NSF 24-525: Future Manufacturing (FM)

Program Solicitation NSF 24-525

U.S. National Science Foundation Directorate for Engineering Directorate for Technology, Innovation and Partnerships Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences Directorate for STEM Education Directorate for Biological Sciences Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences Office of Integrative Activities Office of International Science and Engineering

Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. submitting organization’s local time):

     April 11, 2024

     June 18, 2025

Important Information And Revision Notes

Summary Of Program Requirements

General Information

Program Title:

Synopsis of Program:

Broadening Participation In STEM:

NSF recognizes the unique lived experiences of individuals from communities that are underrepresented and/or underserved in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and the barriers to inclusion and access to STEM education and careers. NSF highly encourages the leadership, partnership, and contributions in all NSF opportunities of individuals who are members of such communities supported by NSF. This includes leading and designing STEM research and education proposals for funding; serving as peer reviewers, advisory committee members, and/or committee of visitor members; and serving as NSF leadership, program, and/or administrative staff. NSF also highly encourages demographically diverse institutions of higher education (IHEs) to lead, partner, and contribute to NSF opportunities on behalf of their research and education communities. NSF expects that all individuals, including those who are members of groups that are underrepresented and/or underserved in STEM, are treated equitably and inclusively in the Foundation's proposal and award process.

NSF encourages IHEs that enroll, educate, graduate, and employ individuals who are members of groups underrepresented and/or underserved in STEM education programs and careers to lead, partner, and contribute to NSF opportunities, including leading and designing STEM research and education proposals for funding. Such IHEs include, but may not be limited to, community colleges and two-year institutions, mission-based institutions such as Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs), women's colleges, and institutions that primarily serve persons with disabilities, as well as institutions defined by enrollment such as Predominantly Undergraduate Institutions (PUIs), Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs), and Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs).

"Broadening participation in STEM" is the comprehensive phrase used by NSF to refer to the Foundation's goal of increasing the representation and diversity of individuals, organizations, and geographic regions that contribute to STEM teaching, research, and innovation. To broaden participation in STEM, it is necessary to address issues of equity, inclusion, and access in STEM education, training, and careers. Whereas all NSF programs might support broadening participation components, some programs primarily focus on supporting broadening participation research and projects. Examples can be found on the NSF Broadening Participation in STEM website.

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.

• Andrew Wells, Program Director, (ENG/CMMI), telephone: (703) 292-7225, email: awells@nsf.gov

• Vamsi Yadavalli, Program Director, (ENG/CBET), telephone: (703) 292-4271, email: vyadaval@nsf.gov

• Jordan Berg, Program Director, (ENG/CMMI), telephone: (703) 292-5365, email: jberg@nsf.gov

• Jose Colom-Ustariz, Program Director, (OIA), telephone: (703) 292-7088, email: jcolom@nsf.gov

• Dana Denick, Program Director, (ENG/EEC), telephone: (703) 292-8866, email: ddenick@nsf.gov

• Bianca Garner, Program Director, (BIO/MCB), telephone: (703) 292-2100, email: bgarner@nsf.gov

• Yulia Gel, Program Director, (MPS/DMS), telephone: (703) 292-7888, email: ygel@nsf.gov

• Bruce Kramer, Program Director, Senior Advisor, (ENG/CMMI), telephone: (703) 292-5348, email: bkramer@nsf.gov

• Rosa (Ale) Lukaszew, Program Director, (ENG/ECCS), telephone: (703) 292-8103, email: rlukasze@nsf.gov

• Debasis Majumdar, Program Director, (MPS/DMR), telephone: (703) 292-4709, email: dmajumda@nsf.gov

• Daniel McAdams, Program Director, (ENG/CMMI), telephone: (703) 292-4654, email: dmcadams@nsf.gov

• Alexandra Medina-Borja, Program Director, (ENG/CMMI), telephone: (703) 292-7557, email: amedinab@nsf.gov

• Elizabeth Mirowski, Program Director, (TIP/TI), telephone: (703) 292-2936, email: emirowsk@nsf.gov

• William Olbricht, Program Director, (ENG/CBET), telephone: (703) 292-4842, email: wolbrich@nsf.gov

• Erik Pierstorff, Program Director, (TIP/TI), telephone: (703) 292-2165, email: epiersto@nsf.gov

