students with an innovation experience;
• Research thrusts propose significant goals, target significant fundamental and technical barriers, use high quality research methodologies that will advance the state of the art, integrate knowledge from other projects and thrusts, and involve a diverse team with the skills and disciplines needed to achieve the goals.

Education-

• University education strategy defines an education program that is based on a convincing hypothesis of how to develop graduates who are adaptive, creative innovators with the capacity to advance fundamental knowledge and exploit it to create innovations in a globally connected, innovation-driven world;
• Strategic Plan specifies desired characteristics, proposes how the education program will impart these to students, and how it will measure and assess progress and impacts through longitudinal data;
• Effective plans proposed to integrate ERC's cross-disciplinary and systems research into courseware and curricula;
• Pre-college education program will develop an effective long-term partnership with a few pre-college institutions (middle and high schools) nearby each domestic partner university to:
  • bring knowledge of engineering to the pre-college classroom through a Research Experiences for Teachers (RET) Program;
  • engage a broadly diverse group of students in the ERC's programs to motivate them to study engineering; and
  • provide a Young Scholars research program for promising high schools students;
• Effective programs and assessment tools for college and pre-college programs based on best practices;
• Effective plans for mentoring students, postdoctoral researchers and pre-college teachers.

  Industrial/Practitioner Membership Innovation Program-

  • Convincing rationale for the selection of industrial or user members and means to engage these partners in planning, research, education, and innovation;
  • Clear strategy for how small firms will be key players and help speed innovation;
  • Strong partnership with state, local or other organizations and programs dedicated to speeding innovation;
  • Representative group of firms/organizations involving practitioners as appropriate to the vision (state infrastructure agencies, for example) committed to membership;
  • Active engagement of industry/practitioner organizations through an Industrial/Practitioner Advisory Board;
  • Proposed terms of the industrial membership agreement and intellectual property policy will structure a Center-wide program of industrial/practitioner collaboration to support overall ERC goals;
  • A Center-wide intellectual property policy will facilitate collaboration with industry through shared rights for joint work and speed technology transfer.

  Infrastructure-

  • Institutional configuration is appropriate to the goals of the ERC and a convincing strategy for cross-institution collaboration in research, education, and innovation;
  • Foreign university(ies) partner is committed to the goals of the ERC and will add value in research and education;
  • Diversity strategic plan evidences strong commitment to diversity at all levels and will result in a very diverse team with a strong impact on the diversity of the engineering workforce through:
    • Including partner institutions serving students underrepresented in engineering and science to enhance diversity;
    • Leadership, faculty and student teams that are diverse in gender, race, and ethnicity, and includes persons with disabilities;
  • University administrators from the lead and partner institutions will join in partnership with the ERC to facilitate its cross-disciplinary configuration and industrial membership and IP policies that recognize shared rights for joint work, reward cross-disciplinary research and mentoring, and support its educational strategy, and deliver on its diversity goals;
  • ERC has high quality expertise in all disciplines required to attain its goals, a capable leader and leadership team;
  • Organizational structure and management plan effectively organize and integrate the resources of the ERC across the partner institutions to achieve its goals and include strong advisory and project selection/evaluation systems;
  • Experimental, computational, and other required equipment, facilities, and laboratory space are in place or proposed to support the research of the center;
  • The cyberinfrastructure is effectively used to achieve collaboration and sharing of information.

  For invited full proposals only-

  • Headquarters space, which must be located on the campus of the lead university, is sufficiently large to house the leaders and staff, and support the management, communication, and cross-disciplinary collaboration functions of the ERC and cross-institution communications equipment will effectively encourage and facilitate collaboration;
  • Level of committed industrial/practitioner support represents a commitment commensurate with typical levels of support for academic research in the fields involved in the ERC.

B. Review and Selection Process

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

Please see "Additional Review Criteria" for further information

Reviewers will be asked to formulate a recommendation to either support or decline each proposal. 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 is striving to be able to tell applicants whether their proposals have been declined or recommended for funding within six months. The time interval begins on the deadline or target date, or receipt date, whichever is later.  The interval ends when the Division Director accepts the Program Officer's recommendation.

A summary rating and accompanying narrative will be completed and submitted by each reviewer. In all cases, reviews are treated as confidential documents. Verbatim copies of reviews, excluding the names of the reviewers, 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.

In all cases, 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 and 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.

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 letter, 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 letter; (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 letter. 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 Award & Administration Guide (AAG) Chapter II, available electronically on the NSF Website at
https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=aag.

Special Award Conditions: 

Key Personnel:

Any contemplated changes in Key Personnel should be discussed with the NSF Program Officer.  Written approval from the NSF Program Officer must be secured before any change is implemented.  Any anticipated change in the person serving as the Center Director or the Deputy Director to be effective within the next performance year must be disclosed in the ERC's annual report, and a succession plan must be provided in the report.

Subawards:

NSF recognizes that, during the performance of this project, it may be necessary for the Awardee to establish subcontracts and subaward agreements with other organizations. Excluding contractual arrangements for commercially available supplies, materials, equipment, or support services, all subcontracts or other agreements under this award involving substantive effort are subject to the approval of the NSF Grants and Agreements Officer. For purposes of this agreement, a subcontract or subaward valued in excess of $100,000 shall be considered substantive effort.