• Carole Read, Program Director, (ENG/CBET), telephone: (703) 292-2418, email: cread@nsf.gov

• George Richter-Addo, Program Director, (MPS/CHE), telephone: (703) 292-7528, email: grichter@nsf.gov

• Lulu Sun, Program Director, (EDU/DUE), telephone: (703) 292-7260, email: lsun@nsf.gov

• Sirin Tekinay, Program Director, (OISE), telephone: (703) 292-5370, email: stekinay@nsf.gov

• Ralph Wachter, Program Director, (CISE/CNS), telephone: (703) 292-8950, email: rwachter@nsf.gov

• Lee Walker, Program Director, (SBE/SES), telephone: (703) 292-7174, email: lwalker@nsf.gov

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

• 47.041 --- Engineering
• 47.049 --- Mathematical and Physical Sciences
• 47.070 --- Computer and Information Science and Engineering
• 47.074 --- Biological Sciences
• 47.075 --- Social Behavioral and Economic Sciences
• 47.076 --- STEM Education
• 47.079 --- Office of International Science and Engineering
• 47.083 --- Office of Integrative Activities (OIA)
• 47.084 --- NSF Technology, Innovation and Partnerships

Award Information

Anticipated Type of Award: Standard Grant or Continuing Grant

Estimated Number of Awards: 16

In each year of the solicitation, depending on the quality of submissions and the availability of funds:

-- approximately 8 FMRG will be awarded as Standard Grants or Continuing Grants for a period up to four years; and

-- approximately 8 FMSG will be awarded as Standard Grants or Continuing Grants for a period up to two years.

Proposals Involving Multiple Organizations. The PAPPG describes two kinds of collaborative proposal formats. This solicitation allows only a single proposal submission with subawards administered by the lead organization (Chapter II.E.3.a). For proposals involving multiple organizations, a lead organization must submit a proposal that describes the entire project. Funds may be distributed to other participating organizations as subawards from the lead organization. A budget on the standard NSF budget form and budget justification should be included for each subawardee. Separately submitted collaborative proposals will be returned without review.

Anticipated Funding Amount: $28,000,000

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

Eligibility Information

Who May Submit Proposals:

Proposals may only be submitted by the following:

• Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs) - Two- and four-year IHEs (including community colleges) accredited in, and having a campus located in the US, acting on behalf of their faculty members. Special Instructions for International Branch Campuses of US IHEs: If the proposal includes funding to be provided to an international branch campus of a US institution of higher education (including through use of subawards and consultant arrangements), the proposer must explain the benefit(s) to the project of performance at the international branch campus, and justify why the project activities cannot be performed at the US campus.
• Non-profit, non-academic organizations: Independent museums, observatories, research laboratories, professional societies and similar organizations located in the U.S. that are directly associated with educational or research activities.
• For-profit organizations: U.S.-based commercial organizations, including small businesses, with strong capabilities in scientific or engineering research or education and a passion for innovation.
• State and Local Governments

• Tribal Nations: An American Indian or Alaska Native tribe, band, nation, pueblo, village, or community that the Secretary of the Interior acknowledges as a federally recognized tribe pursuant to the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994, 25 U.S.C. §§ 5130-5131.

Who May Serve as PI:

There are no restrictions or limits.

Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization:

There are no restrictions or limits.

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

An investigator may participate as PI, co-PI, or Senior/Key Personnel in at most one proposal—encompassing the proposal submitted by a lead organization and any subawards—in each track (FMRG and FMSG) per submission year. In the event that an investigator exceeds this limit, proposals received within the limit will be accepted based on earliest date and time of proposal submission. The remainder will be returned without review.

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 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:

  Not Applicable

• Other Budgetary Limitations:

  Not Applicable

C. Due Dates

• Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. submitting organization’s local time):

       April 11, 2024

       June 18, 2025

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:

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

Reporting Requirements:

Standard NSF reporting requirements apply.

I. Introduction

II. Program Description

III. Award Information

IV. Eligibility Information

Who May Submit Proposals:

Proposals may only be submitted by the following:

• Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs) - Two- and four-year IHEs (including community colleges) accredited in, and having a campus located in the US, acting on behalf of their faculty members. Special Instructions for International Branch Campuses of US IHEs: If the proposal includes funding to be provided to an international branch campus of a US institution of higher education (including through use of subawards and consultant arrangements), the proposer must explain the benefit(s) to the project of performance at the international branch campus, and justify why the project activities cannot be performed at the US campus.
• Non-profit, non-academic organizations: Independent museums, observatories, research laboratories, professional societies and similar organizations located in the U.S. that are directly associated with educational or research activities.
• For-profit organizations: U.S.-based commercial organizations, including small businesses, with strong capabilities in scientific or engineering research or education and a passion for innovation.
• State and Local Governments

• Tribal Nations: An American Indian or Alaska Native tribe, band, nation, pueblo, village, or community that the Secretary of the Interior acknowledges as a federally recognized tribe pursuant to the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994, 25 U.S.C. §§ 5130-5131.

Who May Serve as PI:

There are no restrictions or limits.

Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization:

There are no restrictions or limits.

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

An investigator may participate as PI, co-PI, or Senior/Key Personnel in at most one proposal—encompassing the proposal submitted by a lead organization and any subawards—in each track (FMRG and FMSG) per submission year. In the event that an investigator exceeds this limit, proposals received within the limit will be accepted based on earliest date and time of proposal submission. The remainder will be returned without review.

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 Research.gov or Grants.gov.

• 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.D.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 title of the proposal must be preceded by the prefix "FMRG:" for Future Manufacturing Research Grants or "FMSG:" for Future Manufacturing Seed Grants, followed by the prefix that identifies the primary thrust area of the proposal - "Cyber:" for Cyber manufacturing, "Eco:" for Eco manufacturing or "Bio:" for Biomanufacturing. Proposals that address more than one thrust area are allowed, and a statement highlighting the multiple thrusts should be included in the Enabling Future Manufacturing section.

Required Sections in FMSG and FMRG proposals

In addition to the content specified in the PAPPG, including the requirement for a separate section labeled "Broader Impacts", the Project Description for an FMRG or FMSG proposal must contain the following two subsections:

Research Description: The Research Description section must describe the technical rationale and approach of the proposed activities. It should describe the challenges that drive the research problem. This section should describe the research plan including descriptions of major tasks, the primary organization responsible for each task, and milestones. It should present metrics for success. This section should also describe major program risks and potential mitigation approaches.

Enabling Future Manufacturing: This section should describe how the project will enable Future Manufacturing by overcoming scientific, technological, educational, economic, and social barriers to catalyze new manufacturing capabilities that do not exist today. This section should describe the significant impacts of the proposed research, what field(s) of manufacturing will be transformed, and the major challenges that must be overcome. It should describe how results from the proposed research could be translated to enable new manufacturing and how that manufacturing differs from current practice. It should also describe how the research fits into the one or more thrust areas identified. This section should describe how the proposal's interdisciplinary research team is equipped to address research aimed at Future Manufacturing. Because the Future Manufacturing program strives to sustain U.S. competitiveness in manufacturing, proposals must include a brief description of the global context for their proposed work that explains what other leading countries are doing in the proposal's area of fundamental research, its translation to manufacturing and/or in future manufacturing advances. This section and/or the Broader Impacts section should include a discussion of the potential effects of Future Manufacturing on the economy, environment, labor force, industry and/or society at large.

The Project Description for FMRG proposals must contain the following additional two subsections:

Scope and Scale: This section should justify the proposed scope and scale of work. It should explain why the project requires the selected researchers and scope of expertise, why it needs the types and length of time for specific research activities, and how the transferability and scalability of the proposed solutions justify the scale. The section is not intended to be a rehashing of budget justifications, but a discussion of what resources are needed to accomplish the activity and the difference that accomplishing the proposed tasks will make.

Project Management and Collaboration Plan: This section should describe how the project and collaborations will be managed. The plan should identify organizational responsibilities and how the project will be managed, including approaches for meeting project goals. The plan should include: 1) the specific roles of the project participants in all involved organizations; 2) information on how the project will be managed across all the investigators, institutions, and/or disciplines; 3) approaches for integration of research components throughout the project and, 4) identification of the specific coordination mechanisms that will enable cross-investigator, cross-institution and/or cross-discipline integration. The plan should include a Gantt chart that lays out the sequence of activities and identifies the responsible organization for each of them. It should include a description of the milestones to be achieved in the project and evaluation criteria to assess success.