If an approved subaward is over $100,000 and the amount allocated to the subawardee increases or decreases significantly (20 percent or more), a revised subaward budget and budget explanation must be submitted to the cognizant NSF program officer. This budget should be submitted via email to the program officer.  If approved, the subaward change will be acknowledged by an amendment to the Cooperative Agreement.  If approval is not granted, the Program Officer will notify the awardee via email.

Termination:

In the case of inadequate performance of the lead university or at the core partner universities, the National Science Foundation reserves the right to recommend termination of, respectively, the ERC or the core partner.

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 at least 90 days before the end of the current budget period. (Some programs or awards require more frequent project reports). Within 90 days after 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 that PI. 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 FastLane, for preparation and submission of annual and final project reports.  Such reports provide information on activities and findings, project participants (individual and organizational) publications; and, other specific products and contributions.  PIs will not be required to re-enter information previously provided, either with a proposal or in earlier updates using the electronic system.  Submission of the report via FastLane constitutes certification by the PI that the contents of the report are accurate and complete. The project outcomes report 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. 

NSF requires ERCs to submit annual reports that are more extensive in scope than those required of single investigator awards. NSF provides guidelines for these reports. NSF also requires ERCs to collect and submit to NSF data on indicators of progress, outcome, impact, and financial management. NSF provides data definition guidelines and templates for the recording and submission of these data through a security web site.

VIII. Agency Contacts

General inquiries regarding this program should be made to:

• Lynn Preston, Leader of the Engineering Research Centers (ERC) Program and Deputy Division Director (Centers), Division of Engineering Education and Centers (EEC), 585N, telephone: (703) 292-5358, fax: (703) 292-9051, email: lpreston@nsf.gov

• Deborah Jackson, Program Director, Engineering Research Centers, Division of Engineering Education and Centers (EEC), 585N, telephone: 703-292-7499, fax: 703-292-9051, email: djackson@nsf.gov

• Barbara Kenny, Program Director, Engineering Research Centers, Division of Engineering Education and Centers (EEC), 585, telephone: (703) 292-4667, fax: (703) 292-9051, email: bkenny@nsf.gov

For questions related to the use of FastLane, contact:

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

• Shalika N. Walton, FastLane Contact and ERC Program Specialist, telephone: (703) 292-7335, email: swalton@nsf.gov

For information on all aspects of the ERC construct, strategic planning and the solicitation in general, contact:

• Lynn Preston (lpreston@nsf.gov or 703-292-5358)

• Deborah Jackson (djackson@nsf.gov or 703-292-7499)

• Barbara Kenny (bkenny@nsf.gov or 703-292-4667).

For pre-college education, Research Experiences for Teachers (RETs) contact:

• Mary Poats (mpoats@nsf.gov or 703-292-5357).

For Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REUs) contact:

• Esther Bolding (ebolding@nsf.gov or 703-292-5342).

Revision to ERC Solicitation, NSF 09-545 to address potential NSF/DOE ERC Partnership: The Engineering Research Centers solicitation (NSF 09-545) calls for proposals that address (a) Complex, Coupled Physical Civil Infrastructure Systems under Stress; (b) Energy Systems for a Sustainable Future; and (c) Transformational engineered Systems – Open Category with Topic Chosen by the Proposing Team. NSF is currently in negotiations with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to form a partnership in support of ERC awards that are focused on sustainable energy systems. Because of this developing partnership, the reviews for the preliminary proposals submitted under the sustainable energy systems topic area have been delayed until December 2009/January 2010. The review process has been completed for the non-energy proposals and invitations to submit full proposals have been sent out for these proposals. As a result of the two-phase preliminary proposal review process, there now will be two full proposal deadlines to address the different review schedules and different invitation notification dates for the two sets of proposals (energy and non-energy). Therefore, the proposals in the non-energy topic areas (see topic (a) and (c) above) will now have a full proposal deadline of 5:00 p.m. proposer’s local time on February 9, 2010 and those in the sustainable energy systems topic area (topic area (b) above) will now have a full proposal deadline of 5:00 p.m. proposer’s local time on May 5, 2010.

The base funds in the ERC Program budget can support up to four awards and the NSF FY 2010 budget request included one more ERC to bring the potential award total to five using NSF funds, if they are available. In addition, a NSF/DOE partnership, currently under negotiation, has the potential to expand the total number of awards to up to seven, four of which might be jointly funded by NSF and DOE. This is contingent upon realization of the NSF and DOE partnership and budgets provided to these organizations by Congress for FY 2010 and 2011. NSF expects to make the awards for proposals submitted under NSF 09-545 in February or March 2011.

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, National Science Foundation Update is a free e-mail subscription service 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 Regional Grants Conferences. Subscribers are informed through e-mail when new publications are issued that match their identified interests. Users can subscribe to this service by clicking the "Get NSF Updates by Email" link on the NSF web site.

Grants.gov provides an additional electronic capability to search for Federal government-wide grant opportunities. NSF funding opportunities may be accessed via this new mechanism. Further information on Grants.gov may be obtained at http://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 40,000 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 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 provide funding for special assistance or equipment to enable persons with disabilities to work on NSF-supported projects. See Grant Proposal Guide Chapter II, Section D.2 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: 4201 Wilson Blvd. Arlington, VA 22230 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
Division of Administrative Services
National Science Foundation
Arlington, VA 22230