Description of Proposed Education and Workforce Development Activities

An FMSG or FMRG proposal must contain a plan that describes how the proposed research will form a basis for training a new generation in Future Manufacturing, including members of the skilled technical workforce. Commensurate with the scope of the proposal and project budget, the plan may encompass training and/or curricula for a range of a diverse future workforce participants, including graduate, undergraduate, and/or K-12 students; those in technical certification and associate degree programs (technicians); professionals in continuing education; postdoctoral scholars; and students in online education programs. The plan could describe how new and incumbent engineers, scientists, and technicians will acquire the required skills to enter the Future Manufacturing workforce. For plans focused on technician education at two-year institutions, faculty from two-year institutions must be included and have a leadership role in the implementation of the plan, and it must be clear how the project will impact the two-year institution's technician education programs.

For FMSG proposals, the Education and Workforce Development planned activities should be integrated into the Project Description.

For FMRG proposals, the planned activities must be described in a section titled "Education and Workforce Development Plan" (maximum three pages) that must be submitted as a Supplementary Document. The FMRG Education and Workforce Development Plan should recognize that convergence research produces a new content domain at the intersection of participating content domains. The plan could describe how training programs and/or curricula will be developed once a new content domain has been identified. The plan could identify evidence-based practices grounded in learning theory (e.g., experiential learning) that are likely to be successful in the new content domain. The plan could define the knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) required to conduct the proposed research beyond those obtained in a traditional curriculum, and how students will acquire them. The plan could describe efforts to develop instructional materials and mentoring that will enable faculty to implement the proposed education strategies. The plan could describe efforts for the recruitment, retention and inclusion of participants reflecting the full spectrum of diverse talent in STEM.

The FMRG project team should have appropriate expertise in specific evidence-based pedagogical approaches and assessment, which should be reflected in the education plan. The plan should describe how the educational activities will be assessed and how the readiness of participants to engage in Future Manufacturing with skills and competencies desired by industry will be evaluated. The assessment plan should include a logic model or other tool that connects the education and workforce development goals and activities to specific outputs and outcomes.

Requirements for Proposals with a Future of Work Component

Proposals that address the optional Future of Work (FW) component must include a section in the Project Description titled “Future of Work Research Component.” This section must describe an FW research component that focuses on the human manufacturing worker from a social, organizational, cognitive, behavioral, training, or health perspective. This section must also identify the PI or co-PI who will lead this component and describe how the FW research component will be managed and integrated with the rest of the project. Only proposals with this section will be considered as addressing the Future of Work component.

B. Budgetary Information

Cost Sharing:

Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited.

C. Due Dates

• Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. submitting organization’s local time):

       April 11, 2024

       June 18, 2025

D. Research.gov/Grants.gov Requirements

For Proposals Submitted Via Research.gov:

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 Research.gov user support, call the Research.gov Help Desk at 1-800-381-1532 or e-mail rgov@nsf.gov. The Research.gov Help Desk answers general technical questions related to the use of the Research.gov system. Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section VIII of this funding opportunity.

For Proposals Submitted Via Grants.gov:

Before using Grants.gov for the first time, each organization must register to create an institutional profile. Once registered, the applicant's organization can then apply for any federal grant on the Grants.gov website. Comprehensive information about using Grants.gov is available on the Grants.gov Applicant Resources webpage: https://www.grants.gov/applicants. 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 Research.gov for further processing.

The NSF Grants.gov Proposal Processing in Research.gov informational page provides submission guidance to applicants and links to helpful resources including the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide, Grants.gov Proposal Processing in Research.gov how-to guide, and Grants.gov Submitted Proposals Frequently Asked Questions. Grants.gov proposals must pass all NSF pre-check and post-check validations in order to be accepted by Research.gov at NSF.

When submitting via Grants.gov, NSF strongly recommends applicants initiate proposal submission at least five business days in advance of a deadline to allow adequate time to address NSF compliance errors and resubmissions by 5:00 p.m. submitting organization's local time on the deadline. Please note that some errors cannot be corrected in Grants.gov. Once a proposal passes pre-checks but fails any post-check, an applicant can only correct and submit the in-progress proposal in Research.gov.

Proposers that submitted via Research.gov may use Research.gov to verify the status of their submission to NSF. For proposers that submitted via Grants.gov, until an application has been received and validated by NSF, the Authorized Organizational Representative may check the status of an application on Grants.gov. After proposers have received an e-mail notification from NSF, Research.gov should be used to check the status of an application.

VI. NSF Proposal Processing And Review 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 Leading the World in Discovery and Innovation, STEM Talent Development and the Delivery of Benefits from Research - NSF Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years (FY) 2022 - 2026. These strategies are integrated in the program planning and implementation process, of which proposal review is one part. NSF's mission is particularly well-implemented through the integration of research and education and broadening participation in NSF programs, projects, and activities.

One of the strategic objectives in support of NSF's mission is to foster integration of research and education through the programs, projects, and activities it supports at academic and research institutions. These institutions must recruit, train, and prepare a diverse STEM workforce to advance the frontiers of science and participate in the U.S. technology-based economy. NSF's contribution to the national innovation ecosystem is to provide cutting-edge research under the guidance of the Nation's most creative scientists and engineers. NSF also supports development of a strong science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce by investing in building the knowledge that informs improvements in STEM teaching and learning.

NSF's mission calls for the broadening of opportunities and expanding participation of groups, institutions, and geographic regions that are underrepresented in STEM disciplines, which is essential to the health and vitality of science and engineering. NSF is committed to this principle of diversity and deems it central to the programs, projects, and activities it considers and supports.

A. Merit Review Principles and 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.D.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.D.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 other underrepresented groups in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM); improved STEM education and educator development at any level; increased public scientific literacy and public engagement with science and technology; improved well-being of individuals in society; development of a diverse, globally competitive STEM workforce; increased partnerships between academia, industry, and others; improved national security; increased economic competitiveness of the United States; and enhanced infrastructure for research and education.

Proposers are reminded that reviewers will also be asked to review the Data Management and Sharing Plan and the Mentoring Plan, as appropriate.

Additional Solicitation Specific Review Criteria

For FMSG and FMRG proposals:

• How effective and compelling is the proposal's argument that the proposed fundamental research will eliminate barriers that limit manufacturing today and catalyze new manufacturing capabilities?
• If the proposal contains a “Future of Work Research Component,” how effectively does it describe important and integrated research on the human manufacturing worker, from a social, organizational, cognitive, behavioral, training, or health perspective? Is the designated FW PI or co-PI appropriate to lead the proposed FW research activities?

 For FMRG proposals:

• How effective and compelling is the proposal's argument that the proposed educational activities will equip students and other workforce participants with the skills to engage in Future Manufacturing and broaden recruitment, inclusion, and participation by building on best practices and evidence-based approaches?
• How effectively does the proposal anticipate effects of Future Manufacturing on the economy, environment, labor force, industry and/or society at large, including in a global context?
• Is the composition of the multidisciplinary team appropriate for the scope of the proposed activities, and how effectively are proposed activities integrated among all team members?

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 proposers whether their proposals have been declined or recommended for funding within six months. Large or particularly complex proposals or proposals from new recipients may require additional review and processing time. The time interval begins on the deadline or target date, or receipt date, whichever is later. The interval ends when the Division Director acts upon the Program Officer's recommendation.

After programmatic approval has been obtained, the proposals recommended for funding will be forwarded to the Division of Grants and Agreements or the Division of Acquisition and Cooperative Support for review of business, financial, and policy implications. After an administrative review has occurred, Grants and Agreements Officers perform the processing and issuance of a grant or other agreement. Proposers are cautioned that only a Grants and Agreements Officer may make commitments, obligations or awards on behalf of NSF or authorize the expenditure of funds. No commitment on the part of NSF should be inferred from technical or budgetary discussions with a NSF Program Officer. A Principal Investigator or organization that makes financial or personnel commitments in the absence of a grant or cooperative agreement signed by the NSF Grants and Agreements Officer does so at their own risk.

Once an award or declination decision has been made, Principal Investigators are provided feedback about their proposals. In all cases, reviews are treated as confidential documents. Verbatim copies of reviews, excluding the names of the reviewers or any reviewer-identifying information, are sent to the Principal Investigator/Project Director by the Program Officer. In addition, the proposer will receive an explanation of the decision to award or decline funding.

VII. Award Administration Information

A. Notification of the Award

Notification of the award is made to the submitting organization by an NSF Grants and Agreements Officer. Organizations whose proposals are declined will be advised as promptly as possible by the cognizant NSF Program administering the program. Verbatim copies of reviews, not including the identity of the reviewer, will be provided automatically to the Principal Investigator. (See Section VI.B. for additional information on the review process.)

B. Award 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)*; 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.

Administrative and National Policy Requirements

Build America, Buy America

As expressed in Executive Order 14005, Ensuring the Future is Made in All of America by All of America’s Workers (86 FR 7475), it is the policy of the executive branch to use terms and conditions of Federal financial assistance awards to maximize, consistent with law, the use of goods, products, and materials produced in, and services offered in, the United States.

Consistent with the requirements of the Build America, Buy America Act (Pub. L. 117-58, Division G, Title IX, Subtitle A, November 15, 2021), no funding made available through this funding opportunity may be obligated for infrastructure projects under an award unless all iron, steel, manufactured products, and construction materials used in the project are produced in the United States. For additional information, visit NSF’s Build America, Buy America webpage.

Special Award Conditions:

Recipients will be required to attend the kickoff meeting described above and annual FM grantees' conferences for the duration of their award.

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 annual project report, and a project outcomes report for the general public.

Failure to provide the required annual or final annual 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 annual 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:

• Andrew Wells, Program Director, (ENG/CMMI), telephone: (703) 292-7225, email: awells@nsf.gov

• Vamsi Yadavalli, Program Director, (ENG/CBET), telephone: (703) 292-4271, email: vyadaval@nsf.gov

• Jordan Berg, Program Director, (ENG/CMMI), telephone: (703) 292-5365, email: jberg@nsf.gov

• Jose Colom-Ustariz, Program Director, (OIA), telephone: (703) 292-7088, email: jcolom@nsf.gov

• Dana Denick, Program Director, (ENG/EEC), telephone: (703) 292-8866, email: ddenick@nsf.gov

• Bianca Garner, Program Director, (BIO/MCB), telephone: (703) 292-2100, email: bgarner@nsf.gov

• Yulia Gel, Program Director, (MPS/DMS), telephone: (703) 292-7888, email: ygel@nsf.gov

• Bruce Kramer, Program Director, Senior Advisor, (ENG/CMMI), telephone: (703) 292-5348, email: bkramer@nsf.gov

• Rosa (Ale) Lukaszew, Program Director, (ENG/ECCS), telephone: (703) 292-8103, email: rlukasze@nsf.gov

• Debasis Majumdar, Program Director, (MPS/DMR), telephone: (703) 292-4709, email: dmajumda@nsf.gov

• Daniel McAdams, Program Director, (ENG/CMMI), telephone: (703) 292-4654, email: dmcadams@nsf.gov

• Alexandra Medina-Borja, Program Director, (ENG/CMMI), telephone: (703) 292-7557, email: amedinab@nsf.gov

• Elizabeth Mirowski, Program Director, (TIP/TI), telephone: (703) 292-2936, email: emirowsk@nsf.gov

• William Olbricht, Program Director, (ENG/CBET), telephone: (703) 292-4842, email: wolbrich@nsf.gov

• Erik Pierstorff, Program Director, (TIP/TI), telephone: (703) 292-2165, email: epiersto@nsf.gov

• Carole Read, Program Director, (ENG/CBET), telephone: (703) 292-2418, email: cread@nsf.gov

• George Richter-Addo, Program Director, (MPS/CHE), telephone: (703) 292-7528, email: grichter@nsf.gov

• Lulu Sun, Program Director, (EDU/DUE), telephone: (703) 292-7260, email: lsun@nsf.gov

• Sirin Tekinay, Program Director, (OISE), telephone: (703) 292-5370, email: stekinay@nsf.gov

• Ralph Wachter, Program Director, (CISE/CNS), telephone: (703) 292-8950, email: rwachter@nsf.gov

• Lee Walker, Program Director, (SBE/SES), telephone: (703) 292-7174, email: lwalker@nsf.gov

For questions related to the use of NSF systems contact:

• NSF Help Desk: 1-800-381-1532
• 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.

General inquiries regarding this program should be made to futuremanufacturing@nsf.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.F.7 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) 292-8134 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 proposers 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/recipients 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 proposers 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
Policy Office, Division of Institution and Award Support
Office of Budget, Finance, and Award Management
National Science Foundation
Alexandria, VA 22314